Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (51)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB583
Act 990
· 7 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB583 is now Act 990 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB477
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB509
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…E TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION. SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB575
Act 989
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB575 is now Act 989 |
|
HB1611
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…are you in the room? What House bill is it you're running? House Bill 1611.”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI. HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE T…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. HB1777 G…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1799
Act 685
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1799 is now Act 685 |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AN…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
SB441
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB485
Act 670
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
|
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB485 is now Act 670 |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB555
Act 765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER. SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO V…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF … | J. Scott | Notification that SB555 is now Act 765 |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM. SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB597
Act 770
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB597 is now Act 770 |
|
SB599
Act 744
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; A…”
|
TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB599 is now Act 744 |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB600
Act 771
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PRO…”
|
TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB600 is now Act 771 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's call this meeting to order. We have a long agenda that is doubtful we'll get to this morning.
I'm going to remind everyone, the people who need to hear it are not in the room. But we were here Monday. We're willing to meet in the afternoon, and lots and lots of people said they wanted to defer until today. That's going to make this a long day. We are just, unless some miracle happens, we're just hearing Senate bills to get Senate bills out of here. So if you're here for a House bill, you may want to be somewhere else.
And we're going to ask that if you testify, you don't repeat yourself. If you do, we'll probably tell you that you're repeating
yourself because we've got to move today. Do we have a motion?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
9:24
We have a motion to limit the speech speaker to three minutes.
Okay, we have a motion to limit those testifying on bills to three minutes each.
Second motion from Senator Rice, second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. So prepare your testimony that way. I hate to have to do that, but like I said, most of these bills that I'm looking at are not short. Senator King's not in the room, although I know he's planning on running. Is Senator Hester in the room? No. Senator Letting?
Senator Scott? Senator Stubblefielder, do you want to run SB 477? Okay, I'm going to pass by that. Senator Tucker just walked in. Senator Tucker, are you ready to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:25
run 485? Okay. Of course, we
had Senator Irvin at the top of the list with a concurrent amendment. Then we got Senator Irvin again. Not here, so let's turn to the second page.
Senator Bryant, not here. we may be running house bills after all uh i've got mine that should be fairly quick well we're today we're going to go
Speaker 13
10:58
in order because of the long center scott essential double field sb 509.
okay all right senator scott center king center tucker sb 575.
Speaker 21
11:13
All right, I've got another member coming on
that, Mr. Chair. Okay. Senator King's not here. Senator Tucker, SB 583. Let me
Speaker 24
11:37
see right here. Carl said let him know when to come. SENATOR TUCKER,
YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT YOU NEED TO SIGN.
So we're on SB 583. And Senator Gilmore, you're on the bubble if all these previous people don't show up.
Senator Tucker, would you like to identify yourself for the record? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clark Tucker, State Senator, District 14. And would you like
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:55
to explain your amendment? The amendment adds Representative Moore
as a House sponsor, and it addresses a concern brought to me by the U of A system. Okay. I move adoption of the amendment. We've got
a motion from Senator Tucker and a second from most of the committee.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Senator Tucker, your bill is amended. You are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:32
recognized to present SB 583 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I think we're all familiar with
the system that the pharmacists live under in Arkansas with the PBMs. I think we're all very aware of the current law, which allows the insurance department to pursue violations against PBMs when they sell drugs to pharmacists below market value.
And I'm supportive of that system. think the insurance department is is doing a good job with that the issue is that under the current law the pharmacist is really the one that suffers the harm and the pharmacist has no right of recourse under the current law and the pharmacist also aside from just getting the pbm to act right hopefully act right moving forward based on what the insurance department does to the pbm there's there's no compensation to the pharmacist for what they've lost from the pbm
and I visited with the insurance department about this you know they don't take a formal position this would really work in parallel to what the insurance department does the insurance department enforces the law as the PBMs and issues fines to PBMs and that sort of thing this would put the pharmacist in a position to recover their own damages what they've what they've lost out of pocket when the PBM has violated the law that's that's really what this does in a nutshell I'd be happy to take any any questions about it or. Questions from the committee? Senator Dees.
Senator Tucker just with your amendment on it looked like it struck the $10,000 per violation and then added it back that's
Speaker 49
15:14
just an engrossing thing. Oh okay all right that was
Speaker 46
15:17
my question Thank you. Yes, sir. Other questions from the
committee? Hearing none. There's no one to testify for against. Senator Tucker, would you like to close for your bill? Are you closed for your bill?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:29
I think there's someone here who wants to speak for it, but if the committee is, I don't want to, I'll move things along. I'll close for the bill and I appreciate a good vote. I move to pass.
we've got a motion do pass as amended we got a second from senator gilmore all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion period congratulations senator tucker you passed your bill thank you mr chair senator gilmore sb 590 we're taking it just because you're short i mean because the bill's short
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
16:12
NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
SENATOR GILMORE, SENATE DISTRICT 1, HERE FOR SB 590. NEW SPEAKER: THANK
YOU, SENATOR GILMORE. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO PRESENT SB
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
16:35
590. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. is a bill that creates a brand new sub chapter called the recidivism reduction system. The system
will be housed at the secretarial level at the Department of Corrections, and this bill creates a lot of things that we've identified over the course of really a couple of years in trying to look at ways to help reduce recidivism. As you know, our recidivism rate is nearly 50 percent, And with that, there was a study that was done by an independent third party that estimates that, and this is a few years old, estimates that is a cost of about $140 million because of that recidivism problem we have.
So this bill basically outlines some things the department needs to be doing, some of which they're doing in some way or another, but this sort of expands on it and lays out in some detail some guidance and direction on that. I spoke with the chairman of the Board of Corrections about a week ago regarding this. I think generally speaking, we are all in agreement as to a lot of the things in the bill. I had another meeting with the department today and a board member of corrections today.
And so I just want to be completely transparent here on the very last page of the bill where it talks about the school district. There's some concerns with some of that language and maybe some potential costs there. But if you look, that language is more permissive than anything and it requires them to study and develop a plan there. So we're going to continue to look at that. I told them that I would be happy to take any sort of edits that they might have to that. But I would like to move this bill along in this process since we are toward the end.
But other than that, those were really the only concern that they had there. And so I'm waiting on some language, potential language, if they send it to me on that. So again, I think we're in a good spot. There's a lot of things that we know that we need to address related to programming, having a case plan for inmates, all of these things we need to be doing if we are wanting to make sure that inmates are successful once they get outside the prison walls, and this bill aims to do that.
So it also I think one of the things it emphasizes in here is making sure that we have programming and meaningful activities and there's also language in here to emphasize family and faith-based programming as well so again we're just trying to set them up for success so with that i'm happy to take any questions members may have on the
bill questions from committee senator stubblefield you're recognized. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
19:31
you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gilmore, what are some of the measures, previous
measures that we've taken in our correctional institutions to reduce recidivism? It's a great
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
19:44
question, sir. So over the course of the last two years, and Senator Tucker can speak to some of this as well because he's been a part of these conversations with the recidivism task force that was created in the Protect Act. So one of the things that has been done within the department is they have a lot of programming. What we identified with that programming was that it was not evidence-based, meaning that
it really wasn't meeting the criminogenic needs of the inmates. We're working to correct that. I think this bill will help do that. It outlines, again, like I said, I mentioned the case plan. It mentions risk needs assessment, all things that are sort of being done in part but not being fully done. And so this bill just creates an outline and reemphasizes what we need to get to that experts
have identified that will help us reduce that recidivism rate.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:45
Have we not, and I do like the case plan, but have we not been doing a case plan on an inmate in the past?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:00
Not entirely, and not on every inmate as we've identified over the course of the reduction task force. on
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:08
every inmate but those inmates that are there that fit a particular category should have a case
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:16
plan i i agree they should and this will i think get us to that point senator okay thank you
mr chairman other questions from committee hearing none there's no one here to testify for against senator gilmore would you like to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:34
close for your bill i'd love to close um again we're just trying to address the problem we know we have not the end all be all we know that i know senator tucker's got a bill that he's working on that also has a lot of recommendations from that task force
that i help i think will help strengthen our system make things better so again this is this is not the end all be all we're going to continue to work on this but i think it's a step in
the right direction so with that i'm closed i appreciate
a good vote make a motion do pass A motion to pass second from Senator Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Gilmore you have passed your bill so we're going to make an exception right off the bat Senator Kroll
are you in the room what house bill is it you're running house
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
22:51
bill 1611 All right, Senator Kroll, District 3, we've got the bill that everybody's been waiting for.
This bill, what this bill does is it does not, what this bill does not do is legalize rooster fightings. I'm not with the mafia. I'm not with organized crime like I've been accused of. What this bill does is if you raise these birds, you are not liable for a felony if someone accuses you that you intend to fight these birds as the law is now. The irony in this law is that we have now is if you get arrested,
they automatically kill your birds. So the irony is people are worried about the cockfighting, which this law prevents, or we can keep the law the same way, and they kill them anyway. Unless you are fighting them, then it is a felony. This is a farmer's protection bill. If anybody has questions, please, I'll try and answer them. Questions from committee. Senator Rice.
Speaker 83
24:06
Thanks, Senator Crowe. I've got people I know,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:09
and they're not criminal mafia either, that raise game birds. In fact, our whole county makes living off chickens one way or the other. But just for a little background, I don't know if you had the background on it, but when I came down here in 2009, my first session, just the first few days, then Attorney General McDaniel and Farm Bureau and others had come up with a compromise.
The train had done left the station, I was told. And I said, this goes too far. It's not defined. And I had some people admit that, but it was a cut and dry deal. And there was testimony that it was a slippery slope. And I don't condone cruelty to animals and all. This is a farming bill, as you said.
Do you know of anything in this that this is going to enhance any criminal activity? it'll prevent the criminal
Speaker 86
25:17
activity exactly I just want that clarified thank you Senator Gilmore you recognize thank you so just
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
25:26
trying to get an understanding here because I've I've heard the what you just
said and so and I've also heard the other side of all this I'm just trying to get an understanding of what it actually does so the first thing right off the bat for
me, and I actually just asked a colleague, on the first page, line 28, we add the word organized. Why are we adding the word organized? Organized is the definition to,
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
25:56
if you have two or more people, putting, you know, here's the thing is if you have birds, you have to keep them apart because their natural nature is to fight. So let's say they, again, have raising these birds and two or three of them get out, they're going to be fighting in the
front yard. That's just going to happen, because that's their natural indication. Now, if you and I had a bird and we were putting them down together, that is organized fighting. Releasing them to fight. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:48
Senator, it would help me with the bill if it were required under the law that all of the roosters that engage in fighting be named
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
26:59
Little Jerry Seinfeld. Well played. Can we consider that as an amendment? We can consider
Speaker 51
27:10
it. Thank you. questions from the committee?
Speaker 97
27:16
Senator Stouperfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, wouldn't
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:23
this apply to bulls, cows, almost any farm animal? You put two bulls in a pasture, and the first thing they're going to do is lock horns. Absolutely. So, would this fall under
the same legal definition of roosters. Are you going to put two bulls in the same pasture so they
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
27:44
fight, sir? I do put two bulls in the pasture. But they only fight for a little
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
27:57
on how many cows are in the pasture. So the intent of this is to allow the people to raise these birds because they are very valuable. The bloodlines, in fact, I'm sure we'll have
some people testify, can be hundreds of years old. And they, you know, they're shows, if you go to the fairs, these birds are shown. And so that the intent is right now, as the law, is you can get a $1,000 fine
for every one of these birds you own in Arkansas. And they are destroyed as a felony. You know, there's that's not a good precedent for the farmers that want to do this the right way. And I believe we have this bill set up so that we can monitor it and make sure that these people are doing the right
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
28:49
thing. Cockfighting in Oklahoma is legal, correct? I'm
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
28:53
not sure about Oklahoma. I'm worried about
Arkansas. It's not legal in Oklahoma? I don't know. I'm worried about Arkansas unfortunately. Are there any other states that it is legal? I would have to have an expert.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
29:12
No. The answer is no. So we would be the first state? No, we're not legalizing cockfighting. Yeah, I know what you're doing. Would
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
29:20
we be the first state to take this? Can I bring up a witness to answer these questions, please, Chairman? Mr. Chair, could
I bring up a more expert person to answer these questions?
Speaker 111
29:29
Sure. Thank you, sir. thank you uh senator so uh identify yourself with the record uh blake pierce what are you with anyone i'm with the arkansas game foul commission okay you are
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:49
recognized senator to answer your question no arkansas would not be the first state to lower penalties for owning chickens or for even the fighting aspect tennessee did it back in the early 2000s they went from a misdemeanor to a
felony knocked it back down to a misdemeanor. It's still a misdemeanor today as well as they criminalized owning the chickens. They re-legalized it. It's still the same law there to this day. They saw no good out of it. So no, Arkansas would not be
the first. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Other questions from the committee? Senator Quarrell, you said that you currently would be fined just for owning one of these birds?
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
30:36
It's actually a felony, and you get a fine, is it up to $1,000? Yes. Up to
$1,000 fine per bird. So it is a felony to own
one of these birds in Arkansas? Yes. So we don't have any of these birds in Arkansas? Allegedly.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:03
Allegedly. Senator Stubblefield. We do have these birds in Arkansas.
We have them all over western Arkansas, where I live. In fact, I have had people sell these birds to other individuals for the specific purpose of fighting these birds. So these birds are
Speaker 103
31:19
in Arkansas. Yes, the birds in Arkansas. So it's a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:27
felony if somebody deems you have the intent to compete with that bird. It's legal to own them until somebody accuses you, not that you actually did anything, but
Speaker 126
31:35
that you were considering or thinking about doing something.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:38
It's an intent on that. Currently, right now, that's what we're trying to prevent. A lot of people do sell them for that, and we don't condone that. What we do, we raise, sell, and export these fowl overseas. We raise them in Arkansas as well. But for breeding, they're show purposes. And there's various poultry shows across the U.S.
Speaker 126
31:58
and the world that we do sell them for. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
32:09
And again, not to belabor the point, I'm still hung up on organized. I guess I'm just trying to figure out what that means. Because when you flip over to the other
side of the bill, or the other page, rather, page two, on line 21, watching or carrying out an organized rooster fight. So what if there's a fight and it's not organized? I mean, what if you're not paying for admission? What if you're not advertising? What if you're not doing all the things that would constitute organization?
Potentially, because it says organized promotes profits up there online. five. So what if it's just, you know, family and friends getting together and maybe, hey, five bucks for a beer to come watch us not have an organized fight? That's organized because there was a process to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:56
that. Unorganized is what's about to happen. So I have a farm here in Hebrew Springs, Arkansas. We're about to have some nasty wind come today. I think about two weeks ago, we had that nasty windstorm come through. I had two or three pins flip over, had two roosters kill
each other from that that's unorganized nobody intended no there was no process to that i was gone the pins flipped over the birds fought that's unorganized organizes there's a process if i went and pulled the rooster out of a pin somebody else went pull the rooster out of a pin and we showed them that's organized because there was a
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
33:36
process to that okay follow mr chair yes because on so i'm reading under i guess Mr. Gilmore, can I interrupt you a second?
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
33:45
I am going to shortly ask prosecutors to come to the table and explain what the law is.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
33:51
Thank you, sir. So just really quick and I'll be
done. No, you go ahead. On page five up there, or excuse me, on page two, line five. Organizes, promotes, or profits from. So what does organized mean? It's not, I don't see it. It's organized as a fighting
Speaker 133
34:10
between. That you made a conscious effort to place them in a situation where they could fight.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:18
Okay. But it doesn't, I don't see any mental state in the bill stating, you know, knowingly or anything like that. That was, there was a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:34
conscious effort involved. Right. Again, other states have the term organized in there. We've never ran into this and organized this. Typically, you
Speaker 133
34:41
organize something to do it, even if it's just two people picking up chickens. Okay. Because,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:49
I mean, again, because you use consciously there, I think typically under a Bens-Reyes standard,
you're looking for a mental culpability. But, again, I'm not the lawyer. I
defer to my colleague. But, anyway, maybe we'll wait for the prosecutors. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. All right. Senator Tucker. Senator Deese. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can
I get help on the definition on page one or maybe some commentary on line 32? It talks about exhibition activities. So animal fighting does not include lawful game, foul breeding on exhibition activities. What is exhibition activities?
Speaker 124
35:32
Poultry shows, typically whenever you exhibit, you're showing the fowl. We call them poultry shows or poultry exhibitions. Okay, I wasn't
familiar of game hens being shown in county fairs and all. Is that a regular practice in our state? Very common. Okay. It's the roosters mostly
Speaker 116
35:48
that are shown. Okay. All right, thank you. Mr. Tucker. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:58
Mr. Chair. That incident you described where the pens got blown over,
Are you concerned about being prosecuted because of something like that? No, I
Speaker 116
36:06
wasn't even there. Okay. And we took the birds, we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
36:09
put what's called Corona cream on their head, we worked with them, tried to get them back, and they're alive and healthy now. Okay. Yeah. All
right. Thank you. Center, page 2, line 22. A rooster shall not be seized by law enforcement under this section solely based on the arrest of a person for violating the provision of this section
unless there's a clear and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster fighting. Okay, so this is a person's been arrested. That's what this envisions for violating provision of this section. Is there not a chance, a very good chance that there is a rooster that's fighting And other roosters, it would appear to me any other roosters at the same location, there
may not be clear and convincing evidence that they have fought, but I would assume that if they were at the location where cockfighting was going on, that they didn't just stroll by. Am I wrong? Would you mind explaining that a
Speaker 143
37:28
little bit more? I'm lost on the question there. Okay. A rooster shall not be seized
by law enforcement under this section solely based on the arrest of a person for violating a provision of this section unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster fighting.
I don't think that roosters sitting over here waiting to fight, that you can have clear and convincing evidence that they have been used in rooster fighting. However, I don't think if they're at the site that we're intended to take them to a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:07
show. Right, so to answer your question there, there actually has been cases of that. they were having poultry shows, the animal rights people called law enforcement, they
showed up and accused them of that, they proved it wrong every time we've had that happen in Arkansas as well as
Oklahoma. But that couldn't happen under this bill. So this section is in this bill, not what's happened in the past. And so now you could only, you couldn't be arrested for that. For being at the illegal fight? No, you could, I'm assuming the show is not an illegal site. Correct. So if you're at the show now, maybe the current law, you can be arrested for being at the show.
Yes, that's correct. But this is narrowing it down where that's not even possible.
Speaker 142
38:53
Yes, if you're just at a show legally biting there, you won't be arrested. So this would come back to almost have to be cockfighting.
Yes, and then you would get a felony. And they couldn't confiscate the roosters that are at the location that haven't fought yet, unless there's some kind of evidence that they
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
39:15
have fault. Correct. And the reason for that, whenever they do raid those facilities,
they will euthanize the roosters. And a lot of the times they're euthanized before
they're even found guilty. But you've got that separate in the bill. If the bill were to pass, then they couldn't be euthanized anyway. Correct. But this says they can't be taken when a person's arrested for this activity unless they've clearly and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster fighting?
Speaker 116
39:51
Correct. So there was an instance back in
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
39:54
2018 in Duqueen, Arkansas, where they seized the birds. It overwhelmed that county there, and that was from an alleged cockfight there. That overwhelmed the county. They ended up giving all the roosters away. The county couldn't handle that. We actually have documented proof of that that that just overburdened the county. So, again, that's more protecting the counties from having to deal with that because these are hard animals. You have to have a lot of space and a lot of facility to take care of them.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
40:24
Okay. Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm really just trying to
figure out the problem that we're trying to solve. Can you tell me how many roosters were euthanized in Arkansas under the provisions of existing law? For ownership? Under the provisions of existing law, this provision basically for rooster fighting, can you tell me is this like a major problem we're euthanizing roosters all over the state?
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
40:56
I think we're getting in the weeds when the high level is right now people
want to raise these. And the law as it states now, if they are accused of the intent of fighting them, and they're not, let's say they're not, they can be prosecuted. These birds can be killed. This bill simply gives them the right to own these animals. Now, if they're fighting them, no matter what, they're guilty, everything comes the same.
What we're trying to do is the people that are doing right, making sure they can do this and not without the fear of losing their animals and without the fear of, you know, if you have a neighbor that doesn't like you and just says, you know, I think he's fighting it. We've got a big problem with the way the law is written now. This is a parallel, but not the same. But, you know, I know there's been issues with
pit bulls. but now you see pit bulls all over because the rules are clear.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
42:00
Okay, but you're not answering my question. You're not
answering my question. We've obviously got these birds being raised in Arkansas. Do we have a major problem with existing law where there have been many occasions where the individuals have been arrested and
the roosters are being euthanized? No, we don't in Arkansas, but states with similar laws have
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
42:25
had some horrific problems. This is a preventive measures bill to prevent that from happening in the future.
Law enforcement in Arkansas is fantastic here. They have been wonderful to the game foul breeders, but you get one bad actor on there that really has it bad, they could go do some bad damage, and we've seen this in other states
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
42:48
with similar laws. Okay. So we don't have a problem with this now, but we could.
Yes. That's what I'm hearing you say. Okay, so in under existing law, if someone accuses you of rooster fighting, you can be arrested.
And if you are arrested, it is the law that the roosters are immediately euthanized. Correct. So the statute says if you're arrested under the accusation of rooster fighting, your birds are to be immediately euthanized. I don't know about the exact
language there, but birds are 99% of the time euthanized. So it may not be the law that they're euthanized. Yeah, it could be, yeah, correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, those of you that are
in the queue, I'm going to take you, but we're going to bring prosecutors to the table.
Y'all can stay there. Central Crowell, y'all can
just stay where you are. Would you gentlemen identify yourself for the record? I'm
Speaker 159
43:55
David Etheridge. I'm the elected prosecutor for the 14th Judicial District in Arkansas.
Speaker 161
44:01
Chris Walton, prosecuting attorney, Saline County, Arkansas. Senator, what the
Speaker 142
44:07
prosecutors, we surveyed the prosecutors across the state. Hold on just a second. We've got one more person to identify themselves.
Speaker 164
44:14
I'm sorry. My mic went on. I'm confidential. I'm the elected prosecutor for 8th South, which is Miller. There you
Speaker 165
44:24
go. - I don't know if y'all heard me. Connie Mitchell, I'm the elected prosecutor for Eight South, which is Miller and Lafayette
Speaker 159
44:32
counties. - Okay, sir, sorry for interrupting. - Not a problem, Senator. The Prosecuting Association, when polled, the 28 elected, of all of us, we've only had four of these cases, the best we can tell in the last 10 years.
In looking at the law that exists, we do not find where it shows that they have to be euthanized when they're seized. we would
Speaker 171
44:52
bring that to the attention of the committee. - Could you repeat that, please? - Inside the existing statute, which is 562.120, it does not reflect
Speaker 159
45:03
they have to be euthanized. It says they should be forfeited under provision of the subsection be placed in the appropriate place of custody or of animal control agency. - Okay,
but the witnesses, you are saying that they are being euthanized?
Speaker 172
45:19
- Yes, when raids on the farms happen,
Speaker 133
45:24
have been. Do you have any specific instances? In Arkansas? Yes. Not specifically, no.
Speaker 116
45:31
This state's been good for owning, but the intent of the bill is to clarify that because the vast
majority of the time they are euthanized. Senator Dees, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this
may be a question for our prosecuting attorneys. So when it comes to intent and prosecution of intent or accused of
intent, I want to understand that better. Wouldn't you have to prove intent to be charged versus accused of intent? Will you help me understand maybe some of that? We believe
Speaker 176
46:08
you've asked the correct question and that's where we are. There would have to be intent for us to
move forward in a situation like that. But not just accusation of intent. There would have to be some sort of evidence to prove intent for prosecution. Am I saying that the right way? Yes, sir.
So I think what I heard in previous testimony was that if anyone is accused of raising roosters for fighting, that these birds would immediately be euthanized. And now in the last two statements, it sounds like it's not being euthanized in Arkansas and that you can't be just taking that accusation. Is that how I
should understand that? We would say the statute does not require them to be euthanized.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:58
That is correct. Thank you. Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to go back to what you were saying about not having it in Arkansas, but you're seeing it in other states. So let's talk about the other states, because I think that's helpful,
Speaker 133
47:16
because apparently that's the impetus for the bill, right? So what states and what's happening? So right now, Oklahoma has the number one
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
47:23
harshest law in the country. Arkansas is number two. There's a man in—so Arkansas is one to six years in prison per bird.
Oklahoma is one to ten per bird. There was a man in New Walla, Oklahoma, which is a suburb of Oklahoma City. He got pulled over with a carrying box in his car, a box that hauls chickens, perfectly legal. He got pulled over, the officer for speeding, the officer smelled marijuana in there, it was a faint smell. They brought in somebody, they have, I don't know what the Arkansas statute is on marijuana, I'm not into that thing. But he had a medical carry card, they smelled it, they ran a test on him, showed he wasn't high, but they saw the box in the back.
Well, anyways, they got a warrant to go to his house. They seized—he had 59 roosters there. They seized 59 roosters. He got charged with 59 felony counts facing 59 to 590 years in prison strictly for owning 59 roosters. The exact same thing could happen in Arkansas with this law right now. In Mississippi, there is no law like this. I'm a perfectly legal farm in Mississippi. Louisiana, the same way. Tennessee, the same way. And Missouri as well is the exact same way.
There's no intent laws on that, but Oklahoma and Arkansas does. And there's been multiple cases in Oklahoma where people are getting charged with strictly owning it. A man up in New York spent 14 months in prison for owning chickens. It happens everywhere. And again, this is a fantastic state. Law enforcement's wonderful here. But with this law, it could happen. And if he had his 59 roachers in Arkansas, 59 times 6, I wasn't the best in math in school. But whatever that comes out to be, minimum 59 to so many years in prison for those chickens, for owning them.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
49:13
Okay, question for the prosecutors? Go ahead. Thank you. So just, if you don't mind, Mr. Etheridge, you can go back to what your concerns were in the sense of, well, and maybe my concerns, honestly, in sort of knowing, being a knowing participant, watching, carrying out. I mean, so how do you read that in the, from your standpoint, how is this enforceable?
Speaker 178
49:46
How would you see this play out? You're asking about the existing bill, Senator? Yes, sir. Not the existing law, 516. Well, existing law and then modified by this. Let's go there. The existing law, again,
Speaker 171
50:03
requires knowingly, and it says that very clearly, as you've just pointed out. And, again, I know y'all get tired of hearing this from prosecutors. There's a reason you give us discretion. And when you talk to us, this is not a place that we're out looking to prosecute people at.
And it's been said by other people in this committee that there are lots of these chickens in the state of Arkansas and nothing's happening. And the Oklahoma situation, I can't address that. I don't know what Oklahoma's law is, so I can't speak to that. I'm going to let Ms. Mitchell speak about
Speaker 159
50:33
the new one because she spent a lot of time looking at this, so I'll let her go. Thank you all. The only
Speaker 165
50:39
reason that I can think of for the bill and— If you would, move closer to that, Mike, if you don't mind. I'm sorry.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
50:45
I've never been accused of not being heard, but I'll...
Speaker 186
50:50
Well, it's more about those watching. I understand. Thank you. The
Speaker 165
50:57
only reason for this bill is to line the pockets of cockfighters. That's all that it is. There's no need to amend the unlawful animal fighting law. There is no need for an unlawful rooster fighting law. The animals are adequately protected under the unlawful animal fighting law. What concerns me is they are wanting, or this bill amends 562-120 to put in the word organized.
Organized is undefined. I know that the senator and Mr. Pierce gave you what they thought it meant, but it is not defined in the statute. Also, the current unlawful animal fighting covers dogs, roosters, and bears. I don't really know the last time that we had a bear fight in Arkansas, but that's what it covers. In an effort to basically legitimize, decriminalize, or water down the statutes for animal fighting,
they have drafted this 562-128 for your consideration. It requires organized, which I said is undefined. It removes employed by or engages in rooster fighting. It minimizes, it completely takes out sales, purchases, possesses, or trains. And I take great exception to their allegation that anybody, that this is a farming bill to begin with,
is that anybody that raises roosters and, you know, may be showing them at an FAA county fair is somehow going to be prosecuted for cockfighting. Rooster, there are a certain breed of roosters. Nobody goes down to Tractor Supply to buy a rooster to fight. They are raised for a very specific purpose, and if they are raised, trained, possessed for the purpose of animal fighting, then they can be prosecuted.
I have a pit bull. She is the love of my life and my family member. I will never be prosecuted for dog fighting. If, however, I trained her, purchased her for that purpose, or engaged in animal fighting, obviously, then I could be prosecuted for that. So it offends me that they're saying that these people are raising these roosters for some sort of a show, and then we're going to run out and prosecute them for animal fighting. We're not. And they do not want their animals seized.
I liken if we come upon a dogfighting, we seize the dogs. If you stop someone on the street for possession of a controlled substance and they have money, then we seize that money. We can seize that car. We can seize any assets that accompany the crime itself. And seizing the roosters would obviously be a logical choice if those roosters are being used to fight. and I would agree with Senator Clark that there's not going to be a rooster just walking by a cockfight.
Every rooster there is going to be there for a purpose and should be seized. My office prosecuted a cockfighting case in Lafayette County, which is where Senator Kroll is from, or at least that's one of the counties that he represents. None of those roosters were euthanized. They were all rehomed, and so I also take exception to their sweeping allegations that we euthanize all of the roosters that we take, just like we don't euthanize the dogs that we take, unless, of course, they are injured and cannot be.
I'm going to hold you up there. Yes, sir. I think we've gone from the bill to testifying. Yes, sir. Senator Rice, you're recognized. Well, I'm
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:46
going to bypass the last testifier because I think you were fairly flippant, so I want to talk to the other prosecutors. When you stay in, they're going to show it an FFA show. No, and I was just quoting them. I'm speaking right now. Yes, sir. I find it flippant because there's been testimony that some of these bloodlines are 100 years old.
Yes, sir. And they have shows for them. Yes, sir. I agree with that. I'm talking right now, please. Okay. I can tell you're a dandy in court. For the other prosecutors, I understand, and I've stated, this goes back to 2009. I was here, and I felt it was over the top then. I'm not for cockfighting, but I'm for being fair to people and people that want to raise game foul in Arkansas.
And I appreciate the prosecutors having common sense. I work with you all the time. I think Arkansas has great common sense in their prosecutors. But the subject is people that are raising them are putting themselves and their livelihood in spending. Because some of these birds are evidently pretty expensive. And they're trusting the prosecutors. And this witness at the end of the table has complimented Arkansas many times on this.
This last person that testified is totally biased in her opinion. Can you tell me as prosecutors, the first two, do people put themselves and their livelihood legally on the line for raising birds in Arkansas right now? Not just because the current prosecutors are good, because that's, as we've said in this committee time after time, that may not always be the case.
Speaker 159
56:45
Would you give me your opinion on that? And, Senator, you're asking my opinion. The answer to that question in my judicial district, no, sir. I mean, there are people who I know
Speaker 198
56:59
would raise them in my district. We're not
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
57:04
looking at that. No, sir. But the legal thing that can happen right now if a prosecutor wanted to, if this lady wanted to, And I'm sure what she's saying is true on breaking up an illegal cockfighting deal.
But if you wanted to enforce the law that was passed in 2009, you could go out there and do this right now to anybody
Speaker 159
57:26
raising them, correct? Not the way I read the law, sir. Because the law says very clearly a person commits the offense of unlawful animal fighting if they knowingly do certain things. And just having them is not
Speaker 201
57:40
knowingly doing those things. What if they had two out there that were loose?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
57:48
I mean, again, I think y'all have got common sense. I appreciate it. And I appreciate it. But this last deal concerns me. And
Speaker 159
57:55
I know I live in North Arkansas, but I'm a country boy from South Arkansas, so I'll answer your question. That's not what we're looking at. You're talking about someone having two roosters who get loose in the yard. That's not going to happen. And again, I don't think anybody believes as much as a prosecutor that I could get 12 juries, 12 jurors or their peers to ever convict someone of that either. And so that's where we would have to go.
It does not meet the standard in my
mind. Okay. Can y'all, to the prosecutors, can you tell me what the law says now? Because I'm looking here at this bill, and I don't see anything removed that would apply to cockfighting. Then we have all this new, what would be new law. What exists now, and is it not being removed?
Speaker 171
58:54
If I understand your question, so bear with me. I think in the new one, they removed section C of the existing law where it says sales, purchases, possesses, or trains an animal for
animal fighting. I don't find anything scratched through. That's why I'm. They just created a
Speaker 159
59:14
whole new statute. The new statute's doing that, sir. And again, please bear with me because I don't have the new one with
Speaker 185
59:20
me. But when we elected this earlier, they wrote a whole new bill that that's not in there any longer.
for copy? I'm sorry. Line 29. That's okay. We removed rooster. So in that, those words right there, remove current statute. And current statute,
again, is not just that. It's we have so what is
current statute on animal fighting that includes roosters it's 562-1 sorry 562-120
Speaker 171
1:00:05
what does that tell us it says in 562-120 it says sales possesses purchase or trains animals for animal fighting that's what it says in the news in the new statute which is 562 i believe it's going to call it 128 they remove that particular language if i'm answering your question and i apologize if i'm not okay tell me what the law says again in 562 120 it has from it started section a1 and it defines a
promotes engages in or is employed in animal fighting that's not in the new one
Speaker 159
1:00:42
and also they remove 562 120 a 1c sells purchases possesses or trains an animal for animal fighting Okay, so the
current law requires that you are raising it, training it for animal fighting. Yes, sir. Whether it be a dog or whether it be a rooster or whatever. And this removes roosters from that.
Okay. So, I'm sorry, Senator Crowell, the gentleman there with you,
what? what's your name again blake pierce mr pierce uh you said and you were referring to people in arkansas a lot of people do raise them for that and it was unfortunate or something like that so does your bill not uh make it harder to go after those people
Speaker 143
1:01:51
the people who are raising them. So the vast majority of them, 99% do it lawfully. No, no, no. Again, but I'm talking about the 1%. Yes. I'm going to get into that.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:02:01
So what we did here to answer your question right now, animal fighting is lumped up with everything. It just has it all in there. We're separating the roosters from the dogs and the bears and all that because we didn't want to do anything to help dog fighting. So that's why we're going away from that. We're getting on our own there, and again, the bill does legalize owning them to where you can't be prosecuted for just having them.
But from what I'm getting, you're wondering why we're taking roosters out of the current animal fighting statute and
going. No, my question was, you said a lot of people, which I guess 1% could
be a lot, I suppose, do raise them for that. Does this bill not make it harder to go after those people who do raise them for that? No, because there's other lawful activities.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:02:57
And again, the main thing on this bill, and I'm going to answer that question there, is were you fighting them? Yes or no? If it's a yes, you're going to get felony charges. If not, then you're fine, because you can
Speaker 143
1:03:09
do other lawful activities with these birds. Okay,
thank you. I'm going to recognize Senator Deez to ask a question and let the committee know that there are seven people signed
up to testify for and against. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This will be my last question for Mr. Pierce.
So with this bill, it's given protection for growers and owners of these birds. Correct. That's the 100% intent of the bill. And then, so, obviously, we've established we don't allow rooster fighting the state. or I'm not sure of any state in the U.S., maybe there are some, I'm not familiar with that, but what about owners who sell out of the country to countries that do allow cockfighting?
This would, theoretically, this would give protections for growers in the state of Arkansas to grow birds and facilitate fighting across in other
countries. Is that happening, or am I making that up, Or is that a theoretical possibility? I guess theoretically, but for a farm,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:04:16
our main thing is called trios, a rooster and two hens. And that's what we export to these countries. The hens don't fight, by the way. They don't do that. So
these farms are being raised and being sold out of the country?
Speaker 51
1:04:33
Sometimes they are, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Other questions from committee? Let's go to those who are wanting to testify. Cole Wakefield. Mr. Wakefield, when you're seated,
would you turn your mic on and identify yourself
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
1:05:10
for the record? What? Yeah, remind you that it's a three-minute limit. My
Chair
Unverified
1:05:16
name is Cole Wakefield. I am executive director of Good Shepherd Humane Society in Carroll County. In addition to my work at Good Shepherd, I serve on various committees and working groups at the state and national level. And I am currently serving on the board of the Arkansas State Animal Control Association. Today, I am here to speak on behalf of the Arkansas State Animal Control Association and our strong opposition to HB 1611.
And also this morning, the National Animal Care and Control Association also came out formally against this bill. As a reminder, the Arkansas Animal Control Association is a membership-led organization made up of animal care and control professionals. As outlined in the statute of the state, we are the official provider of certification training for animal control officers in Arkansas, and we provide additional training and assistance and technical assistance to commissioned and non-commissioned law enforcement throughout the state. First off, let me say that our association respects the right of private citizens to engage in responsible legal breeding of fowl for hobby or show purposes.
In fact, some of our members engage in that very hobby. And while we certainly understand the desire of rooster enthusiasts to protect and promote their trade, this bill seems only to expose the state and its people to great potential harm while trying to solve a problem that, quite frankly, does not exist. Now, that's important to remember. The current set of laws and regulations are working. We have seen a significant reduction in cockfighting arrests in Arkansas. And not only that, Arkansas's legitimate game and show cock breeding operations are thriving.
You can drive up and down Highway 62 in Carroll County. We have several show rooster breeders who are doing great and are not operating in fear of losing their entire flock. There are no black helicopters swooping in and scooping up some poor, innocent farmers' birds. It's just not happening. Our current laws provide for due process and adequately protect the bird owner's rights while balancing the welfare of the birds and the health and safety of our community. But HB 1611 is more than unnecessary.
It's actually dangerous. While this bill nominally maintains cockfighting prohibition, it so effectively ties the hands of law enforcement that it might as well be considered a de facto legalization of cockfighting. This bill uses imprecise and undefined language such as the term organized when referring to fights. As everyone on this committee knows, bad actors prefer to be able to interpret law in their own favor, and bad or ambiguous legislation can get the state in a lot of trouble. The gray area created around the term organizing, promotes, or profits
would effectively legalize any and all preparatory action and fight training up into the actual fight itself. These actions are currently illegal under the current statutes and gauges in language. So, for example, under the new law, I could train a rooster to fight, attach the knife to its leg, and even place the rooster in the fighting ring and still not have committed a crime technically, at least if I have a good defense attorney. In fact, under this new law, I could actually fight the rooster, and as long as law enforcement could not prove that I organized, promoted, or profited,
I could not change or be charged. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:30
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I intended to ask the prosecutors this, but you're up there. I'll ask you, do you think you could be prosecuted
Chair
Unverified
1:08:40
for a felony under this bill as written? No, it would effectively make it impossible for our on-the-ground law enforcement to provide any effective interdiction in actual fighting cases. Okay. And my
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:52
other question is, if this bill passed, would it allow you to breed, raise, and sell roosters intended for cockfighting,
so long as you didn't do it yourself, have the cockfighting yourself, the organized
Chair
Unverified
1:09:03
cockfighting? The way the law is written, as long as you have a wink-wink, nod-nod that, oh, you're not using this rooster for fighting, then no,
Speaker 224
1:09:13
you could not be prosecuted. Thank you. Other questions
from committee? Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. we're going to four uh is this cody josephi
Speaker 143
1:09:33
okay we have another four blake pierce you have three minutes identify yourself again for the record blake pierce again in
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:09:53
summary all i have to say on this all this bill does is protects people that raise and sell these chickens if you still go out and compete with them you will get a felony charge
so please i don't want this bill to be overthought on that because it's not it's just to protect
Speaker 168
1:10:13
farmers thank you questions from committee seeing none thank you mr pierce Kevin Chambers,
speak against. If you'll turn the mic on and
Speaker 232
1:10:30
identify yourself for the record. Hi, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I'm Kevin Chambers. I'm the Oklahoma State Director of the Animal Wellness Action. I'm here because I've been a cruelty investigator for 40 years, specialized in cockfighting investigations, and I'm very familiar with the instigators of this bill, the Oklahoma Game Fowl Commission, of which Mr. Pierce is the vice president of the Oklahoma Game Fowl Commission.
That's the group that came to Arkansas and initiated this bill. The Oklahoma Game Fowl Commission is composed of cockfighters. It's a front group for cockfighters and suppliers of cockfighters. And they had a meeting in Little Rock in October of last year where they discussed what this legislation was really about.
a leaked copy of that meeting is online. And if you listen to it, you will hear that they discuss the fact that this bill is just the first step in their ambition to legalize cockfighting in Arkansas. They say, Mr. Pierce and others, during that meeting repeatedly tell
Arkansas Gamefowl braiders not to talk about cockfighting, to stick to the script, and not admit to anything to do with cockfighting. So this bill is very well written for that purpose because this bill is designed to turn Arkansas's very crisp, well-written, existing law
against animal fighting into a gumbo of obfuscation that will make it difficult for prosecutors and law enforcement to enforce your laws against animal fighting. That's the purpose of this bill. there is no problem with farmers being arrested or charged for cockfighting in either Oklahoma or Arkansas.
It has never happened. In the case of what Mr. Pierce mentioned about the farmer or the game fowl breeder in New Walla, Oklahoma, that was charged with 59 cows. He was found with gaffes, the knives that they attach to the bird's feet for fighting purposes. He was not arrested just for owning Gamecocks.
- Time is up. Is there
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:13:52
any questions from committee? Senator Stubblefield? - Well, are you affiliated with any of the groups in Oklahoma other than
Speaker 232
1:14:01
the one you mentioned, previously mentioned? - Affiliated? - Yeah. - No, just animal
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:07
wellness action. - Okay, I noticed the gentleman in the back, when you were talking about these spurs, so-called spurs, metal spurs they put on roosters,
you were saying that this guy was arrested for that and
Speaker 232
1:14:22
he was shaking his head no. - Well, if you read the police report of that case, you will see that the police obtained a search warrant, went to his house, his farm, and found birds and gaffes. And as the prosecutors mentioned earlier, you have to prove intent. And if you find a fighting bird and gaffes,
a schedule, records of cockfighting, that proves intent. and a prosecutor can then take action. But no one has been arrested or charged for simply owning Gamefowl. - Other questions from committee? - Okay. - Hearing
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:15:10
none, thank you for your testimony. We have a Travis Prothrow
to testify for. Travis Prothrow.
Speaker 242
1:15:23
- His flight got delayed, he wasn't able to make it. - Okay, we have Connie Mitchell to testify
against. Connie Mitchell? - Oh, I'm already, I'm already. - Okay. - She's already spoke.
Okay, and we had one more who is taking themselves off the list. Senator Kroll, would
you like to close for your bill? Yes,
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:16:13
please. Again, I think we're getting in the weeds. This is a farmer protection bill. We've gotten on cockfighting, we've gotten on cockfighting, and we've gotten on cockfighting. this is a farmer protection bill. I ask for a good vote. Thank you.
Will of the committee? Motion do pass from Senator Johnson. Second from Senator Rice. Any discussion? Hearing none. All
for the motion signify by saying aye. all against no center kroll you did not pass your bill and center urban is up
Speaker 151
1:17:11
right after First, are we going to concur in House Amendment
on Senate Bill 320? Go ahead and go to the end. Yeah, I
Speaker 252
1:17:33
may switch it to you because I told Dave I would come right back. Yes.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:17:41
If you identify yourself for the record. Senator Missy Irvin, District 24, Senate Bill 320, there was an amendment that needs to be made. I mean, that's the total rewrite of the juvenile justice code, and so they had an amendment that needed to be made. So, just asking for concurrence of the House Amendment on
Senate Bill 320. Motion from Senator Gilmore. Second.
Is there anyone in the audience? There's no one in the audience to testify for or
against. Senator Gilmore has made a motion to concur in the House Amendment. Is that the correct language? Senator Tucker has seconded. Any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? You have, we have concurred in the House Amendment, and what is your bill, is that 488?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:18:48
Yes, this is Senate Bill 488. I appreciate Senator Tucker helping me. I know we're super busy right now. I'm trying to get back to
Speaker 260
1:18:56
the committees. Senate Bill 488 has an amendment.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:19:00
The amendment is the work that they did with the prosecutors. If there's anybody from the prosecuting attorney's office that wants to come and talk about the amendment, that would be great, if you don't mind. Can I have Lori Comperis come and just talk through the amendment? Yes, you may. Thank you.
Ms. Comperis, if you will identify yourself for the
Speaker 261
1:19:24
record. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Lori Comperis, the Deputy Prosecutor Coordinator. And we did work with the Administrative Office of the Courts and Senator Irvin on this amendment. And basically, it was just to clarify some of the language. In the previous version, we had some concerns about the order of the sentences and how it was written.
But with this amendment, I think we're good with it. And it's basically just clarifying that juveniles under the age of 10 are not going to be subject to any kind of juvenile delinquency adjudication. And then on page two, that section is basically clarifying that sometimes what happens is a juvenile commits an offense when they're 17. But prior to the time the adjudication can take place, they turn 18 or older.
and in some of those situations the juvenile court would still have jurisdiction and this is just to clarify that in those cases where the fence actually occurred prior to 18 but they've reached majority before the adjudication they can still it can go through juvenile court in the proper cases okay there's no
one here to testify for against the amendment motion from committee
got a motion do pass uh from central mckee second from senator johnson
any discussion all for the motion signify by
saying aye aye center urban your bill is amended you are recognized to present sb 488 as
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:21:04
amended thank you and i i appreciate the explanation of the amendment which uh further explains the the need for the bill uh the juvenile judges are doing yeoman's work with our juveniles, and I think this bill is an important piece of clarification, and you've heard from Ms. Campuras with the prosecutors, making sure that things are
more clearly defined and designated as it relates to a juvenile at these certain ages. I think one of the big stresses and importance to me for the bill is the fact that if they are 17 and then then turn 18 before the case is adjudicated, then that would still remain as a juvenile. But again, courts do have that discretion, and judges still do have those discretions.
So I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee? Hearing none, there's no one to
testify for against. Senator Irvin, are you closed for your bill? Yes, sir. Most will of the committee. Motion to pass from center Johnson as amended second from center McKee. Any discussion here, none offer the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried.
Congratulations, Senator Irvin, you have passed SB 488 as amended. Thank you, members.
I don't see Senator King in the room. So, no, Senator King is here and ready, so. Which bill are we going to run?
Speaker 270
1:22:57
We're just going to talk about all of them. Senate Bill is 143, 144, 145, but 143
is what we're going to start with. You're going to start with Senate Bill 143? Yeah, I'm just going to kind of talk about starting to go
Speaker 242
1:23:18
through the process and then we'll just pull them down and then have a discussion.
Senator King, if you turn the mic on when you get down there and
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:23:45
identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of committee, Brian King,
State Senator, District 28. Senator King, you are recognized
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:23:58
to present SB 143. 43. Okay. And I talked to some members of the committee about just presenting these bills.
There's this issue that we're having with the possible prison and funding, and this is just presenting the other side, because this idea out here that we're going to leave here with nothing, as I said on the floor, is ridiculous. There will be other alternatives rather than going down this mega prison route. I'll just briefly go back over, thank
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:24:26
you, what I talked about yesterday about where we are in this, what I call the three-headed monster of
Speaker 279
1:24:33
high crime, high overcrowding, and high incarceration rate.
And this basically started back in 2011 when
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:24:40
Governor Beebe got in financial trouble and started letting people out of prison early that should have never been let out. And if you go through the process of the bill,
Speaker 279
1:24:50
in 2011 it was titled the Public Protection Act. What you're going to see is that there's been continued promises and bills that were going to reduce crime, reduce overcrowding in the last 15 years that actually created the crisis that we have. So there is a repeated part down here that is very important to remember that these promises
get made, but yet what happens is something different.
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:25:15
You could see that violent crime went up. Violent crime was actually declining in the state, and then
Speaker 279
1:25:21
it goes back up after bills were promised to reduce overcrowding and reduce crime. You can go through the process again of where our prison population is going over. There was repeated things. Some legislators were criticizing the Board of Corrections, and that was wrong because Because basically nothing gets solved down here, especially on any major level, without
money. That's just it. And the legislature and governors consistently underfunded corrections over years by 8% of the budget. When I came in in 2006, a long time ago, corrections was 8% of the budget. It is still 8% of the budget. And as I said on the floor yesterday, you have to have money. should be at least 11 or 12 percent of the budget to try and address the issue. In 2017, I actually filed a bill, if you went to corrections four times, you served 80 percent
of your sentence, had a big price tag. At that time, I offered Governor Hutchison and other legislators here that rejected this idea that we, at that time, Amazon was voluntarily remitting the internet tax. I said, "Let that be a dedicated revenue stream to build facilities, fund more public safety officers, address mental health, address all these issues in '17,
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:26:38
that was rejected. If you go back to the dollar once again, if you want to see where, you know, politicians, the money should go where your mouth is if you're talking tough and everything on crime.
If you look at the percentage of the budget when I first come in, public safety was 1.9 percent of the budget, correction was 8 percent of the budget. budget, public safety went down as a percentage 1.8%. Corrections stayed at 8% of the budget. This next budget is still projected at 8%, this next RSA. You go through the spending, my big concerns are with learns, everything else that we're spending more money, our revenues are typically declining. We don't know what the economy is going to do. So when the prison
Speaker 279
1:27:23
issue came up. The original figure that was given was $470 million. I did not give that figure. That figure was given out by the governor for 3,000 beds. That's $156,000 per bed. That was completely unrealistic when you look at other states. The biggest mistake, again, is from yesterday from Mr. Perpuri that in April of '23 in Batesville at an audio meeting and I got the transcript, shut down the Calico Rock expansion to 525 beds,
we could have expanded that facility for far less than what it's going to cost in this 525 beds will cost in this mega prison. The biggest
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:28:04
issue I think that people really, really is where our inmates are coming from. And if you look at the figure of eight counties contribute
Speaker 279
1:28:12
two out of three inmates to incarceration county backlog, those counties are Jefferson, Pulaski, Faulkner, Saline, Sebastian, Crawford, Washington, and Benton County. Two out of three inmates originate from just eight counties.
If you look at it, we already have correction facilities in Pulaski and Jefferson County. I mean, I think that that's big in trying to solve the puzzle. If you look at Faulkner, Saline, Crawford County are passing jail taxes. All my counties pass jail taxes to address the issue of what is going on with our county backlogs. They're trying to make sacrifices. If you look at it, Washington, Sebastian, and Benton County are failing jail taxes, okay,
and yet they're contributing almost one out of every four inmates. If you look at the population growth in Benton and Washington County, it's estimated a million maybe here in 10 years. If they're not addressing their issue, and if we have an overall state issue of counties not addressing their local crime and how much they're contributing to the system. Once again, Pulaski and Jefferson already have border correction facilities. If we do that, we're going to just have a series of dominoes. Why would any county out there pass a jail tax or do anything?
Why not just continue to dump them on the system? If you look at these mega prisons, I have never been a fan. I worked on this issue in 2017. These mega prisons turn into mega financial disasters. You just have to look at Utah, look at Alabama. These prison building companies' estimates, as I said, they can give you whatever estimate, and right
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:29:51
now, they're only giving you a letter to address. So there's no specifics of that. There's no details of that.
Can you imagine me going to you and building your house and giving you a figure of $825 million and providing zero details of anything? So if you look at
Speaker 279
1:30:08
Utah, for example, you'll see that they built a mega prison out there. They started theirs well pre-COVID price explosions, and they were estimated at 500-something million. It wound up being almost a billion. I think it was 285,000 per bed, and this was all pre-COVID price explosions. They can't staff it out there. This location is located, I think, five miles from the Salt Lake City Airport.
If you look at the situation in Franklin County, the idea that you're going to get 800 people to work way out in the country in Franklin County is literally a farce. There is no way that that's going to happen. You look at the $825 million, realistically it could be only 2,000 beds at the most and would take probably five to six, seven, eight years to maybe even get up to that capacity of 2,000 by the time you get this built and go through it.
And in that time, we may have a series of more price explosions, Hurricanes, floods, everything else causes explosions in the building process. And when you go through a long-term building process, that's
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:31:15
why I continue to say going down that and putting everything into one area is going to be a financial death spiral for our state to be able to afford. You know, my plan is more of a holistic plan that would hire. If you don't, as I said on the Senate floor, when you have high crime for an extended amount of time
and you keep ignoring high crime, which we have, then you are going to have overburdened court system. You're going to have overburdened jails. You're going to have an overburdened probation parole system where they are underfunded, understaffed, and overworked. You're going to have a series of things that continue to fall. The best thing that you can do in what has been proven, even groups that are not necessarily pro-law enforcement have produced studies that show that positive police presence can actually reduce crime.
Because once you have a crime, then you have a booking, and then you have an incarceration of some level until they get bonded out. You then have possibly a public defender hired at public money. You then have them out of incarceration until their court date. Then you have them in a court date that costs money. Then you have a trial that possibly costs money. Then you have a sentencing that costs money. And then you have rehabilitation while they're in incarceration and transportation costs in there that costs money. You then have release into probation parole that costs money.
So the best way that has been found to reduce this and move the needle is to reduce crime before it actually happens. Senate Bill 143 is about addressing that. It takes $100 million in dedicated revenue stream money that will hire 400 to 600 public safety officers. These can either be state police. They could also be partnership with counties and actually assist probation parole. If you look in some of these areas where the probation parolee visits are,
which probation parole is already overworked, understaffed, overburdened, and will be five years from now, too. Let's just be honest. then if they're assisting them, then they have a presence in an area that might need the presence. Little Rock is short 175 to 100 officers. These areas like Benton and Washington County, where the growth is happening, where you're having more crime committed because of rising populations, we've got to start reducing the crime part. Because if we don't, we're in a financial death spiral between this mega prison
and the other areas of not building county jails and not trying to address the plan in a holistic problem. The other thing is mental health. One of the bills that I have has avenues to mental health issues that Senator Tucker and I have talked about that can be more economical and actually address the issue. If we continue this part of putting in this mega prison, mega financial disaster, we will not have the money to hire public safety officers to actually reduce crime. We will not have the money for mental health facilities.
We'll still be talking about we won't have the money to help probation parole. We will not have money for overburdened public defenders. We've got to do things to move the needle to reduce that back. And I have presented all this as an alternative. And I can see right now that the people that were presenting the other side have got up and walked out. because, you know, so I would love to engage them right now because what has happened with this Franklin County thing has been built upon lies and deception and gross incompetence.
And, you know, we can look at, like I said, the idea that Mr. Porfiri would shut down the Calico Rock expansion probably cost taxpayers $40 to $50 million more that we could have done literally a no-brainer and getting 525 beds expanded up there and he shuts that down to go with this mega prison will cost taxpayers much more money to build 525 beds at a facility that is 100% staff. There is a lot of things that do not add up about this.
My plan would say that if you go back to the first page that in the Board of Corrections facilities they need to be built in the eight counties or could be built in the adjoining counties with the majority of the quorum court. So if you look at a situation, Mr. Perfieri, I'll go back again, who makes a quarter of a million dollars and costs us $440 to $50 million more by shutting down Calico Rock, no-brainer, Mr. Perfieri told the body in a meeting that the local community needs to embrace it.
Well, that obviously did not happen, and this would actually do that. Okay, they promise one thing, and then they do something else. I don't know how we continue to have the lies and deception and the gross incompetence. If you look at the Franklin County situation, they did not investigate the road structure, which will have to be rebuilt. There's no water. There's no sewer. You're literally trying to build a 3,800 population city out in the middle of the country. They didn't even call the electric cooperative to do that.
If a school applied for a grant, a partnership on something down here and didn't provide any more than these people are providing, it would be rejected immediately. Wouldn't even be to disgust. So basically, we need to build the benefit to building the facilities in where most of this crime is coming from. Number one, it saves on transportation costs. Also, in northwest Arkansas, if you talk to the sheriffs up there in law enforcement, we only have a diagnostic intake center in Malvern. You know, in my plan, we need to be able to adjust to the population
and put a diagnostic intake center up in northwest Arkansas. That's where the population's growing, it would address that, address mental health. I think that if we are going to spend this much money, I would rather have, with Park Plaza Mall having literally murders right down the road from us, and having probation parole overworked, overburdened, underfunded, understaffed, that we need to get out there and try and take measures, and I would rather see 400 to 600 public safety officers done
in the right way that is consistently being shown to actually reduce crime and reduce cost. I would rather do that than this farce of thinking that you're going to get 800 people to work up in Franklin County. This thing with no details, if they realistically at best, they're going to have 2,000 beds in Franklin County, you're going to spend 800, 900 million dollars. That's 400 and something thousand dollars per bed. That is way over double the cost that we could have done the Calico Rock expansion.
So I've thrown out a lot of things, and I can see that Senator Gilmore has got up and left. I was very much wanting to engage with him on this issue, but I would take any questions from the members and just present it, because this idea that we're going to leave here with nothing, as Senator Hester said, is completely wrong. If you want to talk about leaving with nothing, it's been his votes to consistently underfund corrections that put us in this situation and voting for Jeremy Hutchison bills and going down that path.
So with that, I'd take any questions. Senator King, what does SB 143 do? It is the one that is the hires of 400 to 600 public safety officers to actually reduce crime. This would be under the direction of the colonel, the state police. You have to put somebody in charge of it. It would also avenue the avenues of, you know, possibly in Garland County where you have county deputies do not make what city police do. We have a consistent problem in every 75 counties.
A lot of times county deputies come in and all of a sudden they're making, they train them, spend the money to put them out there, and then they turn around and go to work for a city. So this would try to equalize the county deputy's pay and help them focus on probation, parole, and be about public safety and reducing crime, which is statistically shown to actually help cost and make communities safer rather than just continue to build more prisons. We are, embarrassingly enough, have one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation.
Yes, we do. So this is designed to lower the incarceration rate then? This
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:39:45
is designed to reduce crime, which as I showed before, if you reduce crime before it happens, has a beneficial cost of once they enter the court system, cost taxpayers exponentially more. This would make areas the goal of this as what has been statistically proven to actually reduce crime and be able to make place safer that you don't have the crime happen in the first place. It would also allow, like, counties to equalize county deputy pay so they can help retain
deputies and assist probation parole in their job. And much like the Drug Task Force has partnerships. I mean, we've got to holistically address the crime issue and lower the crime rate first. That's the first thing we need to do. And that's not getting the focus because, you know, these prison building companies and these private prisons are huge donors and can influence things, as we've seen in other states. But the second part, 144, takes $600 million
that the facilities would be built where the crime is actually coming from. And that saves on transportation costs. The other part about building the facilities closer in those areas is you have the prisoners. You have, if you're sentenced in Benton, Washington, Carroll, or Madison County, and you're in East Arkansas, it takes the families all day to go visit you. If you're a lesser sentence person, you should stay close to home sentencing where those families can actually visit and interact with that and hopefully reduce recidivism.
This idea that we're transporting prisoners all over the state on these lesser sentence, they can need to stay close to home, serve their sentence out where they're actually close to their family. And it actually saves the county's money of not transporting these people all over the state. And also I'll add the diagnostic intake center for northwest Arkansas would be huge because then they don't have to transport everybody to Malvern and then transport them back to another facility. We have to address and look five and ten years down the road or our population and where it's going and build the facilities where the crime's happening.
It's not fair to the people in Franklin County that make sacrifices or any other county, Garland County or any other county out there that passes jail tax and makes budget constraints to make sacrifices. while the counties that are not passing jail taxes just continue to dump more in the system. If we allow that to happen, we are on a financial death spiral of just, you know, you take no responsibility for the crime committed in your county. You can just continue to dump more in the system, dump more in the system, and the burden is on the rest of us that, you know, a lot of these counties, like Madison County,
they're going to be paying off a bond. So it's not fair to them to make sacrifices while Benton and Washington County are not making
the same sacrifices. Okay, and SB
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:42:39
145? That basically is only one thing. If you, in the GIF lawsuits, which there's only one out there with Ecclesia College, and I'm the lead plaintiff against him. If you remember the Ecclesia College scandal and the GIF scandal that happened with public corruption, there was the college president pleaded guilty to bribery
as long as legislators. If there is a judgment in that, then it would go to fund public safety officers. I feel like the taxpayers, the legislators that were involved in that should have demanded that college pay back the 900 and something thousand to us. Unfortunately they're not, but I think that they should pay it. Unfortunately I had to be part of filing a lawsuit to try and get that money back rightly I think for the taxpayers. The other part is $225 million, the other bill is $225 million to address mental health issues and also help counties with grants, like we do schools or anything, with partnerships and expanding county jails.
We could do county partnerships with the state when there are a win-win situation, much like they did in Phillips County where it's a win-win situation. But $225 million would go straight to helping county jails expand with a grant with no strings attached. So if Washington County did want to expand a jail, then it could possibly get 20, or Benton County could get $25 or $50 million or whatever, apply to a grant thing to help on that. It also saves taxpayer money because in the Madison County situation,
you know, their $16 million jail by the time they get their bond paid off it's going to be $32 million. So if you pay down on the principal of that in a grant, it saves the local taxpayers, saves the state, it lets them address local crime issues. It is so much better for the state to do this than to put it in this mega-prison, mega-financial
Speaker 284
1:44:27
disaster all in one hell basket that is going to be a disaster.
Okay, any other questions from the committee?
Speaker 97
1:44:40
Senator Stubblefield. You know, this prison is in my county. Can
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:44:46
you pull the mic closer? I know that people get tired of hearing the same thing over and
over, but what Senator King is saying is a lot of it's just common sense. Not having to transport prisoners from all corners of the state to the far western border of Arkansas. And not only are you having to transport prisoners, You've got families that are going to be driving from Phillips County, Mississippi County,
all along the western edge in central Arkansas, all the way to the western border just to visit their loved ones. That's a huge financial toll on those families because a lot of them can't afford it. That, along with the no infrastructure, picking a place that has absolutely no infrastructure, And all of this should have been discussed back in 2023, when they first came out and said this thing is going to cost 400 and some odd million,
and we're going to put it in far western Arkansas, on top of a rock where there's no utilities, no water access, no sewage access. To this day, I don't know how they're going to get water to this day. So everything that Senator King has said, and we don't agree on everything, but he is totally right on this. There has to be a better way and a much more efficient way to fix this shortage of beds than what we're going at.
Now, the problem is, I was notified about this about four or five months ago. They found out about this in 23. I chair penal and charitable corrections of all people they should have notified, should have been me. And then I could have notified the people in my district and said, hey, let's have a town hall meeting, send the governor's staff up.
Let's sit down and discuss this like we should do it. That never happened. That was sprung on me a day before they purchased the land. That is not the way we do business in government. It's not the way we treat our constituents. And I have a big issue with this. A big issue with this. Because not only did we hire a guy, and I know I have a nephew that works in Blythe, California, on the line in a huge prison.
And Mr. Perfury does not have the best reputation in that state. And yet we hire him here, and almost immediately the Board of Correction fires him, and the governor hires him as a consultant for her for $200-some-thousand. So if somebody can hear and hear can explain that to me, I would like to hear it. And I would also like to know what his job description is and what he does to earn $250,000 a year.
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:47:53
Well, thanks, Senator Selffield. That is exactly right. This is not being about a NIMBY about Franklin County. I can tell you, and I know we have a former JP here that wants to say a few words. It's down here. I appreciate him. Folks, this thing in our government was set up, our founding father set up, that we're supposed to have a fair word or a fair fight. That never happened. The idea that you just call people up and say, and guess what, you're getting a 3,000-bed prison. It's good for you. You need to lock it. It's flat out wrong. It doesn't matter if it's in Pulaski County. It doesn't matter what county you're in.
This whole thing and this whole deal stinks. There's no way we could have—Sebastian County, where I was told, has land for a possible jail expansion that they're not going to build. Why are we building it there? That's where most of the inmates are coming from. Why would Franklin County or any other county pass jail taxes, make sacrifices? And we sit there, and most of the inmates—almost one out of
Speaker 279
1:48:48
every four inmates is coming from Sebastian, Washington, and Benton County. So Mr. Perfieri makes almost a quarter of a million dollars a year with everything, and
we had this Calico Rock expansion that he shut down that literally now is going to cost us ... I've seen county clerks misappropriate the money and get berated in audit for an hour and a half. This
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:49:13
guy makes a 40 to 50 million dollar mistake or decision that is horrible, that could have save taxpayer money alleviated bed space much more quickly in a facility that's fully staffed to now build it and cost taxpayers much more to build it somewhere else other questions from committee
seeing none uh there's no one to testify for against center king would you like to close
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:49:39
well i'd like mr sosby to his former jp to say a few words the local person did he come down here and say a few things and then but i just want to give me i appreciate you presenting it because this idea that we don't have other alternatives out there is flat
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:49:55
out wrong so if mr sosby would like to say a few words uh i'd appreciate
some time with him if you will
Cody Sowsby
Unverified
1:50:09
identify yourself for the record thank you my name is cody sosby i'm from franklin county arkansas charleston i was a
justice of the peace for franklin county for the past uh six years i believe it only felt like 20 but it was a good learning experience for me we uh struggle uh as any small county does to help uh try to come up with uh pay for our deputies uh anybody that works in a courthouse it's a struggle in our county um this this prison if it goes through it it will decimate our our Our sheriff's department, I don't blame these guys that are putting their life on the line.
They can go make more money, provide for their family. I don't blame them for that. But we've had extensive talks with our sheriff, and they're totally against it. Kind of to echo what Senator Stubblefield said, it was just a shock to me and us to find out about this. And without any of the public, and aside from being adjusted to the peace, my family's land borders that property for a mile and a half. So we're right on the fence. My dear Stan tree is nailed to the barbed wire fence of the property.
So I have a lot of invested interest in that. And it's simply not anything that we want to keep a prison out of our backyard, that is. But it is going to drain us financially. And it's simple. I'm not a numbers guy like Senator King is. I'm not very smart. This is my first time to be down here. I didn't even know where to park. Didn't even sign up right. But I'm telling you, I'm here to help my community. and support the people that are fighting against this. They're doing their job and giving you all the facts and the numbers,
and I just appreciate you to take that in consideration. I don't, some of the, we're just, a lot of information out there right now, and I know you all have heard, probably heard these testimonies a lot about the prison, but it's tough. We were ramrodded, and it was shoved down our throats, and still being shoved down our throats with little talk, little work from a little bit of direction from the Board of Corrections, a little bit of talk from the governor's office. But they're just mowing us over up there, for lack of better terms.
I'd be willing to answer any questions. I don't have a
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:52:28
lot to... Thank you, Justice O'Speed. Any questions from the
Speaker 51
1:52:31
committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate you for letting me talk. Thank you. All right. Thank you, members, for letting me present the bill.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:52:41
Are you, Senator King, are you going to pull SB 143 down? Yeah,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:52:46
we're just going to wait and see what we have with the other vote, and then we'll go from there after that.
Okay, well, I'm just saying that you either have to close with a bill or pull it down.
right now. Thank you. He's only presenting one, technically. Okay. Senator Tucker, is Senator Leading in the room? No. Senator Tucker, go ahead. Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:53:24
Tucker, can you tell us what bill you're running?
I'm going to start with Senate Bill 485, Mr. Chair. SB 485, which has an amendment.
Senator Tucker, would you like to present the amendment?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:04
Yes, Mr. Chair. The amendment is the bill. were working on changes all day yesterday in fact we were working on the final
change even after this committee started this morning so there was no way to get all of the amendments engrossed into the bill and i didn't want to bring a complicated uh amendment that was hard to follow so i i did the thing where the amendment is the bill and um so it's all engrossed in that sense at least so it's it's easy to follow what's what's in the bill so with with that
the amendment is the bill i move
for adoption of the amendment motion for adoption amendment
second from center stubblefield any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion carried sb 485 is amended senator
tucker you are recognized to present sb 485 as amended thank you mr chair with your your permission I'd like to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:55
invite Estrella Lopez from the Council of
State Governance Justice Center to to sit here with me you may thank you mr. chair
members this is a bill that Senator Gilmore referenced when he was presenting his his excellent
bill to reduce recidivism earlier Senator Tucker if you will allow yeah please to identify herself for the record Estrella Lopez with
Speaker 295
1:55:20
the Council of State Governance Justice Center thank you okay Senator
Tucker, sorry for interrupting. No, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this was a bill that Senator Gilmore referenced
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:55:29
earlier when he was running his excellent bill to reduce recidivism, and this is another bill that we believe will make a lot of reforms that will reduce recidivism in Arkansas.
This bill comes out of work that was done by the task force established in the Protect Act, as Senator Gilmore mentioned this morning. And we worked diligently for Senator Gilmore as the chair of the task force for the entire interim period. The task force had a prosecutor, public defender, folks from corrections, community corrections, judges, crime victims, a formerly incarcerated person, and a member of the post-prison transfer board, everyone that touches criminal justice. We all work collaboratively for a period of 18 months on some policy changes that we can make that will
help reduce recidivism in Arkansas. Ms. Lopez is going to give a brief overview of the changes in the bill and then I'll be glad to take
Speaker 297
1:56:28
questions. Thank you. As I said, I'm with the Council of State Governments Justice Center and we are a national nonpartisan
Speaker 298
1:56:35
nonprofit and we've been working with Arkansas since 2023 specifically providing support to the Legislative Recipitism Reduction Task Force that was created by the Protect Act. In addition to the work that Senator
Tucker referenced, me and my colleagues had an opportunity to look at data from across the criminal justice agencies. We visited with different offices and facilities and we had hundreds of conversations with stakeholders from all corners of the state representing all aspects of the criminal justice system and this bill is very much a reflection of the task force's work. Arkansas prison population is high as of July of 2024 the state's prison population was higher it's the highest than it's been in the last decade and that's despite having
experienced significant decreases during the pandemic at the same time that the population is high the recidivism rate is also high for people who left prison in the 2014 to 2016 cohort half of those individuals would return to doc custody within three years arkansas relies heavily on community supervision 59 of felonies resolved to probation and over 75 of the nearly 91 000 and people that are under the DOC's control
are in the community. However, in speaking to community supervision officers, agents, supervisors, and individuals who are actually under supervision, it became clear that community supervision system is severely under-resourced. There are high caseloads, inconsistent uses of evidence-based best practices, and limited resources, which really constrain the effect that supervision officers are able to have. This far too often ultimately results in the imposition of incarceration, which is a far more costly intervention.
Through the task force's work, we found that from 2014 to 2023, on average, 72% of prison admissions were individuals who were under community supervision by the DOC in either the
Speaker 297
1:58:39
form of probation or parole at the time that they were incarcerated. -
Speaker 298
1:58:45
So the changes in this bill represent an opportunity to meaningfully improve supervision practices in order to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
The bill will ensure that valuable supervision resources are focused on high risk individuals and that the tools and practices that are being used in community supervision are ones that have evidence behind them to show that they actually work and will
Speaker 297
1:59:10
allow for consistency across the system. Thank you. Thank you, Straya.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:59:14
I just want to add a couple things. One is that we produced this bill. It was a bill,
again, that we worked through with all the stakeholders over the entire interim period.
We filed the bill. I sent it to several of the stakeholders, AOC and the Judicial Council, the Public Defenders, the Prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, and so forth. Several of those stakeholders just gave a thumbs up and got a couple of comments From the prosecutors, we've worked to accommodate their concerns, and I would think it's fair to say they don't have a position, but they're neutral. They're not opposed to anything that we're doing. They haven't taken a position in support, but they're neutral in the bill. Is that fair? But we've accommodated their concerns in the bill, and then the Department of Corrections brought us a series of notes, many of which were technical in nature.
A few were substantive. I think we accommodated 100% of the things the Department of Corrections asked for. So I'm not presently aware of any language in the bill that anyone, any of the stakeholders in this area are actively opposing. The last thing I'll just say is that, you know, we know, obviously, that we have to address crime in Arkansas. A big piece of that is recidivism. I mean, if someone commits a violent crime, they need to be incarcerated. We need to do what we can to make sure that once they are released, they don't come back.
That's in everyone's best interest. it's in their best interest, but it's also in all of our best interests as well. If you reduce recidivism, then by definition, you're reducing crime. So this is a bill to reduce crime. The last thing that I'll mention is we also know we have different philosophies about how to address it, but there's no getting around the fact that we have a capacity issue in Arkansas. And this data is two years old, but two years ago, 62% of prison admissions were people on supervision, either parole or probation. And if we, just to use a round number, this would be an
ambitious number, but if we could cut recidivism in half for those folks, then we reduce prison admissions in Arkansas by 31%. I mean, that's a huge, that would be a huge success for us. So as Senator Gilmore said with his bill this morning, I don't think, you know, this bill is going to be a silver bullet to cure all recidivism in Arkansas, but I think it accomplishes a number of very productive things that will help us meaningfully reduce recidivism moving forward from that i'm happy to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:01:36
take any questions any questions from committee seeing none there's no
one to testify for against would you like to close for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:44
your bill center tucker or are you closed i think that was my closing mr chair
i'd appreciate a good vote and i make a motion do pass motion to pass second from center as a second motion to pass as amended second by center gilmore any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion carried congratulations senator tucker you have passed
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:02
your bill as amended thank you very much mr chair i'll keep going if you'll have me um but i'll i'll do as you direct 575 is what i would
present next is 575 more controversial than 4 485 was i think it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:20
will require a bit of explanation i don't think it's controversial well if it requires explanation
we're about done with explanations so uh but the center 585 575
575 which has an amendment and i don't seem to have there it is center tucker
would you like to explain your amendment
on SB 575? I think it's easy.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:51
It's just to say my bill, my amendment. I'll explain it in the context, the greater context of the bill, if y'all will give me that leeway.
And I move adoption. Actually, motion to adopt by Senator Gilmore, second by Senator Dease. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for
the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Your bill is amended. if you would like to present it SB 575. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:17
Chair. Thank you, members. I think we all know
that the fees in the justice system are in need of reform in Arkansas.
And it's a very complicated process to try to reform those fees for a number of reasons. One is because there are so many of them. And secondly, it's hard to wrap your hands around what they all do, how much revenue they generate, what that revenue is spent on, and so forth. This is an attempt at a step one of reforming fees. In terms of the fees that we do have, public enemies number one and two that are
in most need of reform, in my view, are the installment fee, which has been the subject of a lot of a discussion down here, and then also the driver's license reinstatement fee, because driver's licenses are suspended in Arkansas for a number of reasons. Now, if you get a DWI, it's justified, but there's a long list of reasons why a driver's license can be suspended. And if your driver's license is suspended, it makes it difficult for you to drive to work and maintain employment and pay off your fines and fees and become a productive member of society. So the main point of Senate Bill 575 is on those two fees alone, the driver's license reinstatement
fee and the installment fee to make them general revenue rather than special revenue. This is an idea that I stole from the governor of Oklahoma, Governor Stitt. He made all of the special revenue fees in the justice system in Oklahoma general revenue rather than special revenue, and this is the reason why. Take the driver's license reinstatement fee, for example. A good chunk of the revenue derived from the driver's license reinstatement fee goes to the Arkansas State Police Pension Fund. I have no desire to cut funding whatsoever to
the Arkansas State Police Pension Fund. But if I were to try to reform the driver's license re-enstatement fee, then I'd have Colonel Hager down here at the table testify against the bill. And he should, because it would hurt their revenue. And so, this is designed to do it in a way where we absolutely do not hurt the revenue of the Arkansas State Police pension fund, or any other entity that receives special revenue from either of these fees. This is one piece of what I'm working to do, which is to take all of the special revenue
for those two fees, turn it into general revenue, and then turn around and take the exact same amount of general revenue that they've been getting on average for the last five years for these fees and send it back to the same state agencies. would not be costing anybody a dollar, and it's a net zero cost to the state. The point of doing all of this is that if in some future legislative session, which I think is likely, either me or someone else, if they want to reform the installment fee,
for example, then there might be a hit to general revenue, but they don't have the administrative office of the courts down here testifying against the bill because you're hurting their special revenue. At that point, the legislature can make an independent decision about whether to take a hit to general revenue by reforming the installment fee, and that's the only question the legislature is considering. The legislature is not also considering whether to cut revenue, special revenue, to a dedicated source.
So that's what it does. Those are the two fees. I did those two fees only because it's a large, complicated issue. And those, as I said, are the public enemies number one and two when it comes to fees in Arkansas. And then it establishes a task force to study the remainder of the fees. So I know it's complicated, and for that reason it required a bit of explanation. But to sum up, it doesn't actually affect, it's not going to affect the amount of revenue that any agency gets. It's just taking the special revenue, making it general, and then giving them the same
amount of money out of general revenue. And we won't pass this bill if we don't make that happen. And I've been working with AOC, I've communicated with DF&A about, the only two agencies really that this affects are AOC and DF&A. And I've communicated with both of them throughout this process as well as the governor's office. And you know, we're still kind of fine tuning those dollar amounts that they get because we want to guarantee them the same level of funding that they've been getting on average over the last five years.
If we don't come to a consensus on what those amounts are, I won't push this bill through the last stage of the legislative process. And one of the pieces of the amendment is to add Representative Dalby as the House sponsor. And we spoke on the phone last night. She has that same commitment. If we don't get everyone satisfied that we're not costing them any money, we will not pass this bill out of the House. But given where we are in the session, I've got to get this bill out of committee today in order for it to have a chance to move forward. So that's the ask is, and I'm happy to explain further or take questions.
But at the end of the day, I'm asking to just take this first step. And if we don't reach consensus with everyone, then we won't pass it. But I think we're in a good spot now, and hopefully we get to a perfect spot. But that's it. I'm happy to take questions. Senator
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:08:37
Gilmore, you're recognized? Good. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, there's no one to testify for or against. Senator Tucker, would you like to close for your bill? I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:08:46
think that was my close, Mr. Chair. I appreciate y'all's time and make a motion
do pass. Motion do pass as amended from Senator Tucker. Yes,
sir. Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, motion carried. Congratulations. Senator
Tucker, you have passed your bill as amended. thank you Mr. Chair I've got a I've got a few more
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:09:07
again I don't want to push my luck but one I because I told Senator Scott I would run her bill Senate Bill 555 so I want to make sure I do that one and then if there's others I'll take my seat and come back at the end if there's time
but I want to make sure I run this Senate Bill
555 for Senator Scott Senate Bill 555 Mr. Tucker, you are recognized to present Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:09:48
Scott's SB 555. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill, you know, as technology has evolved, opportunities for voyeurism have
grown and this bill, the law needs to evolve to address the growing threat of voyeurism. And so this bill really does three things. The first is that it extends the statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime of warriorism, because many times you may have been recorded without your knowledge. And so this requires the claim to be brought within one year after you have discovered the fact that you were videoed or whatever the case might be without your knowledge or within a year of when you should have reasonably discovered that you were the victim of warriorism.
The second thing it does is it allows victims of warriorism to obtain an order of protection. And then it just, as I mentioned, it extends, it closes loopholes on the different ways that people can be a victim of warriorism. So that's largely what the bill does. I think it goes without explanation what a horrifying crime this can be. you're you know the subject of a video without your knowledge and in a way that
you do not want to be videoed make it affect you for the rest of your life your mental health your relationships your reputation and and I think the law needs to be updated to account for that this happened to a constituent of Senator Scotts who we all know and I think it's I think it's an important bill for us to pass I'd be glad to
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:11:27
take any questions. Senator Ross you're recognize thank you senator tucker
section two city is not a defense of prosecution under this
section that a person who violates subsection a or b this section was in a romantic relationship with the other person who was secretly observed viewed photographed filmed or videotaped And we've talked many times this committee about how relationships change and vindictiveness happens and I'm going to get back at you. How do you keep that from happening in this case? Well, I think the key word,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:12:02
I'm trying to be delicate, but I think we know that some of these videos can be taken in intimate situations.
Right. And, and even if, and those situations may be consensual, but not, but the video part may not be consensual. Right. And so that's what this is really seeking to address. And the key word in that new language that's being added in, in section two is secretly. Because if that, if secretly were not in there, then it would just read, it's not a defense that you were in a romantic relationship with someone who observed, you know, or videoed you. And then I think that
we would have the concern that you're raising. Well, what if that was done consensually and then things change and now I want to be vindictive and prosecute you, but that word secretly is what accommodates for that. If you're doing that secretly without the other person's knowledge, that's when it's not
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:13:05
permissible. Yeah, well, and I think in this committee over the years,
we have relied on our prosecutors to use their discretion and have had confidence in that.
Mine's been shaking a little bit today, but I still have confidence in our prosecutors will be able to do that. But I think there are cases that probably have been consensual and then turned to otherwise, and you really couldn't prove it wasn't consensual. So
Speaker 83
2:13:35
I'd have that concern, but hopefully they'll take that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rice. Senator Johnson, you're recognized.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:13:51
Thank you, Chairman. Okay. On page 2, 8 through 10. Or should reasonably have been discovered. Okay, the discovery is a check off a point in time. They got one year. How do you make that check mark should reasonably have been discovered? I mean, you got a timeline of one year.
And that allows a whole different timeline whenever it's based on an assumption. And that's what that language
Speaker 312
2:14:32
is to me. should have reasonably been discovered. So that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:14:38
language, I'm sorry, are you finished? No, yeah. So that language should reasonably have been discovered. That's a language trick that lawyers use in
order to make something objective, right? Because without that language, let's say I'm the victim, right?
And then someone is like, hey, Clark, I got to show you something. I got to show you something. And I'm willfully ignorant. I ignore them on purpose just so I can toll my own statute of limitations. And so then it's subjective only. It's only when it's in my brain that I was a victim that triggers the one-year period of statute of limitations. When you put in should reasonably have discovered, that takes it away from being a subjective measure and it makes it an objective measure.
And so it's not just Clark Tucker individually. It's any reasonable human. And so when, you know, John Doe comes up to me and they say, hey, Clark, there's something I need you to know about. If I say, I think I
know what that is, but I don't want you to tell me, then that's what triggers the one-year period of statute of limitations.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:15:53
It makes it objective rather than just subjective. I don't know if that was an answer or more legal talk. Because I don't know what reason we should have where that year starts.
I don't know how y'all do that stuff in
Speaker 316
2:16:13
court. Can one of y'all, do one of y'all want to come
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:16:31
speak to that, Mr. Hsu? - I'm Daniel Hsu, I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County 12th Judicial District, and I'm president of the Arkansas
Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Taking your question with his factual scenario there, you should have known at the moment that said, "Hey, I've got this video of whatever." You should have known, so the year starts ticking, Because you choose not to look at it, that doesn't extend it beyond that year. So when you knew or should have known, the clock
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:17:09
There's still an event, Senator Johnson, to your original point. And the event is the same whether I allowed it to enter my
brain or not. Either I knew, because someone showed me, they're like, hey, I need to show you this video. So that means either I'm new and the clock starts ticking or I turn a blind eye and look the other way. There's still a triggering event that starts the one-year period. And it triggers it whether I look at it or whether
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:38
I turn a blind eye. Who is the determination?
Who is that? Is that a judge, a jury? Who determines when
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:17:46
that clock starts? Ultimately answering that question, it's presumed to be timely. But defense will file a motion, and they'll move to dismiss and say that this violates statute of limitations. And judge will make a ruling on, hey, that was either reasonable or unreasonable that you should have known. And that will be the timeline for that year to start running. So a judge makes that determination, whether you knew or you should have known, if that makes sense.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:19
A judge will determine when the statute of limitations began to run. And it's only, as Mr. Schultz said, if it becomes an issue in the case, raised by
Speaker 167
2:18:29
a defense. Lord help. Okay. Other questions from committee? Hearing none,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:18:37
there's no one to testify for or against.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:40
Senator Tucker, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Thank you, members. And I move to
pass. Motion to pass from Senator Tucker. Did I hear a second from Senator Gilmore? Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:19:02
Congratulations, Senator Tucker, you passed your bill. James, yes. Well, he
owns it now. The committee, it is 1220. We have to be in the Senate at 1.
We're going to have to return here after we quit. I assume we'll be 5 o'clock in the Senate. I am going to suggest that we go to lunch.
So that you're more energized and better prepared for the afternoon and that this afternoon we do not hear any House bills that we stay as long as we need to. And let me say again for the record, we do not have a long agenda because we did not run every bill every week, but because folks decided not to run their bills till now or they filed them late. but we will do our best to handle them this afternoon.
Is that... But you're going to
be here this afternoon, are you not? Yes,
I am going to insist that
you're here this afternoon. I'm sorry? Yes. Okay, we are going to recess for lunch in the Senate,
and then we will meet again here in this room at 15 minutes upon adjournment of the Senate session this afternoon. We are recessed. Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Call To Order
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTYLAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ON A PERSON WHO COMMITTED A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING.
SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY.
SB477 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION.
SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT.
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT.
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
SB509 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER.
SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO CREATE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM FEE TASK FORCE.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES.
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE.
HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS.
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHENTHERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIALINSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.
SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT.
SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION FOR CERTAIN CONTACTS.DEFERRED BILLS
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TOHOME PARTNERSHIPS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS.
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 21
Speaker 24
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 46
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 86
Speaker 51
Speaker 97
Speaker 105
Speaker 111
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 126
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
Speaker 133
Speaker 124
Speaker 116
Speaker 143
Speaker 142
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 161
Speaker 164
Speaker 165
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Speaker 186
Speaker 198
Speaker 201
Speaker 185
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 224
Speaker 168
Speaker 232
Speaker 242
Speaker 151
Speaker 252
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 260
Speaker 261
Speaker 270
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Cody Sosby
Unverified
Speaker 279
Speaker 284
Cody Sowsby
Unverified
Speaker 295
Speaker 297
Speaker 298
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 312
Speaker 316
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 303
Speaker 167