Said in CommitteeBeta

Exactly as spoken.

Judiciary Committee- House

April 1, 2025 ·10:00 AM ·Room 149 ·1:40:03
Video Transcript 1 document

Bills discussed (53)
Bill Title Sponsor Status
HB1148 Act 597 · 10 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
 TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … Vaught Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597
HB1815 Act 687 · 7 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS;…”
 TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY … Perry Notification that HB1815 is now Act 687
HB1865 Act 976 · 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…, members representative has two bills, House Bill 1148 and House Bill 1865. I'm assuming she'll be running housebuil 1148 1st. Oh, wai…”
 TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. Vaught Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976
HB1474 Act 484 · 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; A…”
 CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE … Joey Carr Notification that HB1474 is now Act 484
HB1615 Act 677 · 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. Lundstrum Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677
HB1752 Act 681 · 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…DRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION O…”
 TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. Maddox Notification that HB1752 is now Act 681
HB1824 Act 688 · 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.”
 TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. Duffield Notification that HB1824 is now Act 688
HB1875 Act 841 · 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … Tosh Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841
HB1057 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … R. Scott Richardson Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1178 Act 993 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … R. Scott Richardson Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993
HB1306 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
 CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … Furman WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
HB1504 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
 TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … S. Meeks Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1529 Act 827 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATIO…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … S. Meeks Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827
HB1648 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … S. Meeks Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1663 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
 TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … K. Brown Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1664 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
 TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … K. Brown Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1754 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
 TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … Gonzales Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1763 Act 682 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
 TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … Underwood Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682
HB1764 Act 831 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
 AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. Underwood Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831
HB1765 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … Underwood Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1780 Act 684 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936. HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. Gazaway Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684
HB1829 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
 TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … Dalby Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1832 Act 975 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM. HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COU…”
 TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE … M. Shepherd Notification that HB1832 is now Act 975
HB1861 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR S…”
 TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE … Duffield Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1871 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
 TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … Gazaway Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1877 Act 977 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE. Page 2 of 4 HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
 CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … S. Meeks Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977
HB1885 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD. HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
 CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … Barnett Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
SB277 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … J. Bryant Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
SB314 Act 661 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … Irvin Notification that SB314 is now Act 661
SB342 Act 749 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE. SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. A. Clark Notification that SB342 is now Act 749
SB364 Act 750 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. Hester Notification that SB364 is now Act 750
SB375 Act 662 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION. SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
 TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … Stone Notification that SB375 is now Act 662
SB435 Act 753 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … Irvin Notification that SB435 is now Act 753
SB446 Act 668 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY. SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM…”
 TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE … Gilmore Notification that SB446 is now Act 668
SB457 Act 1001 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT. SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … G. Leding Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001
HB1033 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ER PLACE OF WORSHIP. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
 TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … McCullough Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1136 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … Achor Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1141 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
 TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … R. Scott Richardson Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1430 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
 TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. K. Moore Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1431 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
 TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … K. Moore Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1433 Act 828 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
 TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … K. Moore Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828
HB1473 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. Pilkington Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1481 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. Page 3 of 4 HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
 TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … Long Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1535 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
 TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … Duffield Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1553 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
 TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. Ray Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1655 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
 TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … Long Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1668 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
 TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL … Bentley WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
HB1676 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … Womack Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1678 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
 TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … Long Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1823 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR. HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
 TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … Duffield Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
SB302 Act 659 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. Gilmore Notification that SB302 is now Act 659
SB313 Act 733 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
 CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … Irvin Notification that SB313 is now Act 733
SB321 · 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. J. Bryant Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.

Official video page ↗

Transcript

Transcript available SliQ live captions ✓ Whisper ✓ Download .txt
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
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 0:00
Welcome to order. Chair sees a quorum. Members we have a full day. Here's the plan for judiciary so anybody that's here will understand what's going on. We have a number of members on judiciary that also serve on house rules. Rules is meeting today, so that means we will be out of here, this committee meeting, no later than 11:45 so that the five or six members on this committee can get to House Rules. With that being said, we will come in this afternoon 15 minutes upon adjournment if we're not through, and I'm anticipating we may not get through everything this morning, because you know we like to give people plenty of time, but we don't get through. We're coming back in at 15 minutes after adjournment to finish up what we have today. For those who are watching, those who are in the audience, the committee all knows this. They have a list of what I'm planning on us hearing today. Basically it's all House bills, so if If you're here for a Senate bill, don't anticipate that's going to be heard today. We're hearing only House bills today, House bills on Thursday. The only Senate bills we will take up will be if members of this committee are sponsors of a Senate bill and we have time to get to them, we'll slide those in. For example, I know Representative Beatty is a House sponsor on a Senate bill, and if we get to it, we'll slide him in. That's the only way we'll hear any Senate bills today. Everything else that we will hear on Thursday will be what's left of our House bills. Those will be heard on Thursday, what's left of our House bills. So if you're interested in a particular House bill that's not run today, you can anticipate that's going to be run on Thursday. Now, hang on just a second. I need to look at a list. One of our committee members also reminded me that There's joint military affairs, whatever that new committee is, it's meeting upon our adjournment, 15 minutes on adjournment, so that may affect some people who can't get in here. All right, on, I'm not seeing, Representative Lindstrom, on House Bill 1615, you and I talked earlier this morning, looks like you have quite a few people who have signed up against your bill. You can hang out here. We get to it. We'll take it up at the end of this meeting, or we'll take it up 15 minutes upon adjournment, and you'll be the first one. I'd anticipated we would have taken you up first, but with that many people signed up, I need to move on, and you and I have had that discussion. You're good with that, Representative? Okay, thank you for that. So people who are here for 16-15, it'll either run at the end this morning or it'll run 15 minutes upon adjournment this afternoon. So that's where that one's going to be. Representative Vaught, you're here. Let's get started. You're welcome to come to the end of the table, members. Representative Vaught has two bills, House Bill 1148 and House Bill 1865. I'm assuming she'll be running House Bill 1148 first. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Back up. Representative Carr, I see you back in the corner. Members, let's go to our concur and Senate Amendment, House Bill 1474. I apologize, Representative Vought. Representative Carr, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to run the concurrence.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John P. Carr Unverified 4:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. Joey Carr, District 34. Just a couple of changes there in the bill that has already been through this committee in the House. We added restrooms at the suggestion of placing the hotline posters from Representative Lundstrom, and with that she has to be added as a sponsor. And also we added Senator Letting. Senator Letting was also added as a sponsor. In addition to the restrooms, we also reinstated private clubs before that headline had been stricken out, and so we are now reinstating what was there before. That's the only changes.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 5:05
Members, you've heard an explanation of the Senate amendments. questions on those? Seeing no questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the the amendments. Representative, you're recognized, closed for your amendments. With that, I would request a motion and a good
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John P. Carr Unverified 5:21
vote and thank you. Thank you for your time, Madam Chair. All right, members, we have two
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 5:30
amendments on that. I need a motion for amendment number one to concur. I have a motion to concur an amendment number one. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Members, we have an amendment number two. What's the will of the committee? We have a motion to concur an amendment number two. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of concurring an amendment number two. Please say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have concurred and we have concurred. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. All right. Now then, And Representative Vaught, members, let's turn to House Bill 1148. Representative Vaught, if
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 6:16
you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present your bill. Representative Vaught, District 87. The first bill is House Bill 1148. This bill was not a great bill whenever it was first filed, But it got everybody to the table and discussing drones and personal property rights. And so I want to thank everybody because the highway department helped me, the Game and Fish helped me, state police, sheriffs, everybody came together to help to make this a much better bill. When I first started with this bill, going down the rabbit hole, I figured out that there's a lot of gray where a drone could be used, could use the drone, whether they had to tell somebody they were on their land using the drone. And I'll give you some examples of why I thought this bill was needed in the state of Arkansas. Just two weekends ago our neighbors were actually working their cattle, you know, working the sick cattle to make them better and they had a drone flying over their head the entire time. They had no idea who that drone was or what pictures they were capturing or what they were were doing with those pictures. This bill would say that somebody has to go ask for permission to go over somebody's private property. The other thing is when I read about the pedophile that was using a drone in the state of Arkansas to watch the girls in a different yard from his because they can fly those drones for a ways. I wanted to protect our children from what could be happening
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 7:50
with those pictures and so it's an agreed-upon bill and I mean I can go through some of the aspects if you need me to. It's been out there for a long time though. I figure most everybody knows about the bill by now. Members, any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 8:06
questions? Seeing no questions from the committee we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Vaught, you're recognized. Closed for your bill. I'm closed and I would appreciate a good vote. Members, Representative Vaught has closed for a bill. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed House Bill 1148. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 8:36
Chair. Can I invite someone from the AG's office to come with me to do the next bill? Certainly. Again, I'm Dan Vaught, District 87. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 8:49
Vaught, your bill number is 1865. Yes, ma'am. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1865. Representative Vaught, you're recognized to identify yourself and have your witness to identify himself. By Dan Vaught, District 87. Good morning, Committee and Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 9:05
Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant AG with the Arkansas AG's Office. As always, Justin,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 25 9:10
welcome back. Thank you very much. Representative Vaught, you're recognized.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 9:16
I first want to thank the AG's office for helping me with this, and several members of this committee that I trust with the language also helped me with this bill. So I'm going to let him talk all your talk, and I'm going to tell you why this bill is so important, and I'll try to do it without getting too emotional. I had a girl in my district who was viciously raped by her stepdad. And when they went to do the sentencing, he only got 15 years. He's an Army sniper, so now she's worried about her life for whenever he gets out. 15 years for some girl who went through something so horrific is not very much time. Then I had, within a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 29 10:04
month, I had two kids that were literally beat to death by the fists of their stepdads.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 10:20
One endured 30 minutes worth of beating. The other one was beat to death and then laid at a doctor's front door. Our penalties were not strong enough. in the state they could get ten to forty years for that crime. We have to do something to make it stronger so people maybe will not put our children through something so horrific and that's why this
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 10:58
bill came about and I'll let him speak to uh the language thank you representative so
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 11:07
uh the attorney general's office supports this bill uh we've done a lot
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 11:12
in the area of trying to protect the most vulnerable among us and that's our children and our youth and we support enhancing the penalties for those who are in as this bill lays out positions of trust or authority over a child who abuse that position of trust or authority we think that's one of the most heinous things that a person can do And so we completely support putting enhanced penalties here and putting the weight of the judiciary and of our criminal justice system behind punishing these sorts of offenses. The term position of trust or authority is also, that is a term that is used throughout the criminal code and has been, there's a lot of case law about what that term specifically means. So with that, obviously happy to take any questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 12:01
Members, are there any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 12:08
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative Vaught, thank you. I know your heart, and this is obviously getting at a serious issue, and it needs to be dealt with seriously. I just want to point out that these minimums are mandatory minimums, Um, 30 years for a class Y felony, which is currently 10 to 40, 17 years for a class A felony, which is currently 6 to 30. Um, in these, currently under these severe, in these severe cases, court has discretion. I mean, they can go high because of exactly these circumstances that you're looking to more severely punish. But there may be, in some of these cases, countervailing circumstances where a court maybe wants to balance that out. Maybe there are other circumstances where a court may need that discretion. This would take the court's discretion away. And, you know, I guess my question is, you know, we've done these mandatory minimums in various places in the country, did them in the 90s. They clogged up our prisons. We've recently extended prison sentences in the PROTECT Act, and we're trying to build a billion-dollar-plus prison now. And I just want to make sure you feel like this is the right way to go about it, to take the discretion away from the court and put it in statute where the court cannot deviate down below these minimums, these very high minimums. Go ahead. I'll let you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 13:43
go. A class Y is some of the most heinous crimes, and I believe that they should serve a longer sentence for those, and I do think it should be mandatory. I don't think somebody should get by with 10 years, 20 years, for such a heinous crime, and I did that intentionally. because I want it to be so stiff that somebody thinks before they take another child in their hand and beat them to death.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:25
I hope they do. Thank you. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Vaught,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 14:39
you're recognized. Close for your bill. I want to thank you all. I want to thank everybody that helped me get this bill where it is today. and I would appreciate a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:49
good vote. Members, Representative Vaught is closed for our bill. What's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representative Perry. Representative Perry, are you ready? Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1815, House Bill 1815. Members, I have to run down to the Senate, so I'm going to ask my vice chair to handle the next few bills. So if you'll turn to House Bill
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mark Perry Unverified 15:41
1815, Representative Perry, you'll be recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1815 is brought to me to help solve an issue on two federal property in the juvenile justice jurisdiction. So what this bill will do, it extends the state's jurisdiction over juvenile justice to places of exclusive federal jurisdiction. It also required the Legislative Council to approve extensions of concurrent jurisdiction when the General Assembly is not in session. And thirdly, it requires reciprocal agreements between the United States Department of Defense and the state, the county, or municipal government to be filed with the county clerk where the reciprocal agreement was made and to be compiled by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office has reviewed this. You know, Jacksonville is home to Little Rock Air Force Base. You have other Camp Robinson. You have others in the state. this allows them to enter into an agreement for juvenile justice cases so it doesn't have to be a federal issue. So I'll try to answer any questions. If not, I have experts in the room. Thank you. Are there any questions
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 16:55
from the committee? Seeing no questions, we do have one individual signed up to speak for the bill, Don Berry. Okay. He's my expert. Okay, perfect. Are you prepared to close for a bill? I am closed. I'd appreciate it if the motion do pass. Committee, what's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion do pass on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Duffield, are you prepared to run House Bill 1824? You may sit at
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 17:33
the table and you're recognized to identify yourself and present your bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Duffield Unverified 17:39
Representative Matt Duffield District 53, Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd appreciate it if Representative Brown could help with the presentation. Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Chair, members of this committee, the color orange is used to represent animal cruelty awareness, and ironically, with the day being April 1st, April marks the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Month, a nationwide observance dedicated to raising awareness about the mistreatment of animals and finding ways to combat animal cruelty. Regrettably, animal cruelty remains pervasive and manifests in various forms. Furthermore, it frequently serves as a precursor to other violent offenses, including domestic abuse, elder abuse, child abuse, and homicide. This legislation brought before you today will save dogs and cats from unfortunate situations and save lives. This bill amends the animal cruelty sub-chapter to give law enforcement the ability to temporarily secure a dog or cat if the dog or cat is being neglected. Under current law, technically an animal can only be secured by the law enforcement if the owner is being arrested or a warrant to secure the animal has been obtained. This bill would allow law enforcement to temporarily secure a dog or cat in emergency circumstances while preserving the owner's due process rights. Committee, I think this is a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 56 19:33
good bill. The issue that we came across in looking at the animal cruelty subchapter is it is written, I think, from the standpoint that it assumes that the only time you would ever seize an animal is either A, if you catch an animal out loose like a dog without a collar on running around town or B, a situation in which you've arrested the owner for some other criminal violation and then you have to seize the dog or cat as a part of that and put them into the pound. There's a loophole in the current code, even though I know this is what animal control officers do every day, but the way the code is written, I don't think there's actually any authority under the code for an officer to be able to seize an animal. If, for example, it's a non-arrest type situation, like maybe they're doing a welfare check on an elderly person that maybe has a little bit of dementia and they come into a situation where she's a cat hoarder and these cats are near death, they actually don't have a mechanism to be able to save those cats in the instant, except for going through the process, going to court, getting a warrant to seize the animals in order to be able to take them. And unfortunately, if this is something that's happening at 11 o'clock on a Saturday night, those animals can die before we can actually go through the process to get them. So Representative Duffield's bill essentially just gives officers the ability to, and I think the key word is temporarily, seize an animal to save it. And the other provisions of the animal cruelty subchapter then kick in in terms of the owner's rights to be able to, they have to be notified, here are your rights to come get the animal, this is the process to get it back, things of that nature. And we'd be glad to answer any questions. Are there any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 20:54
questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, we have nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill. Are you prepared to close your bill, Representative DeField? Yes, sir. I'm closed and would appreciate a due pass. What's the wishes of the committee? Motion to do pass. We have a motion to do pass on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I don't see Representative Maddox in the room. Oh, there you are. Should have looked that direction.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John Maddox Unverified 21:31
Are you prepared to run your bill? All right. You identify yourself, and you're recognized. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative John Maddox, District 86. So, members, this is really a very simple bill. It really just clarifies certain things. What it does is it makes certain that certain retirement accounts are exempt from execution from creditors. So right now our statute, it lists certain accounts, but then it also says or similar. So we're just making sure that your 401K, your HSA, things of that nature are not subject to execution by a creditor. We left the or similar plan as added layer of protection just to make certain, as a public policy, as you know, there are certain things we want you to be able to keep if you are sued and you lose a judgment. So that's all this bill does.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 22:31
I'd be glad to take any questions. Committee, I failed to say that we're on House Bill 1752, if anybody was curious. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions. It doesn't look like we have anybody signed up to speak against the bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John Maddox Unverified 22:52
Representative Maddox, are you prepared to close for your bill? Yes, sir. Again, this is really just clarifying that your retirement accounts, your constituents' retirement accounts are exempt from creditors. That's all it really does, so I'd appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 23:04
What's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion do pass from Representative Beatty. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Representative Tosh, are you prepared to run 1875? Okay. Representative Tosh, when you're ready, please identify yourself, and you're recognized to present
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 24:02
House Bill 1875. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Representative Dwight Tosh, District 38. And the bill that I'm running today has to do with the compliance-based removal bill concerning the interlock system. And let me just kind of walk you through this from, this is not a change in the law, but I want to explain this and then lead up to what changes we're making with this piece of legislation. Currently here in the state, if you're arrested for DWI, then the district court or the court that you appear before, the judge will have you attend like a two-week school, and that's all in the law now. That's part of it. And then after that, the person that was charged with DWI, he has the choice, he or she has the choice to either have their driver's license suspended for six months. But if they can also choose to have the interlock system installed on their vehicle, which will allow them to be able to drive, and most people choose the interlock system. All that is currently in the law. But I wanted to kind of give you a little backdrop as to where the change is and what we're making as it concerns the interlock system. So what this bill will do that an individual that chooses to have the interlock system installed in their vehicle, then for six months, the first four months of that, if they make any attempts to try to blow into that machine by exceeding the limit that the interlock is calibrated to by the health department, there's no violations for that for the first four months. But during their last 60 days or the last two months of their six-month suspension, if they attempt to blow into that interlock that's been installed in their vehicles and it exceeds the limit that's already in the law, which is 0.225, that's already current statute. We didn't change that. But if they exceed that, then that's going to be counted against them. You can call it a violation. whatever, but it will be counted against them. And if they do that within the last 60 days of that six-month suspension, then we will extend the time that they have to have the interlock system on their vehicle by a period of 60 days for that first violation. Now, if you're reading the bill, you know that I did not put any type of criminal charges in this. I really, I thought about that, but I decided, you know, they've already been before the courts. There's no need in getting them back into the system. What we're looking for with this bill, and hopefully all of us are looking for with this bill, is not to charge them with another charge, is but to get a behavioral change and help them to understand that drinking and driving is serious business. So we give them four months to adjust. We give them four months on the front end of that six-month suspension to make a wise and reasonable decision. But the last 60 days, if they are still attempting to start that vehicle over the calibrated limit, then that tells me they really are not ready to have that interlock system removed from their vehicle in return to be out on our highways, causing a risk to the other motorists on the road. And that's basically what this bill does. And, you know, as far as statistic-wise, there's already 35 states that this bill that we're running today, already 35 states have enacted this into laws in their state. And they're saying that it's showing like a 70% recidivism rate in their state, that it is really actually having a positive impact in deterring individuals from drinking and driving. So here in Arkansas, last year we had 602 people killed on our highways, and 25% of those were alcohol-related. So we're trying to do everything we can to address this problem. We're trying to do it in a way that we're not putting additional charges on the individuals, but we're trying to do it in a way with this bill that will bring about behavioral changes. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Representative Tosh. Are there any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 29:07
questions from the committee? Seeing no questions. Would you have one individual sign up to speak for the bill? Is it Therese Ballew? If you would sit at the table, identify yourself for the record, and then you're recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Therese Ballew Unverified 29:34
to make your remarks. Thank you. My name is Therese Ballew. I have worked for many years on the issue of impaired driving prevention as Executive Director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Heartland Region of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I am on the Board of Directors for the Heartland Region as a volunteer now. I also chair the Arkansas Impaired Driving Prevention Task Force that's required for the state to have by NHTSA and is housed in the State Police Highway Safety Office. We know, I remember sitting right here by Eddie Hawkins when we passed this ignition interlock bill many sessions ago. We know that interlock devices help to prevent impaired driving. And what we're seeing around the nation is that when people, as Representative Toshu, as you all know, a former state trooper, And one of those highway heroes who have picked up the bodies and the lives and those who are wounded and maimed by impaired drivers for many years and understands firsthand the heartbreak that comes when someone else chooses to drink and drive, that these are very effective. But also the compliance-based laws are helping with behavior change. The task force works really hard in implementing all of the evidence-based strategies that are available to us, that are affordable and make a difference, and we want to support the implementation of this bill. We know that these interlock laws with the compliance-based factor are supported by every major traffic safety organization, and many studies show that not only do they save lives, they reduce recidivism, and that that encourages behavior change, which is what we want, so that people don't end up back in the system. We began advocating with MAD for ignition interlock laws in 2006. At that time, New Mexico was the only state with all offender laws, and a lot of progress has been made. I know that time is short here, and I do want to just remind you of this. Every day, 36 people die across the country. That doesn't count those who are injured because someone got behind the wheel after consuming alcohol irresponsibly. We can and must get that number to zero. You know, our cars are getting smarter, and there's a point in time there's someone who's gotten a lot of media attention lately who produces a vehicle that doesn't even require a driver. So there will be a time. But until then, we need all of these tools that we can apply. The compliance-based ignition interlock is a powerful tool that we need to have, and we all need it. You know, you would be surprised at how many people you meet on the street every day when you drive who are under the influence. Adding compliance-based sanctions, as outlined in this bill, elevates what is already a very effective strategy to an even more very effective strategy. I would appreciate your support of this, and thank you for your past support of MAD and the issues related to preventing impaired driving. Y'all, it's a nonpartisan issue that I believe we all can agree on. It's important to keep our streets safe and to have every tool at our disposal on hand for Arkansas drivers. And I'll answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your comments. Are you open to questions if
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 33:30
there are any in the committee? I am. Committee, do you have any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you for your remarks and you're excused. I would like to add one thing.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Therese Ballew Unverified 33:41
Last time, years ago, when I testified about this, the only question I had was whether I had seen the movie 40-Year-Old Virgin, and I had not because there's a funny scene in there about ignition interlocks. I've still not seen it, and maybe I should get around to looking at that one day. I don't know, but we do support ignition interlocks, so thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Britt. We
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 34:04
don't have anybody else that signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Tosh, my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is you may have an amendment or you need to amend the bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 34:21
Is that right? That is correct. And I thought the amendment was going to be here. That's my fault, Mr. Chair. I realized once I got to the end of the table and started presenting the bill that the amendment had not arrived here. All the amendment does, so the committee will know, we left out the effective date that this would go into law, which would be July of next year, to give them plenty of time, the Office of Driver Service and the Health Department. So I really need that amendment, and if it's all right with you, Mr. Chair, we presented the bill. I'd just like to pull it down when the amendment gets here, just run the amendment and then close with the bill. Sure,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 35:03
so without objection from the committee, we'll allow you to pull the bill down and then bring it back when you have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 35:10
the amendment ready. Okay, thank you. I'm
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 35:12
sorry, committee. Thank you, Representative Tosh. Okay, Representative Gassaway, are you prepared to run House Bill 1780? You do not want to run House Bill 1871, is that right? Right. Okay.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 35:29
Okay. Members, we have an amendment to House Bill 1780. That'll be passed out now. I'll give you a moment to review that.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 35:58
Representative Gassaway, be prepared to present your amendment. I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gassaway, District 31. Members, this amendment was one that was requested by Mr. Rosen-Swag. It makes a good bill even better, and so I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 36:38
would move adoption of the amendment. Committee, we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You've passed your amendment. You now are recognized to present
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 36:54
your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, what this bill does is it simply provides a mechanism for the sheriff to release information or release evidence that's in their possession that's seized during the course of a criminal investigation. It really just provides statutory authority in many ways for what's already occurring. So very simply, the bill says that concerning items in the possession of the sheriff's office pursuant to a criminal investigation or court case if an item is in the possession of a county sheriff pursuant to a felony criminal investigation, it should be retained until the applicable statute of limitation for the most serious possible crime to which it could be connected has lapsed. Well, that can be a long time that the sheriff is holding on to items that were seized during the course of investigation, and I personally have seen this many times over the years. Investigation may be closed. It may be still open, but there are things that were seized that are not really in dispute. I've seen people, you know, a gun may be seized, and somebody wants their gun back. It's not going to be used in the prosecution. It's not necessary for the defense. There's no real reason for the sheriff to continue to hang on to it. But there's a question about can the sheriff let it go. And what we've done in the past is sheriff and other law enforcement agencies through the prosecutor would just run over. We'd get a court order signed and ordering the sheriff to return the property, and we'd return the property. Well, there's not actually any statutory authority for that. So that's what this bill does is it says, unless the item is, one, released by an order of the court, which really just empowers the courts to do what they're already doing, maybe without statutory authority, Or released by the prosecuting attorney because, one, there will be no prosecution pursuant to the felony criminal investigation, or two, and this was Mr. Rosen-Swag's, or two, I'm sorry, the item is not needed for a prosecution pursuant to the felony criminal investigation, and then Mr. Rosen-Swag's amendment also would not be needed by the defense. So, that's all the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions from the committee?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 39:15
Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against this bill. Representative Casaway, are you prepared to close for your bill? I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion to do pass. As amended. As amended, thank you. We have a motion to do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 39:45
Members, Chairman Dalby is still running her bill on another committee, so I've got three bills. I'm going to go ahead and ask
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 39:57
Representative Shepard if he would chair the committee while I present those bills, and I'll be down there in a moment.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 40:15
I've been away for eight years. All right, members, without objection, we're going to move to House Bill 1763. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 40:34
Chair. Kendon Underwood, State Representative, District 16. If you wouldn't mind, I have a witness for all three of these bills, if I could bring them
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 40:44
up here. Sure. And, members, there's a fiscal, or sorry, I guess it's the sentencing impact is being handed out. We're going to go ahead and hand them out on all three bills at this time. Chair, you did
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 40:56
say House Bill 1763, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Welcome back here. I'm sorry. Thank you. So close, so close.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 41:40
Representative Underwood. Maybe I need to stay away longer. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 41:49
Underwood, you're recognized to identify yourself and present your bill. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 41:56
Chair. Ken Underwood, State Representative of District 16. So House Bill 1763, Arkansas already criminalizes the use of a communication device to facilitate the sale of narcotics. In Arkansas, we recognize that substance abuse harms addicts, destroys families, leads to other criminal activity, and is degrading to society. And so similarly, what this bill does is it dissuades human trafficking by criminalizing the use of a communication device to facilitate the sale of human beings. This just gives an additional tool to combat black market sale of human lives. And we borrow that same logic that I discussed a moment ago regarding narcotics and controlled substances. I have Prosecutor Joshua Robinson here if he has additional remarks, and he can also help answer some questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 42:50
Thank you, committee members and Madam Chair. My name is Joshua Robinson, Chief Deputy Prosecutor in Benton County. This one's pretty simple to me. I've tried human trafficking to a jury, prosecuted, investigated these cases, have done a lot of training to law enforcement on these. These crimes are really difficult to prosecute because the victims, although maybe counterintuitive, are not always thankful to be sort of rescued from this life, not cooperative. We have difficulty sometimes gaining their cooperation to testify and things like that. We've been fortunate that now we have a lot of digital evidence on phones and computers that allow us to proceed with an investigation. And this crime would give us a little bit more leeway to start to intervene even if maybe we can't prosecute fully the human trafficking because a victim
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 95 43:50
doesn't cooperate on their own volition or has sort of disappeared from that prosecution.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 43:58
Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions? Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 44:08
Gasway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we already have a law similar to this in the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 99 44:15
Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Is that correct? That's correct, Representative. It's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 44:18
564-404, I believe, using a communication device to facilitate a felony, basically a drug deal, and so we charge that in those instances. And so you're just looking to bring that law and apply it to the human trafficking situation.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 44:32
Is that right? Yes. If we're going to criminalize the use of a communication device to sell drugs, why not for the sale of people? Yeah, very good. All right,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 44:43
that's all. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 44:54
Committee. I am closed, and I make a motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 44:59
to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1763. While you're there, let's move to 1764. Thank you, committee. We have an amendment, I believe, on 1764. Yes. Let's get that amendment passed out, and then we'll take it up. Yeah, I do think. Representative Underwood, would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 45:53
you explain your amendment? Sure. So, thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment really is changing most of what we're changing to the bill. talking with Representative Gassaway over spring break I've decided that we probably need to tweak this language just a little bit more to map more closely match the intent of what the bill is which I can explain further when we get to that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 46:13
part and I'd make a motion to adopt amendment. Members we have a motion to adopt. Any questions? Seeing the questions all in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. We have adopted the amendment. You are now
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 46:25
recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you Madam Chair. This bill addresses an apparent gap in Arkansas law that fails to account for previous violations of an order of protection that occurred outside of the state of Arkansas. So in section 553.134 it states in part that a violation of an order of protection under this section is a class D felony. The language under this section used in that in that code section seems to limit the previous conviction that has occurred and adjudicated in Arkansas. It seems that the intent of the law is to provide more serious punishment and accountability for repeat offenders. Unfortunately, the current statute appears to give a pass to those who may have committed offenders in other states or other jurisdictions. And so what we're trying to do here is align that and if you've committed, if you've been a repeat offender in other jurisdictions, those can also be used here in Arkansas. And if Mr. Robertson has any additional
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 47:23
comments, I'd like to turn it over to him. Thank you, committee, Madam Chair. We've seen in Benton County, and I'm sure we're not unique at all, where women are sort of fleeing domestic violence and have come into our county or our state running from somebody, their offender follows them down and violates orders of protection. And we've seen it where there's been multiple arrests and sometimes convictions out of other states, but we were afraid that we were limited in being able to enhance that to a felony despite the fact that it was repeat, but because most of it had happened in Missouri or Oklahoma. It's a very technical reading, but I'm just concerned that the effect of it would limit us. Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing no
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 48:05
questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for your bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 48:14
I'm closing my bill, and I'd make a motion to do pass
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 48:18
as amended. Members, we have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed House Bill 1764. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1765. Representative Underwood,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 48:39
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. House Bill 1765 deals with domestic battering in the third degree, which generally classifies causing physical injury to a family or household member as a Class A misdemeanor. It may be enhanced to a Class D felony under certain circumstances. From a public policy perspective, the legislature has determined that individuals who victimize certain classes of people should be subject to greater punishment, particularly if a crime may be enhanced from a misdemeanor to a felony for acute repeat offenders. Under current law, to be eligible for a repeat offender enhancement, the defendant must have been previously convicted of a predicate crime of domestic violence. It is not uncommon for a defendant to have committed many acts of domestic violence before a victim reports it to the police. And oftentimes, victims suffer several incidents of abuse before they ever ask for help. Many times, by the time a case makes it to a prosecuting attorney, the case involves repeat violent offenders. So what this bill does is it allows for the classification enhancement. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is a violent repeat offender. This change would allow an abuser to face charges and punishment that more appropriately reflect the crimes that they actually committed. Since it's common that victims delay their reporting, even after multiple incidents of violence, prosecutors frequently have situations where sufficient proof exists that the defendant committed many prior acts, but they must be treated as first-time offenders. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Robertson if he has any additional comments. Thank you, Committee
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 50:22
and Madam Chair. And I understand this one's maybe a bit controversial, but I wanted to explain kind of what I'm seeing through a couple of case examples. Over the last couple of years, I've had one case where a woman went in to the Bentonville Police Department to report a harassment with an ex-boyfriend and said that she had the harassing text messages on her phone. And the detective said, can I have your phone? Can I do a phone extraction and get the evidence of the harassment? He did. When he was going through the phone extraction, he noticed a folder in her phone that contained a bunch of photographs and videos of her in different stages of bruising. And he asked about it, and she said, well, he's been beating me for years, and I've kept it. And she had photographs of herself beaten and bruised. She had recordings of phone conversations with the defendant where he admitted to beating her and telling her why he had to beat her because she ran her mouth too much and things like that. When she came in to report the harassment, most, if not all, of those prior batteries were past the statute of limitations because they were all misdemeanors, right? A grown man can punch his girlfriend or his wife in the face and give her a black eye, and that's a misdemeanor. There's a one-year statute of limitations on that. And so we had really good evidence of many, many, many beatings, right, that had they been reported within one year of happening and had he been convicted, which given the evidence would have been likely, then the most recent one would have been a Class D felony, which still zero to six years punishment, right? Um, and so it's really, really common that we don't have women report these things when it happens. It takes a period of time. And for this woman, it got to the point that she couldn't live her life anymore. Um, there was a, one other case I'll tell you about. It was a, a young woman. She was maybe 20 years old, came in with her parents, good family locally, and she had married her middle school and high school sweetheart. The family loved him. The families were friends and they had always been good a couple of months into their marriage he started uh he started pushing her then he started punching her and then he started choking her and she didn't report it she didn't know what was happening this all happened within a two two to three month period of time finally got reported when her mother was receiving the medical bills because she was still on mom's insurance she was that young and newly married and the mom started seeing all of these insurance or medical bills for concussions and abrasions. And the excuses given to the hospital were, right, I fell down the stairs, I fell into the door, things like that. And it came out that he had been beating her multiple times a week for three or four months. We went ahead and charged him, but instead of having felony convictions, we had misdemeanors. And it didn't seem like the misdemeanor reflected really what this woman had been living through. And so the idea is that instead of requiring a prior conviction to establish somebody as a repeat violent offender, the state would be able to prove that within their case, within their case in chief, beyond a reasonable doubt, the same burden of proof that we would with any other charge. And I will say these things are not uncommon. They don't happen all the time. We don't often
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 106 54:09
have good evidence and good proof of prior violence without a conviction. But I'm happy to answer
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 54:17
any questions. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 54:19
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And you anticipated my question. It was about the statutes of limitations. Obviously, those exist in Arkansas Code for a reason. We as a legislature have made those statute of limitations what they are. By my reading, this increases the statute of limitations for any of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 54:36
these crimes from one year to indefinitely. Is that correct? Well, not exactly, ma'am. What it would do is it would allow them
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 54:43
to be counted for enhancing the current offense that is within the statute of limitations, but we would not be able to charge those as independent crimes. Does that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 54:52
make sense? It does make sense, but you would still be going back, I guess the reason I know, I don't mean to get too philosophical, but the reason that statutes of limitations exist is that evidence is lost and witnesses, you know, all of these things fade as time goes on. People's recollections fade. It's harder and harder to prove something. This does still require proving the commission of a prior act. And so I think those same concerns that underlie statutes of limitations apply here. I really like the idea of this. Protecting survivors of domestic violence, it means a lot, and it means a lot to me. I just am really, really worried that this opens the flood. And I know that prosecutors would use their discretion wisely, but we are in law really opening the floodgates to any action that was taken at any time prior to another claim. And I guess why isn't there some limit? Why isn't there some cap
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 55:53
in this bill? Well, first of all, I would say don't ever trust that prosecutors
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 55:58
will use their discretion wisely. I can say that as a prosecutor. So I think the distinction is that if a person had been convicted of a domestic battery four and a half years prior to being arrested for a subsequent domestic battery. That four and a half years prior is beyond the statute of limitations, but we're not recharging that crime. We're simply allowed to take that conviction, show it to a jury, and say this person needs to be treated a little bit differently because he's beat women before, right, or he's committed violent acts before. And so all it does is allow for evidence of prior crimes to come in only to speak to punishment to the current crime. We would never be able to go back and recharge those. And frankly, under Rule 4, let's say that this bill doesn't pass and a victim has evidence of prior beatings in a similar fashion from 30 years ago, 10 years ago, under Rule 404B, we potentially could put all of that evidence in to show pattern of conduct, lack of mistake, motive, opportunity. So I hear your concern, and I think a big philosophical concern about the statute of limitations is that a person shouldn't have to live under the cloud of an accusation forever, right? There should be some resolution.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 57:28
And so I think your point's well taken. I just think it's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 57:33
maybe a subtle distinction. One more follow-up. Certainly. So just to follow up on what you just said about Rule 4-4-B, and pardon me, this is not exactly an area I'm super familiar with, but if you can bring
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 57:45
that evidence in currently, then why do we need this? Because this would allow us
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 57:52
to – we've already decided that if a person has been convicted of an act of domestic violence within five years of another one, they should be subject to a higher classification of crime. The current law says, yeah, right? And so all this does is say, yeah, you can hear that evidence, but it has an effect on the punishment of the current charge. Because if, let's say, we went to trial on an A misdemeanor domestic battery, we put in 404B evidence of four prior instances, that current charged battery is still going to be punishable as a misdemeanor. No matter how many priors we put on evidence of with 404B, it would never change. All this does is basically say instead of having to have a conviction, you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a prior commission. You know, it's really common for me to look at somebody's rap sheet and see five to ten arrests for domestic assault, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. you pull the police reports and it says victim recanted, victim wouldn't cooperate, victim wouldn't return phone calls because that's a common pattern. And then sometimes they come around.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 59:09
One more follow-up, please. One more. Thank you. Okay, and so I understand, I guess, my concern remains that that's a big change, changing it from a conviction to just being able to prove the commission of any prior act. A conviction was made with evidence within that statute of limitations, right? evidence that was preserved and that we have decided as a legislature that is a time frame within which that evidence we feel confident to use for a conviction. By changing it to just commission, it does seem to be open indefinitely. So I guess just my final question is, why isn't there any time limitation on this so that we can be sure that cloud of a potential accusation doesn't hang over people's head literally forever? Well, I think a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 59:52
couple of points. One, I guess quickly, the time limitation would be the one that's provided for in
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 59:58
the statute already. It would be within the previous five years, right? So it already says if convicted of a domestic violence act within the last five years, then the current one is upgraded to a felony. So that would be the built-in look back, I guess, if that makes sense. And then second of all, changing it from conviction to commission is not unprecedented in the law. We already do that in a couple of areas. One, for a crime called continuing criminal enterprise, basically our organized crime statute. You have to prove that two or more people are acting in concert to commit felony offense, and you have to prove two predicate felony offenses in the past they've committed as a group. And the case law says the legislature knows the difference between conviction and commission, and to prove that charge engaging continuing criminal enterprise, we don't have to have prior convictions for the underlying predicate felonies. We can just prove them. And then also in a death penalty case, proving prior violent crimes as an aggravating factor in seeking death, you can prove those without having a prior conviction. Just, you know, it's not unprecedented. Representative Gassaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:01:10
Madam Chair. And I guess let
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:01:14
me begin by saying I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I certainly understand your motive and intent, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that. However, I do think there are some issues. One, I agree with everything that Representative Clowney said in terms of her objections. I think all of those are well-founded and legitimate objections and issues that I see with this bill. But in addition to that, one of the biggest issues I see is under subsection C. If the person has not been convicted of a prior act, the state may establish classification enhancement by proving commission of a prior act listed in subdivision B2B of this section beyond a reasonable doubt during its case in chief. And so what that, the situation that puts you in is basically having two trials in one, where you're trying, in the middle of trying someone on the offense for which they're currently charged, you're trying a case which you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt about something that happened a long time ago. And as Representative Clowney said, could have been 10, 15, 20 years ago. Who knows how, there's no limitation as to how long that event would have occurred, and you're trying to try that and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt simultaneously to trying them on the case that they're currently tried for. And as you've noted, Rule 404B generally prohibits the introduction of prior bad acts. I mean, that's the crux of the rule, is it's generally prohibited. It's generally seen as too prejudicial. And I know why you would want to put it in statute, because it routinely is not allowed as evidence because it's so prejudicial. Because the jury's not only going to be trying to determine if they're guilty of the conduct for which they're charged, now they're going to be trying to determine whether or not they committed this thing that happened a long time ago. And they'll be prejudiced in the decision that they're making on the current offense for which the person is charged. So while I understand there are exceptions to the rule of evidence on prior bad acts, motive, intent, opportunity, plan, common scheme. I've tried them all, and I've routinely had them not allowed because it's too prejudicial. And I've tried habit. I've tried every argument known to man, and, again, routinely those are denied. And so I guess my question would be, Do you not see the problem with having two trials in one where you're bringing up conduct that happened a long time ago and how prejudicial that could be to the defendant in trying to determine the guilt or innocence in the case for which they're charged?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 99 1:04:14
Representative Gassaway, thank you. All good points as well as Representative Clowney. And I understand the difficulty with
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 1:04:20
this bill, something that I sort of thought about a lot. And I do see the problem with having trials within trials, which is why I don't think it would happen all that often, because you wouldn't want to do it that often except when it's really important. I do think the look-back period, I think, would be limited to the five years, you know, that is in the domestic battery third statute already. But your point is well taken. And I don't know if we're too far down the path, but, you know, you could potentially allow that to come in at sentencing. Right now, the way the statute is structured, the state, if the defendant is convicted of domestic battery third, then at sentencing, the state would put on proof of a prior conviction. And then you're sort of past that prejudice. So I suppose you could do it that way. But Representative Gasway, you make really good points. I do recognize the difficulties and the problems, and I think you appreciate what I'm seeing. And I think my goal simply is just to kind of tell everybody, here's what I see, and I trust the committee sort of to, you know,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:05:30
follow through with that. So I don't know if that makes sense. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:05:49
In looking at this and listening to Representative Gazeway and Representative Clowney's points, it occurs to me, and I am not a prosecutor and I don't practice criminal law at all, however, the verbiage in this new Section C just says has not been convicted of a prior act listed under the Section B2B. So that ostensibly could mean they were acquitted. They weren't convicted. They were acquitted of a prior act, and now we can bring this evidence back in? are we not running into some double jeopardy issues? Because it doesn't say that, I mean, it just
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 118 1:06:25
says not convicted. No, I think that's true. And I think that's, I mean, it's a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:06:31
very good point. I don't think it's a double jeopardy issue because their liberty wouldn't be at stake for that particular crime again.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 1:06:37
You know, but it's, I mean, it's a good point. I suppose you could, you know, say if a person is acquitted, they're carved out. We've also, I've seen cases where a person was acquitted in one state and then new evidence is discovered in another state and we
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:06:56
prosecuted them in Arkansas and they were convicted. But, yeah, I mean, it's a good point. I don't
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:07:01
know if I'm answering your question. Follow-up. You're right, Ness. Yeah, and I understand your point about, you know, you're saying that their liberty is not at stake, but isn't it because we're talking about a classification enhancement? So we're literally using this prior act, which they may have been acquitted by, to put their liberty at stake, right? I mean, their prior act for which they were acquitted could be used as a basis for enhancing their sentence.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:07:26
I think you're right, Representative, and this is something that honestly hadn't occurred to me until now. It's just kind of a silly oversight, but I think that's an
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:07:35
issue for sure. Members, any other questions? Representative Wood, do you have something
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:07:40
you want to add? Yeah, I appreciate the questions. I think that's part of the reason why I wanted to have this bill as the last bill. I think that it's an important issue. I think Representative Caswell and Representative Clowney also kind of mentioned that, too. It's an important issue that we want to address. We don't support domestic abuse in any way, and we want to make sure that these repeat offenders have this evidence presented. But I think what I would like to do, if it's okay with the committee, I think there's a couple of things I'd like to address and maybe tweak the language or kind of talk to some members. I wanted to present this while he was here. If the committee is okay with it, I'd like to go ahead and pull the bill down and then maybe bring that back at
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:08:22
a later date. Members, without objection, we'll allow the representative to pull this bill down. Representative Underwood, you did have an individual signed up to speak against. I suggest you might want to visit with Mr. Rosenzweig also in this regard, and we'll just bypass your comments today. We'll allow you to pull that bill down. Thank you. Appreciate you coming all the way to testify for the committee today. Thank you so
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:08:44
much for having me. Thank you, committee. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:08:47
you for your time. Members, let's go quickly back to Representative Tosh. Representative Tosh had previously presented his bill. The testimony had been heard and then realized that there was an amendment on the bill, so the amendment is being passed around. And once that gets to everybody, Representative Tosh, if you'll present your amendment, We'll take it all back and get it in the right procedural manner. Thank you. All right, Representative Tosh, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. I apologize.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:09:34
I should have had this on the front end earlier. All this amendment does is we didn't have an effective date for this law. If we pass it to go into effect, that will be July 1 of 2026, and that's what the amendment does. And with that, I would make a motion. Well, I would take any questions. Any questions on
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:09:54
the amendment? Seeing no questions, you're recognized to close for your amendment. Close with the amendment, and a motion do pass. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed the amendment. Now then, I understand we have already been through all of the bill, so now you're recognized to quickly present your bill as amended. Yes,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:10:18
ma'am. Madam Chair, thank you. Committee members, thank you. We've already made the presentation on the bill. I'm closed with the bill, and I would make a motion to do pass as amended. Members, we have a motion to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:10:30
do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:10:41
passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:10:44
you, committee members. Members, we're turning now to House Bill 1829. I'd ask Representative Shepard to come and move the meeting. Chairman Dalby, you recognize, present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the permission of the chair, I would ask Judge Karen Watley to join me at
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 113 1:11:33
the table. Y'all be nice to the judge. welcome back judge thank you good to be
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:11:39
back I think members this is house bill 1829 house bill 1829 members this is a bill that's coming to us from the administrative office of the courts also it's part of the specialty court program advisory committee is where this bill came from. This bill is really a cleanup bill, a technical cleanup bill. There are several different sections. I'll quickly go through them because there have been some questions as to if it was substantive in nature or whatever, but it's not. It's technical. Section one of the bill, all that bill is, all that is doing is moving a previously adopted domestic violence definition up to the front of this bill. That was adopted last session or a couple of sessions ago by Representative Gassaway. So we're just moving that over into the front part. It's a technical cleanup. Section 2 and Section 3, Section 2 clarifies that these types of actions have to be filed in circuit court. There was a district court reference there, but these cases are filed and tried in circuit court. So that's all that's doing. It's also then requiring that a pamphlet is going to be prepared by the Arkansas Child Abuse, Rape, Domestic Violence Commission, which is a state commission, that the clerk will hand out to all the parties in this regard. Section 5 is setting out in statute, which can already be done by the court, but it's setting out what the court does. Basically, the most important thing is this is giving notice to both parties of what possibly could be granted at a hearing on a domestic violence case. It's giving everybody notice. This is not what's happening in an ex parte. This is actually what's happening at the hearing. Then you move on to Section 6. Section 6 is codifying in law that the court would have the opportunity to handle some of this by Zoom. Everybody would still have the opportunity to confront witnesses. can do that now, but this is just clarifying that, that they can do it by statute. And once again, it doesn't say that they have to. It's certainly just a may situation. It's up to the court to determine whether or not the tenor and tone of the room is such that possibly people could be harmed or there would be violence in separating the parties in these high intents. But it's a may, and it's not a shall. And I'll remind you, under the Supreme Court rules, Rule 88, the Supreme Court's already promulgated rules to allow this type of testimony they had. Section 7 is just saying that these types of petitions are to be served in a timely manner and timely fashion. Then on the order of protection, if there's a violation, now remember this would be after the order is entered. This is not, you know, ex parte. This is after the hearing, an order is entered, and if there's a violation of that, there'll be an expedited hearing. And quite frankly, that really helps both sides, because if there are allegations, maybe they're unfounded, let's get those parties in front of the court very quickly to get those resolved. So this is going to help both parties. And then also, the very last section of this is, a lot of times in these cases, parties or a person may be ordered to attend a domestic violence intervention program. All this is saying is if you are running a domestic violence intervention program, you've got to follow some standards. It's not any type of additional cost or anything like that, but it's just a matter of holding those to a standard so that we're not sending or the courts aren't sending folks to a situation that they're not getting any benefit out of. So that's what this is doing. Basically, the key points, I think, of this bill is that it's going to provide notice to all parties to make sure everybody understands both sides, understand what's going on. It's going to provide for a safer environment within the courtroom. It's going to make it efficient for the administration of justice and it's not adding anything additional to be done to the respondent. There's not anything draconian in this. It's kind of helping level the playing field. This is coming from the judges who have these types of cases all the time in their court. They're wanting to try to run them as efficiently, as safely as possible, give everybody notice and keep everybody on level playing field. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions and I'll turn it to my expert to answer your questions. Any questions
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 1:16:33
from the committee? Seeing none. Judge Whatley, do you have any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:16:41
statement to make? Always happy to be here. She says that with
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 1:16:50
great enthusiasm. You'll notice that. All right. We do have one individual signed up to speak against the bill, Brian Vandiver. Mr. Vandiver, if you'll come to the end of the table and take a seat. Introduce yourself, and then you're recognized to speak against the bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Brian Vandiver Unverified 1:17:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brian Vandiver. I'm an attorney. I've been practicing 25 years in Arkansas. I also represent Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. We are opposed to this bill as written for a number of reasons. With all due respect, we do not think this is a technical correction. We think this is a substantive change, a policy change, and that it completely changes the definition of abuse in the code by including course and control language into that definition of abuse. We've had this discussion previously in this committee. The problems with that language of course and control in discussing other bills and how that is a Pandora's box of various fact scenarios that potentially could create what someone might call abuse. So we are opposed to that change in the definition. We are also opposed to the new remedies that it creates. Again, we do not think these are technical corrections. We think these are substantive changes. For example, some of the examples I would cite would be on page 11, line 16, limiting the respondent's ability to change utility services, provide insurance policies, affecting property rights, requiring temporary possessions of automobiles, and things of that nature. That's not in the code currently. And so these are specific substantive changes, not technical corrections. In addition, it specifically creates what's called a domestic abuse intervention program that's not been created before in the code. And there was reference to some, you know, uniform standards. Well, what are those standards? I would submit to you that one of those standards is for these programs to last at least 26 weeks or longer for someone to attend some type of program that's created with regard to these respondents. And so the fact that we're not exactly sure what the standards are, but we're going to allow these other entities to create those standards, I think, are problematic. For all those reasons, we are very much opposed to this bill. We think it needs more work, and we would ask that it be taken down so we could help facilitate that work. Thank you. Are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:20:14
there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, thank you for your time and your remarks. Thank you. Oh, was
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:20:25
there a question for somebody? Okay. Representative Gassaway, you're recognized. On this section about appearing outside the physical presence of the other party, I've heard that that's already allowed, and I've seen it, but the instances where I've seen it involving a child have been when both parties consent to allow the child to be examined outside their presence. And so I wondered if there is actually some change there, and then allowing testimony by a party who is the subject of the proceeding taken outside the physical presence of the other party. I do see it says it does not limit the party's right to cross-examine, but does that envision a scenario where a person, a party, and I'm not talking about a child witness at this point, and this is for anyone at the end of the table, that a party would testify outside the presence of the other party because the problem with that is that while it may say that it doesn't interfere with the other party's ability to cross-examine, If I can't be there to hear the other party testify, then I can't aid my counsel in effectively cross-examining them based on what they've said. So I just want to make sure that that doesn't mean that the party can't hear or listen to the other party testify. I understand, Representative Gasway, and that is not what this is saying. It's just saying that this could happen via Zoom. Both parties would be able to hear and see exactly what is being said. this is allowed now under Rule 88, and so we do this on a routine basis in any types of cases, not just these types of cases. But no, the parties, the respondent and the petitioner would both be present. It may be by Zoom, but it may not be in the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:22:25
same room. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, thank you for your remarks. Thank you. I don't believe we have anybody else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Dalby, are you prepared to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:22:41
close for your bill? I am, and members, I want to remind you this is not a new definition. This is a definition that's already in the law. We're just moving it from one section to another, so it's not a new definition. The comment regarding utilities and all of that, that is what the court's going to say. This is something that could be put in here. It's not a requirement. It's may. It's giving them notice of what could be in that order. And in regard to the domestic violence programs, there are already standards that are set up. It's just that so we don't have some fly-by-night operation trying to get money off of respondents or people who are ordered to go to that. And with all of that being said, I am closed for my bill and make a motion to do pass. We
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:23:29
have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:23:43
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Thank you, Judge. Representative Gasway, you are passing over 1871, okay. Members, we have about 15 minutes and we're going to start House Bill 1615. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized, I know that will only give you about 15 minutes at the most, 10 to 15 minutes, but we're going to at least get started on your bill. And so with that if you'll identify yourself for the record, you're recognized to begin presenting House Bill 1615. Thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:24:49
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you colleagues. I also have two guests with me today that I would like to introduce. First of all is Stephanie Taub. She serves as a Senior Counselor First Liberty Institute, focuses on religious liberty. She has also authored a number of pieces in the National Review and Federal Society. She also has clerked for the Honorable Reed O'Connor for the U.S. District, Northern and North District of Texas. She has graduated from Harvard and is a Blackstone Fellow. I also have with me is Stephanie Nichols. She has served as legal Counsel for the Arkansas Justice Institute, Division of Family Counsel. And prior to her position, she traveled throughout the country on legislative issues, defending rights. And she is also a graduate of the University of Arkansas, where she was a member of the Law Review and received the Jebby Day Arnold Award for coming in second in her class. So I have some folks that can answer the legal questions, and I will start with the bill. Hang on, we have an amendment to your bill?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:25:53
Yes, ma'am, you do. We've got to pass that out and then we'll... Thank you. All right, the amendment's been passed out. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to present your amendment.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:26:33
The amendment just clarifies that state government shall license or certify. It's part of the bill, and I appreciate Representative Shepard for calling our attention to it. Members, you've heard an explanation of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:26:46
the amendment. What's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to adopt. Any discussion on the motion to adopt? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. You are now
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:27:02
recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Chairman Dalby. This bill applies to religious discrimination by government. The law is designed to restrict government's ability to burden anyone's religious freedom. There are four specific parts of this bill. It helps protect religious organizations, places of worship, religious schools, and religious ministries from government discrimination. It protects religious freedom from persons seeking a license or certification. It protects religious organizations and individuals such as the wedding cake or the wedding venue, the cake maker, or people who are asked to solemnize a marriage that they do not agree with. But it protects from government putting their finger on the scale. And with that, I'll open it up to these two ladies for just very brief remarks. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:27:51
Madam Chair, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be with you here today. One of the questions that we hear about this bill is we already have a RFRA. Why is this bill needed? And the thing that I would like to call your attention to is RFRA is just a general standard of review. It does not say exactly what your rights are. And we have some gaps and deficiencies in Arkansas law where we don't have clearly articulated rights. And this bill solves that problem. But I would like to say I showed up to testify for RFRA back in 2015. And we were told in that committee hearing, do not pass this bill. The sky will fall. If you pass this bill, the state will be subject to expensive lawsuits and terrible things will happen. And we have a decade of history now that shows that that is not the case, that shows that protecting religious freedom is a good thing for our state. And really the reason that I do the type of work that I do is I am a mother of seven children. And I want our state to be a beacon of freedom where religious freedom is protected and where differing views on marriage are protected. Some of our Supreme Court justices have noted that good and decent people hold different views on marriage and good citizens of Arkansas can hold different views on marriage. Do we want state government to persecute those who don't hold our particular view on marriage? Should someone be hauled into court for 12 years like Jack Phillips in Colorado because while he serves all people, he could not in good conscience participate directly in a ceremony he didn't believe in. I don't believe that that is the state we want to have for generations to come in Arkansas, and that is why we are here today. Good
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified 1:29:58
morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this House bill. This bill is designed to prevent the state from participating in religious discrimination and protecting citizens of this state against experiencing religious discrimination at the hands of the government. I am a senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nationwide non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty for all Americans. In the past few years, my firm has had several victories at the United States Supreme Court. We successfully represented Coach Kennedy against the Bremerton School District in a landmark case that protected the free speech and free exercise rights of government employees. We successfully represented the American Legion against the American Humanist Association to defend a nearly 100-year-old World War I memorial. We successfully represented a mail carrier seeking to observe the Sabbath against the United States Postal Service, protecting the rights of employees to religious accommodations at work. At First Liberty, we represent people and religious groups from a wide variety of religious beliefs and backgrounds, Muslim, Jewish, Falun Gong, Native Americans, Christians, to name a few. We work to defend the principle that religious liberty is foundational to our society, and Americans should have the freedom to live and work without being compelled by the state to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. There is a reason religious liberty is the first liberty guaranteed to us by the Federal Bill of Rights. and each state should also endeavor to respect the religious beliefs of its citizens. I've been honored to work on religious liberty cases with First Liberty for nearly 10 years, where my primary focus is defending religious liberty in the marketplace. The Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, a research group affiliated with my law firm, each year evaluates and ranks the states on how supportive their laws are for religious freedom. Last year, Arkansas ranked fourth, with a score of 66% on the 39 metrics scored. The Religious Liberty in the States Index identified a few specific places where Arkansas law is not as protective of religious liberty as some other states. So this bill includes protections that address some of these deficiencies, as well as other provisions that would strengthen protections for religious liberty in the state. So in essence, it includes several safeguards to prevent the state from engaging in religious discrimination. I think the representative has already testified as to a summary of the bill, but it's well established that states may legislate against religious discrimination as well as other forms of discrimination. By contrast, allowing the state to discriminate against individuals or organizations based on their religious beliefs about marriage may violate the federal constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court has concluded that state governments may not compel people to speak in ways that violates their convictions about marriage. So each of these provisions in the bill forbids the state from compelling people to speak or act in ways that violate their deeply held beliefs. So a law like this helps to ensure that people of faith do not face this sort of discrimination or are forced into the difficult decision between their faith and their work. So I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for seeking to prevent discrimination against countless individuals in Arkansas because of their beliefs. Thank you for the opportunity and I welcome questions. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:33:30
Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:33:32
you, Madam Chair, and I think we can all agree that religious discrimination is bad and we should do what we can to protect it. I have a just kind of a mechanical question first, Representative Lundstrom or anybody who can answer it. So I'm looking at page 5, line 16. And it says, A person employed or acting on behalf of the state government who has authority to authorize or license marriages, dot, dot, dot, dot, may seek recusal from authorizing or licensing lawful marriages based upon or in a manner consistent with a belief about biological sex or marriage. Can you walk me through what that recusal process looks like? In other words, I see that there's a written requirement, but who makes the decision about whether that recusable will be granted? What's the time frame on it? That kind of thing. Thank you, and I think that's a good question.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:34:24
First of all, it doesn't allow someone just to walk up and say, no, I'm not going to participate. It has to be done ahead of time, and someone has to be able to replace that person. If there's not that, then the person
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:34:39
provides that marriage license. Follow-up. Certainly. Thank you, because that was actually my concern. Can you show me where it requires that there be a replacement, an alternative offered? That was my concern, and I would just feel better if I could see in the law where that was insured.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:34:56
If I could address that question, lines 25 through 27 say, access to a constitutional right shall not be unduly burdened by a governmental entity due to a recusal request made by a person. So it's a recusal request. It is not a recusal guarantee. You can't be discriminated against because you ask for recusal. However, under Obergefell, the governmental entity does not have an excuse not to grant you a license or perform a marriage. Instead, that governmental entity should, under good public policy, work within itself, but there's that constitutional backstop that however the governmental entity works within themselves, this bill doesn't micromanage that. Your recusal is not guaranteed. It's just a request, and there is that constitutional backstop about access to the constitutional right. Follow-up? Certainly. That's just, it's, I see it, I mean,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:35:57
I see the language, and I wondered if that would be your answer. I think that that's pretty vague language if what you're trying to say is a replacement must be given. Access to a constitutional right shall not be unduly burdened by a governmental entity due to a recusal request. I can see, for instance, somebody saying, well, saying that we won't in this county issue you a marriage license, but three counties over they will, I can see a court potentially saying, that's not an undue burden. Why is there not language that clearly says there must be a replacement? And let me just express why that's my concern. While I think it's great to make sure that the government is not discriminating against people based on religious beliefs, my concern is that what we're actually doing with this law is empowering the government to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. Because you're giving a government employee, a state employee, the right in law. We are codifying their right to say, no, we do not want to perform this marriage. And we don't, at least as I'm reading this, have a clear replacement if that person says no. And so my concern is why is that person, that person's choosing to do a job, which is issuing marriage licenses. Why is protecting that right to choose that job that they could choose not to do if they have an issue with who they're going to be issuing licenses to, Why is that more important than the Arkansans' constitutional right to be married? Because I'm not sure that we're guaranteeing it in this
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:37:38
bill. If I could address that follow-up question. First of all, this language, this specific language on the constitutional backstop was reviewed and approved by the Arkansas Attorney General's Office. It's somewhat nonspecific, and that's because you could have lots of different things. You could have registrations of deeds. You could have marriage licenses. You could have death certificates. That's things that were reviewed in other states. And so, you know, it's not specific just to marriage licenses. It's specific to any constitutional rights. But I would go back again to what the bill is actually about is government discrimination against employees. So the employee doesn't definitely receive a recusal. They can only ask for a recusal. Nothing in the bill states that they are definitely given that recusal. What the bill states is that they can't be discriminated against because they requested recusal. And we have that constitutional backstop that tracks with the language that was approved by the Arkansas AG's office.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified 1:38:44
May I add an additional point? this is similar to what we see in federal employment discrimination the right for religious employees to receive reasonable religious accommodations and federal law doesn't say exactly how every workplace has to go about accommodating the religious beliefs but leaves that open with the similar language saying if there is an undue hardship on the employer then that accommodation can be denied so this is so this undue burden is very similar to that and this is saying, so providing room for the state to both respect the religious beliefs of the particular employees, while also balancing with the right to the constitutional rights that citizens have. All
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 19 1:39:29
right, members, we're going to stop right
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:39:32
here and go into recess. I'm sure they'll give everybody plenty of time to think of more questions. We will reconvene 15 minutes after session ends today to take up the rest of this bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Unknown speaker 1:39:46
With that, we are in recess.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error

Agenda

CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT

HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING HOTLINE.

4:19
▶ Play chapter

REGULAR AGENDA

HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.

HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.

1:24:46
▶ Play chapter

HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.

HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.

HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.

HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

6:18
▶ Play chapter

HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT.

22:01
▶ Play chapter

HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.

HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.

40:43
▶ Play chapter

HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.

45:21
▶ Play chapter

HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.

48:41
▶ Play chapter

SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.

SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.

HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.

40:35
▶ Play chapter

HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE.

15:31
▶ Play chapter

SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.

HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.

17:41
▶ Play chapter

HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.

1:11:45
▶ Play chapter

HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND A RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.

SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.

HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE THE INTERACTIVE GAMING ACT AND TO INCLUDE NAME, IMAGE, OR LIKENESS DRAWING GAMES AND CASINO GAMING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.

SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.

9:38
▶ Play chapter

HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.

35:40
▶ Play chapter

HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.

23:47
▶ Play chapter

HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD.

HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.

SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.

SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.

HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT BOMB SQUAD TO MAKE ARRESTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL.

HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.

HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.

HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.

Speakers

Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified
80 segments
Representative John P. Carr Unverified
3 segments
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified
24 segments
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified
8 segments
Chair Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 25
1 segment
Speaker 29
1 segment
Speaker 26
2 segments
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified
4 segments
Representative Mark Perry Unverified
3 segments
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified
46 segments
Speaker 51
5 segments
Representative Matt Duffield Unverified
4 segments
Speaker 56
3 segments
Representative John Maddox Unverified
3 segments
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified
22 segments
Therese Ballew Unverified
9 segments
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified
21 segments
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified
5 segments
Speaker 93
19 segments
Speaker 95
1 segment
Speaker 99
2 segments
Speaker 101
3 segments
Speaker 106
1 segment
Speaker 111
16 segments
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified
3 segments
Speaker 118
1 segment
Speaker 113
1 segment
Brian Vandiver Unverified
6 segments
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified
10 segments
Speaker 153
10 segments
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified
10 segments
Speaker 19
1 segment