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
SliQ live captions
Model
SliQ live ASR
Processing date
October 2, 2026
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 0:12
Chair sees a quorum. Members, we have a For 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. House rules is meeting today, so that means we will be out of here this committee meeting, no later than 11:45. So that the 5 or 6 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, um. For those who are watching, those who are in the audience, uh, the committee all knows this. They have a list of what I'm planning on a hearing today. Basically it's all house bills, so 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, um, 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. Uh, military affairs, whatever that new committee is, it's meeting upon our adjournment 15 minutes on an adjournment, so that may affect some people who can't get in here. All right, on, um, I'm not seeing a 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? OK, thank you for that. So people who are here for 1615, 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. Um Representative, you're here. Let's get started. You're welcome to come to the end of the table, members representative has two bills, House Bill 1148 and House Bill 1865. I'm assuming she'll be running housebuil 1148 1st. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Back up representing car, I see you back in the corner. Remember, let's go to our concurrence senate amendment, House Bill 1474. I apologize, Representative. State car, if you'll identify
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John P. Carr Unverified 4:29
yourself, you're recognized to run the concurrence. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joey Carr, District 34, uh, just a couple of changes there in the bill that has already been through this committee in the House. We added Uh, restrooms at the suggestion of placing those at the hotline posters from Representative Lundstrom, and with that she has to be added to a as a sponsor and also we added Senator Leadding. Senator Letting was also added as a sponsor in 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 5:10
members, you've heard an explanation of the Senate amendments, any questions on those, seeing the questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the, the amendments, Representative, you recognized clothes for your amendments with that, I would request a motion
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John P. Carr Unverified 5:26
and a good Vote in thank you, thank you for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 5:30
your time, Madam Chair. All right, members, we have 2 amendments on that. I need a motion for Amendment number one to concur. I have a motion to concur in amendment number 1. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it members, we have amendment number 2. It's the will of the committee. We have a motion to concur in amendment number 2. Is there any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of concurring an amendment number 2, please say aye. My habit, congratulations, you've concurred and we have concurred. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right, now then, representative for. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1148. Representing vote, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 6:21
to present your bill. Representative, District 87. Uh, the first bill is, um, House Bill 1148, um, This bill was not a great bill whenever it was first filed, um, but it got everybody to the table and discussing, uh, drones and, uh, personal property rights, um, and so I want to thank everybody because the highway department helped me, the gaming fish helped me, state police, sheriffs, everybody came together, uh, to help to make this a much better, uh, bill, um. When I first started with this bill, uh going down the rabbit hole. I figured out that there's a lot of gray, uh, drone could be used, who could use the drone, um, whether they had to tell somebody they were on their land using the drone, um, and I'll give you some examples of, of why um I thought this bill was needed in the state of Arkansas just two weekends ago, our neighbors were actually working their cattle, um, 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 doing with those pictures. Uh, this bill would I say that somebody has to go ask for permission to go over somebody's private property. The other thing is, um, when I read about the pedophile that was, um, using a drone in the state of Arkansas to watch the girls, um, in a different yard from his, um, because they can fly those drones for a ways, um, I wanted to protect our children from what could be
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 7:55
happening with those pictures. And so, um, 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 8:11
bill by now. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions from the committee, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative, you recognized clothes for your bill. I'm closed and I would appreciate a good vote. Members vote has closed for a bill. We have a motion to pass 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 1148. Thank you committee. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 8:41
Madam Chair. Can I invite my the uh someone from the AG's office to come with me to do the next bill. Certainly.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 8:54
Again, I'm damnbo District 87. Rep your bill number as 1865. Yes, ma'am. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1865, representing, you're recognized to identify yourself and have your witness identify himself. I damn bought District 87.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 9:10
Good morning, committee, and Madam Chair, Justin Brasher, senior assistant AG with the Arkansas's office. It's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 25 9:15
always, Justin, welcome back. Representative, you're recognized, um. I first want to thank the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 9:22
AG's office for helping me with this and several members of this committee that I trust to. With the language also helped me with this bill and, and, um, so I'm gonna Let him talk all all your talk. And I'm gonna tell you why this bill is so important and, and I'll try to do it without getting too emotional. I had, um, a girl in my district. Who is viciously raped by her stepdad. And when they went to do the sentencing, he only got 15 years. He's an army snapper. 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 29 10:12
Within a month, I had 2 kids that were literally beat to death. By
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 10:25
the 5th. Of their stepdads. On endured 30 minutes' worth of beating. The other one was beat to death and then laid at a doctor's front door. Our, our penalties were not strong enough. In the state Um, they could get 10 to 40 years. For that crime, um, We have to do something to make it stronger, so people maybe will not. Um put our children through something so horrific. And that's why This bill
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 11:03
came about and I it I'll let him speak to, uh, the language. Thank you, Representative.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 11:15
So, uh, the Attorney General's office supports
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 11:17
this bill. We've done a lot 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 abuses 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 uh Putting enhanced penalties here and putting the weight uh of the judiciary and of our 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, uh, and has been, there's a lot of case law about what that term specifically means, so, uh, with that, obviously happy to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 12:06
for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Representative Vaugh, thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 12:17
I, I know you're, um, you know, your, your heart and, uh, this is obviously getting at a serious issue and it needs to be dealt with seriously, um, I just want to point out that these um these minimums are, these are mandatory minimums, um, 30 years for a classy 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 the court may need that discretion. This would take the court's discretion away. And um you know, I guess, 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 ProTE Act and we're trying to build a billion dollar plus prison now and I, 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 go. Um.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 13:52
A Class Y is some of the most heinous. crumbs. And I believe that they should Serve a longer sentence for those, and I do think it should be mandatory. I don't think um. I don't think somebody should get by. With 10 years, 20 years for such a heinous crime. And I did that intentionally. Um Because I want it to be so stiff that somebody thinks before they take another child in their hand and beat them to death. I hope they do. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:37
you. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Seek no further questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative, you recognized clothes for your bill. I I want
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified 14:44
to thank y'all. I want to thank everybody that helped me. Get this bill where it is today.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:53
And I would appreciate a good vote. Members representing is closed for her bill was 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. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representative Perry. Representing Perry, are you ready? Members, if you'll turn to um 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 1815 representative Perry, you'll be recognized. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mark Perry Unverified 15:46
Chair. House Bill 1815 is brought to me, uh, to help solve an issue on two Federal property in the juvenile justice jurisdiction. So what this bill will do, it, 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. Uh, the Attorney General's office has reviewed this, uh, 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.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 16:59
Uh, thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing a questions, we do have one individual signed up to speak for the bill, Don Barry. OK. He's my expert. OK, perfect. Um, are you prepared to call your bill? I am closed. I'd appreciate a motion to pass. Committee, what's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to pass on the floor. Any discussion on the motion, seeing none all favor please say aye. All opposed. I have it, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Duffield, are you prepared to run House Bill 1824. You may sit at the table and, um, You're to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 17:38
identify yourself and present your bill. Representative Matt Duffield, District
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Duffield Unverified 17:51
53. And Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd appreciate it if uh Representative Brown could help with the presentation. Yeah, absolutely. Great. 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 manifest 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 subchapter 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's being arrested or a temporarily secure a dog or cat in emergency circumstances while preserving the owner's due process rights.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 56 19:37
Committee, I think this is a 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 see an animal is either A, if you catch an animal out loose like a dog, you know, without a collar on running around town, or be a situation which you've arrested the owner for some other criminal violation, and you have to seize the dog or cat is a part of that and put them into the pound. Um, 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 could die before we can actually go through the process to get them. So Representative Duffield's bill essentially Just gives officers the ability to, I think the key word is temporarily see an animal to 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 questions
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 20:59
from the committee? Saying no questions we have nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill. Are you prepared to close your bill, Representfield? Yes sir, I'm closed in order to appreciate it do pass. What's the wishes of the committee? Motion to pass. We have a motion to pass on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all favor, please say aye. All opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Um, I don't see Representative in
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John Maddox Unverified 21:42
If you identify yourself and you're recognized. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative John Maddox, District 86. So members, this is a 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. Um, we left the or similar plan, um, 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 to keep if you are sued and you lose a judgment. So that's all this bill does. I'd be glad to take any questions. In
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 22:39
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. Doesn't look like we have anybody signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative Maddox,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative John Maddox Unverified 22:57
he prepared to close for your bill. Yes, sir. Um, again, this is really just clarifying that you're a retirement accounts, your constituents' retirement accounts are exempt from creditors. Um, that's all it really does. So I'd appreciate a good vote. What's the wishes of the committee?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 23:11
I have a motion to pass from Representative Beatty, um, any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on favor please say aye. I opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you committee. Representative Tosh, are you prepared to run 1875? OK. Tash, when you're ready, please about yourself and you'd be, you're recognized to present
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 24:07
House Bill 1875. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Representative Dwight Tosh District 38. And, uh, the bill that I'm running today has to do with the uh the compliance base removal removal bill concerning the interlocked system. And let me just kind of walk you through this from uh this is not a change in the law, but I want to explain this in the lead up to what changes we're making with this piece of legislation. Currently here in the state, if excuse me, if you're arrested for DWI. Uh, then the district court or the court that you appear before the judge will, he will have you attend like a two-week school, uh, 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, uh, have their driver's license suspended for 6 months. And, uh, but if they can also choose to have the interlocked system installed on their vehicle which will allow them to be able to drive, and most people choose the interlocked system. All that is currently in the law, but I wanted to kind of give you a little backdrop as to where, where the change is and what we're making in, and as it concerns the interlocked system. So, what this bill will do that an individual that chooses to have the interlocked system installed in their vehicle, then for the, for 6 months, the 1st 4 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, there is, um, there's no violations for that, for the 1st 4 months. But during the last 60 days or the last 2 months of their 6 months 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 point. To 25, that's already current statute. We didn't change that, but if they exceed that, and that's going to be counted against them. You can call it a violation. You, uh, whatever, but it will be counted against them. And if they do that within the last 60 days of that 6 month suspension. Then we will extend the time that they have to have the interlocked system on their vehicle by a period of 60 days for that first violation. Now, if, if you're reading the bill, you know that I did not put any type of uh criminal charges in this, uh, I, I really, I thought about that, but I decided, you know, they've already been before the courts, uh, there's no need in getting them back, getting them back. back into the system. What we're looking for with this bill and hopefully all of us are looking forward with this bill is not to charge him 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 4 months to adjust. We give them 4 months on the front end of that 6 months 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 interlocked system removed from their vehicle and return to be out on our highways, uh, Causing a risk to the other motorist on the road. And, uh, 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 30, 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, uh, here in Arkansas last year we had 602 people killed on our highways. And 25% of those. We 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, um, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Representative Tosh.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 29:12
Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing their questions. Would you have one individual to speak for the bill, and is it Therese? B. If you would sit at a table, identify yourself for the record, and then you're recognized to make your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Therese Ballew Unverified 29:39
remarks. Thank, thank you, um, my name is Teresa Ballou. 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 region, 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 Peer Driving Prevention Task Force that's required for the state to have, um, by NHTSA and um 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 interlocked devices help to prevent impaired driving and what we're seeing around the nation is that when people, as a representative Tasha, as you all know, a former state trooper and one of those um highway heroes who have picked up the The bodies and and the lives and those who are wounded and maimed by impaired drivers for many years and Understands, uh, firsthand the heartbreak that comes when someone else chooses to drink and drive, um, that, that these are very effective, but also the compliance based uh laws are helping with behavior change. The task force works really hard in implementing all of the evidence-based strategies that, um, are available to us that are affordable and 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's what 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 only was the only state with all offender laws and a lot of progress has been made. I don't, I know that time is short here and I do want to just remind you of this. Every day, uh, 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 0, 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, Until then we need all of these tools that we can apply. The compliance, compliance based ignition interlock is a powerful tool that we need to have, um, and we all need it, you know, you, um, 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, our streets safe. And to have every tool at our disposal. On
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 33:35
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 there are any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Therese Ballew Unverified 33:44
in the 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 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, um, and maybe I should get around to looking at that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 34:09
one day. I don't know, but we do support in Interlock, so thank you for your time. Thank you. Um, we don't have anybody else that's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Tos
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 34:26
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. Is that right? That is correct. And and uh 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 bill or the amendment had not arrived here. All the amendment does, so the committee will know it just we left out the effect. date that this, this would go into law, which would be July of next year to give them plenty of time. The office of drivers Service and the health department. So I, I really need that amendment and if, if it's all right
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 35:08
with you, Mr. Chair, uh, we presented the bill. I'd just like to pull it down when the amendment gets here, just run
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 35:15
the amendment and then close with the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 35:17
bill. Sure, so, uh, without objection from the committee, we'll allow you to pull the bill down. then bring it back when you have the amendment ready. OK, thank you, sorry. Thank you, Representatives. OK. Representative Gazaway, um, are you prepared to run House Bill 1780? You
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 35:34
just Uh, you do not want to run House Bill 1871. Is that right? OK. This one does have. OK. Members, we have an amendment to House Bill 1780 get away, that'll be passed out now and I'll give you a moment to review that.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 36:24
Representative Gasway you prepared to present your amendment? I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. Uh, members, this amendment was one that was requested by Mr. Rosensweig. It makes a good bill even better and so I would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 36:43
move adoption of the amendment. Committee, we have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion on that motion, saying no all unfavorably say I. I, I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your amendment. You're now prepared or you now are recognized to present your bill as
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 36:59
amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, what this bill does is it simply provides a mechanism for The sheriff to release information that's or release uh evidence that's in their possession that 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 a 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, uh, items that were seized during the course of investigation, and I personally have seen this many times over the years, um, investigation may be closed, it may be. Still open, but there are things that were seized that are not really in dispute. Uh, I've seen people, uh, 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 really real reason for the sheriff to continue to hang on to it. And so there, 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 were released by the prosecuting attorney because one, there will be no prosecution pursuant to the felony criminal investigation or two, and this was Mr. Rosensweig's, uh, or two, I'm sorry, the item is not needed for a prosecution pursuant to the felony criminal investigation and then Mr. Rosensweig's amendment, uh. Snot 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? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 39:20
up to speak for or against this bill. Representative Casaway, are you prepared to close for your bill? I'm closed for the bill to make the motion to pass as amended, as amended. Thank you. We have a motion to be passed as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, I have, please say aye. All opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 39:55
you. Members, um, Chairman Dalby is still running her bill on
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Unknown speaker 40:00
another committee, so I've got 3 bills. I'm going to go ahead and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 40:37
ask Representative Shepperd if he would chair the committee while I present those bills, and I'll be down in a moment. I've been away for 8 years. All right, members, with that objection, we're
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 40:49
going to move to House Bill 1763. Representative Underwood, you're recognized Thank you, Mr. 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 Kendon Underwood Unverified 41:01
up here. And members, there's fiscal Or sorry, it's uh I guess it's the sentencing impact.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Unknown speaker 41:08
is being handed out. We're going to go ahead and hand them out on all three bills at this time. Chair, you did say House Bill 1763. Is that correct? Yes, sir. OK, thank you. Welcome back here. 17.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 41:45
So close, so close. Represent Underwood. Maybe I need to stay
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Chair Unverified 41:54
away longer, uh, represented Underwood, you're recognized identify yourself and present your bill. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 42:01
Madam Chair. Ken Underwood, State Representative District 16. So House Bill 1763, um, Arkansas already has already criminalizes the use of a communication device to facilitate the sale of narcotics. Um, you know, in Arkansas we recognize that substance abuse harms addicts, destroys families, leads to other criminal activity, as degrading to society. 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. Uh, 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 a prosecutor Joshua Robinson here if he has additional remarks, and he can also help answer
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 92 42:54
some questions. You don't have to identify yourself. Oh,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 42:57
thank you committee members and Madam Chair. My name is Josh Robinson, Chief Deputy prosecutor in Benton County, um, this, this one's pretty simple to me. Uh, I've, I've tried human trafficking to jury prosecuted, investigated these these cases have done a lot of training, um, to law enforcement on these and these crimes are really difficult to prosecute because the victims, um, 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, um, 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 um would give us a little bit more leeway to start to intervene even if maybe we can't prosecute fully the human trafficking because um a victim doesn't qual operate on
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 95 43:55
their own volition or is sort of disappeared from that prosecution. Membership heard an explanation of the bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 44:03
Is there any questions? Representing Gaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 44:13
Chair. So we already have a law similar to this in the uniform Controlled Substances Act, is that correct? That's correct, Representative. Um, it's 564404, I believe, using a communication device to facilitate a felony, basically a, a drug deal and so we charge that and those instances and so you're just looking to bring that law and apply it to the human trafficking situation. Is that right? Yes, I, you know, if we're going
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 44:38
to, 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, that's all.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 44:48
members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Underwood. You recognized clothes for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 44:59
bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee. I am, uh, closed, and I make a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 45:04
motion to pass. Members, 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. And he opposed say no. Dis habit. Congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1763. While you're there, let's move to 1764. Thank you, and I believe on 1764. Let's get that amendment passed out and then we'll take it up. Yeah, I do think
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 45:56
Sandwood, you'd explain your amendment. Sure, so thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment really is changing most of what we're changing to the to the bill after talking with Representative Gasaway over spring break. I've decided that we probably need to tweak this language just a little bit more to more closely match the intent of what the bill is,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 46:18
which I can explain further when we get to that part, and I'd make a motion to adopt the amendment. Members will have a motion to adopt. Any questions,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 46:30
seeing the questions all in favor, please say aye. Any post say no, the eyes have it. We have adopted the amendment. You're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill addresses an apparent gap in current 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 553134, 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 within that has occurred and adjudicated in Arkansas. Um, it seems that the intent of the law is to provide more serious punishment and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 47:28
accountability for repeat offenders. Unfortunately, the current statute appears to give a pass to those who may have committed been offenders in somebody, uh, their offender follows them down and uh 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, uh, or Oklahoma. Um, it's a very technical reading, but I was just concerned that the effect of it would
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 48:10
limit us. Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Underwood, you're recognized to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 51 48:19
close for your bill. I'm close to my bill and I'd make a motion to do pass
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 48:23
a motion to do pass 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 eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1764. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1765,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 48:44
Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. House Bill 1765 um deals with domestic battery in the 3rd 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. Um, 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 a crime may be enhanced from a misdemeanor to a felony for acute repeat offenders. Uh, under current law to be eligible to for a 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 when a case by the time a case makes its 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. Um, 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, um, 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, Madam Chair,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 50:27
and I, I understand this one's maybe a bit controversial, but I wanted to explain, um, kind of what I'm seeing and through a couple of cases. examples, um, over the last couple of years, I've, I had one case where a woman went into the Bentonville Police Department to report harassment, um, 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, um, and get the evidence of the harassment he did when he was going through the phone extraction, he noticed a folder, um, in her phone that contained a bunch of Uh, photographs and videos of her in different stages of bruising, um, 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, um, she had recordings of, of phone conversations with the defendant where he admitted to beating her and telling her why he had to beat her, uh, because, um, she ran her mouth too much and things like that. And when she came in to report the harassment, um, Most, if not all of those prior batteries were passed the statute of limitations because they were all misdemeanors, right? Um, 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. 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, um, then the most. recent one would have been a class D felony, which still um 0 to 6 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 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, um, and she didn't report it, she didn't know what was happening, and this all happened within a 22 to 3 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 uh insurance or medical bills for concussions and abrasions and um the excuses given to the hospital were, you know, right, I fell down the stairs. I fell into the door, things like that, um, and it came out that he had been beating her multiple times a week for 3 or 4 months, um, we went ahead and, 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 um. Instead of requiring a prior conviction um to establish somebody as a repeat violent offender, the state would be able to prove that within their case, within their case in chief, uh, beyond a reasonable doubt, the same burden of proof that we would with any other charge, um, and I will say these things are not uncommon. They don't happen all the time. We don't often have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 106 54:15
good evidence and good proof of prior violence without a conviction, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Representing Clowner,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 54:22
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 54:24
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 these crimes from one year to indefinitely. Is that correct? Well, not exactly,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 54:44
man, the, what it would do is it would allow them to be counted.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 54:48
For enhancing the current offense, uh, that is within the statute of limitations, but we would not be able to charge those as independent crimes. Does that make sense? It does make
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 54:57
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. Um, I, I Really like The idea of this protecting survivors of domestic violence is a is a, it means a lot and it means a lot to me, um, I just am really, really worried that this opens the and I'm not, 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 in
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 55:58
this bill, well, first of all, I would say don't ever trust the prosecutors will use their
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 56:03
discretion wisely. I can say that as a prosecutor, um, so I, I think the distinction is, is that, um, you know, if a person had been convicted of a domestic battery, um, you know, 4.5 years prior to being arrested for a for a subsequent domestic battery, um, that 4.5 years prior. It 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, is allow for evidence of prior crimes to come in only to speak to punishment to the current crime. We we would never be able to go back and recharge those and frankly, under rule 4 for um You know, would 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, um, under Rule 404B, we potentially could put all of that evidence in to show pattern of conduct, lack of mistake, motive, opportunity. So, um, I hear your concern and I think a big philosophical Um, 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, um, and so I think your, your point is
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 57:33
well taken. I just think it's maybe a subtle distinction. One more follow
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 57:38
up, so just to follow up on what you just said about Rule 4 4B and pardon me, I'm not, this is not exactly an area. I'm super familiar with, but if you can bring that evidence in currently, then why
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 101 57:51
do we need this? Because this, this would allow us to um
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 57:57
We've we've already decided that if a person has been convicted of an act of domestic violence within 5 years of another one. They should be subject to a higher classification of crime. The, the current law says, yeah, right, and so all this does. Is um I 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 a on a 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 and 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. Uh, you know, it's really common for me to look at somebody's rap sheet and see 5 to 10 arrests for domestic assault, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and dismissed, 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, um, and then sometimes they, they come around. One more follow-up, please. One more. Thank you. um. OK,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 59:16
and so I, I understand, I guess I just my 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 59:57
a couple of points. One, I guess quickly, the, the time limitation would be the one that's provided for in the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 1:00:03
statute already. It would be within the last, the previous 5 years. Right? So it already says that if convicted of of uh domestic violence act within the last 5 years than the current one is. Upgraded to a felony. So, 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, um, 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 2 or more people are acting, acting in concert, um, to commit felony offense and you have to prove to 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 criminal 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, um, just, just, you know, it's not unprecedented. saying getaway, you recognized for a question. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:01:15
Madam Chair, and I guess let me
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:01:19
begin by saying I appreciate what you're trying to do here. Certainly understand. Your motive and intent. And Not necessarily opposed to that, however, I do think there are some issues one, I agree with everything that Representative Cloudy 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, kind of one of the biggest issues I see is under. Uh, subsection C. If the person has not been convicted of a prior act. The state may establish classification enhancement by approving 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 Cloud, he said, could have been. 1015, 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 is the, that's the crux of the rule is it's generally prohibited. is generally seen as too prejudicial, and I know why you would want to put it in statute because it routinely it's not allowed as evidence because it's so prejudicial. Uh, 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. And the decision that they're making on the current offense for which the person is charged, so. Well, while I understand there are exceptions to, uh, the, 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, those are denied. And so, I guess my question would be, do you not see the problem with, 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 and trying to determine the guilt or innocence in the case for which they're charged. Uh,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 99 1:04:18
Representative Gassway, thank you. All good points as well as Representative Clowney, um, and I understand the difficulty with this bill, uh, something
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 1:04:25
that, you know, that I sort of thought about a lot, um, and I do see the problem with having trials within trials and 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. Um, I do think the, the, the look back period I think would be limited to the 5 years, you know, that, that is. in the domestic battery 3rd statute already, um, but your point is well taken, and, and I don't know, um, 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 if the defendant is convicted of domestic battery 3rd, then at sentencing, the state would put on proof of a prior conviction, um, and then you're sort of past that prejudice. Um, so I suppose yeah you could do it that way, but Representative Galwe, you make really good points. Uh, 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, um, and I, and I trust.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:05:37
The committee sort of to, you know, follow through with that, so If that makes sense. Hudson,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:05:54
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And looking at this and listening to Representative Gasway and Representative Clowney's points. It occurs to me, and, and I, I am not a prosecutor and I don't practice criminal law at all. However, the, 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 says not convicted. That, no, I think, I think
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 118 1:06:30
that's true, um. And I think that's, it's, I mean, it's a very good point. I don't think it's a double
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:06:39
jeopardy issue because they wouldn't, their liberty wouldn't be at stake for that particular crime
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 111 1:06:42
again, um. 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, um, we've also I have seen cases where a person was acquitted in one state and the new evidence is discovered in another state and we prosecuted them in Arkansas and they were convicted, um, but yeah, it's I mean
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:07:01
it's a good point. I don't know if I'm answering your question. Follow up. You're right. Yeah, and, and, and I understand your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:07:10
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, uh, act, which they may have been acquitted by, um, to, 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. I, I think you're right, Representative, and it's something
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 93 1:07:31
that honestly hadn't occurred to me until now. It's just kind of a silly oversight, but I think that's an issue for sure.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:07:41
Members, any other questions? Representative Wood, do you have something you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:07:45
want to add? Yeah, um, I appreciate the question, the questions. I think that's part of the reason 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 Gassway, 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, um, Or have this evidence presented, but, um, I I think what I'd like to do, if it's OK 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 want to present this while he was here. If the committee's OK with that, I'd like to go ahead and pull the bill down
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:08:27
and then maybe bring that back at a later date. Members without objection will allow the representative pull this bill down, Representing Underwood, you did have an individual signed up to speak against. I suggest you might want to visit with Mr. Rosensweig also in this 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 before the committee today.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:08:49
Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:08:52
you for your time, members, let's go quickly back to Representative Tosh. Representing Tas 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 The amendments 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. All right, Representative Tosh, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, I apologize. I should
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:09:39
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 and 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 the amendment,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:09:59
seeing no questions, you're recognized to close for your amendment. Close with the amendment and a motion to pass. We have a motion to adopt the amendment, any discussion, all in favor, please say aye. I 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:10:23
your bill as amended. Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, thank you committee members. Thank you. Uh, we've already made a presentation on the bill. I'm closed with the bill, and I would make a motion to pass as amended. Members, we
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:10:36
have a motion to pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:10:46
passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:10:49
committee members. Members were turning now to House Bill 1829, I'd ask Representative Shepherd to come and take the. To move the meeting. Chairman Dalby recognize to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the permission of the chair, I would ask Judge Karen Watley to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 113 1:11:38
join me at 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 1:11:44
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, um, it's part of the special court program advisory committee is where this bill came from, um, 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, um, if it was substantive in nature or whatever, but it's not, it's technical. Section 1 of the bill, all that bill is, all that is doing is moving. A previously uh adopted domestic violence definition up to the front of this bill that was adopted a couple of um last session or a couple of sessions ago by Representative Gasaway. So we're just moving that over into the front part. It's a technical cleanup. Uh, Section 2 and Section 3, Section 2, clarifies that that these types of actions have to be filed in circuit court. There was a district court reference there, but these cases are, 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, uh. 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, um, of what possibly could be granted at a hearing on a 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 um handle some of this by Zoom. Everybody would still have the opportunity to confront witnesses, courts 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, to determine whether or not Uh, the tenor and tone of the room is such that possibly people could be harmed or there would be violence and in separating the parties in these high intents, but it's a May and it's not a show, and I'll remind you under the Supreme Court rules, Rule 88, Supreme Court's already promulgated rules to allow this type of testimony that he had. Section 7 is just saying that these types of petitions are to be served in a timely manner and timely fashion. Then on, uh, The order of protection, there's, 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 and orders 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 on a lot of times in these cases, parties are a person may be ordered to attend a domestic violence. Intervention program, all this is saying is if, if you're, if you are running a domestic violence intervention program. You've got to follow some standards, uh, 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, uh, folks to, um, a situation that they're not getting any benefit out of, so that's what this is doing. Basically with the key points, I think. This bill is that it's going to provide notice to all parties to make sure everybody understands both 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, uh, for the administration of justice and it's not adding anything additional, uh, 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. safely as possible, give everybody notice and keep everybody on a 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.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 1:16:37
Any questions from the committee? See no. Judge Watley, do you have any statement to make? Always happy
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:16:52
to be here. And she says that with great enthusiasm, you'll notice that.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 1:16:55
All right, we do have, uh, 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. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Brian Vandiver Unverified 1:17:19
you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brian Vandiver. An attorney been practicing 25 years in Arkansas also represent Arkansas advocates for parental equality. Uh, we are opposed to this bill as written for a number of reasons, um, 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 problematic, uh, the problems with that language of course and control, uh, and, and discussing other bills and how that is a Pandora's box of uh various Fact scenarios that potentially could create What someone might call abuse. So we are opposed to that change the definition. We're also opposed. To the new remedies that it creates, um, again, We do not think these are technical corrections. We think these are substantive changes. For example, um, Some of the examples I would cite would be on on page 11. Uh, line 16, uh, limiting the Provide insurance policies affecting property rights. Um, uh, 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. Um, in addition, it's specifically creates, uh, what's called a domestic abuse intervention program that's not been created before in the code. And um 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. Uh, for someone to attend, uh, some type of program that's created um with regard to these respondents, uh, 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. Um, 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 and so we could help facilitate that work. Thank you. Are there any
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:20:20
questions from the committee? Seeing our questions, thank you for your time and your remarks. Oh. There
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:20:30
a question for somebody OK, uh, Gazaway, you recognize. On this section about Appearing outside the physical presence of the other party. I've heard that that's already um 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's is the subject of the proceeding taking taken outside the physical presence of the other party. I do, 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 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. And Representative Gassway, and that is not what this is saying, it's just saying that this could happen via Zoom, the other, both parties would be able to hear and see exactly what is being said. This has allowed now under Rule 88, and so we, we do this on a routine basis, um, in any types of cases, not just these types of cases, but no, the parties, the respondent, and the petitioner would both be president may be by Zoom, but it may not be in the same room.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:22:28
OK, very good. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Saying 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:22:46
to 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 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. They're 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, with all of that being said, I'm close for my bill and make a motion to do pass.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendon Underwood Unverified 1:23:34
We have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing our discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Thank you, Judge. I'm here.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:24:15
Representing Gassway, you are passing over 1871. OK. Members, we have about 15 minutes and we're going to start House Bill 1615. Representative Lindstrom, you're recognized. I know that'll 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. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:24:54
you, Chairman and thank you, colleagues. I also have two guests with me today that I would like to introduce, um. First of all, is Stephanie Taub. She serves as a senior counsel for First Liberty Institute focuses on um religious liberty. She has also 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 US District Northern and North District of Texas. She has graduated from Harvard and a Blackstone fellow. Um, 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. Um, 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 W Day Arnold Award for coming in 2nd 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. Yes, ma'am, you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:25:58
do. We've got to pass that out and then we'll Thank you. All right, the amendment's been passed out, uh, Representative Lindstrom, you're recognized to present
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:26:38
your amendment. The amendment just clarifies that state government shall license or certify it's part of the bill, and I appreciate Representative Shepherd for calling our attention to it. Maybe you've heard an explanation
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:26:51
of the amendment which 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. Any opposed say no. I have it. You're now recognized to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:27:06
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 4 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:27:56
you, 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, um, 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 7 children. And I want our state to be a beacon of freedom where religious freedom is protected and we're 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, 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 morning, Madam Chair
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified 1:30:03
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 the state against experiencing religious discrimination at the hands of the government. I am a senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nationwide nonprofit 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 and 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. com mo d ations 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 market. Place. The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy, a research group affiliated with my law firm each year evaluates and ranks the stakes on how supportive their laws are for religious freedom. Last year, Arkansas ranked 4th. 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 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. Um, 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 provision 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 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 Clowney, you're recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:33:35
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:33:37
I think we can all agree that, um, religious discrimination is bad and we should do what we can to protect it. I have a, just kind of a mechanical question first, um, Representative Langstrom or anybody who can answer it. So I'm looking at page. 5 line. 16. Um, and it says a person employed or acting on behalf of the state government who has authority to authorize or license marriages may seek recusal from authorizing or licensing lawful marriages based upon or in a manner consistent with the 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 recusal will be granted, what's the time frame on it, that kind
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Robin Lundstrum Unverified 1:34:27
of thing. Thank you. I think that's a good question. Um, 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 provides that marriage license. Follow
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:34:44
up, certainly. Can you, thank you, because that was actually my concern. Can you show me where it requires that there be a replacement, um, an alternative offered. That was my concern, and I would just feel better if I could see
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:35:01
in the law where that was insured. If I could address that question, lines 25 through 27, say access to a constitutional right should not be unduly burdened by a governmental entity due to a recusal request made by a person, um. So it's, 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, um, but there's that constitutional backstop that however. The governmental entity, uh, works within themselves. This bill doesn't micromanage that, um, your recusals are 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
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:36:02
it. I mean, 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, um, 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 3 counties over they will. I can see a court potentially saying, that's not an undue burden. Um, Why is there not language that clearly says, um, that clearly says there must be a replacement. And, and let me just express why that's my concern. Well, 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. They're 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, um, 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? Then the Arkansans constitutional right to be married. Because I'm not sure
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:37:43
that we're guaranteeing it in this bill. If, if I could address that follow-up question, um, first of all, this language, this specific language on the constitutional backstop was reviewed and, um, 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 license. It's 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, um, definitely receive a recusal, they can only ask for a recusal. Nothing in the bill states that they are definitely given that reuse of what the bill states is that they can't be discriminated against because they requested recusal and we have that constitutional backstop. tracks with the language that was approved by the Arkansas AG's office. May I add
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified 1:38:49
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, um, so Providing room for the state to both respect their religious beliefs of the particular employees while also balancing with the right to the constitutional rights that citizens
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 19 1:39:34
have. All right, members, we're going to stop
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:39:37
right here and go into recess, um. 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. 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
68 segments
Representative John P. Carr Unverified
3 segments
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified
26 segments
Representative DeAnn Vaught Unverified
9 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
45 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
11 segments
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified
20 segments
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified
4 segments
Speaker 92
1 segment
Speaker 93
21 segments
Speaker 95
1 segment
Speaker 101
3 segments
Speaker 106
1 segment
Speaker 111
15 segments
Speaker 99
1 segment
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
11 segments
Representative Mindy McAlindon Unverified
11 segments
Speaker 19
1 segment