Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (38)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB325
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY. SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1704
Act 388
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “committee. A House Bill 1704 and Chair, I would like to ask permission”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY IN MATTERS WHERE A PARENT IS A FIRST … | Andrews | Notification that HB1704 is now Act 388 |
|
SB277
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…CHILD MALTREATMENT. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
HB1669
Act 509
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1669 Bentley TO CREATE THE KEEP KIDS FIRST ACT; AND TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO CREATE THE KEEP KIDS FIRST ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR PROTECTIONS FROM DISCRIMINATION FOR … | Bentley | Notification that HB1669 is now Act 509 |
|
SB457
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB459
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB477 G.Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB487
Act 754
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. | Irvin | Notification that SB487 is now Act 754 |
|
SB490
Act 972
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENIL…”
|
TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER … | Irvin | Notification that SB490 is now Act 972 |
|
HB1624
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER. HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/18/25 @ 1:50 P.M.) Moved HB1726 to Deferred Senate Committee on Judiciary Wednesday, March…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S A FIRST RESPONDER. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB244
Act 275
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ing the lookback period. And I will further say we recently SB 244 was passed and turned into Act 275 of 2025, which was what…”
|
CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT; AND TO PERMIT A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB244 is now Act 275 |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…T OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT. SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB426
Act 654
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL … | Hester | Notification that SB426 is now Act 654 |
|
SB427
Act 663
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE. SB427 J. Bryant CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION;…”
|
TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB427 is now Act 663 |
|
SB428
Act 664
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF…”
|
CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB428 is now Act 664 |
|
SB429
Act 665
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VIC…”
|
TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB429 is now Act 665 |
|
SB430
Act 666
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE. SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWA…”
|
AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB430 is now Act 666 |
|
SB441
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. S…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB442
Act 667
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB442 is now Act 667 |
|
SB449
Act 669
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD. SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNAT…”
|
TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO … | Dees | Notification that SB449 is now Act 669 |
|
SB452
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB485
Act 670
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield Page 2 of 3 SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
|
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB485 is now Act 670 |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…T CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD. SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
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
I. Let's get started. Cher sees a quarrel. Even if one of them's behind me. Senator Silfield, if you would
come up here and take the chair. I've got 3 bills to run.
Speaker 12
0:49
I. 325. That. 325, 326. You get these first two. Yeah, we're 325.
Santa Clark, if you'll identify yourself, you know the drill. State Senator Alan Clark,
District 7. You recognize to present Senate Bill 325, uh, Mr. Chair, members
of the committee. Thank you. I'm going to be brief. Uh, 325 and 326 were re-referred to the committee, uh, because somehow AOC and the judges, juvenile judges, amendments did not get to us, and we didn't know that they didn't get to us, uh, so, uh, after I presented
these bills. A week and a half ago. Uh We, um, Send them back. The only thing different in 325 that you passed before is the judge's amendments. I can't tell you what they are, um, we had a 3 hour meeting before we presented this bill with all the stakeholders, and we took everybody's amendments and they're in the bill. I'll be happy to take any questions.
Speaker 17
2:21
committee, any questions for Senator Clark. On Senate Bill 325. We, we have already adopted the amendment for this bill. And one of the honest wish
Speaker 20
2:37
to speak for against the bill? parishes. All right, Mr.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:49
Hayes, Mr. Parish has pulled itself off the bill.
Anyone else? Senator Johnson. Senator Clark, do you have a House sponsor yet? Uh, I do not, uh, but the
Speaker 26
2:59
people behind the bill are supposed to have one. Otherwise, I would Senator Johnson.
All right, any other questions from committee? No one in the audience wished to speak for or against the bill.
Senator Clark, to recognize close for Senate Bill 325. I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. I move to pass. All
right, we Senate Bill 325, uh, we need to do pass motion as amended. We have a 2nd in discussion. All, if I ever say I, I, all opposed. Alright, congratulations, Senator
Clark, the bill passes. Thank you. Now you have Senate Bill 326 SB 326 is the same,
same 3 hour meeting. All the stakeholders came together, lots of agreement, but the amendments that they had uh We in the last version
of the bill, except for the AOC and the juvenile judges and the Last Amendment put those
in the bill. We have, we have the amendment we're passing it out right now. You got another amendment, OK.
So they are not in the bill. This is the this is the AOCs and the juvenile judges amendments.
You want. You want to explain the amendment since
Clark or I'll explain the amendments they are here because it makes AOC and the juvenile judges happy, OK. All
right, Senator Johnson, you most adopt him. We have a second in discussion. All of us in favor, all opposed.
All right, the amendment's been adopted. Go ahead. You recognize to explain Senate Bill 326.
Thank you. It's the same bill it was last time other than the amendment here to again that
came from AOC and the juvenile judges that's supposed to make everyone happy with the bill. We're glad to take any questions. All right, any questions from the committee? Anyone in the
audience would have a question. I'd like to speak for against the bill.
Sa done since Clark, he recognizes close for the bill. I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. I make a motion do pass on SB 326 as amended. All right. We have a we have a Du pass
motion as amended. We have a 2nd in discussion. All those in favor say aye, all opposed. Alright,
congratulations, Senator Clark, you passed. Senate Bill 326. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the
committee. A House Bill 1704 and Chair, I would like to ask permission
for a member of the firefighters to join me at the table.
if you'll go in. Recognize yourself and who you're with, you will be recognized.
Speaker 43
6:32
Present the bill. My name is Seth Rainwater. I'm with the Arkansas Professional Firefighters. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee. Uh, this bill simply protects firefighters from being uh from losing custody battle simply because of their schedules, courts in this state in the past have held firefighters liable in custody battles for their children because of the schedules that they work, and we want to protect firefighters from that happening just because they have a strange schedule doesn't mean a firefighter won't be a good parent. Thank you. Appreciate a good vote.
The, uh, I will add, Mr. Chair and
committee, the uh, if you look on page 2, Uh, line one. I'm just going to start in the middle of the Senate where it starts visitation solely on the basis that one of the parents is a mobilized parent. Uh This is already in the law. It wasn't always in the law. We put this in the law I saw one of the most incredible
situations I've seen in a court here had We adopted a child to strangers. Because the relative uh was in the military and therefore the judge felt like wouldn't have the Uh, ability to take care of the child. That's why we changed this law to stop that kind of idiocy and this is to do the same thing with first responders. I'd be happy to take
any questions. All right, any questions? Anyone else in the audience that wished to speak for against the bill? Say none since Clark he recognized the close of the bill. I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass. All right, we
have a motion do pass in a second in discussion. All those in favor say aye, all opposed.
Congratulations, Senor Clark, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Senator, Senator Leding,
Speaker 49
8:53
are you here? Is he supposed to be here?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
9:17
Senator Is down here, so we're just gonna go down the list.
Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Brian, I need to see you sitting there. So you have a I done more bills. Senate bill. 277. You want to go there on the table, you're recognized.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
9:55
Central, if you guys will recognize yourself. Who are you with? Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
9:59
you, Mr. Chair Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32 for you.
Speaker 60
10:05
Sorry, um, I'm District Judge Chris Griffin from Benton County, Rogers District Court, OK, all right, you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
10:13
are recognized to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
10:15
Thank you. Uh, looking at Senate Bill 277, uh, Judge Griffin brought to my attention what what appears to be a a gap in the look back
period for the item of theft. So the General Assembly several years ago put a 10 year um look back period on theft for the enhancement, the ability for the courts to enhance the George And so we'll start looking through the statutes, there's a specific statute that says the prosecutor is allowed to get a copy once it's sealed for the criminal justice, but it does not say it can be used for the purposes of enhancement. Another statute lists three charges that have a look back,
which is part of this bill, which it would include battery and decent exposure and DWI because they do also have an enhancement period. There are other charges that are not enhanceable, but this general assembly decided that those series were severe enough to include enhancement penalties within the language of the bill. However, there is a uh another section that does not specifically say a sealed charge can be used for enhancement because it shall be sealed and deemed to never have happened as
a matter of law. So by having those two statutes conflict and are looked back not included in the language of which is in the bill, which is on line 7 that a new uniform petition to seal a theft of property until after the 10 year creates this gap in the ability for the courts to look back to ensure That they can enhance the penalty on repeat offenders of theft. So I'll, I'll turn it over to Judge Griffin for maybe
some more fact scenario, OK, the legislature passed a bill a
Speaker 67
11:59
couple of years ago that um Created an opportunity to where if someone normally what happened with the theft was it was based on the value of the item that was taken and then the legislature passed a bill recently 2 years ago that said upon the 2nd theft, regardless of the value of the item, it would be enhanced to a felony in the comprehensive expungement statute that the legislature passed maybe 6 years ago. They specifically excluded some other items that are enhanceable, whereas DWI is enhanceable for a
period of 10 years indecent exposure if you have believe 3 or 4 within a 10 year period. Domestic batteries enhanceable to a felony within 5 years, so the legislature in the expungement statute went in and said, OK, well you can't seal this if it falls within the inspungement range because it would never be enhanced. Everybody, if they got charged with a new DWI, would run out and seal their old DWI, and they'd always keep getting DWI ones. So this came to my attention because as people were getting
these charges enhanced, people were coming to my court to seal old theft charges to try to unenhance the new charges. Um, I believe, I think that's Mr. Rosensweig over there. He brought some issues up to Senator Bryant, a couple of things. One, a case that has to do with Oklahoma law, which I will address the case that Mr. Rosensweig brought up, I believe his position is that even if this is expunged, it could still be used for enhancement. I would disagree for two reasons. One,
the case that he refers to deals with an interpretation of an Oklahoma law that seals a case, and 2, it Deals with Enhancing something under the habitualual offender statute was a separate and distinct state law. So Without this delineating that thefts cannot be expunged. In effect, probably none will ever be enhanced because as soon as someone gets their second theft, it's a felony. They were run out and expunged the previous one. I will point out to the language in the expungement statute that says this.
If something is expunged, it shall be deemed to never happen as a matter of law. So Mr. Rosensweig's argument that it can still be used is factually inaccurate. That language has specific meaning shall be deemed to never happen as a matter of law. I will also point out Um, In this language It's, it's of no consequence to me, I guess I would say. I'm not the legislature. I'm not saying what a good idea and what a good idea isn't.
I will point out that there's ambiguity in the law. So if the intent of the legislature was to give prosecutors and judges and so on the ability to use these for enhancements. It would be hugely beneficial for the legislature to clarify that by adding this in the same as the others so that we don't have to litigate it because I'm sure Mr. Ros will probably be one of the ones in the Supreme Court in 18 to 24 months arguing and saying you can't use that for enhancement. I don't know the answer to that, but it's not clear.
So I guess what we're asking for is if you pass this amendment, it will make it clear that a theft statute cannot be expunged during the lookback period. And I will further say we recently SB 244 was passed and turned into Act 275 of 2025, which was what was called postponement of judgment. Which I worked with Senator Brian along with some AOC individuals to pass that statute gives people the opportunity to keep something off their record, so there is an opportunity for somebody that gets an initial
theft charge to keep it off their record. That was just created. That won't affect this. If they're not afforded that opportunity for some reason because they're engaged in, say, a commercial theft ring as opposed to a teenager stealing some lipstick, they could be afforded an opportunity to keep it off their record through that statute. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you've heard an explanation, uh, any questions? From committee.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:11
All right, we have Mr. Rosswa to speak against the bill. I want to go to the table. OK, great.
Speaker 75
16:29
OK. Jeff Rosensweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Greg Parish, Arkansas
Speaker 77
16:35
Public Defender Commission. Judge, I do disagree with Judge
Speaker 75
16:42
Griffin in a number of respects. First, the case that he's talking about, a case called McLeish or McLishish MC C O I S H, although it, it arose out in Oklahoma, uh, challenge to an Oklahoma conviction in Arkansas, the principle of law that it stated Did did apply to Arkansas convictions or Arkansas ceilings
as well. We don't have except under limited circumstances, expungement in Arkansas, what we have is ceiling, but the McLeish court case says the purpose of sealing or is to is to give someone a second chance not to give them a free pass to commit further crimes. McLeish is the law. It's it. been the law for 30 years. It's never been overruled. The problem that Judge Griffin
identifies as governed by is governed by the McLeish case. what would, what will happen then is that some 19-year-old kid who screwed up, cannot get a misdemeanor, no matter how small off of his record for 10 years. I don't think there's ambiguity in the case law, but if there
Speaker 80
18:07
is, the solution is not to prohibit sealing. The the the the solution would be to have a
specific statute that says uh although it may be, you know, may be sealed that it nonetheless can be used for enhancement purposes, which is always understood to be the law, so putting it in the statute isn't going to change anything. Because it's already the law. All right, Mr. Per, you
Speaker 77
18:39
want to thank you, Mr. Chair. Greg Parris, Public Defender Commission, I would concur with what Mr. Rosensweig says
Speaker 85
18:45
that there's no doubt it can be used
as and as an enhancement, even if it's expunged. And furthermore, I was the case of Neal versus state, 320 Arkansas 489 explicitly says that and expunged conviction of previous expunged conviction could be used to enhance the sentence. And so what, what this bill is going to do, it's going to get the 18-year-old who's in high school, getting ready to go off to college, steals a road sign. They're popped for 10 years. They can't get it off the
record. And that's going to have devastating effects. Cause kids do dumb things. I'm
Speaker 77
19:28
walking proof of that. And so This is going to hurt. A large number of very first offenders, and it does not prevent the state from using
Speaker 85
19:43
Even an expunged conviction to seek felony conviction later.
Speaker 26
19:51
Marts Senator, you have a question. So You, uh, Mr.
Speaker 87
19:57
Rosenswe, you, you consider case law as law, is that, that's the Supreme Court said it's
Speaker 75
20:03
the law and this law is what the law and the interpretations of what the Supreme Court says it is. Would that,
Speaker 87
20:11
would that be the case if this law was in place at this point in time. Whenever McLeish was decided, would he have been able to make
Speaker 75
20:22
case law with this law in place? Well, we have the same situation of
Speaker 80
20:29
you could say that you can say that it, uh, you know, if it's sealed, you can say, at least for some purposes that it doesn't exist, so again we can solve Judge Griffin's problem, which I think is not really a problem by essentially adopting the language of McLeish and Neil, which it just says uh
whether whether sealed expunged or not, uh, no, it, uh, the conviction can be used for enhancement purposes. Because that's all that's what we've always understood to be the law. That's what's happened in every court I've been to, uh, and, uh, so I don't, and so I don't see any problem with doing that, uh, which would solve the problem that Judge Griffin sees, uh, and we're just essentially adopt the McLeish and Neal
decisions into Uh, into case, uh, into statutory law. And furthermore, uh, avoid the problem of the Of the college freshman or high school senior who gets drunk and steals the roadside and he's got a theft charge that you know, he can't get a job at Walmart, you know, or whatever, because he's got the theft charge on his record. So that's uh uh I think that's
Speaker 95
21:55
the proper solution. Well, I understand your opinion, and that's just like that case law is in my
Speaker 96
22:03
opinion, is it's an opinion and and this body can change that opinion
Speaker 97
22:09
and yeah, yeah, you have, you have the right to legislately overrule any
Speaker 80
22:15
decision of of a court, you know, unless it involves the state. Constitution of the United States Constitution.
Uh, I agree with that and so we can solve we can solve any problem that uh that uh Mike deemed to be exist if, if, if you. Except the argument that Mr. Parish and I are making. Did
Speaker 93
22:41
you, did you work with uh Senator Bryant on doing that, I told him
Speaker 75
22:47
what our problem was with was the show told him about the McGlish case, I believe.
Speaker 80
22:56
Greg talked to him about the Neal case and we explained the problem, um, I, I did not propose this specific solution, but you know, but I, you know, I, but I told Senator Bryant that it's already the law. It's case law. It's case law, yes sir. All right,
Speaker 101
23:13
thank you. Are any more questions from committee.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:30
We be prosecutors here today one of someone wants to come. Dan. very. You have a question, Senator Ross. OK. Daniel Shoe, prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County
Daniel Shue
Unverified
24:01
12th Judicial District. I'm also the legislative chairman and president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. I'm David Eridge. I'm the prosecuting
Speaker 112
24:09
attorney for the 14th Judicial District, and I'm the vice president of Arkansas Prosecutor Attorneys Association. OK, Danny, make sure you've got
Speaker 57
24:17
your mic on. I thank God to send rare for question. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:25
and the discussion, uh, of the road sign brought back
some memories I helped someone who I knew when he was a kid. Uh 2 or 3 years ago. Uh, request a pardon because it's him and another guy did the dumb things we're talking about on the roadside, and they did it to mailboxes. That's federal. They paid $100 each restitution to community service though they had it on the record for a number of years. What I'm wanting to know from prosecutors and you're listening to this scenario.
How many times do y'all prosecute? These things with all the crime we've got going on and all, are we, are we? Putting people in jeopardy and I'm somewhat sympathetic to that kids do stupid things. I did some and didn't didn't get caught, I guess, but I didn't, wasn't stealing, but I'd plenty of stupid things I did. How many times are y'all prosecuting? Is this a concern that we need to weigh in or do you have the prosecutor
prosecutorial discretion. Are you using it to keep these things from happening. What's been discussed. And the obvious answer is yes, we're using
Daniel Shue
Unverified
25:44
our discretion on those types of cases. I can't off the top of my head think of one where we've reached back 10 years for,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:52
I mean, yeah, I don't mean that. I just mean these type crimes. I mean that particular part
Daniel Shue
Unverified
25:59
of the statute making it a felony for the second offense was just passed 2 years ago.
So in the last two years I cannot think of a case where we used that look back period and enhanced a misdemeanor to a felony under that statute. Am I saying we never would? I can't say that, but under these scenarios, somebody who's 18 and then goes 9 years they're 27 years old and commit another. They steal one Snickers and then 9 years later still another Snickers. We would not, I would not do that.
Speaker 112
26:37
So I just don't see that something as Dan has said with our discretion we're going to do, do we, could we sure, but we, we want to use our discretion appropriately and we're not out looking for the twice Snickers bar people. That's not what we're trying to do. And do we have road sign cases, mailbox cases, absolutely, but I don't think any of us are looking to do look backs for 10 years on those kind of cases. That's not what we're after. Thank you. I appreciate your input. All right, any other question from committee.
All right, gentlemen, you are excused. Anybody else from the audience have We'd like to speak for against the bill. Say no, Senator Bryant, you have questions. Uh, Senator Bryant, you recognize closely will.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
27:35
with the chair's permission like Judge Griffin just to say a few closing statements as part of the testimony. All right.
Speaker 60
27:42
Thank you gentlemen. Um, a couple of things I forgot to mention we're currently in a transition period between our old district judge's counsel and our
Speaker 67
27:50
new district judges counsel, so This was taken to them and they did vote to approve this as something that they wanted to see on the district courts, and I will also point out that the scenarios that Mr. Parish and Mr. Rosenstra brought up were the entire reason to pass Senate Bill 244 and make it Act 275 of this session, which gives prosecutors and judges the
ability to keep any misdemeanor charge other than DWI off someone's record. If it's a minor infraction if it's stealing a candy bar or road sign, that was just created and that's going to become law very soon in a practical sense that already occurs in a lot of ways, so we codified that so. Those arguments perhaps would have been more sustainable. Were it not for the fact that that statute was just passed, which creates the way for people to do that. OK. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'm closed
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:42
for my bill and appreciate a good vote. All
right, we, we have a motion to pass a Senate bill 277 in a second, any discussion on the motion. All in favor, say hi. All opposed? You will pass the central right. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee. Senator Bryant, I have a favor. I was instructed by the chair to allow Mr. Leddy to present a bill and then you come back to the table if you don't mind.
Unknown speaker
29:17
Just Um. OK. Bring back. OK. a letter for the 70 this is handed out. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah
Well center lighting. I am here just in time for one of your bills that must be a sign. be Your bike's not working. Could be. What bill are we on?
Speaker 142
30:54
Anybody's working besides mine? It's not working. Oh, nope, there it
Speaker 143
31:05
is. Oh. Now Am I? Now they're all working. They're
working. All right. Are they working? Y'all turned them back off Is yours working now, Senator Ludy? Well, I'm gonna turn mine off. Have you all identified yourselves for the record? OK, will you do that? I'm gonna see if it'll work once I turn mine
off. It looks like maybe we can have one at a time. There we
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
31:31
go. State Senator Greg Letting District 30 in Fayetteville. years Emily Virgin,
Speaker 149
31:38
director of advocacy and government relations at Human Rights for Kids. OK, Senator, you are recognized to present
your bill. It looks like I've got the luxury of shutting you off at any time. As always, and with thanks to the chair and apologies to
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
31:55
Senator Bryant. We will be brief. First, Senate Bill 457, you
should have a letter from a Ms. Laura Nick. She wanted to be here today but could not. Back in 2017, just to give you a real quick history of where we are with 457. Senator Missy Irvin passed a bill that ended juvenile life without parole in Arkansas, making our state the first in the South to do so. Ms. Laura Nix was the first person freed under that, and nobody on this committee opposed that bill, by the way. We followed that up in 2019 resentative Clowney and I ran a bill that, among other things, helped set a path for people
freed under that law to have their parole discharged, assuming they met a very strict list of requirements. Laura also became the first person to make use of that 2019 law and last year had her parole discharged and because of that was able to cast her first vote in last November's election, but because she was the first, we learned some things. She is now working to help other people follow that template that she set, but one of the things we've learned is just a way to streamline that process and so we work with prosecutors and so they are fine with this bill to sort of streamline the process and take some of the pressure
off the prosecutors, but to make sure that they are still involved in deciding whether or not a person freed under that act is able to have their parole discharged, and with that I can let Ms. Virgin add anything she would like to. questions
from the committee? Hearing no questions from the committee, no one signed up to testify for or against. Central lighting, would you like
to close for your bill? I am closed and I'd ask for a good vote. Motion do pass 2nd motion from Senator Gilmore, second from Senator McGee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I I'll post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Central lighting, you have passed your bill. Thank you. You got another one? I
Speaker 158
33:52
got 2. What's the next one? Senate Bill 459, please. 59 has the
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:01
459 has an amendment. Yes, and the amendment essentially replaces the bill, so it'll be
easier just to follow the amendment, OK. They're going to hand out the amendment that you've heard Central lighting's explanation. Do we have a motion? Yes, motion to adopt Senator Stofield's 2nd from Senator Gilmore. Uh, any discussion? for the motion signified by saying I. Opposed
Motion carried central lighting indicates that the amendment is the bill. Senator Ley and you are recognized to present 459 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again,
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:45
I will be very brief and I definitely will defer to Ms. Virgin on this a little bit, but essentially we just want to make sure that children who do not necessarily have the capacity to fully understand the consequences of their actions that that is taken into consideration when they are charged. It is very difficult to believe that a child who might still believe some of the myths of youth. could fully understand the
consequences of a criminal act, and so this bill is just to ensure that nobody under the age of 10 can be charged and I will defer to Ms.
Speaker 148
35:16
Burgeon. Thank you, Mr. Chair members. I think in looking at the amendment you'll see that this is
Speaker 149
35:22
a pretty simple change. Currently the law is that a child under the age of 10 cannot be adjudicated delinquent. That is the interpretation of the prosecutors as well. However, the language that is in D and
your amendment caused some confusion for us because it says any juvenile, that language is a little inconsistent with what is in A, B, and C. And so we've just cleaned that up and put the same language that's in A, B, and C and D. So the intent is just to codify current practice and how the law is interpreted by prosecutors currently that no one under the age of 10 can be adjudicated delinquent. And I would just add that we also talk this over
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
36:03
with the prosecutors, and they also have no problem with this bill.
And the juvenile judges are good with it? Talked to them yesterday, right? Yes, yes. They're here to testify
for it, right? Uh, I know it might be.
Speaker 42
36:28
All right. Questions from the committee, Stubblefield. Yeah, this non nonjudication of no one
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
36:33
under 10. How's it working out in these other states of Texas, uh, South Dakota, Louisiana, Mississippi. How's that working out with him?
Speaker 149
36:42
Well, those children who are under the age of 10 can still be dealt with in the child welfare system. That's what we generally see. So in Arkansas, of course, it's a family in need of services and other states it's called something different, but there are processes in place if a child does commit an act that would be a crime if they were over the age of the minimum age of of adjudication, so there are treatment and services provided to those children, but in a different system. OK. Senator McKee, you recognize?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So currently,
Or does this bill take them out of the criminal prosecution system and put them in the social
services system, or is that currently an option for prosecutors? So
Speaker 148
37:30
there was a little bit of of disagreement in what the statute actually says. Prosecutors say we don't
Speaker 149
37:36
prosecute anybody under 10. The juvenile court says that, you know, they don't have jurisdiction over anybody that's under the age of 10, but the way
that we read the statute that any juvenile language was conflicting with the age of 10, and so what we're trying to do is codify the current practice, so prosecution readers tell us they don't prosecute anybody under 10. OK, thank you. Other members of the committee. The juvenile judges seem to be
reticent to weigh in on your bill, central letting, so we'll assume they don't have any problems with it. Anyone here
to testify against for central lighting. Would you like to Close for your bill. I'm closed and I'd ask for a good vote. Motion from Senator Gilmore DuPass. As amended. We have a 2nd, 2 from Cens Stubblefield. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying aye.
All opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Central letting you have passed your bill. Thank you, and just one more quick one if I
Speaker 158
38:54
may press my luck. What, what's the bill number Central letting 458, Mr. Chair. I know this was probably the Senate Bill 458.
Central light in your Recognized present Senate Bill 458. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With Senate Bill 458, what we're trying to
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
39:27
recognize is that I think we would all agree that no child is born destined to commit a criminal act, but unfortunately there are
a large number of children who experience various forms of trauma as children that can perhaps lead them to make decisions that lead to criminal acts, but we should factor that in when we are assigning penalties. If you steal a loaf of bread, you have still stolen
a loaf of bread, but if it was because you were starving, that is something I think we should all consider if we are figuring out how we should assign a penalty to that person. And so with that, I would
Speaker 149
40:01
again defer to Ms. Virgin to offer what she'd like. Thank you, Senator, and members, we conducted a survey of everyone who is currently incarcerated in Arkansas for a crime that they committed as a child. Of course we didn't hear back from everyone, but of those that we heard back from the adverse childhood experience
score of those out of 10 was 6, so they'd experienced 6 out of the 10 adverse childhood experiences, 57% had experienced physical abuse, 32% had experience sexual abuse, 48% had experienced physical neglect. About a third of them had been interacted with the with the foster care child protective services system had been in in custody of the state, and 32% of them said that they experienced some form of human trafficking
prior to their incarceration. That includes labor trafficking and forced criminality. So what we found is that there were really staggering rates of trauma and childhood. Abuse and the first, the average age of first abuse for these children, they said, was 8 years old. So at a time when their brains are are really forming they were experiencing this abuse and had a serious effect on them and their behavior. So what we're asking is that before a child be transferred to adult
court, that these things be taken into consideration and then at sentencing in adult court that these things be taken into consideration. The bill also does allow for a judge to deviate from a mandatory minimum sentence, but that can only be done with the consent of a prosecutor, so this would catch those instances where if evidence is not known at the time or evidence comes to light, the child, a lot of times doesn't talk about what happened to them when the cases first
commenced. These things come to light later and so in the instance where that happens, the judge could give a lighter sentence than a otherwise required by law, but again, that would only be with the consent of the prosecutor in the case. Question Central Ross, you recognize? As we briefly visited yesterday.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
42:22
I told you my concern is a lot of times in this committee. is that There's already deference made. And a lot of the prosecutions. In, in order to get a conviction. It could be actually guilty of a more serious crime. Do you not feel like prosecutors give some deference to younger people now. I think that most of them do, but I think that, you
Speaker 149
42:55
know, for the legislature setting policy, that it is an important statement to make for you all to say these things must be taken into consideration by the judge, not just the prosecutor. And you don't feel
Speaker 199
43:07
the judge and the prosecutor is doing a good job of that right
Speaker 195
43:11
now. I can't speak to every case, but what I do know is that, you know, prosecutors will say, yeah, we take this into
Speaker 149
43:19
consideration at charging, but Some of this may not come to light until it's actually in
front of a judge and so this would make sure that these things are taken into consideration at every step of the process.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
43:34
It does, and it's not always a perfect process. There's a
lot of people that live a law abiding. Life that have had Serious backgrounds, I think we could all agree to, but that was my concern in that is there's already Some difference given and we're basically
Maybe not tying their hands, but we're putting more things on top of the system that might not
need to be there, but that's I appreciate you answering the questions.
Speaker 149
44:07
Well, Senator, I also would say that that the law does currently lay out several factors that have to be considered at transfer and so we're not creating an entirely different process. We're adding a factor that the judge has to consider to the list of all of the other factors
Speaker 195
44:20
that are already required to be considered. Senator Stubblefield, you recognized?
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, ma'am, do you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
44:31
keep You keep this is similar to what Senator Rice asked, Do you keep records of these children who have been neglected or abused. Do you kick any kind of records on them that follow them. Throughout maybe the one I think what I'm saying is, Could these same children wind up in prison right now. From the neglect and the abuse that they suffered when they
Speaker 175
44:59
were 8, 10 year old. Absolutely, yeah, that that's a strong connection. Absolutely.
Speaker 148
45:06
What I'll say is, is the research that we have done is solely for it was solely to people who are incarcerated for crimes that they
Speaker 195
45:13
committed as children. And so I think that the vast majority of them that have experienced this childhood trauma and abuse, it's because of the childhood trauma and abuse that they committed crimes. I think, you know, children who grow up who have
very low rates of trauma. They don't generally go on to commit crimes. That's very.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
45:39
because uh I mean, it's just follows them actually follows them and a lot of them wind up incarcerated in prison, uh, because of the neglect and abuse that they suffered when they were little children. And it looks to me like we could. Find some kind of uh An answer to, to dealing with these children when they're
young and try to rehabilitate them or get them some help to get them over this, so we wouldn't have a a prison full. of kids that were
Speaker 19
46:07
neglected when they were I mean, 1810 year old. That's all I, I would agree. And to be clear, we're
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
46:15
not suggesting that just because you do have adverse experiences or trauma or you grow up in adverse conditions that you are destined to become a criminal, just that
from the from the statistics that show that most of the people who are incarcerated did experience those things, and we
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
46:32
also don't want to keep filling up a prison as I'm sure you would agree, Mr. Stubblefield. Senator McKee, you recognize? Mr. Chairman, I think
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:51
Senator Gilmore had a question. OK. For me. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I, I think I generally agree with the intent of this and what we're trying to do. So let's, let's go back to page 3. So you're, you're correct, the law
delineates now all the things factored into consideration currently, so we're adding their line 20, the exposure, right? So right before that, um, Section 9, line 18. Um Written reports, other material materials relating to juveniles' mental, physical, educational, and social history. Any ideas now was included in social history. I'm sorry, can you repeat that last part? Any any ideas what is included now in the law is
related to social history. What, what is that? Any ideas what that means?
Speaker 149
47:39
Well, I think that that can encompass a lot of the things that we're spelling out and so you're right, there there could be, and I think that there are a lot of instances where trauma is considered at this type of hearing, but we also feel that it's very important that It'd be specified that we're talking about adverse childhood experiences, trauma, involvement in these child welfare and
foster care systems status as a victim of human trafficking or abuse, because social history can encompass a lot of negative things as well, you know, it can it can talk about things that that a child may have done in their past. And so we want to make sure that it's spelled out crystal clear, and there may be a better way to do it. We could, you know, amend. 9 to say social history includes these things, um, and so I think we're open to reworking it to the place that it makes the most
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
48:36
sense. Well, I think so. Follow up, Mr. Chair. Um, so I think that's sort of what I was touching on because I think again social history probably includes a lot of those factors, right? But I do think that there's probably a way to make sure what it's inclusive of and and I get again the intent is to do that here and it's appropriate time, Mr. Chair. I'd I'd like to hear from, I know we have a juvenile judge in the audience, and probably the prosecutors, but I mean, I think everyone agrees to the extent
that we can avoid sending this age group. to incarceration or, you know, any other negative outcome that might be as a result of what they've done, so. I may have additional questions at the appropriate time to other witnesses. Senator McKee. Thank you,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
49:25
Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to figure out. I know
that traumas are already taken into account, but is there a way that prosecutors and judges can quantify.
Adverse childhood experiences. Well, adverse childhood
Speaker 195
49:41
experiences, it's a survey of 10 questions, and so they could, you know, administer that survey to the child and get a score out of 10. So
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
49:53
there's, there's a metrics by which all all of those situations would be considered. Basically in the same manner. It's not just a Um, personal opinion about how those
childhood experiences affected somebody, correct. OK, and are
these metrics being used in other states? Yes, there are,
Speaker 148
50:17
there are other states that require for these things to be considered. I can't tell you for certain that they're that
Speaker 149
50:23
they are gathering an adverse childhood experience a score and submitting that to the court, but I do know that there are other states that these things are required to be considered at transfer and sentencing, OK, and just for my
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
50:41
knowledge or or judges or courts currently
allowed to reduce the mandatory minimum or maximum periods of incarceration based on traumas and those things, or are we adding that to just in Arkansas law, yes, that would be new. They're currently allowed to do that. We're just adding adverse childhood experiences. Not that I'm aware of,
Speaker 149
51:01
I, but I have not looked at the entire, the entire code, so, um, I, I would have to defer to allowing the reduction
Speaker 195
51:12
in the sentence. Yes, OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But again, I would
say, Senator, that's only with the consent of the prosecutor as well. The Uh Section one. Not to be codified. Carpa of line 28, whose human rights
Speaker 149
51:36
for kids? That's the organization that I work for. We're a national nonprofit working in states around the country where we,
Speaker 148
51:45
well, I am based in Oklahoma. We have employees that are
Speaker 195
51:47
across the country, but we are technically Washington DC based. And I would add that Ms. Laura Nix, who again
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
51:53
many of you have spoken with also works for human rights for kids, and it was founded by James Dold, who a number of you have also met, even if you might not remember, but he's been a presence in the Capitol for the last 10 years working on a lot of juvenile justice reforms. Senator Leding
Speaker 149
52:08
and Senator Ervin are members of our board of directors. I concur with Senator Gilmore,
or that I'd like to hear from the prosecutors and I know the juvenile judges often don't like to speak unless they've already agreed on what their position is, but perhaps they've already agreed on what their position is or can just speak on and answer questions for us. I'm the prosecutors to the table first. Y'all can stay there, Senator. We may have questions for you at the same time. And I'm going to recognize you first century Gilmore.
If after the prosecutor identifies himself. Thank
Speaker 230
52:53
you, Mr. T. I'm Tom Tatum, a prosecuting attorney for the 15th District, Arkansas. So
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
53:03
you get more you reckon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I, I think
going back to, um, just your thoughts on this. So I think more specifically there's the portion here that that that speaks to um Upon consent from the prosecuting attorney, maybe,
maybe speak to us about that
Speaker 232
53:25
and then I have another question for you. Yeah, we have an objection to
Speaker 230
53:30
to that language to me, the legislature sets the the minimums and and maximums for sentences, um, I, I, I don't know what the, what the point is of having them if we're gonna go around them. I, I, but you know, I do like that that we can consent or not consent to it, so
you know it it doesn't give me a just a ton of heartburn, but I just think the premise of it. of
Speaker 232
53:59
of deviating from a minimum sentence. It's, it's something that I personally disagree with. OK, um,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:06
I appreciate that because I guess my question back to you, would it, would
you be more comfortable with specifically stating what that looks like in the sense of what a, what a minimum or maximum period would would look like.
OK. Um, and then I think my, my next question is, as you know, we're one of those states where we're a little bit unique
in a lot of ways on how we operate in a criminal justice space in the state. We do jury sentencing. and things of that nature, which is unique, um. In your experience, do you see courts that operate differently around the state and get different outcomes as a result of Well, certainly, you know, and
Speaker 230
54:48
and, you know, criminal law by its nature is an individual.
Case by case kind of business in
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:58
my opinion. So I guess my question is then if that's the case, do you see judges that transfer juveniles that may be in your mind
Speaker 230
55:08
wouldn't, shouldn't be transferred. Uh, definitely, definitely, uh, you know, I, like every other attorney, uh, ever practicing, uh, I disagree with judges frequently Judge
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
55:17
Bris will be coming up here in a minute, so, um, I, I appreciate the honesty. I may have some additional questions,
Mr. Chair. um, whenever you assume the chair, um, But I will, I will get back in the queue so others can ask questions.
Do you have other questions, Senator Gel? Uh, for, for the,
the, uh, so your answer was that you had objections to this language. Uh, yes, that's correct. OK, y'all and those objections
Speaker 230
55:58
were, uh, well, on the On the deviating from the minimum is, I think, you know, we should follow the amendments set by the legislature. That's what, uh, I generally base, you know, hey, plea negotiations, all those type of things, um. On those standards that are set forth and so removing that kind of, uh, you know, I'd rather, I, I'm more comfortable having that direction from the state on on what what the legislature feels
is appropriate in that situation. Uh, the, the other thing back up to, uh, the factors that the court considers on transfer. Uh, there's also a factor which would be 11 now, which was 10, which says any other factors deemed relevant by the judge. And so not only can the court consider all those factors listed, but they can consider anything else they deem relevant and in the juvenile transfer hearings I've done the, the
juveniles, uh, background and family history, whether they were abused or not, whether they were neglected or not has always come out in those hearings, and so I, I think this is unnecessary, and then just quickly to section one. I have a problem with with codifying or making part of a bill, some independent study, some group did, uh, without being requested by the legislature in the interim study or something like that, being adopted or passed into our law.
I saw. Yes, McKee. Thank you
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
57:43
Mr. Chairman. So I'm, I'm all in favor of giving prosecutors and judges. I think there are special times, specific times when there should be discretion involved. I think there's also specific times when the legislature should set the standard. And but I'm also in favor of holding people accountable for
their actions. I recognize that there are a lot of different reasons why a lot of different bad situations kids experience, adults' experience, all those things. But if we as a society decide that we're not going to, that we're not responsible for our actions because of a bad situation in our past. I don't, I don't know that that's necessarily the direction we want to go as a society. Would you agree with that? Yes,
I would. Thank you. Any other questions for
prosecutors association seen Nunn. Thank you. Thank you. Judge Briswell, would you join us at the table? Do you
Speaker 250
58:56
mind? I He'll identify yourself for the record. Troy Braswell, circuit judge in the 20th Judicial District Faulkner Van Buren, and Cersey County. Senator Gilmore, would you like to go first?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
59:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I think probably Going back to page 2 in particular. So I, I'd like to know your process because this is what you do, right? Um, so again, list out all the different things that are coming into consideration, so, you know, back on, on page two section G line 29. The court shall consider, so shall consider includes all of the, you know, one through 11, um, but we're adding in there, as you can see the exposure of juvenile, so I guess what what
does that mean from your standpoint, because you're already being told to consider certain elements, right? So what does that mean from your standpoint, the exposure of a juvenile person who's committing an offense and list out human trafficking, sexual abuse, rape, those types of things. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 254
59:55
Gilmore. It's a great question, and I believe Senator Rice hit on this, and so I just, if I can back up just quickly, uh, number one, in Arkansas for the last several legislative sessions we've been working tirelessly on juvenile
justice reform and the legislator legislature agreed and adopted the use of a validated risk assessment for the
Speaker 255
1:00:14
youth that come in and out of our juvenile courts and what that allows the court to do is to find out as much information as we can. about the specific juvenile, their family, their social history, their educational history after they're adjudicated delinquent, so after they're, I'll use the term found guilty, so we don't get that ahead of time, but we use that for better dispositions or
better sentencing for the kids that come through our court for a long time in juvenile courts, we had what I would call kind of a cookie cutter approach. If you committed a theft of property, this is what the outcome is going to be, and then we kind of, you
Speaker 254
1:00:53
know, change that based on the offense charge. And really what we're looking at now across the state is what you did matters, and that's in a very important issue that we have to address in court. But the other thing that we have to do to prevent them from being in the prison later on, right, is
to address the why. What specific needs do you have in your home and your family, are those mental health needs? Are there substance abuse needs? Do you need in-home intensive services? What sort of support can we give you in this This is not about being soft on kids. We have a responsibility to be smart with the the way that we handle them, and there was other legislation early about expungements and ceilings, and we talked a lot about bad decisions that people can make at a younger age. Those are all
factors and things that we have to take into consideration while we're working with our youth. It is very important that we work tirelessly to provide rehabilitative services for those that are willing to accept it and those that are willing to modify their behavior. I get asked routinely What's the best program that you run in your court to help families, and I routinely say a present. And willing parent. is the biggest impact that we can have on a kid. A lot of the kids that come through our court
don't have that. And so we have an obligation as juvenile judges in our communities to reach out to providers and people that are willing to work with those kids and families
Speaker 255
1:02:21
to put them back on the right path. Unfortunately, there are times that that doesn't work unfortunately there are times where kids that are 1617, even 15 that commit
Speaker 254
1:02:32
very or accused of committing very serious felony. offenses. And so what this does, it, it adds a factor that the
court is to review. So if I have a juvenile that is 15 or 16 that's charged with a drive-by shooting. They're filed in the cri uh our prosecutor most often will file those in the criminal division of the circuit court. The defense will file a motion to transfer that case. And there are two different transfer statutes. This only addresses 138. uh, goes to transfer to juvenile court. There's also a separate
list of factors under 927503 that the court looks at when it's considering a transfer with an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation. Under current law, those factors mirror each other and are exactly the same. What this does is adds a factor under 927, uh 318 as a side note, it's not being offered to amend 9275. 3 Um, so we have, we'll set it for a hearing. And we're listening to a testimony and evidence about the
Speaker 256
1:03:43
offense that was committed, the culpability of the juvenile, there's a one factor that looks at any reports or materials. related to the juvenile's, uh, their maturity, home life, uh, I won't read through all of these. It's in a very exhaustive list. If I have a case where a juvenile has proof of a they've
Speaker 254
1:04:06
been tested and they've had an adverse childhood experience, childhood trauma, etc. That information, at least in my
court, that's being presented currently, OK? Um, it's
Speaker 256
1:04:16
juvenile judges, we've not taken a position on this issue because our kind of general sentiment was if a kid has this stuff going on, we
Speaker 254
1:04:24
would expect to hear about it in our juvenile transfer hearing, and that was one of the things I believe that the stakeholders met and discussed with, there is a potential, if you want to amend one or the other factors that's really, you know, you know, kind of up to you on how you want to handle it. But what I would say is, is that all of the things
that are listed in their proposed new number 10 are things that are vital for courts to be able to listen to, assess, and then determine whether or not the case should remain in the criminal division or be transferred to the juvenile divent. So Senator Gilmore, that's probably a longer answer than you expect. but I'd be hoping that answer any additional questions about the transfer hearings or the factors that we're to consider. No, I think that's helpful for contexts.
Other questions? Judge, I think you just answered this, but Are
these things that Judges would not already be considering. I
Speaker 260
1:05:31
would hope so. Um, if I know in my court and other judges that uh now the, the one
Speaker 254
1:05:38
caveat I would say, Mr. Chair, is that Every jurisdiction is different
in terms of which judges are handling the juvenile transfer cases. In my jurisdiction, our docket agreement is that the juvenile judge hears any juvenile charged with an adult charged as an adult is assigned to my court. That means that I am responsible for all of the transfer hearings in the 20th Judicial District. There are some jurisdictions. I'll use the six judicial district in Pulaski. Those transfer hearings are being held by the criminal circuit judges,
Speaker 260
1:06:17
OK? Um, and so, uh, I As a juvenile judge, All of this language makes sense to me. This is what I do all day every day, uh, and so I would expect that if um I had a, I had a transfer hearing the other day, uh, Mr. Chair, the juvenile's father is in prison. Mother is dead. He's previously attempted suicide. These adverse experiences, um, what I would call very serious
Speaker 254
1:06:49
obstacles in their life. I want those to be presented to the. Court, and, and in my experience, the attorneys do a good job of presenting those so that I can weigh that as laid out in the statute. The burden is clear and convincing, in order to make that decision to transfer, which is a is a high burden, um, and so those are things that I, that I want to take into consideration in determining what's the appropriate way to work with this kid or family, and sometimes that's going to be you remain in the criminal division.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:21
Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized? Your church, Judge, thank you for being here and what you do. I, I just got a simple question and a lot of the testimony that we've heard today. Do we actually need this bill? Senator, I think that's a question that y'all have
Speaker 256
1:07:41
to answer. I want to be really careful as a as a member of the judiciary not to come in and tell the legislature you are the experts we're not. Well, I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Um.
Speaker 260
1:07:52
I Um, I'm usually really good at answering difficult questions. I want to be sure as here on behalf of juvenile judges across the state. What our discussion was, Senator, is we're already doing this. Um, I certainly understand why Senator Letting is bringing the specific language forward because he's
Speaker 254
1:08:18
correct that these are things that we should be
taking into consideration. Um, I believe the juvenile judges overall believe we already are. Um, and, and anything that is being proposed in number 10 is already admissible in these hearings and gives us the authority to consider these
Speaker 255
1:08:38
things. How's that for a long answer, no answer respect for
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:08:44
Senator Ley and he's a good friend of mine. Uh, it just seems like this bill is redundant.
I mean, we're, we're doing something that we're
we're packing a bill that we're already doing. And I, I just don't. I'm not sure we really need this to add another layer. So that's all I have to say, Chairman.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:09:17
Senator Leyden, you're rocking. Yes, Mr. Chair. And I do believe they do generally consider these things. It's not, it's possible that not all the adult court judges though are always considering these things, but for the sake
of the committee's time and Senator Bryant and Representative Clowney does seem like we have a little bit more work to do on this bill. So with the committee's permission, we are happy to pull this bill, huddle up with our
friends, and see if we can't find a solution. OK, central lighting is going to pull down SB 458, and thank you
for your time. Thank you, Judge who do, uh, OK, committee, Center
Bryant has requested he's got about 8 bills that he says
will take about 2 hours. He's asked for a special order of business for the Monday we come back. Monday afternoon that we come back after spring break, uh well, no, I'm not talking about that's what I'm talking
about Central Bryant presenting on the Monday that we come back from spring break, which I think is March 30th first, uh. I'm sorry.
OK, but I wanted to cover this part first, so without objection we will set up a special order of business on Monday, March 25th for those bills. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I guess just a question
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:44
to you and maybe to the senator. Well, that I presume that'll give them enough time to get those bills heard and through the process and pass. to the house do you believe that's the case? OK.
That's his wish. That was his request. OK, uh, Senator Brian, I will have to have a list of that bill so I can name
them. So everyone that wants to come speak against them. We know what they're when they're going to be heard. German
It's, it's up to the committee. Still may
Speaker 283
1:11:51
not save you from Monday afternoon, Senator Johnson,
Speaker 270
1:11:55
but I. that. Oh. OK. OK, so what I'm hearing from
the committee is you're willing to
hear them on March. 31st on Monday evening, but your
preference is to hear them this this afternoon if possible. On his Wheel
of Fortune and if we can get any of them in this morning we'll do
that too. Uh. So Since we've, is everybody good with that here in Central Bronx bills this afternoon. OK, that being the case, is it OK with you, Sen Bro, because. OK.
It, it, it. It, if we come this afternoon to steer your bills. I mean I, I'm
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:12:54
fine with Monday, Mr. Chair, if you would prefer to wait. If you'd rather we do it on.
He would rather we do it on March 30 I defer to the sponsor because he has, he has a committee meeting this afternoon also,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:10
but, but if I may, Mr. Chair, um, to, to the majority
leader's point, if, if we are so inclined to come back and perhaps hear other bills, I
would be open to that. OK, we are For those who want to testify on Senator Bryant's bills or be present for Central Bright's bills. We are If we don't get to them today, we're going to set up a special order of business for Monday, March 30th first in the afternoon, but if somehow this afternoon your committee ends
early and we're here, uh, then we, uh, so if you, if you want to testify on Senator Bryant's bills don't run off because they could be heard
Speaker 292
1:14:01
this afternoon. Everybody's got fair warning. OK,
the ones that he's asked for Special Order for on March 31st that also may be heard this afternoon. Our SB 427. SB 428 SB 429 SB 430 SB 431 SB 442.
All right, uh. Would you good. With us moving on to others at the
Speaker 279
1:14:34
moment. Yes, I had 11 below that, but if I'm, if I'm out of order, we'll go ahead
and present SB 472 with somebody please uh Tech Central Urban and tell her that she's next.
She's right. Here she is. Mhm Central Bro, if you will identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:15:23
Joshua O'Bryant, Senate District 32. And you are going
to present Senate Bill 472. That is correct, Mr. Chair. You are recognized.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:15:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Um, I got a, a Call at the start of the
session actually might have been late last year from our juvenile circuit judge that it was dealing with a A lot of cases involving the vapes that the that the kids are using in school, and he came up with a with a headache that he
really had no way to charge them unless there were other circumstances around it, such as fighting or theft or other issues in which kind of surprised me because I thought, you know, vapes, whether nicotine or not, had some sort of pathway towards, you know, a criminal or a violation of some statute, but he said that they did not. So we worked with BLR to create uh what is Senate Bill 472 to give a pathway for our juvenile
judges in circuit court to be able to have a tool to charge a violation to a minor that is using a vape product. Of being able to find them up to $100 which would probably typically fall to the burden of the parents, so something I included is also allow the courts to impose a to 20 hours of community service for that child. The circuit judge felt this would help push the issue of the, of the vape
epidemic in our schools to get students to act right, so with that, I'll be glad to take any
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:17:10
questions. Questions from the committee. This is Yeah, this, this is just in
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:17:14
school. It's, it's any minor that that is caught with this product. In school anywhere it's, it's illegal behind the barn vaping and
Is that what you're saying with cigarettes. The, the goal was to keep this in line with if a child is doing that with cigarettes or any other product that is illegal to have under the age of 21. So currently you can go buy a nicotine product at the age of 12 or 18 or 19, um, well you can't, you can't purchase it legally, but there is no charge against it if they're using it, but there is for a cigarette. And so the goal was to mirror this with a with a violation of a cigarette. How hard do you think this will be? to police and to run.
I, I think it will be as as they do now with cigarettes, but it gives the courts a tool to punish those that do this because it is an epidemic in the courts. Well, I agree with that.
Speaker 27
1:18:14
I mean, All right, Mr. Chairman, that's all. Other questions from the committee, Senator Johnson.
Speaker 93
1:18:22
So This similar age. Uh, as a minor, uh, with cigarettes is in place now with a $100 and
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:18:31
It, it, it's a violation. I've got ATC here that can probably get more into in depth and potentially the prosecutors association get in depth on how the courts treat cigarettes now because it is a separate statute. This, this place is it as a violation, not a criminal offense, but a violation to give the courts the ability to take action. I'm just curious as to if this
is mirrored what cigarettes is. That's this is mirrored exactly like cigarettes. We, we put it in a
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:19:12
separate section of code as its own code. So I, I would say yes, it's just in a different area, OK. Other questions from committee. Hearing none, is there anyone here to testify against the bill.
No, no one here to testify for the bill. You did get all your questions committee.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:19:42
Central brought you are recognized to close for your bill. I'm
closed for my bill. Appreciate a motion and a good vote. Will of the
committee Motion from Centra McGee McKee second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by
saying ah we guys all against the motion signified by saying
no, um, sorry, uh. Senator Bryant, you did not pass 472. Senator Irvin. You are recognized.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:20:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Missy Urban District 24, I have with me Judge Roswell. Judge
Troy Braswell, the 20th Judicial District. What bill are we presenting,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:20:53
Senator Irvin? Uh, we'll do 487. Uh, we have 22 bills that we're going to present 487 and
490. So we'll do 487 1st. Senator Bill 487.
Yes, and so I'll just quickly explain the bill and then pass it to Judge Braswell, and the bill does is is to ensure that um, These the records of all other delinquency adjudications shall be expunged upon the individual's 21st birthday, um, and these are the records under the juvenile code um of delinquency adjudications for felony involving violence. It says that it shall be kept
for 10 years after the last adjudication, um, what, what we're uh inserting here are that other delinquencies shall be expunged after they turn 21, and I'll turn endeavor to
Speaker 254
1:21:57
judge Broswell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Durbin is correct. What this does is helps streamline the expungement or ceiling process for juvenile court records in number 2, they're the added
language. It clarifies that also helps the circuit clerks to be able to clearly understand what documents or what records need to be expunged and then the definition for expunge is added there to be consistent with other language in Arkansas code to seal. So it previously said destroy, but now the terminology that's used based on uh the code is to seal, so it helps streamline that process. It does not have any impact at all or change anything as it relates to
adjudications for felonies regarding violence that's covered in B1A, so that remains the same. It just again, make sure that it's very clear as to what circuit clerks and the juvenile courts. are supposed to do with these records
Speaker 258
1:22:55
and at what time and that's when they're 21. Questions from committee, Senator Johnson, you recognize. Tell me how this is
different than the one we just did a while ago.
Speaker 256
1:23:19
I wasn't here, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. Mhm Senator, I, I was, I had just gotten here, um, and I'll Uh, very honest, I did not hear that back and
Speaker 260
1:23:32
forth. I was trying to prepare and address the issues presented in the statute or bills that Senator Urban had today. Probably
Speaker 317
1:23:39
public defender or our prosecutors, I mean if I remember Senator, not to interrupt the part I did hear you're talking about the ceiling
Speaker 254
1:23:49
of records and when you can seal those. This is
Speaker 260
1:23:52
about when we can destroy juvenile, um, court records, and I say destroy, that's what the word we're trying to move is to expunge. So what happens right now is um the circuit clerks are required to keep Um, juvenile records for a period of time and this clarifies that juvenile
Speaker 254
1:24:12
delinquency or delinquency adjudications. will be sealed upon their 21st birthday so nobody has access to
those. I think what y'all are, again, I don't want to speak out of turn. What I heard you talking about was the ceiling expungement of records of adults, but I, I may have missed part of that as it relates to juveniles. Well, my, my
Speaker 260
1:24:31
mom always said that was going to be on my permanent record,
Speaker 93
1:24:36
so I didn't know there was I would never say your mom is wrong. You should always listen to your mom.
Center Stubblefield, you're recognized you you're a smart mom, you know. your mother. Senator Irvin, uh, The problem I have with this is
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:25:04
that You're, you're 18. You just got out of high school. You got a 3-year period there that you've still got this on your record, right? That is that not what this bill says? Before it's expunged.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:25:22
If you don't mind, I'm gonna
Speaker 329
1:25:24
let him answer you, Senator May I respond
Speaker 260
1:25:28
to that question? Sure. So there's a big difference and I've, uh, from your record in terms of when you run your ACIC, your criminal background, so juvenile adjudications should not be coming up on your record. What this is related to, um, so for instance, juvenile court records are confidential. And so not everybody has access to those very A limited number of people have
access to those. With this, what this does is clarifies How we get rid of or destroy those records so that they're not kept in a file used to write the clerk's office would
Speaker 254
1:26:06
have thousands and thousands of files with old pieces of paper. And then at some point they're required to burn them or destroy them, however they do that. What this does is says that at this age, which by the way, 21 is when juvenile court stops having jurisdiction over juvenile
delinquency cases. So if somebody's 17, uh, commits
Speaker 260
1:26:27
an offense, they get put on probation. They finished probation at 18, um, that's great. Now, if they don't do their probation correct and they continue to violate their probation. The circuit court, the juvenile court has
Speaker 254
1:26:43
jurisdiction over them until they're 21. And so this mirrors how long the court has jurisdiction on a juvenile court case. It's very rare. It's very
rare that we have 20 year olds and under juvenile court jurisdiction, but that's what the statute says.
Speaker 71
1:27:01
other statutes related to these records up to 21. Who has access to these records. I mean, a
Speaker 72
1:27:09
higher ed institution pull any of this up? Not to my knowledge, Senator. um sure of that
Speaker 317
1:27:14
not to my knowledge. Um, it would be shocking college scholarship to play football I don't believe so, Senator. Let me
Speaker 260
1:27:27
I, I've, I've never heard of that situation coming up, um, there are times that I've, I've seen where, um, maybe recruiters will come in for armed services, and they'll ask questions, typically in those situations, the juvenile has to sign a waiver or agree that they can access those records, um, does the NCAA
Speaker 317
1:27:44
have any kind of rules or restrictions regarding this. If you want
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:27:48
me to talk about the NCAA, we're going to be
Speaker 255
1:27:52
here a long time. I don't know about the CAA or what they stand for
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:27:59
anymore. my bracket out today. Sorry. I, I just want
Speaker 41
1:28:09
this when they they that's right, that's right yeah and it's recorded and I know these
Speaker 266
1:28:15
things are sealed and expanded later on, but 21, you know, yeah, well, I think what
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:28:22
you're doing here is just putting a
date certain on when there is, they
can expunge and expunge, get rid of these files, so it's not piling up in a file cabinet.
Speaker 256
1:28:40
That's what we're trying to do. And and Senator Sofield on and under the current law on 3, it says the court may expunge other juvenile records at any time and shall expunge all records of juvenile upon the 21st birthday. And so what we've done is removed um the dependency, neglect, and family needs of services out of that and made it more clear that all other delinquency adjudications, which
are the issues that you're talking about, She be sealed or expunged upon their 21st birthday. So, um, The current law is that they have to be expunged at
Speaker 260
1:29:08
21 right now. Could that be multiple? Chart multiple
Speaker 266
1:29:15
in 16, then did it again at 70. Yes sir, that would be expunge too. Yes sir,
Speaker 256
1:29:27
all it says uh all other delinquency adjudications. Now, obviously B1A is the current law, so if you're
talking about a felony, could have been in charge of an adult, etc. They have to keep those 10 years after the last, uh, adjudication of delinquency.
Speaker 254
1:29:44
And so just removes out the the destruction of dependency, neglect in Fenn's cases. And so those would not be things that um a college would have access to or NCAA. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
Centra Johnson, you'll recognize Senator Stubblefield, could you come take the chair again? I'm Make another Senator Irvin, who's your house sponsor? I know, I apologize. It's going to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:15
be a Senator Johnson, I mean Representative Johnson. Motion Do you want to make the amendment now? Yes, ma'am. OK, sounds great. So it took Johnson, what's your motion motion of verbal
Speaker 95
1:30:36
amendment to add I don't think I have to suspend the rules to uh to add uh Representative L Johnson. As a house sponsor. All
right, we have a motion to spin the rules and House member. Johnson As a co-sponsor El Johnson of this bill. And discussion. All those in favor?
I heard the man must have been adopted. Any more questions?
Speaker 317
1:31:17
Senator Stubblefield may point out one thing that I've neglected to say. Um The current law
Speaker 254
1:31:23
says may and what this does, I think it supports the position that you had earlier is that the courts shall be expunged and so it makes it clear that
Speaker 317
1:31:32
those records that you're concerned about, making sure that those are expunged, it changes that word to shout. OK, all right.
Speaker 42
1:31:41
Any other questions from the committee? And
when the audience will speak for or against the bill. Saying no you call free will center.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:31:55
I am. I'd appreciate a good vote as amended. All right,
we have a We have a motion to pass. As amended Sanders 2, all those voters say, uh, any discussion, all those in
favor say a, all opposed. The bill passed to Senator Durbin. Thank you. I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:32:20
appreciate y'all. I do. Last one, Senate Bill 490, and I'm going to let Judge Croswell speak to it, but um we'll, uh, I'll ask for
an amendment to add Representative Nicole Clowney as the House sponsor on the bill. All right,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:32:33
we have a motion to motion to we have a motion to amend the bill by adding Representative Clowney, co-sponsor of the bill
in the House in discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Are the amendment's been
Speaker 339
1:32:53
adopted. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Speaker 260
1:32:58
Suplefield, um, At Senate Bill 490. Um, gives the courts authority and the ability to waive what is the $250 fee if a juvenile is ordered, ordered to register as
a sex offender, um, senators, there's been a lot of discussion about fines, fees and costs in juvenile court, juvenile judges across the state are always looking for ways to better serve those families and kids that are in front of us. What we also want to make is that we're not doing things that um limit the court's ability to provide services, and so through those conversations, um, we, um, met with Senator Irvin and talked about giving
Speaker 254
1:33:44
courts authority when appropriate to waive this registration
Speaker 260
1:33:47
fee, um, requiring a juvenile to register as a sex offender is not a very common thing. It does. happened from time to time and the law requires that registration fee and so it gives courts after consideration of indigency status and other ability to pay to potentially waive that if the court deems it appropriate. So that's what this
bill is aimed to do is give the courts the authority to take the ability to pay indigency status under advisement and consideration and make that decision. Other questions from the committee. First. Carry none. Is there anyone here to speak against the bill.
You want here to speak for the bill. Senator, would you like to close for your bill? I got him close. I appreciate a good vote. Motion do
pass from Senator Gilmore as amended. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion. Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Irwin, you have passed your bill. Thank you. I just have to say go hogs.
Speaker 303
1:35:17
And go gators. Who'd you put winning in your
bracket. Oh OK, do I have any senators
here to present bills she does, but we've been told that we had to get central bills, Senate bills
out first. OK. Well, Representative Clowney's been waiting for a long time. And
our apologies Representative Clowney. Will you identify yourself for the record and tell us
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:36:08
which bill you're here to present. Yes, Representative Nicole Clowney, District 21, Fayetteville. I'm here to present House Bill 1641. Representative you are
recognized to present your bill. Thank you, and no apologies necessary were at that point of session, I understand, um. So this bill came to me. Well, the problem came to me from a constituent over the interim. She approached me after a frightening encounter with an abusive and controlling ex-boyfriend. He had placed a tracking device on her car. She found it, but he had done this without her consent or knowledge and so was following her every move. She found it before he was able to use her location in
really scary ways, but because Arkansas law hadn't quite caught up with the technology of tracking devices. there was really nothing the state could do to give her the protection that she needed and deserved, so this bill is a result of that conversation trying to solve that problem. Lots of states are dealing with this right now, so we looked, I think something like 30 states currently have laws on the books about this. We looked at what other states have done and also worked with prosecutors and defense attorneys to come up with some language. What we ended up doing was changing our
state's harassment code. So um In the portion that you're provided here, um, we define tracking device, and then we add a section to the harassment code that includes as harassment if a person with the purpose of tracking someone without good cause or legal authority, uses a tracking device to determine the location or movement of that person without that person's consent. It is explicitly accepted in our section of code
that's new. That it's not an offense if it's a parent or legal guardian using a tracking device to track the location of their child. Um, I'll come back to this in a second, but I also just want to point out that in the bigger harassment code, there are exceptions for things like law enforcement officers, private investigators, that kind of thing. That's why that particular language isn't in front of you right now, um, but I do have it in front of me if you have particular questions about that. Uh, finally, I guess I just want to mention that I know there was
one concern that came up on Monday before this bill was heard in committee. There was a woman, Gina Delicao, noted that she was concerned if there were parents who were not together and one parent placed a tracking device on their child, but really did it in order to track the movement of the other parent. She suggested language to explicitly address that. I ran that language by prosecutors, and they We're not amenable to adding that to the bill for reasons that they're willing to come to the table and explain, but the
most important thing is that I think that is a really valid and good concern that Ms. In Delicado raised and prosecutors and I are convinced that the language as we have it would cover the instance that she is concerned about. So I'm happy to answer any questions and like I said, I know that the prosecutors are willing to do the same if y'all have questions for either of us. I am sure we will,
Senator Ross, you recognize? I remember briefly looking at this or may have.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:39:25
seen it watching some House committee. Or is it a different section in here allows employers to Do that on their own vehicles
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:39:39
I had It is, yes, sir. So I'll read you the section um from the bigger harassment code. The exceptions include if the actor is a law enforcement officer licensed private investigator, attorney, process server, license bill bondsman stored effective detective acting
within the reasonable scope of his or her duty while conducting surveillance on an official work assignment. I would also say that to address your particular concern, we do have that good cause and legal authority. language in there so that prosecutors can use their discretion to determine instances like that would obviously be considered good cause. Well, one, I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:40:16
don't want it to ever get as far as prosecutor. I'm talking about a private business vehicles if they want to track their
employers employees where they go. Does this affect this and that in any way? No, they would still be able to do that, OK, I'm not saying get it to a prosecutor. No, sorry, they would still be able to do that. I went ahead. saw something or heard something that satisfied my mind at the time, but it's not satisfied this morning, so
thank you. Senator Stubblefield, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to hear a little more about uh the parents,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:40:52
uh, one parent says fine, the other parent says no. How did, how did
you come to a conclusion of what the prosecutors about that. If, if one parent wants to
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:41:06
track a child with putting a tracking device. The other
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:41:08
parent says, No, I do not want my daughter to have a tracking device on their car, you have two legal guardians. We
Speaker 365
1:41:18
did not consider that particular situation. I mean,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:41:22
the only person that would be able to track would be the
parent who had made the decision, right? They, they wouldn't be, um, you know, I'm thinking of things like a little Apple tag they would put in the backpack. They would be the ones that had access to that. It wouldn't be some broadly broadcasted tracking, so I think if one parent wanted to track their child and had custody of that child, they would be able to do that under this bill. We didn't consider, I don't think explicitly, I'm Happy to hear from y'all an instance where I think they're walking up, which is why I'm hesitating. Well, I'm not talking about
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:41:59
parents who are divorced or separated. I'm talking about parents who lived together. It's just a matter of one disagreeing with the
other on having a tracking device. placed on a car. So what I would say that under current law, um, they wouldn't have
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:42:13
to have the conversation at all. Under current law, they can do anything. It's total wild west right now because there's no law about it, um, under this law, if the, if the two parents did disagree, I guess that could be a potential conflict because they could fight it out. I wish
I had a better answer for you, but, but no, if, if you are a parent who wants to track your child under this bill, you
would be able to do that. But like I said, you are still able to do that today as the
Speaker 371
1:42:45
law stands. Yeah. Right, but So this would just
Speaker 72
1:42:50
have to be settled within the home. That's right. If you had two parents who never mind, go ahead. What could lead to some
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:43:01
tremendous problem. Well, I guess I would just say that there is, there is that that's not a change, that's no change to the status quo,
Speaker 374
1:43:09
so I, I see that that could cause some problems, but that's the
Speaker 371
1:43:13
case today. It would be if this bill passed as well.
Speaker 375
1:43:17
Do you have any data on husband and wife fighting or only anecdotal, Senator, but no thank you.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:43:24
Centra McKee was Chairman, yeah, I shared that concern when I read the bill was if you have a divorced couple or separated
couple and one parent decides they want to use some kind of app on the kid's phone, not just to track the child but to determine the other parent's movements based on that child's being with the other parent. Um, I, I recognize that anybody can just go and hopefully we're paying attention to what's on our kids' phones and just turn off. that app when you're, you have the kid with you, but you had mentioned that the prosecutors were not comfortable with that, and so I'd love to hear how you, how you solve for that
Speaker 378
1:44:03
situation, Your Honor identify yourself for the record. I'm David Ethers from the 14th Judicial District. I
Speaker 112
1:44:08
think the reason we had concern about tinkering with it anymore as we think the bill is written appropriately because it talks about good calls, and I think we go beyond that. I think you just keep opening more and more doors, and I understand the concerns everyone's talking about with. families and divorce cases, but I don't foresee us ever looking that from a criminal situation, and I think even then the parents both have the same legal right to the knowledge about their children based upon
Speaker 379
1:44:34
Arkansas law. And so I think they're going to have that authority without any
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:44:40
problem. Go ahead, Senator McCain. So currently, If one parent wanted the track to track the child while they were
Speaker 112
1:44:47
with the other parent. They have that right. I think that's a thing for domestic relations court to address, but we don't see that as being illegal for them to do doing that. It would not be prosecuting, so therefore it wouldn't be considered harassment. That's, that would be correct, even if it was used in some kind of proceeding.
Well, I think if it comes out that well, this is she has said this conversation in a domestic. Relations case and you have parent A come in and say that my, my husband, I'm I'm not picking on either party in this, but a tracking device on my child's phone. I don't like that. I think that's a conversation to be had in a domestic relations court and a judge saying yes you can, no you can't, because under Arkansas law is y'all have to find it. Either parent has the absolute right to the knowledge of their children. Does that get abused?
Speaker 379
1:45:37
Absolutely, but I don't think the statute affects that. Senator McKee, can
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:45:40
I just quickly, I think Your concern is if the if the placement of the tracking device was actually in order to track the parent, not in fact to track the child, and that just to clarify, that is what I think we're saying is covered under the law as
written. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. So and I think just for clarification
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:46:04
because I think I looked it up earlier.
The penalty for this is a class A misdemeanor, right, so we're not talking about a felony offense here. We're talking about a class A misdemeanor, so that's, I mean, again, not nothing, but it's not as fine of up to $2500. Correct, yeah, so and I guess like going back to the questions related to, you know, parent giving consent or whatever. I mean, same thing could happen between a spouse, right, husband and wife, you know, whatever spouse is tracking, again, that's some of the things that's hard to contemplate, I think you might.
agree with that in something like this that would have to be worked out, especially if there is a court proceeding taking place, and I know of a particular case where that happens and again that that was brought up in the domestic case that the judge had to work through. So I think those things, wouldn't you agree, get contemplated as a result of those cases. Yes, thank you. OK. I'm going to have to be convinced. Uh
Page 2. Line 16, what we're talking about, let me read it, it is not an offense under subdivision A2A of this
section if a parent or legal guardian of a minor uses a tracking device to track the location or movement of the minor. Now the argument that I'm hearing, I'm not a lawyer, but I've got good reading comprehension. The argument I'm hearing is you can already do that. Is that, is that the argument I'm hearing? Yes, but it's not
in the law right now. We're putting it in the law that you can absolutely positively do it. The judge couldn't even stop you from doing it. Am I incorrect?
Speaker 112
1:47:55
Am I misreading somehow, Senator Clark, I, I understand your question. I, I think a judge has the absolute authority to order a parent not to do so and not not
under not under lines 16 to 18, a judge doesn't. The way I read that
Speaker 112
1:48:09
particular provision, it says it is not a,
it is not an offense under the subsection for a paralegal guardian to put it in there. That does not prohibit a judge from saying you're doing this for the purpose of harassment. I think a circuit judge would still have the absolute authority to say that this is, this is not acceptable. OK,
so Then, and it's not like this is gonna happen once
or twice. OK, this is going to be a prolific problem that we've said. That you can put a track on your
child when they're with the other parent. And spy on them. It's because we're assuming it's a safety thing, but if they're there, If they're with my ex-wife, I don't have an ex-wife, but if, if they're with my ex-wife. I can know every movement that's being made and that's, and I may be the non-custodial parent. OK, we're not talking about just on the weekend when you're tracking me, we're talking about all week long. I've got access
to everything, uh, that's going on. And it's one thing when it's not in law, it's another thing altogether to put it in. Am I wrong? I would say, Senator,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:49:27
that this does not impact what a judge can tell a party they can or cannot do in the course of the civil disagreement. All this is saying is that it is not harassment under this section of the code and, and like I said that that is the case today. I will also just add that this that this
language does say uses a tracking device to track the location or movement of the minor, so I don't think that if we're talking about a case like you're mentioning, I don't think it would be very hard to prove that that was done in fact to track
the location of the other parent, and if that's the case, it is still subject to be harassment under this
section. I think Judge Judy would disagree with both of you, but
uh I I because I have seen this very thing covered numerous times
and The We're, I understand why we want to say after a That a parent can track their own kid. And if my wife were and I are living together, my living and I living together, the two parents are living together. OK. But this is a totally different
issue when they're not living together and like I said, the fact that we haven't covered it in law so far. You've raised an excellent point there. I get, but now we are covering it in law. And so once this goes into effect, if I go to a law enforcement officer, they're going to tell me, here's what it says. Right Yes, they're gonna say
here's what the law says. There's nothing you can
do about it. I think they'll say, here's what the law says, and you say,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:51:20
You said correct, if this was just being used to track my minor, that would be fine, but based on X, Y, and Z, I know that this
is also being used to track me. Therefore, it does not fall under the
exception. The, uh I think we're going to have to agree to disagree unless unless prosecutors got some other help. Uh, I think. Senator Clark, I think
Speaker 112
1:51:44
that one of the issues in this bill, and I'm not trying to defend it one way or the other is this is
defining what's not harassment, and I think that becomes the issue again, what takes place in a domestic relations court and unfortunately I've spent a lot of time doing those works in my past is that judges have the authority to make determinations and decisions about what transpires. This bill does not take that away from a judge, and By any means. But, OK, let's go back to line 13, and then we'll go
to Central Ross with the with the purpose of tracking a person, because this is what we're changing with
the purpose of tracking a person without good cause or legal authority, which means that y'all can still bug my car, uh. If law enforcement's after me here she uses a tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person without the consent of the person, OK? That's what we're trying to do, to say you can't do that. But then we came back and said, But parents ought to be able to track their kids. OK, I'm with you. How about What
What is the word we use, uh, For who has the child at this moment. The custodial parent or yeah, but but that had to be custodial parent could be the father on the weekends, and it should, you know, since we have a joint custody law, hopefully that wouldn't be it, but the Yeah How do we say the parent who has custody at the moment.
1 may have it 3 days, 1 may have it 4 days, 1 may have it 51 may have a 2, but how do we say that and why couldn't we say that if we've got to come back and say, and we do need to say you can't do it without consent unless it's your kids. But we ought to also be able to say, unless it's your kids and they are under your authority at the moment. Senator, I appreciate that
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:53:52
question and um that's, that is the amendment that was brought
to us on Monday and this bill is intended to create a framework for prosecutors to use and so if prosecutors were opposed to adding that amendment, I couldn't present, you're fine with it, so we won't know what
the prosecutors are not fine with it, and then we'll since Ryson Ben McKee, I think. Because we believe this language is sufficient to address
Speaker 112
1:54:17
the problems being presented. I think you're going to kill her bill, Senator Rice. Representative,
finally, the, the reason behind the bill you
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:54:30
mentioned, was that between two adults? OK, I want to think I read about a case up there that that kind of spun totally out of control, uh. The scenario, my parents are both past grandparents are. Uh, if I had a parrot. That was having some Problems still able to
drive and function and all, yet I knew I needed to know where that parent was.
But that parrot might be To the point they didn't want that type of attention. What would this do? Would they be able to bring charges against me as a rebellious son that they trying to get into their business. I'll tell you, I don't think you'd find a prosecutor in the state
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:55:19
who would not say you had good cause when you said, would they be able to bring charges and they can't do that without a prosecutor. A
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:55:28
grant agree again. I think you're gonna bring a
bunch more stuff on prosecutors. Because And I think it was the chairman that said this. I've had law enforcement say y'all passed this. Y'all pass and I'm reading what something says. And, and They're going to determine that and send it and it just clogs the system up so I'm not saying it's not needed. I'm saying we need to be careful. I agree. I agree. And that's why
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:55:57
we worked very hard to come up with language that, you know,
addressed or at least created space for all of these potential future issues. There's no way to address the underlying problem without opening the gates to the prosecutor's office. I mean, that's the purpose of it, right? And so we need to make sure that we're doing that in a responsible way. Good cause and legal authority was the language that we settled. respond to accomplish covering situations like the one
you propose. Senator McKee, name was chair. I want
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:56:27
to just clarify something because I think it'll help me and probably
members of the committee to what Senator
Clark was asking, who has custody of the child, even if they are not the custodial parent. What I understood you to say, Mr. Prosecutor, was that Both parents, whether they are custodial or just have custody at the moment have a right to track their child. I'm not going to go that far. I think it depends on what the
Speaker 112
1:57:04
order says from the court under Arkansas law, as y'all have made, is both, both people on a divorce case are initially entitled to joint custody. What does that look like? And then a circuit judge is going to step in and say, here's what the custodial rights of those parents are, and they may both still be joint custodial parents and but one would have physical custody at certain points in time, as it's been previously talked about. One of our concerns is we don't want to specify because it
limits our discretion. I promise you we're not out looking to prosecute people that we don't need to, but that's why we feel like this is the right way to
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:57:44
go. So As long as it can be demonstrated that they're tracking the child not to track the parent. That would
be an instance where you have that discretion to say, Absolutely, sir. That helps me. Thank you. So
what is wrong on line 17 with this section, if a parent or
legal guardian who has immediate fiscal physical custody of a minor uses a tracking device to track that location or movement of the minor. Because we haven't put in the law anywhere else going to reverse your argument. We haven't put in the law anyplace else that you can't. We're just saying here you have the right.
Speaker 112
1:58:29
this statute is designed to address the issue of harassment. And that's what we have to look at is was it done with the
purpose of harassment, which is what we have to get to before we can prosecute anything
in this case, but we always talk here about the law of unintended consequences, and we do
it a lot, uh, and this looks like unintended consequences that we can see very clearly, uh, So what is, what is the problem for the prosecutors to put in here who has immediate physical custody. of a minor
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:59:08
Senator Clark, if I may, I think part of the issue and pardon me if I'm speaking out of turn, but I think part of the issue is that that it is not always harassment if A parent, even if it's one who does not have immediate custody wants to track the location of their minor child. I think there are probably parents in
this state who would want to do that. This language without harassing. And we can write that too.
But at the moment what we're, you're saying we would take away their right. And right now I'm saying we're giving them. That in law. And creating situations across the state where people are going to have to hire a lawyer and have to go to court. The, because You're going to have a hard time.
Convinced me that That if I am tracking my child when she's with. The mother that I'm not tracking the family just like you're trying to avoid up here in lines 13 to 15 that It looks to me that that's a very situation you're creating, uh, because I can legitimately track my kids when they're with their
mother. Who has not even any knowledge and certainly hasn't given consent. For me to do that. Looks like
you, you've just turned around and created as big a loophole as you could possibly create. I understand that.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:00:56
I, I, and I think maybe we just agree to disagree on this point, but we, this is the current law as it stands today, so I wouldn't say that we are creating any law that allows people to to harass. We're certainly not not
intending to do that and, and I think when you playing out the potential amendment that you suggested, and trust me, this is exactly the process we've engaged in for months and months, really trying to land on language that works, and so I appreciate you being willing to offer language, um. I'm thinking about what you just said, which was um if the immediate custodial parent, um, you know, part of what we're talking about with these tracking devices, it's not something necessarily like an Apple tag. Sometimes it's just,
it's, it's an iPhone and you have to find my iPhone location turned on for your child. My fear actually with an amendment like the one you just proposed would be if a parent has that turned on for their child and they forget to turn it off when they hand over custody to the other parent. Now all of a sudden they're in legal trouble that they wouldn't be in otherwise. So I think that that actually Leads to Wouldn't prevent the problem that you're proposing, which is people coming to the court saying, you know, the other
parent did X, Y, and Z, I think we would still see that if we added the language because I think we would see a lot of unintentional, you know, leaving on a find my iPhone
or whatever it is, if you've got constant back and forth, drop offs between parents. Other questions from the committee. No. Is
there anyone here to speak against the bill? You want here to speak for the bill. See,
see none representative you are recognized close for your bill. Thank you
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:02:46
so much. I understand this is really tricky to get right. I appreciate your willingness to have this conversation today. Um, we are
trying to protect those people who currently have absolutely no protection, and if these things cause problems moving forward, we can see how those play out in the real world, and I would be more than happy to come back as soon as we can to fix those, but some solution really
feels better to me than none here, and I would really appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Will of the committee.
Motion to pass Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying I all against, no. Representative Fai, your bill did not pass. Thank you. Representative Bentley.
We do have an amendment on this bill, Senator, that we brought over earlier. OK, and the
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:04:17
number again House Bill 1669. House Bill 1679, we have an amendment 6691669. Would you like to explain the amendment? Yes, sir, uh, this morning I had a message from the AG's office and asked us to make this amendment, was happy to do so. They were concerned that it would remove sovereign immunity,
didn't mean to do that in the bill, so we did the amendment that they asked us to
do, and that's what the amendment, all the amendment does. Uh, motion from Senator Stolefield to adopt second from Senator McKee. Any discussion hearing
none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all pose. Congratulations, representative, you're amendment has been adopted.
You are recognized to present House Bill 1669 as amended. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:04:56
A couple of years ago, I just had noticed across the nation we had parents and foster adoption care agencies that held deeply held. Christian beliefs from being stopped from allowing to do what they were doing to take care of the kids in their state. A number of states across the East Coast, the West Coast, and even in Tennessee stop Catholic adoption agencies from being able to function. I was very concerned about that in Arkansas at this point we have absolutely no issues. The policies that we have in the state are great policies and as testified by even in the public health committee, what a great job that
we're doing. sorry, children Aging and Youth Committee, we're doing a great job in Arkansas. This bill does nothing but put the practices that we have in place and you, um, we're not going to be here forever and I want to make sure that the good policies that we have in place in this state are put into statute. So in the future, the great work that's being done by Second Chance Ranch in my district and the other adoption agencies that are doing a phenomenal job in my district. I do not want them. The children in our state to suffer from them being taken out of the game and not being able to take care of the kids and the families in our state. It's really all this bill does is to put into statute what our
current policy is in Arkansas. DHS has gone through this thoroughly. They have no issues with the bill and until this morning from the AGC office, I thought they were fine. to this want to make a slight amendment to that. So that's all it does, and I'll be happy to take any questions from
Speaker 376
2:06:11
the committee. Questions from the committee. Centra Tucker, you reckon. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:06:16
Mr. Chair. Are there adoption organizations that are being discriminated against right now based on their religious beliefs. Not in the state of Arkansas. We're not our
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:06:24
policies is great in the state of our job. I'm
just putting our current policy. There's nothing in statute preventing them from being harassed in the future or from being discriminated in the future. And so I want to make sure that when we leave this place, Senator Tucker, that we have a statute in place to protect them in the future. What do they need protection from? So discrimination like in other states, I will just say that in Catholic agencies, adoption agencies have been told they can no longer adopt children because they're not participating in LGBTQ adoptions or different things that go against a deeply held Christian beliefs. I have foster parents that were doing a great jobs in
other states that are no longer able to be foster parents and take care of their kids because they don't believe in gender forming care. There just is not part of their deeply held Christian beliefs, and so those are things I want to make sure that in the future. We continue to have as many people adopting kids and being foster parents in our state as possible. Again, it's not a problem in our state. I'm preventing it from being one in the future. We're doing a phenomenal job in our state, and I want to take our state policies and put them into statute. So what
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:26
policies are you referring to that are currently in practice.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:07:29
All that we're doing in this state, we don't discriminate in our state. We're making sure that religious freedom is upheld in our state by the DHS and those folks. So I'm just wanting to make sure there's nothing put into place in the future that will prevent that from happening. So, when
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:42
you, that's what I'm asking about DHS is the one with the policies,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:07:49
and are they written policies or? Not necessarily so. I'm just saying their current practices, practices and policies, I'll put it that way, but I have not heard any complaints in our state at all, but again, we don't have anything in statute that concerns me that we would
leave that I would leave as a legislator and we have nothing in the statute to protect the religious folks especially, you know, in my district, I'll just put it this way, I have a phenomenal group Second Chance ranch, that's doing an amazing job, and they have deeply held beliefs there. They take care of foster kids, do a wonderful job. I can tell you that they're doing an amazing job helping foster parents. many of them. I just want to make sure that nothing will infringe
on their rights in the future to continue to do what they're doing today. Thank you. Other questions from the committee.
Representative Bentley, the, as you've said, we've had no such problems in this state, but We're bringing this because of the decisions we've seen handed down in other states that folks again that had nothing to do
with transgender kids in their care. Anybody wanting to put them in their care, LGBT in their care, simply if you don't sign off that you Believe these things and do these things, then you,
you can't be a foster parent, etc. Is that correct? And you cannot
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:09:11
adopt children as well, so adoption agencies have been shut down. Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down, no longer able to take care of kids when they were doing a wonderful job, and the only thing is they wouldn't sign off on that, so that I want to again as a prevention thing I want to do what we're doing in Arkansas now to continue when we're not here, it's not in a statute. We won't have that guarantee. Other questions from the committee. Can I say real quickly before I end, I'm sorry, that nothing that prevents the laws that we have in place to protect our children. This continues every practice that we have in place
to make sure our children are protected and that their needs are placed first. The judge still has to do everything they're continue to do. Chas nothing in that. Just make sure that in the future the folks that are doing a great job in our state will not be prevented from doing
so. Hey, we have someone signed up to speak against. JP Tribble. I,
did I get that right? Yes, Senator. Would you identify yourself for
the record and who you represent,
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:10:15
if anyone. Absolutely. My name is JP Tribble, and I'm an attorney here in Little Rock, um, I've been doing an adoption practice for I'm in the 8th year practicing as a licensed attorney and have been working in the adoption arena for over 13 years now. My focus is actually on non-relative adoptive placement. There are not many attorneys in
the state of Arkansas that do that, uh, which means that would be adoptive placements where the child is not adopted by a family member or stepparent. The issue that I really have with this bill is it is ambiguous. The bill is trying to provide for a religious belief exception
to any policies that may be in place. The pole star in adoptive placements, which of course courts consider is best interest of the child. As I read this bill, of A religious belief of a prospective foster adoptive parent conflicts with the best interest of the child. I don't really see how that is reconciled.
One of the main concerns is that if there are all sorts of religions that espouse all sorts of beliefs, and if for religion, for example, um, beliefs that corporal punishment is OK, then That would take precedence over any policy to the contrary if it's deemed in the best interest of the child. Um,
The other issue is there, I'm aware of an agency in Arkansas that is has been shut down is under investigation. There are multiple lawsuits against board members of that agency for child abuse and physical abuse upon reporting such child abuse. The Director of that agency was actually in charge of the child welfare agency Review Board who
issues licenses to agencies and investigates and fractions of the child welfare Agency Act, um. The issue as I see it is this bill. Permits agencies or persons to do such if their religious views conflict with policies or the best interest of the child. I feel like that needs to be clarified in the bill, for example,
subsection B 3A pardon me, subdivision B3A states in essence that excuse me,
could you give us a page and line number. Absolutely. my mates. Be on page 5
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:13:40
line 18. And following the state government shall not take any adverse action against a person whom the states grant the state
grants custody of a foster child or grants adoption of an adoptive child or who seeks from state custody of a foster child or adoption of an adoptive child only or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child based upon or in a manner inconsistent with sincerely held religious belief. Whatever that religious belief would be, the state may not take
any action against such a foster adoptive parent, if they're taking action,
let's say disciplinary action against a child consistent with their religious
belief. Uh That it would, it would seem like having a carve out certainly for child abuse would be a good amendment to the bill. This and and broadly speaking, This just feels like government
overreach where we don't have an issue, uh, as was stated already by a senator by pardon me, Representative Bentley, there are no issues presently in the state with the state policies. There's no reason to codify this into law. There's another issue that I do have in the definitions and that is on page 4 line 10, if we go
actually back to page 3 Line 31, uh, it defined, it says state government means, and then we have multiple definitions under subdivisions A, B, etc. And if you go down to subdivision E, which is page 4 line 10. State government means any private person suing or attempts
suing under or attempting to enforce a law, rule, or regulation adopted by the state or political subdivision of the state. I'm confused here as an attorney at how the state can mean a person suing the state. That places the state as the plaintiff and the defendant, but it's clearly a private person suing. So that's another issue that I have. With the statute.
Um, I just feel like, as I've said, the statute is ambiguous and really in, in the end of the day seems like government overreach, and I don't, I don't believe this will change anything if it's passed. So I'm open to
Speaker 376
2:16:51
any questions. So since you don't think it'll change anything, it'll be OK if we pass it then? Well, I think it's pretty ridiculous to pass
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:17:00
a bill where private individuals would be
considered the state for one thing, if it's passed as written. OK, so you think it does do something then. Well, it certainly permits a private citizen to bring a cause of action under the guise of the state of Arkansas. Questions from the committee. Senator Gilmore. Uh, I'm sorry because I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:17:27
was conferring with the counselor on the committee here. I, I'm sorry, could you restate what
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:17:36
you said was ridiculous. I said, it appears to me ridiculous that a private individual can bring a cause of action. As the state of Arkansas against the state of Arkansas. I can, I can bring, I can sue in the, in a court in Arkansas and under the definitions I'm considered the state. OK, thank you. The, uh,
You mentioned an agency. Uh Private, I assume religious, I assumed. What was the purpose?
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:18:23
What point were you making? The point I was making is that that agency was a a religious placement facility and they are under the former members of that are under investigation for sexual abuse and physical abuse of the
children in their placement and if you have some reason to believe that sexual abuse and physical abuse fits their
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:18:53
religious parameters. I have no specific information on or against that, however, if it's very easy to make that claim,
OK, so the largest church in the world is the Roman Catholic Church and
numerous cases of priest abusing kids, so you're suggesting to I think
that Catholic adoption agencies should be able to be set aside by
the state because it's happening. That is not what I'm insinuating, Senator, OK, you clear it up
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:19:25
for me. So what I'm saying is there this bill is so broad and saying if you have a religious belief. Have you, can you cite a religious belief other than
corporal punishment. I think you cited that as a religious play. Can you cite another religious
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:19:45
belief specifically that you're talking about. Uh, no, I cannot, not at this time. Uh, because I'm not familiar with all of the churches, but uh, well, actually I can cite one where the First Amendment has been restricted in the past. There are churches that believe in polygamy, for example, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment does not allow them to practice polygamy.
the law of trumps the First Amendment in that situation. That would be, I believe, under the Reynolds case and the United States Supreme Court. Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Sher.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:20:30
I, I also know there are religions where the use of peyote is part of a sincerely held religious belief and is that a reason for someone not if they're providing it
to the underage children, I would think so, but, but marijuana, which is federally Uh
Outlawed would be OK and state of Arkansas, I think.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:20:55
Yeah, if you have a medical card, but that's another good example. I don't see why I guarantee you there's, there are some folks who the use of marijuana is sincerely religious belief for them and yeah, you can ask them and they'll tell you, but I think that's part of what what the witnesses testifying to is it could mean any number of
things, and it's not defined in this bill. Other questions in
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:21:16
the committee. Mr. Chair, if I may, I would also like to clarify a last
point. The and the presentation of the bill, Catholic adoption agencies have been brought up there is a US Supreme Court case. It's a Fulton versus City of Philadelphia that I believe protects them from the actions that were brought up in testimony. OK. You said that There aren't
any issues in the state which had already been covered. So therefore we didn't need to do anything since you are in this business. Have you
paid attention to any of the news stories across the country where this has
been an issue. I am aware that in some states it's an issue. It is an issue. And so when COVID hit, if it hadn't hit here yet, we shouldn't do anything. I don't
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:22:11
see how COVID is relevant to to the discussion here. Well, let me explain to you how it's
relevant. You're saying if it hasn't happened in Arkansas, although it's happening across the
country, we should ignore it. So I'm asking. On a different issue is that your policy on everything that if
it hasn't happened in Arkansas we should ignore it. I'm
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:22:38
not suggesting that it be ignored if it hasn't happened in Arkansas. I do believe that the basic uh free exercise rights of individuals would protect them. I don't think we need to put that into law. I think they would have sufficient. Did it protect them in other states. Uh
I think that's being challenged as we speak. The ruling so far
I'm not aware of that because I'm practicing. I'm not a licensed attorney in other states, Senator, OK, so before you said you'd paid attention to the
news. Other questions, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When COVID arrived
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:23:21
in March of 2020 and to the United States, but it hadn't gotten to Arkansas yet. Would you say there was a significant risk of it coming to Arkansas imminently. Yes. Do you view
that what's happened in these other states, there's a significant risk of it imminently coming to Arkansas. No,
I did not. But if we thought that it was a significant risk, you would understand this voting for this bill.
Pardon me, I can't hear the outside if the legislature thought that it was a significant risk, then you would understand why we would vote for this bill.
JP Tribble
Unverified
2:23:58
If there, if the legislature believes there's a significant
risk, I can understand wanting to take some action, but I don't believe that as written this
would be appropriate action. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none anyone else, no one else signed up to
speak for this bill. Representative Bentley, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee for your time. I know everybody's ready
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:24:29
to head to lunch, so I appreciate you let me fill this in again. I believe
this is a serious concern. We see states across the nation that are no longer no longer allowing adoption agencies and parents that are because of their deeply held religious beliefs, allowing them to continue what they're doing and taking great care of our kids and so for that reason I would appreciate a good, a good vote on this bill. will of the committee.
Do pass from Center stubblefield. So it from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:25:06
My opinion, this is a solution in search of a problem, and it's going to create problems in the process because, because of its vagueness, you can argue just about anything under the sun being a deeply held religious belief, and we're now going to allow people to use that as a basis to treat children in certain ways that may not be good for them. And There are other problems with the way the bill is written, which have been pointed out in the discussion at the end of the day.
You know, the bill title says it's an act to provide protections from discrimination, but I believe what it's going to do is create a license to discriminate based on so-called deeply held religious beliefs. So for those reasons I'll be voting no. Other discussion Hearing none
all the motion signified by saying aye, a all post motion carried. Congratulations Representative Bentley. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. OK, committee. And Well,
we're supposed to be. In another meeting right now, uh. I am going to suggest, and you tell me what you want to do, I'm going to suggest that we come back. upon the Adjournment of transportation committee. Because Central Brian is the one. With a bunch of bills and of course
Senator Petty could present his bill at the same time.
Speaker 294
2:26:41
OK, but uh I hate it that we All that. Uh OK, so he's going to be in transportation committee
a while, you said. OK, I don't. Well, we can always say we're going to meet and not meet, but we can't not say we're
Going to meet and meet. So uh, well, we're going to meet up on adjournment of the Senate. And if we have to move that back a little bit, we'll confer among ourselves at that time, but uh but we will for for the representative and the senator, we will do our best. to meet up on adjournment to hear y'all's bills and then hopefully Central bronze
Y'all want immediate or 15 minutes? 15 minutes upon adjournment or call of the chair. We can do that, right? 15 minutes I'm gonna turn it or call the chair. We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
REGULAR AGENDA
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 AMISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVEELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USEOF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT.
SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMESWHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH ASTRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ON APERSON WHO COMMITTED A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER ORSENTENCING HEARING.
SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILEDELINQUENT.
HB1669 Bentley TO CREATE THE KEEP KIDS FIRST ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR PROTECTIONSFROM DISCRIMINATION FOR ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE PROVIDERSACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUIDPRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
SB477 G.Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILEDELINQUENCY RECORDS.
SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDEREDTO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.
HB1704 Andrews TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY IN MATTERS WHERE APARENT IS A FIRST RESPONDER.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 19, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 17
Speaker 20
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 40
Speaker 43
Speaker 49
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 67
Speaker 75
Speaker 77
Speaker 80
Speaker 85
Speaker 87
Speaker 95
Speaker 96
Speaker 97
Speaker 93
Speaker 101
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 57
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 142
Speaker 143
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 158
Speaker 148
Speaker 42
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 199
Speaker 195
Speaker 175
Speaker 19
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 232
Speaker 250
Speaker 254
Speaker 255
Speaker 256
Speaker 260
Speaker 283
Speaker 270
Speaker 292
Speaker 279
Speaker 27
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 258
Speaker 317
Speaker 329
Speaker 71
Speaker 72
Speaker 337
Speaker 41
Speaker 266
Speaker 340
Speaker 339
Speaker 303
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 365
Speaker 371
Speaker 374
Speaker 375
Speaker 378
Speaker 379
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 376
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
JP Tribble
Unverified
Speaker 294