Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (26)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1452
Act 271
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. HB1452 Lundstrum CLARIFYING THE LAW ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUAN…”
|
CLARIFYING THE LAW ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN CERTAIN PLACES; AND TO PROHIBIT … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1452 is now Act 271 |
|
HB1465
Act 312
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1465 Gonzales CONCERNING DIRTBIKE USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING DIRTBIKE USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF AN OWNER OF … | Gonzales | Notification that HB1465 is now Act 312 |
|
HB1479
Act 418
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR … | Warren | Notification that HB1479 is now Act 418 |
|
SB277
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB298
Act 320
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…T OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT. SB298 Rice TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DECREE TO QUIET TITLE TO … | Rice | Notification that SB298 is now Act 320 |
|
HB1474
Act 484
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; A…”
|
CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE … | Joey Carr | Notification that HB1474 is now Act 484 |
|
SB300
Act 321
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB300 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. | Gilmore | Notification that SB300 is now Act 321 |
|
SB301
Act 322
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. SB301 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO C…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THEFT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB301 is now Act 322 |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ED PENALTY FOR THEFT OF CARGO; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Gilmore | Notification that SB302 is now Act 659 |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
|
CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … | Irvin | Notification that SB313 is now Act 733 |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … | Irvin | Notification that SB314 is now Act 661 |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
SB321
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB328
Act 361
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT. SB328 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS. | Irvin | Notification that SB328 is now Act 361 |
|
HB1527
Act 315
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF AN OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. HB1527 Hudson TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS A GUARDIAN OF T…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS A GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE MAY MAKE ON BEHALF OF … | Hudson | Notification that HB1527 is now Act 315 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. 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: “…Y JAIL- STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-HOME SENTENCING 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. |
|
SB325
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D. SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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. |
|
SB340
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENTS A GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE MAY MAKE ON BEHALF OF A WARD. SB340 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXP…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…VENILE OR THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR CUSTODIAN OF A JUVENILE. SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R OF CERTAIN FORMS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN A MOTOR VEHICLE. 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. |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S REPARATIONS BOARD. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. SB1…”
|
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
is running a bill today, so I'm filling in for him as chair, and we're going to swap with each other as we're all running bills in different committees. Appreciate everybody's flexibility as we're in the thick of it, as everybody knows, a point of personal privilege to start off, I have my family with me here today, and as we all know, we are all sacrificing away from our time and away from our kids and and um and our family and so none of us, we don't get to do this unless everybody's good at home, right? And so I Say thank you to my wife for allowing us to serve this state. Thank you.
Would you like to say any words? Oh, OK, no,
Speaker 5
0:54
she said no. All right, all right, all right. I'm gonna get in trouble if I keep
going on that. All right, hey, we're members, we're gonna, we're gonna jump to, um, we find the bill number, representative Lustrom, if you'd like to come to the table. For HB 1452 yourself for the record, and
Speaker 7
1:08
then you are recognized. State Representative Robin Lunstrom, District 18, and I'm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:21
presenting HB 1452, and I have a guest with me. You're welcome
to bring them up. Please introduce yourself for the record
Speaker 15
1:34
as well. Thank you, David D. Phillips, deputy city attorney, City of Springdale, Mayor Doug Sprout, City attorney Ernest B. Kates in their regards.
Speaker 13
1:41
Thank you. President Lunch, you're, you're recognized. All right,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:44
thank you. HB 1452 is about giving notice both for law enforcement and the public. Fair notice of what is
already in the Constitution as Amendment 98. Medical marijuana amendment was codified into statute some of the key information was omitted. numerating these lists and definitions. are not that were not transmitted through statute to the police agencies and courts. This adds clarification. It doesn't change it, just makes it easier to access, and with that, I'd appreciate any questions. All right,
members, any questions for Representative Westrom
Speaker 19
2:22
Senatorfield information was deleted. Oh. Sir, if I
Speaker 15
2:32
may answer that question, when Amendment 98 was codified in 2021 with Act 1062, uh, a lot of information was in that draft, but it didn't make it to the codebook. And what we've got here in the codebook and Title VI, Chapter 7 is 21
words that merely say refer to the constitutional amendment and unfortunately the judges, the police agencies, and so forth in our state. They don't keep a constitution there where they look at it to see what violation has occurred. They keep a codebook much like this, and those 21 words haven't given them any help. So if you look at Section 6, and that's pretty much what has been omitted. Section 6 of Amendment 98. That's where it contains the prohibitions. That's where it contains the limitations on use and transport, and those are the
things that our officers in the field rely upon to know if a violation has occurred. So effectively no information was. transferred to them, sir. I haven't move in the proper time. members, any other questions? Alright, see none is we
do have, oh, OK, um, sir, you are the only one signed up to speak on the bill. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Nothing to add, sir. Thank you very much. OK, see no other signed up. Is anybody in the room that would
like to speak for or against the bill seeing none, uh, Senator Stubblefield, you're working for a motion. I have a motion to pass.
I'm sorry, excuse me, excuse me, Representatives, would you like to close for your bill? Y'all are doing just fine. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:07
you. I appreciate it. OK, we've got a 1st, we've got a 2nd members, any
discussion? All right, all in favor say aye and impose like sign. Congratulations, your bill's passed. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, members, let's go back to the top of the list
we've got Representative Warren, HB 1479. You're Warren here. All right, not seen here. Let's move to Senator Bryant. Are you here today? For SB 277, not seen, we'll move forward. All right, Senator Rice, SB 298.
Senator Rice, please recognize yourself for the record, and you'll
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
5:11
be recognized for 298. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terry Rice District 5. Bill 298 uh came about at the Request of some from
my area retired judge. Attorney, title company, various realty companies. Uh I've done as much homework as I
could find out on this from explanation I'll add some more here in a minute, but this is a bill from the year 1899. In 1899. Uh, I'm sure there
was. Less communication, less rapid communication and that's the reason for the wording in here, I think, uh, of Protecting the disability of
infancy or individuals with mental illness or intellectual disabilities and claiming what this
has to do with, with the title. A company in this I'm on because of my lack of knowledge, I'm going to read you some of the requests that will explain some of it. The larger, largest
title company, uh, that was named said that they will not insure.
Uh, the title from a Those who have been unable to find been unable to find an underwriter to that will ensure property confirmed by a quiet title degree, the statute, that's referred apparently overturns the statute of limitations for the land that is evolved into quiet title. This code 1865-10 is is part
causing the problem, in particular the two paragraphs in the section, uh, it's felt need to be repealed. I reached out to the Realtors Association and asked for input from them also from tidal interest, and I was told some large title interests looked at it and said they felt it probably Be that it be repealed. Uh What we have had in my area,
other than random cases, uh, we had A couple that died in the last few years and they had in my lifetime of 70 years, I know of parcels that they were in a realty business and, and cattle business and all, and they picked up parcels of auctioned property and held on to many of them after they passed, and their son passed, there was a uh sale of over 100 parcels.
And because over the period of time, uh, There is what they call clouded tidal and they with all the efforts they said that the best efforts that you can do that you just cannot come up with with all clarity that there needs to be. So what this bill does is uh ask for. that part to be removed and allows the quiet title action,
to take effect. If there are any that have information and let me say this because I, I reached out to somebody and talk, they got back with me this
morning and talked to him here in Little Rock. This is a statement from retired judge and I'm just stating here I'm not a lawyer and I can't. clarify, but this says the delinquent sales tax.
Uh, that statute provides for this last provision does not apply if the Court grants quiet title action. If it does not apply to the state of Arkansas, this person says, I fail to see why it should apply to the citizens of Arkansas that he's asking for equal protection and and he suggested, uh, adding the same provision that this provision does not apply if the court grants a quiet title action. So I would be open to any question, be open to anybody
testifying that's got more knowledge on this than me, but that I'm told that's the only way to clear up this action. Thank you, Senator.
You've heard the bill, members, any questions for Senator Rice? All right, Senator Sofield. Centralized the commissioner
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
10:01
of State land sales. This won't have any effect on And that's, that's who I reached out to
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
10:09
and and the lawyer in that division got back with me
this morning, and he wasn't for sure. He was the one that did
tell me and I looked it up after that is 1899 law. Uh, he wasn't for sure of this statement on, uh, that it doesn't apply to the state of Arkansas. He will at least in for his office, but uh he's he's didn't agree with. The information on this and he didn't have anything extra that he could add to it, but I did check with the land commissioner. That's all I have. OK.
Any other members' questions? Um, Senator Rice, were you part of the General Assembly when this bill was put into I couldn't, I couldn't hear the date you said before. I feel like it someday, yes. OK, all right. I just want to confirm that. Oh maybe that was well before your time. You're, you're correct. You're correct. Uh, members, I don't see any other questions. Is anybody signed up for? No, for or against anybody in the crowd for or against, see none. I've got a motion to pass in a second. Senator, would you like to close for your bill? I am closed for my bill. All
right, members. Will the committee's motion do pass in a second, all in favor say aye. I'll opposed. Say no. All right, congratulations, Senator. Members, we're going to Because we beat
the house so much last night we're going to allow them a favor to
jump again ahead. HB 1465. Representative Gonzalez, you recognized. This one has Senator Gilmore, you recognize thank you privilege.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
11:51
Considering how they played last night, I think that we should not hear any of the House bills in committee today. Well, best to
Chair
Unverified
12:01
not even show up to those anymore. I just didn't. I saw what was coming before I ever went, so I decided not to
go, so don't hold that against me, please. Representative, you
Chair
Unverified
12:12
are recognized to introduce yourself. Jessie Gonzalez, uh state representative District
89, and I understand you have an amendment that we're passing out, correct? Yes, just adds Senator McKee is a
Chair
Unverified
12:22
Senate sponsor. I forgot to do that before I got it out of the
house. We have a motion on the table substitute to do pass. All
right. We, we have a motion to adopt and a second any discussion on the amendment? All right, all in favor to adopt the amendment, say aye. I like sign no. All right, it is pass motion. To adopt the amendment, you're recognized to present
your bill as amended. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Unverified
12:52
So this bill had almost, well, it had no opposition on the House side, but I know y'all can, uh, y'all can be a little tougher sometimes, so I'm not looking for the same treatment down here. This bill simply does exactly what the title says. It, it establishes the liability protection for landowners who want to allow people to ride dirt bikes on their, on their property. There's been a little confusion online on this as to it protects people trespassing and all that. It does, it does not do any of that, um, where it came from was A few dirt bike racers came to
me. They were having trouble finding places to raise dirt bikes. They were, they call these racist hair scrambles, um. They hold them on private property when it's available, but the first question they get asked when they go ask somebody, can they use their property for for this race is what's my liability. So this just clarifies the landowner is not held liable. The race organizers have liability insurance and all that stuff, so if anybody's held liable, that would be, it would be them. That's that's the purpose of it. We did have to define what a dirt bike was. We
found out that there was not a definition for dirt bike in Arkansas code, so we had to add a definition for that. These protections are already in place for ATVs, UTVs, I think we just did some more liability protections that just came through the house recently on on other events and things, so anyway, it's just simply adding dirt bikes. Thank you, Representative. Uh,
and just for clarity, this, this is only
talking about private property. OK. All right. Any
questions from members? Senator Sheffield. Representative Gonzalez, would this fall under
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
14:31
the same regulations that I uh A rodeo or You know, like they have a kids' day, play day at a rodeo event in an arena where they put up a sign that says we are not responsible for accidents. Would this All under that same
Speaker 60
14:50
I don't know. I don't know about that. OK.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:55
All right, Senator Tucker, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for what it's worth, Representative Gonzalez, when we have a lot of these
limitation liability bills, I have a concern about the fact that you can't You should
protect people from owners of private property from the inherent risks of dirt bike use as you've done, but I don't, I don't think
you should be able to disclaim your own negligence or gross negligence or intent, and a lot of the bills that we see come through here don't do a very good job of that. I think
your your bill and subsection C2 does a good job of that, and I just want to compliment you for for the way that that was done, sir. Any other questions? Senator Stofield, do you have
Speaker 2
15:38
a question? You're lit up. I'm sorry. OK. All right, see any other questions. Do we
have anybody signed up? Nobody signed up. Anybody in the crowd for or against? Seeing none representative your, we have a motion to pass in a second. You're free to close for your bill. I'm right.
members all in favor of bill. We have a first and a 2nd on the 2nd on the 2. As amended, yes, all in favor of the bill as amended, say aye and
pose like sign. Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you. Thank you. All right, um, Senator Gilmore, are you ready? All right, we'll go to Senator Gilmore's. Has a few bills today.
Speaker 74
16:31
Please recognize yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Senator
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
16:36
Gilmore, District 1, Southeast Arkansas. It's great to be here. Um, I do have with me today Representative Gassway. I brought my legal counsel with me to help with these bills. We've spent a lot of time working on issues as you're probably aware, especially last session, we spent time working on these bills. He's got an extensive case of bills with him, um, this session, so he's not the lead house.
on these, but we've spent a lot of time working
on them, so with that I'm going to ask him to sit with me at the end of the table, and he'll recognize
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
17:11
himself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. Y'all, I reckon that's presenting your
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
17:17
bill. Thank you. Um, Senate Bill 300 we'll start with. It's a pretty simple bill members, um, and I think it's a very thoughtful bill when you look at how it's it's written and it contemplates, I think, um, a lot and and so happy to get into that if if there are questions.
Basically, um, we're creating an additional section for organized retail theft. So I think over the course of the last several years, um, you don't have to pay that close of attention to understand that Our retailers have been hit hard, especially as it relates to organized retail crime. These are individuals in some cases, in some articles that I've read, these are, these are cartel groups um that are, that are, you know, perpetrating these
acts against our retailers and so this, this bill specifically targets those types of crimes and those types of offenses, and so I mean if you look at just overall I think, you know, they could share more if we need to, um, but I think we all understand what they are dealing with. Many other states, you go to stores and there's shelves that are locked due to the level of theft that occurs in those stores, so anyway, I'm not going to belabor the point. I think we understand what we're dealing with, but at this point I would turn it over
to Representative Gasway if he has anything he'd like to say and then open
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
18:42
to questions. Thank you, Senator Gilmore, and just to go through the bill just a little bit to give you an idea exactly how we've tried to target organized retail crime and to Senator Gilmore's point, it is becoming a pervasive problem. You have organized criminal groups who are hitting retail establishments all across the country and they're doing that very target and a very targeted way. It costs our
retail businesses over a billion dollars annually. And because again just because of the pervasiveness of this activity, many states have begun to address this with specific statutes and so we're following suit in Arkansas. We're certainly not the first to do it, but we are among the first to do it. And so I think that we're in a good position there, but to give you an idea specifically what we're dealing with because it's organized retail theft, we had to distinguish between regular theft and so the way that we
begin to do that is it's organized because It is a person acting in concert with one or more other persons that distinguishes it from just regular theft. Then we say that it is Retail because we define retail very specifically as the theft of consumer goods, which means goods for sale at retail that are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes so that distinguishes it from someone
who, for instance, goes to their neighbor's house and takes a weed eater, goes to their neighbor's house, and takes their lawnmower, steals a four wheeler, whatever the case may be, we're focusing specifically on retail goods. And then there's a number of items that constitute various courses of conduct that would constitute. retail theft, and then we get into the value of the property, and this is important. I'm sure as many of my prosecutor friends who are here will recall defense attorneys making the argument to you that
the value of the property is not actually what is for sale for, you know, that property actually costs the retailer a lot less than that, or they'll even go back to the manufacturer, you know, they make this product for just pennies on the dollar. So we specifically say that the value means the actual retail price of the property, and so we kind of cut that argument off. From the very beginning and then in terms of the values for the theft, we kept the current values that are in the regular theft statute, we just really ported those over here. So for a
B felony, it's $25,000 or more, and importantly, we talk about the aggregate value because many of the organized retail thefts that are occurring are occurring over a period of time. They're hitting one facility and then they're going to the next county and hitting the next Walmart and they're going to the next county and hitting the next Walmart. And so we say that that how you can be aggregated over a period of 120 days. And so it's a B felony if it's over 25,000. It's a sea felony if it's um
5000 to 25,000, a D felony if it is a 1000 to 5000. And can be a misdemeanor if it's under 1000. So those are really the regular theft classifications in terms of the values that are involved and so we just took those and made that applicable to this course of conduct, and then the last part of the bill. Because we know that this organized retail crime occurs again in But they may hit several different stores in the course of their activity, criminal
activity that Any place any judicial district where this conduct takes takes place has jurisdiction to commence the prosecution there, so it's another important part of the bill, that's what the bill does, and I think we're happy to answer any questions. What will you remind us At least myself for a class
D felony which looks like is the lowest level of offense. Just kind of some framework of what what that looks like as penalty wise.
So a class D felony is 0 to 6 years in the
Department of Correction. Thank you. All right, members, any questions? Senator
Clark? Senator Tucker, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh, I'm going to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:54
get on a roll of passing out compliments, but I like the way that the penalty section is structured to match the penalties in the current theft statute. I thought that was well done and it's a thoughtful bill overall a Senator Gilmore said, I just kind of have a couple big picture questions. One is, why create a new offense rather than amend the current theft code section.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
23:17
It's a great question, and we thought about that, but the current theft statute is kind of convoluted as it already is. So that's one reason we could have put a lot of this language into the theft statute, but that makes it longer and and really more complicated than it already is. And then secondly, because this has become such a serious issue and pervasive problem. We wanted to target it with its own statute. OK. The other question This is sort of really more of a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
23:48
big picture question. Maybe it's more for the prosecuting attorneys Association than for y'all, but I'm just conscious of any time we have a dollar figure in code, whether it's for a homestead tax exemption or a campaign contribution limit or in this case, determining what level of offense, you can be charged with, right, that we need to be conscious of the fact that over time those dollar amounts should go up. And, uh, and I'm just curious if y'all know or Mr. McMahon or some I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but
I'm just curious if we know when these dollar figures were originally put into code and maybe If we should take a look at adjusting them for inflation. Well, I think it's a great question. I don't
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
24:32
know that offhand, and I think if something to contemplate going forward maybe in a separate bill and something we could talk about. OK. Um, all right, thank you. Any other
Speaker 90
24:41
questions? See none, uh, we don't have anybody signed up
with anybody in the room like to speak for or against. See none. Members, what
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
24:54
does the would you like to I'm closed. I like your role, so let's just, I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Make a motion to pass. See a
motion. I see a second. All those in favor say aye. I'll pose like sign. All right, congratulations,
your bills passed. Moving to, would you like to go
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
25:12
to 301? Yep, let's do it. Uh, members again as I started out, this is really a a package of 3
bills, the next one, Senate Bill 301, uh, it contemplates theft of cargo. Again, this is something that I think law enforcement is seeing a lot of there's there's articles that you can, you can just Google when it talks to theft of cargo, um, again, this is something that is happening quite a bit. As it relates to certainly in an organized standpoint, but certainly as it relates to cartels, so again, I'm not going to belabor
the point. I'm happy to have a discussion, take questions on this bill. Remember
Chair
Unverified
25:58
you, you've heard the bill, Senator Tucker, you recognize you. So I'll I'll break
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:05
my compliment streak with with this one. So this is not actually creating a new crime. It's just enhancing the penalty for a crime that already exists, and I just, I didn't, I didn't hear an explanation for what's the policy justification for an additional 10-year sentence if theft is of cargo rather than some other type of property.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
26:28
Well, so I think a couple of things. When you, when you start looking at the mode in which this is done when you start looking at the value amount associated with things that are being stolen. I think that um we're certainly leaving it to prosecutorial discretion on this, but I think that it's important to emphasize just you know, the, the cost associated with um I think inflation would be one, when, when goods are, are
being impeded on the on the route to store, to a retailer, whatever it might be, uh, I think there's costs associated to that retailer that then the end user being the consumer is paying, so I think there's, there's that component. I also think that um just to the extent of the organization that goes into um these types of crimes are people who are very motivated, very skilled at what they do, and I think that the penalty needs to be such that we're sending the very strong message
and if my good lawyer over
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
27:32
here wants to interject. He's welcome to.
Yeah, and that's a great question. So I think in response what I would say is this is very uh, most of the groups that are engaging in this activity are highly organized. They engage in very sophisticated operations to take, you know, when you're taking cargo, you're taking a large amount of property at one time, and so this is not like again we distinguish between
someone who goes over to their neighbor's house and takes their weed eater out of their carport. This is not that. These are sophisticated organized criminal groups, gangs, cartels, etc. That are using very sophisticated means to steal large amounts of cargo from retailers at the time that it and for manufacturers, I suppose, from the time it leaves the facility to another facility and so we've defined all of that very specifically in the bill, uh, or somehow intercepts it
along the way, and they use very sophisticated means to do that, uh, and it results in they're taking a large amount of property, a high dollar value of property. And so if you're going to engage in that type of criminal activity, then we're going to enhance your sentence. And so that's the justification for it. We thought, we thought about and could have made this a separate standalone statute as well. We decided not to do that and just make it a sentence enhancement
for this particular conduct in the theft statute,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
29:04
and on that again it's up to 10 years. It doesn't mean an automatic 10 years. So I think there's, again, there's discretion involved with that depending on what what's being stolen, the amount that's been stolen, the organization involved, I think there's a lot of factors that would be considered. into that. So you know, it may just be that. There's a philosophical disagreement, and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:24
if that's the case, then so be it, but just to get, just to address a couple of points y'all made and
give you an opportunity to respond. Everything has to amount. is already covered in the law. I mean that's the way the penalty struck, you know, the penalty scheme is structured is that you're subject to a particular penalty depending on the value of the property that you have stolen, so um that's already covered costs to consumers for theft of property. I don't, I don't hear how there's a distinction between theft of cargo as opposed to theft of other kinds of property that distinguishes theft of cargo from theft of
other type of property, so the only thing that I really heard that distinguishes theft of cargo. From other types of theft is that It's organized crime and you know they're targeting these sorts of things, but that's not really the way the bill is written. The bill could be written like a like a federal RICO statute that says if you engage and it's actually in 300, you know, if you're working with people to Target, you know this this sort of activity, you know, then you're subject to this criminal penalty.
But that's not the way that 301 is written. 301 is just written that if you steal any cargo at all, then you're subject to a penalty enhancement of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
30:52
up to 10 years. Well, and I, and I think to your point about who this impacts again, it impacts everyone that that frequents a Retail establishment anyone who buys goods and so at the end of the day, the end user is impacted, and that's a lot of
people and so I think the message that we're attempting to send here is almost similar to that of the Fentanyl enforcement Act that we passed last session that had um I think very strong penalties associated with those who are trafficking fentanyl, and I think again, I know the two are very different in that regard, but I think that it at the end of the day you're looking at people who are highly organized who are very much intended malice and infecting or
involving or inflicting pain on a lot of people, so I think again when you look at the overall broad impact of this, I think this is the message that we are attempting to send based on what is happening. And that's if that's all true, I guess I would just ask, let's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:55
put that in the bill, but But it's not in there right now. All right, thank you. Thank you. Center stubblefield. A Gen Gilmore.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:14
When I read these, these look like crimes that require a certain amount of expertise. To be to commit these types of crimes or are we
Speaker 111
32:24
experiencing an increase in these types of Criminal activity. That's a great question, Senator
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
32:31
Stubel, I appreciate it. Yeah, it, it is, these are um very sophisticated crimes, as you point out, and in fact I think there is a there's a website or an organization called Cargoett that tracks a lot of this, and I
think the average amount in theft is a little over $200,000 each time one of these things occurs, one of these incidents occur and so again we're not, we're not talking about in the like in the previous bill of maybe 2 or 3 individuals walking in a store, walking out in an organized way. We're talking about yet again organized but far more sophisticated in their approach of how they are perpetrating these thefts. So I think, I hope that answers your
question, but the answer simply is yes. I mean, when, when you, when you tap
Speaker 112
33:23
into a pipeline are still an aircraft. This, this sits, I mean this is a whole separate set
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
33:29
of crimes in it. And, and the person will be
ineligible in that to receive any kind of early release or anything, right? If they receive this enhancement, yes.
Speaker 117
33:49
All right, that's all I am, Mr. Chairman. Senator Ross. Is this
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
33:57
prosecutors association endorsed Uh, I know it has the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:01
support of the Attorney General and I see them nodding their heads, so yes, thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Gilmore and
Representative Gassway, excuse me for having come in late, couldn't be helped. Uh.
It seems and you probably already covered this. It seems like we're putting an enhancement on everything, uh. That each thing is more serious than everything else was. Why is this more serious than uh stealing, uh, at midnight at a building material or
lumberyard. Well, and I think we've touched on it briefly. I would just point out um
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:44
again, when you start looking at these crimes that are
perpetrated, I think I've already mentioned the
average cost of these or the average amount stolen in the course of these by some is around 200, a little over $200,000 per incident and then I know that the National Insurance Crime Bureau listed cargo theft as a 15 to $35 billion industry. if you will, um, so, and again, that is a cost that all of us as consumers end up paying in the long run. And so when you talk about the level of sophistication associated with
this, the impact to the end users, consumers, whoever it might be associated with this, it is huge. And so I think it needs to be treated with a seriousness level that that we're attempting to do in this bill, and again I go back to some of the other things and just for your, to answer your question directly, Senator. I don't, I don't generally I've run a lot of crime bills. I don't generally do enhancements. Um this is sort of unique in the sense of this allows, you know, this this allows this
enhancement to be added on to um you know, other, other penalties, um, but I think again it's important just given the circumstance we're dealing with kind of goes back to what we've talked about related to um you know, fentanyl enforcement Act and some other things that we've done. There, there's a message that I think is helpful to send. Um, with an associated turn effect, hopefully, um, and I think when we're dealing with the people and the sophistication level that we're dealing with here, I think that they pay attention to that, so that that's the goal. OK. McKee, go ahead.
Speaker 43
36:28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gilmore, I remember attending a conference or some meetings
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
36:33
a year or two ago, and I'm trying to remember the number that these kind of thefts cost our economy every year, and the number keeps popping into my head is $85 billion a year. Is that close in your recollection. I know that there's a huge number. Yeah, it is a huge number. I think the number I just stated was around
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
36:50
35 billion, but you, you could be right, Senator. It may be higher than 35. I think, I think at the end of the day when you look at the overall impact of
the economy, I think there is a huge impact when you look at the price of goods
on the shelf going up, you have to always factor in if you're a retailer, whoever, um, the, the costs associated with loss prevention or asset. protection with that. So I think to your point, it's a very expensive industry that at the end of the day, we as the consumer are paying for. Thank you for that. And If I remember right, these thefts are things like
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:30
truckloads of supplies. That's the trucker stops at the truck stop or if he's sleeping, sleeping for his allotted time. I mean, you're talking about truckloads of weed eaters. You're talking about truckloads of dog food, truckloads of medical supplies, things of that nature. Those things have a significant impact on the retail association and on customers doing business every day. No, it's 100% correct, and those things
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
37:51
usually end up in the black market flooding the market, and again, I don't have to explain to this very learned committee how that
impacts the overall economy. Did you have a question, Senator
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
38:14
Stubenville? You'll recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Just how does the feds play into this? Just the feds have any laws. I mean, we're really talking about Gangs, terrorist groups, I mean, does the federal government not have any kind of
Laws that pertain to these types of Activities Yes,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
38:39
Senator, they certainly do, and they have prosecuted cases similar to this. This
just gives us at the state level, our prosecutors, our law enforcement. Another avenue to pursue this and pursue it aggressively. And and just to add to that, Senator, I've I've
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
38:57
heard recently from folks in the, in the space of prosecuting crimes that the Sinaloa cartel, which
is, I think we've heard that name before, associated with drugs coming across our border. One of the other avenues and how they impact our economy but also make money is by targeting cargo trains, so that's just one example, and again, to your point, there's, you know, federal law enforcement that certainly has Oversight of that, but again I think this is just another tool in our toolbox here in Arkansas. Well, I think the cartels have already
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
39:30
been Um Put in that category of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:35
terrorists and I think rightfully so, Senator.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
39:46
All right, that's all I have. Senator Johnson, you recognize? This is intrastate commerce and are we possibly going to step over that interstate commerce. Provisions by having another enforcement besides. What the feds have. I don't see how this would impact what the feds do if
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
40:03
the feds choose to prosecute a case,
this would be if our prosecutors in Arkansas prosecute a case and then this adds on as an enhancement to whatever those penalties are. So no, I don't see that as an issue, Senator. All
right, thank you. Thank you. OK, Senator Gilmore, back to, I
hate stealing. I hate thieves. That's a broad statement, but it's true, and anybody who has had very much stolen from them. Most likely feels the same way.
But you know, shoplifting is a huge problem in the US We've got retail stores that are closing and a lot of in some cities and states, in fact, everywhere, but in the news more in some places, uh. We have in Arkansas 8 rings it's still ATVs and they're out, you know, you can report it, but they're out of state by the by the time you wake up, if they were stolen during the night, uh. So I'm just trying to get and I
don't see anybody here to testify as to why, you know, why this is more important from law enforcement or otherwise. I'm trying to get my head around as I do all enhancements if you if you've been on the committee with me long enough to know why this one is more important than others. Well, I And thank you, Senator, and that is a good question, and we
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
41:39
do need to make a distinction if
we're going to enhance the sentence, but I think my response is that this is organized activity. This is activity that's engaged in by the cartels, gangs, they use sophisticated means to do it. They use deception, whether that's if someone is offloading cargo and they pretend that they're the owners of the lumber store and they're there to receive the cargo and then they put it on their vehicles and take it. off at some point
or uh they intercepted from the time it's leaving the manufacturer. They engage in very sophisticated means. These are very organized groups and as Senator Gilmore said we're talking about a lot of money. I mean, each incident on average is about $200,000. That's a lot different from the person who's at the self checkout at Walmart, who scans or doesn't scan a few items and walks out to the store with it. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, billions of dollars of cost to the economy, organized
criminal activity. And so when you put all of those things together, We treat it differently. And
so what kind of cargo is being stolen then of its 200,000. It's not flooring or lumber because that's 10,000 to 40,000,
uh, on the truck. So what kind of cargo are we talking about? Well, Senator McKee's already pointed
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:03
out one of the things that we've heard in the meeting, the conference we had back in the summer was a semi-trailer, semi trucks full of weed eaters, let's say. I mean, there's all sorts of things that are being stolen.
OK, so This bill's probably going to
pass. But if you bring a similar bill on shoplifting. Probably will pass if you bring a similar bill on ATVs, it probably will pass. Am I wrong? Uh, I think it would depend on the bill, Senator. Well, enhancement again enhancements for serious crime. We're probably going to pass. And because I'm trying to weigh
Here's the penalty, and then we're going to increase the penalty, OK,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
43:58
Senator Tucker, you recognize. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cha. Let me try to ask this a different way. I
mean, the conduct that you're describing. Sounds very serious organized crime. High value and goods stolen,
so my, my question is, why is none of that in the bill? So once again we thought about
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
44:20
that. We just passed through this committee the retail theft, organized retail theft bill and these are a package of bills, and we thought the easiest way to do it, the easiest way to target this activity without creating a new statute without putting in a lot of new elements without having to go through that process is just say we already have a law on theft and I'm afraid that if we would have done it another way, you would be sitting here saying we already have a law on theft. Why didn't you just add this to the law on theft as you did when we
discussed the last bill. I just voted for your last bill created a new crime and so but the but the point remains. I feel like, you know, there are a number of ways that you can address it, to your point, we could have created a new statute. We could have added new elements. We could have done all the things that you talked about and then the criticism would have been, why did, why do we need a new law for this? We already have a law against theft. Why didn't you just add an enhancement? And so we just determined that the easiest way
to address this issue was to take the existing theft statute, add cargo to it and Because they're already enhancements in the existing theft statute, as I recall, and we make another one specific to cargo and then we add a term of years, and that was just the easiest way to address it. Right Senator Johnson, So I'm just gonna, I'm just going to be a trucker for a
Speaker 155
45:48
minute. If I'm asleep in my truck and I
wake up and this is occurring at the back of my truck. And I try to go back there and keep that from happening. And those guys have a couple $100,000. In their vehicle. Do you think they're going to try to to keep me from stopping them. I would presume that to be
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:16
the case, Senator. I think this is,
Speaker 155
46:19
I think this is Whenever you're talking about the money.
And if you're, if you feel like you are the one who is only one to protect that load that you have on, and this is happening. I think it's important to make this enhancement to deter that action and that driver never getting in that situation. I thank you for the meal. Thank you, Senator. Senator Gilmore, we
seldom come up with these ideas on our own. Who's behind this bill? Quite a few people, retailers,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:58
trucking association, attorney General's office, all have had input on this. OK. All right, thank you. Any other questions? See none if
anyone we don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against. So What would the committee like to do? Well, I'm closed and make
a motion to pass. Excuse me, Senator Gilmore. The, uh, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
47:29
Senator. I make a motion to pass so as not to belabor this motion in Central
McKee second bill. Any discussion? Senator Tucker I don't want to be repeat myself too much. The conduct they're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
47:41
describing sounds, sounds pretty bad, and it sounds like maybe it does deserve an enhanced penalty, but that's just not what's in the bill, and 3 300 creates a new crime for organized theft, which includes elements of it, which is I voted for that. The next one I plan to vote for depending on what the discussion goes. It also creates
a new crime. This does not create a new crumb. The bill just does not. The language in the bill is not addressing the conduct that we're seeking to punish, so I just think the bill, the bill should be prepared differently. That is specifically addresses the conduct that we're seeking to punish. So for that reason, I'll be voting no. Senator Tucker. The Uh, would you not
now at a later time have a suggestion for amendment to the bill for what attempting to do.
Thank you. Any other discussion? All for the motion signified by saying aye. All post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Representative, you have passed your
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
48:48
bill. Well, I think we gave that a proper vetting, and I appreciate that committee. I think it's always helpful. I think
this is the process, um. I I'll go ahead and use the good
senator's words against him. I look forward to his vote on this very well crafted and thought out bill, Senate Bill 302, again, I think it's very similar to the first bill, Senator Gilmore. Uh Is this going to be a very lengthy bill? That's up to the committee,
Senator. Well, in your estimation, I hope it's
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
49:27
pretty quickly, pretty quick that we can move through this. OK, the reason I ask is
Central Urban just got here, who's chairing public health, but she's got several bills to run, so and I've got Representative Gasa away from the other end and I don't want to cause him to have to wait so let's go ahead, but this is your last bill for the moment. It is OK. Let's go. What's the bill number? Thank you,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
49:56
Senator. I will be expeditious. That's Senate Bill 302, and I'm mindful that we have Senator Irvin
and others waiting, so we'll move quickly
as we can, um, members this just targets gift card fraud. Um, I read a Forbes article recently that there's about 200+ million um in gift card fraud that takes place. It's a problem that is been going on for a while. In fact, I was more aware of the you go to a Walmart store over the holidays and was attempting to get a gift card and now I think depending on how many gift cards you try to purchase and other
things that sometimes you have to have to actually get a gift card from behind the counter just because of the level of organized thought that's put into stealing gift cards or spoofing gift cards, if you will, from others that have purchased them, so it's it's a, it's a major problem again to the retailers. But again, that has a downstream impact to us as consumers. So with that, again, I don't want to take too much time. I don't want to bla the point. I think this bill is thoughtful and it is delineated in such a way that
I think Senator Tucker likes to see, so with that we're happy to take questions. Questions from the Senator Tucker. These are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
51:14
more specific than the than the philosophical ones from the last bill, on page 2 line
7, I mean, excuse me, line 8. I just wonder if I wonder if there's a definition of defraud somewhere or if we need one. I'm sorry, would you repeat
that, Senator? I just wonder if there's a definition
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
51:45
of defraud. Uh, not within this bill, but they're defraud is in other parts of statute. In
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
51:50
the criminal code, is there a definition of defraud in the criminal is what I'm wondering.
Speaker 167
51:57
I'm, I'm not entirely sure, Senator. OK, I, I know
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
52:01
it is defined elsewhere in statute in I I know and I think um Certainly as it relates to like
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
52:10
Medicaid fraud, and that's, I'm sure that's true, but my question really is whether the definitions, whether it's a Title
5, I'm not entirely sure would apply to this. OK. And then it just, it just seems to me like there's an element missing in B1 or 2 that's that's present in B3. You know, B3 requires that you knowingly use a gift card, um, be 1 and 2 just Uh,
they just say that you obtained something, but if you look at the definition of theft of theft and 536-103. It has as an element of theft that you have to have the purpose of depriving the owner of the property. So I'll just repeat myself. That would be helpful. It seems like There's something missing from B1 and 2. There's there's three ways to commit this crime B1,
B2, and B3 and B3 you have to knowingly use the gift card, which makes sense. That's the way crimes are set up, right? B one or two, all it says is that essentially that you're acquiring or obtaining a gift card or gift card redemption information and it just feels to me like there's something missing from B1 and B2, and I looked at The definition of theft in 536-103 and as an element of theft, the crime of theft, it says that you have to obtain the property.
With the purpose of depriving the owner of the property, and I guess I was just wondering if maybe we could add. With the purpose of depriving the owner of the property to be 1 and B2. I mean, I'm, I'm happy to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:00
look at that further. um. I mean, again, I think I I think I'm comfortable with is delineated there, but again, I
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
54:12
would, I would defer to my, um, presenter, co-presenter here to see what his thoughts are. So I think you
make a good point as I read the bill, I, I certainly see your point, and I do think there may be a slight amendment that could help with this. Um, I don't know that that's a reason not to go forward today. We have a package of bills. Of course you've worked with me before. If we need an amendment, I don't have a problem making an amendment, but I think, you know, to answer your question, with the purpose
to defraud acquires or retains retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information. That is one way to commit the crime. And so to your point, all you have to do is acquire the card, and then one would have to prove the intent to defraud, and that in and of itself is the crime. Well, that seems a little problematic. Number one, you're going to have a hard time proving probably intent to defraud, and then the other element is just acquiring the card. So that standing alone is a little bit problematic to your point. The second one obtains by
deception, a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder or card issuer. At some point, if you obtained something by deception, that to me sounds a lot like theft by deception, which is part of our existing theft statute, which would be very similar to just being in possession of stolen property, something that you've obtained by deception. So I do think that one can stand alone and then to your point, number 3, knowingly uses a gift card or gift card redemption information that has been obtained in
violation of subdivision B 1 and 2 for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else. value to me that's the crux of what we're trying to get at, which I think links up very well with number one, which probably is what needs to happen, and I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to to work with you to make this read correctly. You make a good point. I don't know that that's any reason to stop the bill today as we have a package of bills and as you've admitted this is otherwise good bill which you plan to vote for, so.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
56:17
And those, those are fair fair answers and yeah, maybe we can get together, you know, they're on line 11. It is an or there. I think B3 is well written. It is an or there before B3, so, um, no, so those are those are fair answers, and I'll vote for the bill today and look forward to our conversation. I look forward to your Du Past
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
56:38
motion, son. Senator Stubblefield. Well, it looks like we've keep
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
56:43
going. We're going to fill up that 3000 bed prison in one day.
We, uh, what I'd like to know is we keep passing these, and I know this bill in particular doesn't have enhanced penalties. But can you tell me if all these, all these bills that we have been putting enhancements on. On the penalties on the crime. Are they working? Do you have any kind of statistics or numbers to show me if the if the if the people at the recidivism rate. is the result of enhanced
penalties. are just people doing the same old thing. Do, do you have bills in mind with with with enhancements
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
57:29
or I don't have any bills. OK, well, I'll
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
57:36
defer to my Well So to answer your specific question, I don't have any statistics here with me today. I do have some anecdotal support of that
just from my own personal experience. One of the enhancements that we have in the law is the firearm enhancement. Crimes committed with a firearm.
And I've seen that be very useful in prosecuting violent offenders who've committed heinous acts. Sometimes when the proof is a little difficult, uh, The firearms enhancement has been been able to be used very successfully to keep Violent offenders in prison longer people who have done very terrible things. I can just tell you that that firearms enhancement for one, and I could probably give you others, but
just off the top of my head, the firearms enhancement, I think if you talk to the prosecutors, has been a very effective tool at holding violent offenders accountable, yes, but now in
terms of statistics, I don't have any today, but you do
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
58:37
not know if someone who has been put in prison. As a result of an enhanced penalty. You don't know what the statistics are of them committing another crime, recidivism. I don't have that information today, OK.
All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all I have. Any other questions from the committee? See none. There is no one here to testify for or against Senator Gilmore, would you like
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
59:10
to close for your bill? Thank you, members. I'm closed. I think we can make some clarifications to Senator Tucker's questions. So with that, I would ask for a motion to pass and make that motion. I look forward to a second from Senator Tucker. Motion from Senator Gilmore, 2
from Senator Tucker. Any discussion saying none, all for the motion signified by saying I all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, Representative Gaway, you have passed your bill. Thank you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
59:40
for the leeway, and I'll just go ahead and apologize, Senator Ervins, for taking so much time on these quality bills. Central Irvine.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:00:05
What bill are we starting with, Senator Ervin? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the latitude for that. I'm Senator Missy Urban District 24, and members of the committee, I, uh, I have 4 bills today. I, I, if, if it's OK, I'm going to start with the bills that I think are, there's no opposition to and uh I, I don't know if there's any opposition to any of them actually, but um if the juvenile judges can come to the table, um, and Justice Rhonda Wood, I want to start with, um, Senate bill.
320. Uh, it's the biggest one, but it's uh probably the easiest one. OK, SB 320. So if they can come to the table,
I just think it'll be quicker. And they can identify themselves for the record. Rhonda Wood, Arkansas Supreme Court. Good morning, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 196
1:01:04
Ernest Brown. 11th Judicial District West Jefferson and Lincoln County.
Speaker 197
1:01:10
Troy Braswell, circuit judge, 20th Judicial District, Faulkner, Van Buren, and Cersey Counties. Justice Wood, judges,
it is good to have you this morning and as a special courtesy to you, we will not be taking up cell phones today. Thank you. Um, thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:01:26
you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It's really just an honor and a privilege to have them with me today. Um, it's, I love working with these folks that are sitting here at the table, that we are a team, we are a strong team, we have done incredible work on
juvenile justice policy because of their input and their hard work and diligence, um, and so I, I just really just want to say from a personal standpoint, I, these are people I go to. rely on all the time and I'm just so grateful to actually be able just to work with them. It's just been so much fun over the years. We've been at this for I think 14 years together and so it's just really been fun to build friendships with that Senate Bill 320. I'm going to let uh Justice Wood really speak to it. Um, what, what Senate
Bill 320 is, it's a very big bill, but it's a reorganization of the code, and there's no substantive change in the bill. Yeah,
Speaker 204
1:02:25
so, um, chair and committee members, um, thank you. So um Senate Bill 320 is what we've really wanted for decades. It is a reorganization of the juvenile code into logical sections. So it's making it now um where it is sort of Finn's cases, child welfare
cases, delinquency cases, um, delineated by their sections. This is a win-win for everyone. There are no substantive changes, the The lion's share of the work, I will say, um, was done on this by Brian Welch, a parent counsel in Brookstein of the AOC. This is a project of the Commission on Children, Youth and Families and the advisory council, all stakeholders participated to make sure that we could do this. This is helpful for everyone involved in the system because
it now allows parents, juvenile, stakeholders when they are involved in a court involved case with juveniles. They can now figure out which and go and find the laws applicable to help protect their rights if the situation occurs, so I want to thank, you know, Senator Urban again for working with us and serving with us and all three branches came together and Tiffany Wright, everyone, so I think this is something that
um the legislature will be proud of for decades to come that all Arkansans will benefit by having something that's very transparent for the public to utilize going forward. Um, I also say that I'm
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:04:01
really proud of our Republican women's Legislative Caucus. This is part of our dream big
package and it's a big, big piece of work and we're just really grateful for the juvenile judges and all the different stakeholders, um, to trust us with uh with this. That's a big, big deal. Big
deal. But um and so just really proud of all the different co-sponsors that have stepped up and and helped with
this effort. You're ready for questions? Questions, well, no,
Speaker 155
1:04:40
no, no, Senator Johnson first. Senator, do you think this might keep our lawyers from arguing and possibly reduced caseloads.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:04:50
It's OK. They're educated to debate. It's a good healthy thing to do. That's how you get better policy. Centra
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:58
Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've said this to you privately, Senator Irvin, but for the sake of transparency, I'll say it. I'll say it publicly, which is every session when the Republican Women's legislative package comes out, there's a part of me that wonders if I got a piece of me that's a Republican woman, so. So anyway, yeah, just
Speaker 216
1:05:17
passing that along the tape. Mark the tape, mark the tape. We've got
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:05:22
lipstick for you and we got, we can put a skirt on you, buddy. Come on in. The water is great. Other questions motion to pass from Senator Tucker excepted. at the proper time. Other questions, no. The, uh, is,
uh, is Mr. Welch in the room? I appreciate the shout out, but maybe he's not as supportive as you think
he is. No, I'm just kidding. The Uh, uh, appreciate that not that I ever have to read it,
but anytime you try to make things more organized and easy, easier to use. That's bigger than people realize. Any other questions? Irwin, do you recognize clothes for your bill?
And Senator Clark, you've also worked in a lot of this
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:06:18
area of juvenile justice policy and reform too,
so um she probably included you in a co-sponsor on this bill, to be honest with you, but we could give you some lipstick and a skirt too,
yeah, that's OK. We'll let Senator Tucker have the lipstick in the skirt and uh the I never asked for co-sponsors on my. so I'm never offended when somebody doesn't put me on theirs. Well, you've done good work in the area. Well, thank you for that, are you close? Yes, I'm closed will of the committee. that
Duke pass. I don't know if you can do that from over there, but, but I'm Do
pass from Senator Gilmore, I think a 2nd from Senator Tucker any discussion? Oh Hearing none, all for the motion signal Pana all post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Central Irving. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. While they're at the table,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:07:22
I'll go ahead and run their second bill, which is also um
a bill that's part of our package as well. Um, It's Senate Bill 328 and I do have some other folks for other bills here to testify, so we'll try to go through this quickly, um. You're recognized present Senate Bill 328. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. With this issue, what we are trying to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:07:56
address in this issue is sexually explicit images of
children to further protect children from the horrific trauma and abuse that occurs when images of them are taken, modified, and used for sexually explicit purposes. Um, we are acting in this bill to eliminate any loopholes that might allow predators to escape the full weight of the law. Um, and so I think it's important that we not let legal technicalities prevent justice. these children if there's any questions as to whether the images are children, a jury of 12 will decide and not a judge
acting unilaterally. Um, I think this is a really critical technical bill that's written in a way to respond to what is happening in our courtrooms and for the judges, particularly the juvenile judges here that have worked on this bill, important that they are recognizing. The trauma and then the increased re-traumatization of these children when these images are shown during a hearing and
so I think important for them to hear, to testify specifically on the need for this legislation. If, if
Speaker 228
1:09:18
I may, um, and I I think that um this, the change, I
Speaker 204
1:09:23
think an urban discussed the technical change is probably the most correct way to explain this and if you look at um section, and so I thank
you for letting me chair to keep my phone. If you look at subsection B where um the change about trier of fact, where it said court or jury, and I believe probably I hate to speak, though that's what I do my day job. try to figure out what the legislature intended, um, but that it said court or jury in the past. And so the belief is probably most likely that what the legislature would have general assembly intended was court, meaning when it was a
bench trial and jury when it was a jury trial, and so the technical change is to say, trial or fact. So it's when the court is sitting in a bench trial jury when it's a jury trial. However, in the old language, what happened was that It court or jury meant that sometimes that was changed that an appellate court revisited those images on appeal, and so that then they took that as the court could revisit and determine whether those images
were that of a child, and um I think it's responsive probably to one appellate case where I believe 11 jury convictions on 11 images were overturned on appeal. Um, involving a child predator, so um it's to make that change, to try to hopefully get what the General Assembly intended, then below that there's also a change to remove the expert testimony and just have it reflect testimony. So if you think about
when a jury is looking at whether something is a child or not under the age of majority that you're sort of assessing that. lay people can sort of look at an image and determine whether that's a child. It doesn't prevent um whether that would be the state if they choose to sort of bring in an expert to say we think this is a child versus an adult, and it also wouldn't prevent a defense attorney from bringing in an expert. It just
means that they don't have to have an expert and pay that cost. Um, so it gets sort of more flexibility at that trial stage. I
Speaker 108
1:11:53
hope that's helpful. Y'all ready for questions? Senator
Speaker 155
1:11:59
Johnson. So there's A multitude of things were child, I mean since I've been on judiciary 14 and under 13 and under, and this is Under 18.
I mean, You know, those other things are like possible child rape in situations like that, and we're treating, we're, you know, changing those ages. Can, can y'all speak to that as me being a layperson. And I'm not sure you're, I think, is your question
Speaker 195
1:12:35
about The definition of child and the age. Um, and I think that's a
Speaker 204
1:12:44
legislative policy matter, so I'm not here advocating for a particular age. I think that from my understanding of discussions is that typically a child is under 18. There are some different, this is in the criminal code section, not juvenile code, but there are some distinctions for enhancement of sentencing and some things when the victim is under 14, um, but this is purely a definition of what is considered
a child, and in the past a child was under 17, and it's, I believe, um, the sponsors are recommending that change be to child really means under 18. Again, um, that would not be sort of my ability to advocate for one thing or another on that, given my judicial role, um, it's a policy decision for for all of you, but it is,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:13:36
but it is consistent with other areas of the code where a child is defined as under the age of 18. Yes
Just making that consistent. Other questions from the committee. See none, there is no one signed up to testify for or against Senator Urban. You recognize close for your bill. I'm close. I'd appreciate a good vote. Will the committee? Motion to pass from Senator Johnson, 2 from Senator McKee. Any discussion? See none offer the motion signal saying I all opposed. Congratulations Cent Urban, you
have passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you, members of
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:14:19
the committee. Thank you so much, Ernest Brown and Troy. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you, members of the judiciary, for being with us
today. I excused, Mr. Chairman. You may. Thank you. Um, OK,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:14:30
I'd like to go to Senate Bill 313 if that's possible. SB 313. And I am. OK, is there amendment to 313? Yes, there is an amendment to
Speaker 233
1:14:48
313, so we'll pass that out, OK. Do you do. That. Um, do you want me to explain that amendment? Has everybody got the amendment?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:15:20
Yes, go ahead, center Senate bill. OK, the amendment to Senate Bill 313 is on page 13, and it's by request of DHS, um, and it just clarifies that line 16 and 17, um, It was, it, it's a good catch to make sure that it's not a complete mandate on reimbursement, but that it would follow DHS policy as it relates to the reimbursements of any kind of medication, so.
Motion from Senator Johnson to adopt second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Harry Nunn, all for adopting the amendment to SB 313 signified by saying a all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator, you're bill is amended. Thank you
so much. Appreciate that recognize to present SB 313 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:16:15
committee, Senate Bill 313 is another part of our dream big package for the Republican Women's Legislative Caucus, and I'm proud again to
to present all four of these bills actually are, um, This bill in particular has been a work in progress for about, I would say 7 months. Um, we held some really good public health committee meetings in Fort Smith, um at the county sheriff's Association, and so there are so many stakeholders that have worked on this bill, and it's just been incredible work and incredible policy. What we are trying to address here is they there are systemic and
entrenched issues that have existed. in forensic mental health system for decades. Um, almost 30 years to be exact. Um, there's a long wait list and wait times for the state, Arkansas State Hospital, um, huge long waitlist and what's happening is those, those folks are lingering in these county jails, and many of them are severely mentally ill. Um, so while they're lingering in these county jails, they're not getting the treatment that they need. They're not getting the
services that they need and our sheriffs and our jailers are They're just really inexperienced, untrained on how to really handle those types of situations. And so injuries are have occurred in the past. 99% of the beds at Ash at the Arkansas State Hospital are dedicated to forensics, and there are, like I said, hundreds of detainees in county jails that are awaiting these forensic evaluations of treatment, and while they're waiting, they're conditioning their condition is
often worsening, um, and, and like I said, Sheriffs,
jailers, and other detainees are dealing with some serious physical injuries and issues when their condition worsens, and, you know, they, they have, uh, and they're not able to deal with, with, with their illness. So what this this legislation is a huge collaboration of mental health experts, the Department of Human Services, prosecutors and judges. The legislation seeks to reduce unnecessary evaluations and ensure defendants can be
evaluated. treated and declared fit to proceed and adjudicated faster. That's, that's beneficial for the person that seeks needs the treatment, but also for victims at DHS in in in and outside of this effort, um, and kind of going alongside this effort of legislative policy, DHS is also adding a 16 bed unit and with the potential of adding more to address this problem. This is a very, very serious problem that's facing the state of
Arkansas. Um, and as a result of quicker evaluation treatment, and declaration, and these cases hopefully will be adjudicated faster so that victims can receive justice quicker, and I have a very important testimony of somebody who's been here waiting that I her story needs to be shared with you, and I hope to go to that next if that's possible, but this is a major step forward on a very difficult and complex issue.
Um, and so, uh, I have a lot of folks that are, like I said, all the stakeholders that are here are association of Counties, our county sheriffs, the county, the sheriff's association is here. DHS has done an incredible amount of work with all of these folks. We have mental health experts here as well as judges and, and, and prosecutors, but if, if it's OK, I'd like to bring Senator Hammer to the table with his guest, so She can tell her story as a victim. Center hammer.
I'm glad to know what Senator Irvin that has kept you waiting
and not me. I'm very sorry. Would you recognize identify yourself for the record. Thank you,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:32
Mr. Chairman. Kim Hammer, state senator, District 16 here in the capacity as a state senator, but also a father
to Kayla, who's going to share testimony Brent is my son-in-law, also the grandfather of the one that'll be referenced in the testimony. Could both of you identify yourselves for the record, Kayla Lawrence.
We are. Good to have you here this morning.
Speaker 252
1:21:00
First, we'd like to thank you for allowing us to come and speak on this matter. We want to acknowledge that our prosecutor at Grant County and her team
were nothing but kind and supportive throughout the whole process. They listened to our concerned and frustrations and helped us the best way that they knew how. Coming from a law enforcement family, um, we hear about things that happen to other people, but you never think that they're going to happen in your own home. On May 23rd, our lives changed forever. Our 11 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by someone that was very close to us who was also a law enforcement officer. We found ourselves thrown into a
fight that we thought we would never have to fight while dealing with the trauma of what happened, add on the stress of when and if we are going to court and it was a whole new roller coaster that we were not prepared to ride on. We thought it would be an open and shut case and it was not. We would finally feel that we were going to close that chapter and really begin the healing process only to basically have to start over again with each time that we were delayed, it became harder and harder to accept the process that we never asked to be a part of.
A backstory to our year, um, her abuser was interviewed at his job in the middle of the night because he worked night shifts and was not immediately arrested. Following that, he left his job and checked himself into the VA hospital on a basis that he was suicidal buying himself 48 hours. From there, he would go on a run for a week throughout the United States and was finally apprehended by federal marshals in Branson. He stayed in county jail a few weeks only to be released to his house on house arrest through a
bail bondsman company. His attorney asked for more time to prepare the case again buying him more time. Another court date was set at some point while it wasn't our favorite option, we offered him a plea deal. He chose not to take it and instead asked for a mental evaluation once again prolonging the process. Someone, please tell me how a person who has passed a psych evaluation to become a police officer, someone who graduated at the top of their academy class in multiple areas.
And he was an active law enforcement officer at the time of the incident was able to request and be granted an evaluation to see if he was mentally capable of handling a trial. We were dumbfounded and angry that he was even allowed to have this option. It was at that moment that I vowed to talk to anybody and everybody who would listen to me because this was not OK. It was not OK for our daughter. It was not OK for our family and it's not OK for future families. To nobody's surprise, he passed the evaluation and another court
date was set. We are assured that this would be the final day that would be set and that we were absolutely going to a trial. Approximately 30 days before we were to go to court, we offered one more plea deal. We were desperate to keep her from having to go through the trauma of having to testify. He accepted it. A new date was set for him to appear before the judge. On her 12th birthday, he finally pled guilty and was sentenced to 6 years. It was 32 days shy of it being a full year since the incident happened.
12 days before we were supposed to go to a trial that had been scheduled and had already been rescheduled 3 times. While there's not enough time on this earth that he could serve that would make us happy after the year we had, we were just ready to be done. We were ready to begin closure. That day we were able to give her the best gift we could have ever given, and that was a gift that he's finally going to prison. I cannot describe to you the relief and emotions that came over her, over us and our family. I'll forever have her facial expressions ingrained in my memory. There are sobs.
joy and tears of relief that we so desperately needed. She kept asking, Is this real? Was it over? Are you sure they're not going to call us again and tell us something different. We told her it was finally going to be OK. In that moment we could see a little bit of her old self come back to us. The weight was finally lifted, the dark clouds had finally parted. There is no more dreading the phone to ring because it was someone calling us telling us that they had pulled something else out of their hat to keep him from going to prison. His lawyer used every opportunity to keep his client,
her abuser, out of prison. We're his puppet and there was no way to cut the strings. Once again, he had control of her, and that process, it hurt her and our family more than it did him. She never asked for this to happen, nor did we. I hope by sharing our story that what was meant for evil will be used for good. It was a year of unnecessary frustration or worry. No victim and victim's family should have to go through what we went through. Well, I understand that everyone has rights. What I don't agree with how the justice system in our case seemed to cater to the one
who did wrong and not the innocent one. How the one who hurt our daughter, our family, which seem to have more rights than she did. How is it fair that someone who is already suffering because of what someone did to them also has to worry about whether or not they are also going to be the victim of the justice system. Thank you. Questions from committee or Urban, do you have
something to add? Thank you. Remember, as we come down here
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:26:18
every day and work with each other and um
we have real lives. back
home I am um Incredibly grateful. I'm proud that
Speaker 260
1:26:39
Senator Hammer is sitting here with me today. This is his
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:26:45
granddaughter that we're talking about, his daughter, his son-in-law. Um
It's brave. It's hard. To come forward. It's hard to share these stories and to be that vulnerable with Each other. It takes a lot of courage.
And, um, I'm just really grateful for them, for Senator Hammer to reach out to me
on this bill and felt like it was really important to share this very personal, vulnerable story. Of what he and his family and his granddaughter are going
through, um, this is how Unfortunately, we live in this world and have to deal with the things that we have to deal with personally and privately, um, it's really hard to bring that out into the public and out into the world, and so I'm just really, really grateful. It was unexpected on this bill. And I got this news yesterday and last night, and I just I don't know how to say my level of appreciation. With this
without just acknowledging God in this moment. Because I can't explain how any of that works other than What God does in our lives every day. On the other side of this, we've heard from a victim's side of things. I want to tell you a story about Somebody who was in jail, who was severely schizophrenic. Um,
very good friends of mine in Mountain View and who had struggled with a brother. who had severe schizophrenia and who was not compliant with medications who I'm constantly had no place to go. Um, they tried so hard to help their brother, um. But they were physically being abused by him. He was very seriously mentally ill, did not understand what he was doing.
They're older people and that I love and um they were being beaten up. Um, they had broken ribs, broken nose. All just because they were trying to love their brother and care for him, and he's a severe schizophrenia. There was no place for him to go. They had no options. They would try to take him to the emergency room. He became violent there, and he ended up obviously being arrested and being in county jail. He stayed there for so long
because he couldn't get the treatment and the help he needed at the state hospital because their beds were full. Another story from a county sheriff in Cercy County, who called me and said, this person has been in my jail for 2 years. And this is inhumane because I can't give them the treatment that they need. They are severely mentally ill. My jailers, I don't know how to deal with this. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a healthcare
professional. You've got to help us. And so I just, I think that the legislation to bring it back to the legislation and the way this is written in all the different stakeholders that have worked so hard on this issue, have, have, they have looked at this through these lenses, both from the victim's lens and from those who are as a detainee who is, who is very mentally ill. And so that's why this issue is so complex and
difficult. And I think you have the right policy now in place, and it's a really, really important piece of policy. And so we have, if there are questions of the policy, I have folks from the sheriff's association here to speak to it. I have attorneys, I have DHS, the secretary of DHS, Christy Putnam is here and can speak specifically as well. If you'll allow them to come up. The, are they coming to testify
for the bill? Yes, OK, we do have someone to
testify against the bill. Thank you. Irwin. I need to go to against first thank you Ms. Lawrence, thank Mr. Lawrence, thank you all for being here and sharing your story. Mr. Rosenwa
if you identify yourself for the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense
Chair
Unverified
1:31:36
Lawyers, not really against it so much as the fact that it has some omissions that need to be in there to uh to deal with problems that come up on a regular basis. Uh, if you go to page 2 of the bill. Uh Line 34, this is sort of nitpicky, but they misspelled counsel. It should be C O U N S E L. the, the real problem is this.
It requires the defense lawyer to present evidence as to why he thinks an examination should occur. That's fine. Uh, but we need language in there that allows that presentation to be ex parte and in camera, so as to protect the lawyer client privilege, that is something that is going to be necessary. A lot of times the basis for for the examination is
going to be things that were said in an attorney-client context, and it would be extremely prejudicial to have to put that on the public record, but by deploying ex parte in camera, it will be presented to the judge and the judge can make a determination as to the merit. That's, that's the first issue. The second issue deals with the medication,
uh, the law should deal with and and deal with the situation of involuntary medication, presumably some these are going to be involuntary. The US Supreme Court has said several times, most recently in cell versus United States that the due process clause requires that uh that if you're going to have involuntary medication that it would be medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine
the fairness of the trial and taking into account less intrusive alternatives to significantly to further an important governmental trial interests. A lot of these medications cause severe side effects, some of which are temporary, some of which are, are, are permanent or semi-permanent, and it's going to be in our opinion it's going to be necessary and appropriate to give guidance to the circuit judge who is
ordering the medication to make sure he or she complies with the constitutional. Uh, jurisprudence on involuntary medication. So those are my comments. Any questions for Mr. Rosenzweig,
Speaker 272
1:34:20
Senator Tucker, you recognize. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
1:34:24
Mr. Chair. Just a reminder, Mr. Rosenwagen, not every member of the committee
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:31
as a lawyer. We we just explain what ex parte in camera means means one-sided that
Chair
Unverified
1:34:36
uh that the uh that the that the other side that the
prosecution is not there. Now the judge would be there. The court reporter can be there, uh, or it can be filed under seal, uh, but so as to not so as to not prejudice the defendant by by Revealing attorney-client privileges. I will point out that the United States Supreme Court case Ake versus Oklahoma, that's AKE versus Oklahoma
decided some 40 years ago, talked about the need to uh to make ex parte requests for expert witnesses. Right, and in camera just basically means in private, not in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:35:25
open court, in a proceed. Yeah, thank you. Other questions for Mr.
Rosensweig. So Nan, thank you. Rose Swan and so, uh, Uh
We'll go back to the four side, Central urban and who on the four side did you want to testify first.
Speaker 238
1:36:17
Members of the committee. I don't mind obviously making a verbal amendment
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:36:22
to fix the typo on page 2. the other issue, I think we'd have to communicate about. And I think as the prosecuting attorneys and some other attorneys may want to comment based on the comments, but I'll turn it over for them for testimony. Thank you. OK, would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
Speaker 246
1:36:40
Sheriff Hobi Runyon from Sebastian County. And my name is Taylor Hanford. I
Speaker 283
1:36:49
am legal counsel to the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. OK,
you were recognized to testify. In the first. Good
Speaker 289
1:37:00
morning, Chairman, senators. I appreciate you allowing us to come and speak to you. Uh, this, this bill, I, I feel is, is very important for quality of life for our citizens in the state of Arkansas. I want to relay a fairly Short incident and it's what
has, what drives a lot of this. This occurrence happened in Sebastian County, and it certainly could have been in Any county in the state.
Speaker 290
1:37:28
We, we had an arrestee, he had the social trinity. Drug abuse, mental health issues, and homelessness. And uh
Speaker 289
1:37:37
he'd probably been in our jail, been in there dozens of times. And uh He was arrested for another misdemeanor. had a $100 bond.
He sat there. He did have a attorney. And after sitting there for 8 months, when it came time to do something. The attorney requested a mental evaluation. So that clock just started over, uh, he wouldn't eat. Um Almost a year to the date, he He passed.
Speaker 290
1:38:13
And that created the largest settlement in the state of Arkansas.
Speaker 289
1:38:23
And there was A lot of blame to go around. The bottom line was he never should have been in our jail. He absolutely had no business being in our jail. And that I think
Speaker 290
1:38:41
we take our The people that we don't think about, the people we don't want to look at and we're talking about the most compromised people, the most at risk people in our society, you know, it's
Speaker 289
1:38:54
archaic and we're going to put them in jail and they're going to sit in a room. This person was extremely violent. He was violent right up until the day he died. So he sat in this room. 6 ft by 8 ft. 6 ft by 8 ft. Mental health would try to talk to them once a week. It wasn't doing anything. He wouldn't allow it. It usually strike at them. So we let him sit there. And deteriorate
Speaker 290
1:39:26
And he died I could go on and on and on the bottom line is we are putting people, it's medieval what
Speaker 289
1:39:37
we're doing. We're putting people in jail that have absolutely no reason to, and then we're going to take an entry level detention deputy and tell them they're responsible for their care. Just today. I happened to look. I've got 18. The average stay is 26 days. I've got 1/400. I've got 3 or
4/300. We have to do something better, and I'm not. I'm obviously Very passionate about this. I have been since I was elected, and I think we as a state we have to do better in this proposed legislation is a step in the right direction as far as my concern, I would hope that that we would Take it 100 times past that, but
I realize we have to, we have to move slow. We have people that just sit there and languish in a 6 ft by 8 ft cell. Once they get the evaluation and say, hey, can we restore them? And they sit in our jail for 10 months. And I guarantee you somebody that has what I call the social trinity. They are not getting any better sitting in our jail for 10 months. I've got a 21 year old autistic child. And I say child because he's got the mental capacity of about an 8 year old. He's in my jail
right now. There is no possibility that he is going to be restored. And I could go on and on. It's just we have got to do better and I'm pleading with you. Our legislators to enact this legislation. And the next time we come up with something to enact that and honestly, I'm a taxpayer Sebastian County, I guess that was part of my 2.65 million that went out. And I'm telling you, it could
get a lot more expensive. I realize that mental health care is expensive. But this is something we need as a state. I hate feeling like saying, hey, thank God for Mississippi or Louisiana. And I just, I implore you. Please, please. Pass this legislation and then pass the next one. And we've worked with, as the senator said, we've worked with legislature, prosecutors, DHS, DHS, thank you. I've talked to DHS more in the last
2 years in November talked to DHS. I think everyone knows that law enforcement and DHS generally didn't really get along too well, but so we very much appreciate what they have done and You know, I certainly would ask any or answer any questions I can for you, but I could go on and on and on, you know, I mean these people. They have no business being in a jail. A lot of them are going to sit in there because you can't put them with anyone else. They're going to sit in that
cell. Constitution says they have to be at an hour. One hour a day. And that's what we are doing to our citizens. And they are citizens. They're they're, they are brothers and sisters and parents and aunts and uncles, so please, please. Passive and enact this legislation as it moves forward for the betterment of our entire state, and I'll take any questions. the other gentleman testifying. Yes, sir. Yes, chair.
Speaker 283
1:43:02
So The legislation we've had conversations with DHS and the prosecutors and some other mental health experts for Over a year or a little over a year now, um, and The legislation is trying to target the number of court-ordered evaluations that are coming into the system. Nobody wants a defendant to be denied their constitutional
rights, but it is clear when you start to look at the data that there are unnecessary motions being filed for the purposes of delay and that is taxing a system that already has very limited, therefore very valuable state resources. So you also then you get a cascading problems of where if you have too many orders coming in, you're overworking evaluators at the state hospital. The quality of evaluations declines. That's an
issue that DHS is aware of, and DHS is addressing that issue. They're setting up more training and a review process for evaluators and uh More more court ordered evaluations means means more defendants sitting longer in county jails awaiting treatment. I believe right now there are 175 defendants in county jails awaiting. Their initial forensic evaluation, and I believe there's around 165 in county
jails waiting for restoration treatment, so we have over 300 individuals in county jails right now who need these acute mental health services. And there's some in there who don't need these acute mental health services, but they're delaying the process of these individuals, these other individuals getting these services. Um, so the legislation seeks to give a statutory basis trying to empower judges to Deny these unnecessary motions that might be filed for delay and
It's a pretty low bar in the legislation, but it's a bar, it's a standard, which is not in law right now and the standard is essentially recodifying um That this claim has merit to this Arkansas rules of professional conduct 3.1. Um, so, and the legislation has come out of a series, again, a series of meetings with DHS and the prosecutors and other interested stakeholders, and we believe this is a step in the right
direction. This is not a silver bullet. This is not the end of this conversation. This is a step in the right direction, and I firmly believe that As long as county jails are kind of a catch-all for society's issues. This is an issue that the sheriff's Association and jail administrators that were going to stay dug in on, and I'd like to, you know, thank Senator Irvin and the Republican Women's Caucus for taking this issue up and I'd also like to thank Senator Hammer and his family
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:08
for their testimony as well, and I'm open for any questions, Senator Tucker, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to stay at the start that this is a very serious issue for the state. There's no question about it. And I also want to say it's obvious from looking at the bill how much work y'all have put into it, and I just wanna offer offer praise for that and the amount of work that you all put in, I really, really commend the effort that you put into it.
I was, I was about to text you, Taylor, and then you came to the table, so I'm just going to ask you the question there. And And Senator Urban I actually communicated a little bit about this, but the two concerns that Mr. Rosensweig mentioned. What are your thoughts about those?
Speaker 283
1:46:56
Well, I can understand the concern about not obviously you do not want as a defense attorney to implicate your clients when you're trying to seek constitutional due process and mental health treatment for them. Um, so I, I do take those
concerns seriously. And if that's a conversation that we need to keep having, I mean, I think we could have that conversation. Those concerns weren't addressed in the previous previous law as the statutes are right now, but again, we don't want to shortchange anybody on their constitutional due process. Um, and then the concern about medication, I, the, the medication issue is something that we've discussed with DHS, and I've asked them for case law, people from the judicial council had asked for case law
on this, and Mr. Rosenzweig said was was correct, but DHS attorneys, attorneys with the Sheriff's Association and circuit court judges think they're aware of the case law, and they would only pursue this forced medication route if it was the utmost utmost necessity, and I think the great example for why this is in the legislation is There is a defendant in Washington County jail 10 years short of 5 or 10 days short of 5 years.
He'd received treatment and he had decompensated in a county jail. So we have individuals, we have defendants. who have been restored to fitness, they'll go back to the county jail and then for lack of medication, they will decompensate and now we're sending this person back to the state hospital. We're delaying trials again and where putting victims' families back through this process almost as it's like a square one type of thing. OK, and the only other
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:46
thing I would say is that, and y'all have said this is that this is such a big issue that one bill can't tackle the whole situation, and that's no question that's true. Just as part of the conversation, I just want to add that I think a critical component of this situation is that we, we need more beds at the Arkansas State Hospital, and we need more, you know, support for that, and I just wanted to throw that out, to have that as part of the conversation, yes, and I failed to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:12
mention, I agree, as you know, state general revenue
is tight and, um, and there's there's an ongoing conversation about both state general revenue but also personnel to be able to You know, it's a different level, correct? Of, of, uh, folks and personnel you need to have in order to open a bed at the state hospital, but secondly, there are two additional bills that I failed to mention that are part of this effort, uh that that Representative Johnson is carrying, which will increase the amount of people that can do
these forensic evaluations, and those two bills are coming through public health. They've already passed the House of Representatives and they're going to be in Senate public. But those are two key critical components of this effort is just making sure you have the people uh that can perform the forensic mental health evaluation in order to help alleviate the problem. I mean, when, when they say that this bill has been worked on for over a year. They have looked at every single aspect and angle of this problem and it's so
multifaceted, um, and so, um, you know, I just wanted to make sure that we brought that up and part the conversation, um, because hopefully those other two bills will get through the Senate Public Health Committee and off the Senate floor because that's another key component to fixing, you know. trying to fix the problem as best we possibly can, but there's no doubt we are at critical, critical juncture with this problem and this issue, and like I, I said to you, you know, making sure just like Taylor said that those those
constitutional protections are are included. We have no issue or problem with that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 301
1:50:58
Censor Stubblefield, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:51:03
know, I've served on this committee for 12 years. This is, this is Without doubt an issue that keeps growing and growing and growing, uh, And we seem like we just can't get a handle on it. Uh, I don't I don't know what I wish I knew
what the answer was, but how, how many, what, what percentage of the prisoners that you have in Sebastian County Jail. What percentage of those need immediate mental evaluation. Well, the God who knows how, how many,
Speaker 304
1:51:40
you know, uh, currently I've got 18 that are on DHS holds for
Speaker 290
1:51:45
for Competency hearings or waiting for they had an ash senator.
So that's 5% of the total population, 10 out of 18. No, I'm sorry, I've got 18 out of my 30,050 that are on, which is one of the largest
Speaker 289
1:52:05
numbers I've ever had. It's been increasing since I was elected 7 years ago. It keeps going up and uh I don't know, you know, obviously I know you're very familiar with the overcrowding issue, but You know, right now, gosh, 43% of my Inmates or state but so I've got
18, so roughly you know 5% are ones that
Speaker 305
1:52:30
They almost all have to be alone. I mean, it's, it's, do you have any
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:52:35
idea? If you were just guessing, what is the main contributing factor. To the increase in these individuals who need serious mental evaluation. Would you, would you say I'm, would you say it's drugs? Would you say it's alcohol? Would you say it's,
Speaker 289
1:52:56
well, when, so the drugs hardly ever run without the mental illness, and so they just run hand in hand, you know, Senator, the person had mental illness, so they turned to self-medication, or do they do too much self-medication and it become developed a psychosis or something. We don't know, but the drug, there's always a drug nexus. There is always a drug nexus, you know, Most of the people aren't what we think of as when we were growing up as classically, uh, I don't know, the ones that would have been in a In the movies or television,
there's no, no cookie cutter so some of these could be prescription drugs, correct? Oh, absolutely. Some would be prescription, I think a more more would be probablyion
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:53:40
drugs that we have any idea of what percentage of individuals that are in our uh prison system right now. The entire prison system. Do we have any idea how many of those 16,000 need Immediate mental evaluations.
To help them because you have 16 17,000 individuals that are sitting in the same kind of cells and some of them are not getting
Speaker 305
1:54:11
any better. No, they're not. We need to be mental health beds. That's a fact. So you don't know how many of those are in our state prisons. No, Senator, I really don't, but I can't imagine that the,
Speaker 289
1:54:22
uh, most of the, the incarcerated population is going to be reflective of the jails as well. You know,
I would say in my facility alone, there's going to be 80, 85%, some sort of substance abuse issue, and there is probably going to be 60% of some sort of mental health issue, but you, you know, these are the ones, these are the worst ones, and like I said, this particular person I was speaking of, he, he had an attorney after
Speaker 290
1:54:52
8 months, the attorney decided to ask for an evaluation. You know, but, but being in a 6
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:54:59
by 8 cell for that long a period of time.
Wouldn't you agree that you tend to lose hope. Absolutely and and death is a better way than setting in a
Speaker 305
1:55:12
6 by 8 cell for the, for another year. Oh, absolutely, sir, and that
Speaker 290
1:55:17
that's, that's what I was saying. It's archaic, and it's it's medieval. If you or I were put in a cell
Speaker 289
1:55:23
like that for one year. I don't know what our, you know, mental condition would deteriorate too, and certainly when you have someone who's already got mental health issues, substance abuse issues, possibly homeless. And then most of them I won't
say most, a large percentage of them have no contact. I have nobody that puts any money on their books for, you know, ramen noodles. No, none. Well, they might have them, but they, they have been wore out dealing with them, you know, yeah, it's a tragic situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sheriff, you keep talking about
6 bait sals. Are you, are you, are you talking about solitary? Yes, for the most part we are, Senator. OK, well, I just, I wanted to be sure we've made
maybe next session will be next session, uh, because, uh, As you have brought out and if anybody ought to know law enforcement ought to, uh, y'all
didn't use the word torture, uh, but I would, and, and I know that you've got situations where you have to separate somebody who's violent,
etc. and you have no choice. But that being said, if they're mentally ill, uh, That's a real problem. And Sheriff, you
were, I'm not going to tell you you weren't testifying on SB 313. You were,
but it seemed to me that you were testifying more on a bill we don't have before us, and that's capacity that's increasing the capacity of the state hospital and maybe because it's in my district, I'm more aware, uh, but this, you know, you always have, you know, anything you deal with, there's always problems, but this seems to be a gaping hole in judiciary. I'm thankful that
the governor's own that we need more, we need more prison beds I
was something that I would have liked the last two governors to have been
on and that she's courageous and moved forward on that, but am I wrong that this again it may just be so many in your jail, but across the state, it's many that are that are waiting in solitary, which I didn't even think about. Uh, in some cases for years, And that's something that we really need to deal with now.
Speaker 292
1:57:42
I wish we could, absolutely, and I'm with you on it. I would come down and testify whatever that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:57:50
bill is, please. Yeah, and DHS is
opening a 6 an additional 16 bed unit. It's not enough, but they're going to do that and um with the plans of hopefully adding more. To to completely address your
your issue. Well, people who know me, I'm far from
a bleeding heart, but, but people, we don't think about the
mentally ill unless they're in our family or you're in law enforcement or wherever you have to deal with them. Uh, and I shouldn't say have to, but it is have to as much as you love them, it's a chore. Uh, and the Senator Irwin, I appreciate you bringing the bill. Again, I wish it had. Capacity along. With it that we just say we have to have more beds. We have to get these people out
of county jails and into Whatever we're going to do
because because each situation is very different but Yeah, and to your point, Senator Clark, one thing that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:58:58
I think I just don't want to be missed is what the sheriff identified correctly is you think about a county jail as a facility, brick and mortar, 18. That has, that has to have 18
cells that are for those individuals. So they cannot be put in general population. They have to be isolated, so there are a lot of county jails that they just frankly don't have that space. They they can't, they cannot accommodate that. So, um, and I agree. I think it's It's for the safety of that person and the other detainees, but I mean they're in isolation. No, that's not good for anybody.
No, and I think it takes an emotional toll on our law enforcement. Our jailers who know that these people are in hopeless cases and there's nothing they can do except do their jobs, of
So I think it strikes out in all kinds of ways, but especially back to these people and as we talked about the victims, we need to get to it as quick as we can get to it. So any other questions for the Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:00:19
Tucker. I just, we're having that larger conversation. I just wanted to say too, I focused on the state hospital in my comments, but really we just need more mental health facilities across the board, not just the state hospital, right, and also This is not an indictment of anyone in this room because this is a decision that society made 50 years ago, but it's just we, we did not know what to do with people with serious mental illness, and we have put that on the justice system, and I hope as a society we can
Try to try some, some people belong in prison because they've committed terrible crimes and that and that's, that is what it is, but some people just have a serious mental illness, and I hope as a society that we
can, you know, make a change in course on
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:01:07
that front. So anyway, well, and also our emergency rooms, I mean, you that. They, they have no way of being able to handle that. I mean, I'm working on a, on a bill with the nurses Association and the healthcare worker violence, you
know, issue, um, because a lot of times these individuals will end up, you know, in an emergency room because they they their families are worn out and they don't, they can't, they can't handle it, so they'll call an ambulance, they'll call law enforcement, but then they're taken to emergency rooms. I mean, it, you know. happened, me personally with my husband, so, um, anyway, I agree and I, and I think it's, it is just a compounded issue across
the board in our judicial system, our law enforcement community, and our health care folks. Any other questions for these witnesses? See
none, thank y'all for being here. We have another person to testify against Sarah Moore. Sara Moore in the room. There she is. It's more if you will identify yourself for the record.
Sarah Moore
Unverified
2:02:29
Uh hello, my name is Sarah Moore. I'm from Fayetteville, Arkansas. Um, I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition, and we would be a key stakeholder first, I want to say, you know, thanks, this is a very serious issue in the state of Arkansas, we honestly myself, um personally stepped into these conversations of the criminal legal system due to a family member with serious mental health, and our organization has people that are
Part of the coalition who both themselves are impacted or have family members. Our organization runs a group called the Judicial Equality for Mental Illness, where we look at those that are judicially involved, that have serious mental health issues. And so, excuse me, we have been a part of those conversations over the last couple of years and they've appreciated um that there have been much discussion about the mental health crisis in the state of Arkansas and looking at solutions. Uh, we also too are on
the front lines of talking to individuals and supporting them and walking alongside them in their, their journey and their struggle in this situation, and we also um unfortunately lost a dear friend, Brianna Evans, um, in Washington County Detention Center, who had untreated mental illness as well, facing criminal charges there for a year. So again, again, I, I think that we're here today on this bill and want to really appreciate the good aspects of it and all
the hard work that's been done as this discussion has come about, you know, speaking about, you know, there are many other facets that need to also happen in the future and I hope those things will will occur. I wanted to point out the highlights that we want to say we're thankful for and the few things that we were hoping there will be some additional consideration. One, we're very thankful. that their folks are going to get access to meds for restoration because we know that's going to help to reduce their deterioration in the gel,
and so we very much appreciate that work that's been done and the fact that the facilities will be able to bill DHS and when Washington County alone, we pay $2.4 million for our medical contract, um, and folks come in who have known mental illness and have a med that they've been stabilized on, and we talked about some already mentioned the side effects and won't be able to even stay on their prescribed med. And so we do see deterioration not only if folks already that are acutely
mentally ill, but we see folks that come in that are somewhat stabilized and deteriorate. The areas that I have concerns in the bill, and it just came out last week and so I've had this with some forensic folks, and we've had it with attorneys, one of the areas that we wanted to bring forward is in page 5. 26 to 30, um. This is from a forensic evaluator who worked in the uh in Florida, um, they talked to me about, you know, research
shows that um 80% of those that are unfit, um, are going to be restored, um, usually within 180 days. And so right there in that language, it gives 5 years, and so we'd like to ask for the consideration of potentially amending that to a 2 year, I'm not sure what the conversation was to get to 5 years, but we'd like to ask for an amendment to 2 years' consideration. Additionally, um, on page 6, lines 16 to 22, um, I'm very appreciative and we recognize the role nature of our state and
trying to get access, and we learned a lot during COVID for telehealth. My concern and the concern that's been expressed of our coalition members is that could there be some additive language that encourages that this is a not always gone to as a default primary response, but that this is an option or an option. that in those areas in particular, that might have easier access to a person to person, as has been talked about in this discussion that folks are oftentimes in solitary
confinement, which is torture, um, those folks are deteriorating and so there would be added benefit to person to person contact, and so we'd like consideration that there's just encouragement that we don't always default to telehealth, but we do understand that that's another access level and we do appreciate that. Um, the other area, um, on page 7. lines 1 to 5 where it speaks to frivolous and earlier in the bill, it talks about that being defined as clearly lacking a reason, reasonable basis in fact
or law, but there's also a B portion that talks about, you know, basically requiring some kind of documentation and we heard earlier, you know, testimony, which, you know, there are, you know, some of these times where this is probably being used in a frivolous manner and that does need to be clamped down on. The concern is that uh having some level of paperwork or some kind of documentation provided being the standard for being looked at, concerned with the definition with frivolous,
you know, reasonable and the, the um vagueness potentially that that might be, is there some concern that individuals, you know, might end up having their, their cases, you know, thrown out or set aside, that really might be, you know, in a situation in a severe situation, and so we just like to ask for some consideration of that language. Um, the other thing too, I did just wanna bring up is that, and I appreciate in this discussion was said is that, you know, we have been very
severely mentally unwell folks in our prison system, they reach out to our organization and we're in contact with them and so we do hope they'll be some additional um uh bills that will come forward to give support and to recognize this population. To be able to provide them, um, that, uh, to provide them the needed meds and the needed resources and services, and also I wondered if there has been any consideration in these discussions that we've been in for a number of years, um, about, there are some uh private
uh uh firms across the state that do have restorative beds, um, alley and Fort Smith has flexible beds, and oftentimes 70 to 100 beds are available there, um, they are able to restore a much quicker rate than the state hospital, I think the state hospital is at a 14 month and then we know that that costs 350,000 a year, so that's obviously a very expensive proposition for taxpayers, and that's a long time that someone's sick. They were store folks for a fraction of the time, and I, I'm going off the top of my head, but I think it's around 6 months or 6 to 9 months
somewhere in there, and it, and those beds could be available, and so I'm just wondering too if there's any possibility of consideration of language and working at DHS with our budget to be able to think about that. would be a more fiscally responsible and maybe a quicker pathway as well to accessing beds. So thank you so much for your time and consideration today. Any questions? From the committee.
See none. Ms. Moore, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have anyone else signed up to testify for. Anyone else against? Senator Ross would like Secretary Putnam to come to the table. Good afternoon, Christy Putnam, Secretary, Arkansas Department of Human Services. I'd also like
Speaker 321
2:10:17
to ask if Paula Stone is still in the room, if she could possibly join me at the
Speaker 325
2:10:39
table. Paula Stone, Department of Human Services Director of Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health. Rash you recognize. Thank you.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:10:47
Thank you all for being here. uh, just I don't spend a lot of
time on it, but DHS has been mentioned. Numerous times, no, you've been
in on the conversations on this bill. Do you have as on page 14 where it says the court may direct DHS to provide qualified saturated psychiatric and qualified psychologist uh to make the examination and evaluation. Are you, do you have the
resources you need to wrap up. It
was mentioned about the 18 beds. I don't know how far that'll go 18's better than nothing, but We're talking about a lot of needs. Do you feel like you've got the
resources you need. Yes, sir. Senator, I will start and then I will
Speaker 322
2:11:37
ask Ms. Stone to follow up, Director Stone. We um, we recognize first of all, I want to thank Senator Ervin and the GOP Women's Caucus for taking this issue on. It has
been about a 30 year issue. I also want to thank the incredible room full of people behind me, um, we have had to start from start somewhere, and that is what we are doing with this. We are in support of this bill. We do recognize that it id i f ies DHS resources. We, we have some resources to be able to begin this work. We are working to add some additional resources including the 16 beds for secured restoration that have been referenced several times, and I'll let Director Stone give some additional
details on the professionals and qualifications that were also seeking to improve. So, um,
Speaker 325
2:12:27
mental health resources are always a challenge, and it's particularly a challenge with this population because individuals who are in jail have their Medicaid turned off, right? Or, or commercial insurance. So everything we're doing as Senator Irving, Irvin said is supported through state general revenue while they're in jail and then when they come into our state hospital.
Um, and so because they're considered incarcerated. So on both sides of that we do face challenges. We currently have forensic evaluators in place, and that was one of the things that this bill does is for over 70% of those individuals who are evaluated by this forensic evaluators are found fit to proceed. And so what we're trying to do is to decrease the number of forensic evaluations that are done, both freeing up that funding. Because we're paying um each
forensics for each forensic evaluation is $750. Uh, and so that, that would free up a lot if we have a decrease in those forensic evaluations and also allowing us to do forensic evaluations more quickly using our small population of evaluators more efficiently. Um, so that's, that's 12 is we are running a pilot of that um secured restoration unit, and we're watching for two things as we run that. pilot. One is can they restore
people more quickly because the hospital does take quite some time to restore. This is a lower level, uh, and so right now, other states that have used secured restoration, have done so in 90 days, so we'll be turning those beds over more quickly, so it's not just those beds, it's those beds turned over every 90 days. They'll be going back to jail and we're going to make sure that they, um, receive the again the continued treatment they need in gel to continued medications, but also go to
trial quickly. Um, so we're going to make sure that that that secured restoration pilot that they're doing, they're able to provide the service a little more inexpensively than our hospital because of the professional staffing that's required for to run a hospital. And then we're also going to make sure that they can actually do that, uh, restoration more quickly. So once we get to the end of the pilot, as everyone has stated, if this pilot works, then we're going to open more
beds. So we're currently, um, we have the space at the state hospital. We just don't have, um, some of there's work that's going on, um, to restore some of that state hospital. That was built in the 60s, so we'll be opening up more beds there, um, particularly if that works. Well, I appreciate that, and I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:15:15
will say, and I've said it before my dad worked on mental
health issues when he was legislator and, and I support that. Secretary Putnam would be disappointed if I didn't say.
Uh, I know it takes money to do these things, but just don't take away from our seniors' needs too, so, uh, everybody had focuses on things sometimes money gets moved and we got a big senior population too. Thank you. Yes sir.
There's no risk of that. Are there any
other questions for DHS from the committee. Appreciate y'all working on this. Issue that
Ms. Stone, you pointed out something, uh, That I think we obviously need to be thinking about. is not Trading, dealing with these folks is not saving us money because they're sitting in jail for months or in some cases years, and we're paying for that so we're we're paying for Something whether we're doing the right thing or not, so any help that y'all need, I hope you
will let us know. We appreciate that. The uh y'all are dismissed. Anyone else in for no we've already covered for or against any one else like to ask questions of Senator Irvin. And OK,
Senator Ervin, you recognize close for your bill.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:16:54
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I just want to say I really appreciate all the testimony on
this piece of legislation, all of the work
from there's so many individuals to raise your hand that are here, just that supportive and helped, but there's literally county sheriffs and every single county that have stories
that they could share on this. I mean, again, I think it's important to note that in 2023 there 2,957 orders for mental evaluations at DHS. Um, 76% of the fitness to proceed evaluations, the defendant was found fit to proceed addressing this problem using
the data is what they've done, but I think it's the right step forward, but there's all these different components to what we have what we have to address and focus on in order to really solve this problem. Um, appreciate the comments on the ex parte and in camera language. I will incorporate that um an amendment and to fix the typo and I appreciate that and I can, I can do that, um, with a blessing of the committee, if we
can move it forward, that'd be great. Representative Dalby, of course, is the sponsor on the
other I'm sorry, Representative Kendra Moore is, but I've spoken with Representative Dalby about this as well. So whatever the
committee would like for me to do to how to proceed. I'd love to pass it with that amendment going forward. Uh But I'd like to do that and perhaps Do that on the House end if we can, but it's up to the committee, however you want me to proceed. I'm happy to do so,
and I, I'm closed for my bill. I, you know, again, I just want to thank all the people that worked on this. I can't overstate that, and I can't overstate how difficult and complex of a problem this is. Thank you for helping Listening today and,
uh, and your due diligence on considering the bill. Will
of the committee. And motion motion to pass as amended centralized, second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Senator Irvin, I appreciate I
should have asked that before you close, but I appreciate that you're going to Amend the bill in the House to for the good points that Mr. Rosensweig made. Any other discussion? Hearing none all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Irvin, you have passed your bill. Is that, is that all your bills? I just have one last one. I
apologize. It should go fast. OK while you're getting ready, what's bill is it? I, I think it's send Bill 314. Yes, Senate Bill 314. It's super fast and easy, I think Senator Brian is here. He has 4 bills. He has one, I think that he's got county clerks to testify for. Uh Up until now we have
taking care of everything that was on our agenda. Do y'all want to stay? Do you want to come back this afternoon? Do you want to meet on Monday. Uh, do you want to make him wait till Wednesday. Uh It's do It's the It's do this, Senator Johnson suggestion this afternoon. We, we can do the Central McKee we can do the one here that he's got people to testify for.
We will of the committee OK, we'll take care of the one and then y'all think about whether you want to do the other others this afternoon because you all know it doesn't seem like it, but because of spring break we're later in the session. Uh, and I don't want to keep anybody waiting if we can keep from it, uh. Uh, so later in the session I should have finished and it seems, uh, there's
OK. All right, I, I, this, the, the sense of the committee I'm hearing, Senator Tucker, we
don't want to hear your bill, but just just joking. Senator Irvin, you're recognized to present is it SB 314? Yes, thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:21:34
Senate Bill 314. Um, Senator Missy Irvin District 24, thank you
again, again, I come to you on behalf of the Republican Women's Legislative
Caucus, and human trafficking has become one of the fastest growing crimes, not just in our state, but across the globe. Our caucus has worked closely with Attorney General Tim Griffin, um and in giving law enforcement the tools that they need to fight this horrific crime. So before you I'm going to present one of the bills. There's 3 bills actually dealing with trafficking that we've worked with Attorney General Tim Griffin on. I'm gonna just present one of those bills today. All three are part of our, our package, but this bill
specifically, he addressed in his press conference as well, is increasing the penalties, heightening the penalties for the johns of human trafficking of human traffickers, and so increasing the penalties for sexual solicitation of a victim of human trafficking. That's what the bill does quite. Succinctly. Happy to answer any
questions from the committee. Senator Irvin, my question would
be it looks like a great bill, but it seems like we keep Expanding the need for capacity in our state prisons understand. Uh, would you like to address that briefly? Well, if there weren't so much
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:23:09
evil in the world and people doing such horrible things to Our citizens, there wouldn't be that need. I I can't explain it other than that, um, this bill
is pretty horrific. If you think about somebody who is, uh, His soliciting sex from a victim of human trafficking. I think it should be a pretty stiff penalty and and crime or else you're just not going to deter the crime. OK. Other questions from the committee? Sir Tucker.
Speaker 142
2:23:40
Is it only for victims of human trafficking?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:23:45
No, it would be sexually sexual solicitation,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:23:48
yeah, in general, in general, yes, OK,
OK, uh. Any other questions from committee saying none Jeff Rosensweig is recognized to testify against. OK Jeff Rosenw, Arkansas Association
Speaker 349
2:24:08
of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This bill is going to be subject to
Chair
Unverified
2:24:13
a lot of abuse. Number one, this this doesn't involve minors, as Senator Tucker noted, it doesn't involve
definition human trafficking doesn't involve actual sex. It just involves talking about it and referring to a fee at some point and this used to be a C. misdemeanor and every time, every so often, you know, the uh the uh uh the penalty gets raised now a second offense in which you at some point in your life that you mention or offer
or suggest without anything happening and it's a felony, this is, as I say, going to be subject to a whole lot of abuse and there's no corroboration necessary. necessary, just someone said you said something. Doesn't involve there's no requirement for recording, no uh no requirement of a third witness just someone can come in and say he asked me to do this
or she asked me to do this, and if it's the 2nd time it's a felony. This just screams abuse, and I ask that I know I have full respect for, you know, Senator Ervin. I know what she's getting at, but this is too much of a cure. Senator Johnson, you recognize? Corroboration and all those other things that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:25:49
you just mentioned in in the original bill, is it?
Chair
Unverified
2:25:56
But it's it was a prosecuted that much because it's it was a misdemeanor, but no, misdemeanors generally require, for instance, less of a standard of proof, for instance, the corroboration rule doesn't apply to misdemeanors. It, you know, to felonies, do you think, do you think the courts will fill in the
Chair
Unverified
2:26:22
problem is, is you're going to have
you know people who have who have it out for someone are going to come in and claim he did this or she did this. We see this all the time in the in the uh you know, the nasty divorce cases and that type of thing where various unfounded allegations. allegations are met and some of them wind their way into the into the criminal process as well. Do you think?
Speaker 353
2:26:58
sexual solicitation will be handled in a divorce
Chair
Unverified
2:27:03
case. Oh, it, it, yeah, it, it can come up anywhere, yes. There's no, there's no spousal exception in the bill
help us with Reality what's the penalty for a Class C misdemeanor. Class C misdemeanor
Chair
Unverified
2:27:28
was up to 30 days and up to $100 fine, and Class A misdemeanor, it's now one year and a $2500 fine and a class D felony, or Class Class C felony is what is 0 to 6 and $10,000. OK. Other questions
Speaker 142
2:27:45
from the committee. Senator Tucker and then Senator,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:27:50
so it's, it started just to, I'm just trying to understand Senator Clark's point. This started as a Class C misdemeanor back when I started practicing,
Speaker 362
2:28:00
this was a queer. It was called patronizing a prostitute, they had a name change, but it's the old patronizing and not to aid you, Mr. Rosensweig, but
Speaker 361
2:28:11
about, about what time frame would that have been? Uh my bar number is 1977. OK. So since '77,
Speaker 363
2:28:17
if this were to pass, we would have gone from
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:28:21
up to 30 days to up to 6 years. Thank you. Center Ross, you recognize? With what Mr. Rosensweig was
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:28:32
explaining and as I understand it, it's when it was a misdemeanor, you didn't worry about it being abused as much. Uh Is there, I think it's gonna take some more time. I don't know if we've got it. Is there some wording if we're going to Make it a more serious offense more wording that It won't be Uh He said, she said or vice versa.
Uh, that, that fits the extra penalty that we're talking about. Who's that question for sent
Speaker 367
2:29:08
to us really, I mean Mr. Rosen, I would just leave the bill. I would
Chair
Unverified
2:29:16
And not change anything or, or actually I, it would, I wouldn't have a problem with reducing, uh, but certainly not raising the penalties. Senator Urban or is the prosecutors endorsed this.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:33
We, we worked with the Attorney General Tim Griffin on this legislation the prosecutors endorsed. I have not had a conversation with prosecutor,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:29:43
I would ask if you would, would pull this down. Let's have a little more discussion on this. Again, these things do happen. And accusatory type things and, and since we were ratcheting up, I'd like to hear from the prosecutors, and I just, I don't know if we've
got focus on it with what we've been through today. Sure.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:30:03
I'm happy to do that. I Happy to do that if that's what the will of the committee is. I would say
though it's not acceptable to leave the law as it is. Uh, 1977, I'm not sure the instances of human trafficking back then. But we all know what human trafficking is now. We all know that this is a horrific criminal industry, second only to illegal. Weapons in the world.
And to not prosecute the persons that are proliferating this incredible crime industry. is quite frankly ridiculous. So I, I'm happy to pull down the bill and address it if that's the will of the committee, but to leave it alone and do nothing. Means to me that there's no willingness to attack human trafficking or to try to eliminate human trafficking in
the state of Arkansas. So I'll yield to the committee. Well, I'm, I'm
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:31:12
not. I'm sure not saying let's don't penalize trafficking. This doesn't say trafficking. I understand what it's trying to do. But We need to look at some more sides of this, and again, you did, you said the prosecutors had not looked at this.
They're the ones going to be prosecuting. I would like to hear, and I apologize. I'm not sure if
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:31:32
they've looked at it or not. They hadn't reached out to me, I should say that. OK.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:31:39
Other Uh, Senator Gilmore. Yeah, so I, I think I'm just trying to, to, to gain some clarity. So I guess our, our concern is for the 2nd or subsequent offense being a class D and I guess what I'm, I guess the concern is that maybe there's other elements of this crime that we were potentially not considering because I can tell you that especially as it relates to trafficking, and I
know this bill is more a little more broad than trafficking, but trafficking is pretty serious, and a lot of times trafficking starts with uh an element like this where someone is is being solicited for sex and that usually can start a cycle, so I think it's, I think it's pretty serious. I mean, I, I'm fine if if members want to hear from the prosecutors, and I think that's fair, um, but I hope that we are giving a lot of really good thought to this.
So if the prosecutors have thoughts on this. Maybe they would like to
speak to it. I don't think we see any of them here. They're
Speaker 377
2:32:58
hiding from me. I think my prosecutors are actually coming in the door now, um, I can say that While we didn't work with in oven on the bill initially. I think we've looked at it. I don't know that we have any major issues with it. Um, one of
the things it does make an unclassified misdemeanor a D felony or an A misdemeanor and generally speaking, we like for the penalties to be consistent with what's already in the code, um, we would use it as a tool as we normally would use it anyway as Mr. Rosensweig mentioned, I'm sure the penalties have changed, but Senator Irvin mentioned the crimes have also changed through the years, so, you know, I think it would be a, a tool that we would use in the appropriate
circumstances, but like I said, there are some actually our elected prosecutors here who actually prosecute these, if you would like to hear from them, I can try to get one of them to join me as
well. Yeah, that's the room, I bet we can since Ross, you're reckons from Mr. Xu, Mr. Tatum, uh, they, they
Speaker 43
2:34:03
we're gonna go ahead and Spend time on this today. I've got specifics that I won't hear from them. OK. Uh, if, if you prosecutors that just came in back in the room, would come to the table.
So Gilmore, were you going to ask something different from that? Well, I was just gonna say if
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:34:28
we could hear from the Attorney General's office as well. It would be helpful after the prosecutors at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm sure he said. I'll identify myself. I'm Daniel Shoe. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:34:51
Sebastian County legislative chairman for the APAA. I'm also president of the APAA. And I have no idea what the question is. And, uh, Tom just walked in and uh Tom
Speaker 383
2:35:05
Tatum, prosecuting attorney for the 15th Judicial District. And gentlemen, while y'all were out of the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:35:11
room, I think, uh, Mr. Rosensweig brought up the fact this is enhancing a penalty, which I don't have a problem with.
I'm not condoning trafficking anyway this is talking about sexual solicitation, which is part of trafficking what I want to know is what he brought up. Is there any type of entrapment. On somebody that can be done here. He's talked about and you've read things before where he said, she said, and that's what I'm looking for from your aspect as prosecutors. Is there any concern that you see with this. It needs to have further language.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:35:54
To make sure there's not some kind of false accusations. I guess the short answer
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:36:04
to that is you're just changing the penalties. You're not changing the
right, but because the penalties are enhanced. Before it was a misdemeanor. It we're enhancing penalties, so it's, is there any further language needed to make sure when we're going to enhance penalty that somebody doesn't get entrapped falsely. You know,
Speaker 387
2:36:25
I mean, that's one of the things there's always kind of a risk to that and really in every, in every criminal case, not necessarily entrapment, but also someone, you know, making a false statement or, or, or tilting things one way or the other, and of course that's a large part of what we do every day is either deciding to file cases and proceed with them or not file them. And so a lot of, a lot of cases come across our desk. For for one reason or another,
aren't filed. I, I don't see how this would be any different, uh, it seems to be just moving the penalties and not really moving a lot of the other language, so if if
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:37:07
entrapment was an issue with the statute from the get-go, it's still an issue. But prosecutors have discretion. Well, yeah,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:37:18
the course of my career seen entrapment as a defense. 2 or 3 times over 35 years
Chair
Unverified
2:37:27
entrapment is very rarely raised. OK, I appreciate both of you all. Thank you
Speaker 386
2:37:31
for coming to the table. Any other questions for Now I
Speaker 112
2:37:39
got Dan, could you give me a definition of human trafficking? Could you give me a definition of human trafficking.
Speaker 391
2:37:46
From the statute. From the statute from the statute.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:37:57
You have to give me a second. I mean, if, if you're human trafficking, uh, aren't, aren't you recruiting and
transporting Um And coercing individuals to do something against their will. Um, without looking at the statute, I
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:38:21
would say that that's I can reasonably close. I can read it.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:38:32
Um, it's code 9-27-303, uh 12-18-1201, the term um Hold on just a second. It says the term
abuse includes recruiting, harboring, transporting, or obtaining a child for labor or services through force, fraud, or coercion or for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, personage, debt,
bondage, or slavery, um, trafficking of persons. a person commits the offense of trafficking of persons if he or she knowingly recruits, harbors, transports, obtains, entices, solicits, isolates, provides, or maintains a person when he or she knows I reasonably should know that the person will be subjected to involuntary involuntary servitude benefits financially or benefits by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture that
he or she knows are reasonably should know is engaged in conduct prohibited under the subdivision of the section. Subjects a person to involuntary cert servitude recruits, entices, solicits, isolates, harbors, transports, provides, maintains, or obtains a minor for commercial sexual activity. I can go on. No, it's OK,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:39:55
what, what you're saying, Senator Urban, basically it boils down to, uh, exploring another human being. Is that not correct?
Well, they're selling it's illegal exploiting of another human being and against their will. Could not, could that not work with both individuals. Let's say a man and a
wife, a husband and wife. Could that be used in
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:40:28
that scenario? I, I'm not sure if I understand your question. I, I mean, I know in cases where parents have literally sold their children for money, like drug money and,
um, I mean, as far as human trafficking is a multifaceted crime. Generally speaking, which is why it's been difficult, I think, in the past to define it, but also prosecute it because there's different levels as to what you're speaking to. What we're trying to address is the solicitation part of it. Because without the I mean, it's, it's market and demand. Well, we're trying to address the demands part of the human trafficking and and create
penalties to lessen the demand for human trafficking by increasing the penalties for those who are soliciting the sex. And that's that, that's got to be a key component to combating the crime of human trafficking. Well, I agree with you 100%. It's,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:41:30
it's to me it's a form of human slavery. It has no place in our society, but I also see Senator Rice, what he
Cass. It could be abused. Um By a wife or a husband. For example, her
girlfriend and a boyfriend. And I guess I understand the idea
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:42:01
behind it, but I think to the testimony of the prosecuting attorneys sitting here. It's within their discretion and out of 30 years of their career they've only seen
Certain issues where it's 2 to 3 instances, but again, I think it's the discretion of the prosecuting and attorneys who would decide whether
that's a valid. Valid to bring forward or not. But one of our Supreme Court
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:42:30
justices was accused, maybe not of human trafficking, but along those same lines, if you remember a few years
ago. And that was all that was all thrown out during the questioning.
Of the Supreme Court members, so anyway, that's, I was just, I was just curious as to whether or not this could be abused. Uh In certain
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:43:03
instances. I mean, I, I, I wrap my mind around your scenario that a husband or a wife accuses the other of sexual solicitation. That's your pardon me,
Speaker 407
2:43:14
that a husband or a wife accuses the
other of sexual solicitation. Is that your? Well, it
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:43:21
could be it could be a girlfriend or boyfriend, let's say a girlfriend gets mad at her boyfriend and goes to the police and accuses him of doing something he shouldn't do, and he's
totally innocent. Uh, is that human trafficking? No. Not, not with those bare facts, no,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:43:37
sir. OK. All right, that's all I wanted to know. Yes, sir. Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:43:51
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator, was that so I'm just, I didn't hear all those numbers for the code section you were
reading from. 05. OK. OK. Uh I was just curious
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:44:12
if this has its own set of pull up, pulled up different sections, but it's actually 5-18-103, uh 20 trafficking of persons. OK, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:44:21
this is thank you, Senator Gilmore. I was just going to ask if that had its own penalty structure in it, and it does trafficking of persons is a class A felony, and then if it's if it's a minor, then it's a class Y felony under that code section. I just was curious, so thank, thank you, Senator Gilmore.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:44:39
I, I do have someone now here from the Attorney General's office too if there are questions and they can testify for the bill. Yes, Senator Gilmore, did you
have something or was that what you were just at the appropriate time, the AG's
Speaker 414
2:44:58
office. OK, uh, y'all are done. Questioning the prosecutors. I don't care who's up there right now. They they they maybe they can answer
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:45:07
it too, but McKee you I don't care who's up there right now. They they they maybe they can answer it too, but McKee, you're someone who's not an attorney, which is the most fun people for you to deal with, right? Uh It doesn't look to me like we're changing the scope at all, so
the existing statute has a scope and it covers these offenses that deal with the sexual solicitation. All we're doing is changing the penalty, so I just want to make sure I understand that the disagreement is about whether or not that scope. Should all be covered under that enhanced penalty or whether or
not there should be separation there. That's the conversation, OK.
OK, the Chairs confused soliciting a victim of human trafficking. Senator Irvin, did you close for your bill? I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:46:11
think Senator Gilmore wanted to hear from the Attorney General. Oh no, no, no, no, I
know that. I'm just back to uh did you close for your bill? I think we're
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:46:23
still in question answer, OK, I just, I don't know, just want to.
I'm sorry, I don't know. I think you started to close and I just, I just want to be sure that procedurally if she would like to close, I mean, I'm
no, no, we have asked the Attorney General to come representative Attorney
General, to come. So if they will please come to the table. Prosecutors, thank you for your testimony.
Before we hear from them, I'd like to say something. I Senator Irvin The the members of the legislature in this committee have been very supportive of legislation to stop trafficking, a horrible, horrible crime. Uh, with some very real victims. We also are charged on this committee. With making sure
That penalties are what they ought to be, you know. I'm against trafficking. I'm against prostitution. I'm against strip clubs, but we have them. and and very much so where I'm from, and so I've heard testimony from young ladies who strip or whatever they want to call it, dance. I'm going to guess and as a youth pastor, I think
there former youth pastor, I think they're misled, uh, but why it's their right, etc. etc. They're not trafficked. And so
I have questions about how much of this is trafficking, how much is not, and I don't think it's just me. I think there's a question in the committee
that I don't think are going to be settled today about whether the penalty is right or not. Again, we were with you in spirit, and I don't know that that's going to be settled. We'll go ahead and hear from the
AG, but we may want you to come back, try to schedule a time, uh, we don't. We have never met on Monday afternoon so far and we're not meeting on Monday mornings, and it wouldn't help you if you're, if you're The committee is meeting on Monday afternoons anyway, uh, but we try to do it, but But my sense of the committee is that they're not ready today, that we need more discussion. And more thought as to whether this is the right. The exact right thing or not or
whether it needs to be changed somewhat. Sure, I will
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:49:16
defer to the members of the committee, but that's where
I sense they're at, not that they, they're not. In spirit with you, but y'all have questions for the attorney General's office. Let's see. I don't, but y'all y'all ask
them to be here, so. I mean, if you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:49:43
do you want us to, to, I mean, I'm happy to pull the bill down, regroup, make sure that the Attorney General himself is here. If you, if that's what you
would like, and then Monday afternoon if you want to do
that to members of the committee. I don't, I don't need to hear from the AJ. I just, I
think we need to have some thought uh especially on the felony, if you don't mind, she's already here if we just don't mind
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:50:14
letting her to speak, and then I'll defer to the committee.
Speaker 427
2:50:21
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alex Benton at the AG's
Speaker 428
2:50:25
office. do you have testimony or are you here for questions? Yes sir, I just, I wanted to defer to you on recognizing me. I will begin. So I think that the, the And,
Chair
Unverified
2:50:36
and the beginning of the genesis of the idea for this bill was the large statewide human trafficking sting that the Attorney General's office conducted along with state
police, the human trafficking Council, Victims' advocates, statewide from every single corner of our state, and Along with other prosecutors or, you know, there's the the big press conference on a Friday afternoon, and as we're getting information reported to our office in real time during this operation, um, we were learning that oftentimes the johns that frequent the illicit massage
parlors where doing so on a very regular basis, knowing exactly what they were doing. They were the frequent flyers, if you will. And they would come in and Obviously sexually abusing the women that are the victims of human trafficking in these instances, but there's also a physical violence that occurs, a mental violence. These, these victims are subjected to working 7 days a week, 13 hours a day in these illicit massage parlors. We
looked at some of the johns that were arrested and realized that oftentimes these johns. On the first time that they're actually being caught. are getting a slap on the wrist. And then they just go on down the road to the next illicit massage parlor the next day and the next one and the next one. So we looked at ways where we can stop the whack a mole from from continuing and how can we do that? Well, let's not change
the substantive law. The law is good right now. It is just helping us to I think like Senator Ervin said there's a, there's clearly a market for this. It's making a lot of money and we said, OK, well how can we decrease demand. And if we increase the already the penalties that are already in the law, and we say, OK, it's a class A misdemeanor for the first offense, and then it becomes felonious conduct on the second offense, you're creating a paper trail record that are
going to follow these people that are going We can argue all the time, I think there's reasonable minds can differ on whether or not enhanced penalties actually deter conduct or not, um, but the impact That somebody would get in their local rural communities in Arkansas by being charged with sexual solicitation after a statewide human trafficking sting is going to follow them in these small communities, and the same with the with the second
offense being felonious, so I apologize I wasn't in here earlier, so I, I, I want to make sure I'm addressing the committee's questions. I think that what I heard was Oftentimes we were worried about does the law already apply for this and and I think that there were some hypotheticals that were presented. Specifically about entrapment. And I would like to assure the committee that nothing in this bill is going to increase, you know, entrapment. I think that
our, our law enforcement agencies. And our prosecuting attorneys and other partners are acutely aware of the dangers of ruining a very good case. By illegally entrapping Johns and if Law enforcement agencies entrap people. It's an affirmative defense, and these guys get away. And we The AG's office certainly is never going to say yes, let's go
and rap these guys, you know, we're we're never going, we're we're doing things by the book, and this bill does not change any of that. Senator Johnson, you recognize the question? So, We really
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:54:39
need to change the name of that John's thing. Name derivation history matters. I'm Johnson. I'd be happy to name it Sam or another name. Get a little bit more serious, so
If you have a situation, this is, I mean,
Speaker 155
2:55:00
I've separated this in my mind on human trafficking and what we're dealing with in this bill If you can't Come to the conclusion of trafficking. This gives us a tool if there's a possibility of that happening to enhance that that penalty and not call it trafficking because those trafficking violations are much higher. Then
then then what we're talking about here. This is given the prosecutors a tool to give them uh A bigger slap on the wrist. And hopefully modify that behavior and that second one is a big slap. It's a big slap. But uh But I think I've got that in my mind separated, and it's been convoluted and if if I ever get
in trouble, I'm, I, I sure will, Mr. Rosenweg, that presumption of doubt here, he's good. So, but I've clarified in that in my mind and I think, I think the courts and the prosecutors can handle that and I appreciate the bill and I'm I'm good with it. Thank you. Sir Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Sharon. Now I've got. 5 18103 pulled up.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:56:30
It does cover solicitation in there for for human trafficking, so I just wanted to mention that I'll invite you to comment on that. Without that code section in front, I'd be happy
Chair
Unverified
2:56:40
to to look it up with the permission of the chair to use my mobile device to pull that up, and I'd be happy to answer that. Senator Irvin's, they've got you covered, I think that's been. It's really a one.
Chair
Unverified
2:57:04
this gets to what Senator Johnson was just kind of hitting hinting at just now is that there are separate offenses that you could charge, uh, the criminal with trafficking of persons or solicitation, and oftentimes the elements of trafficking of persons will not fit the crime of the person that is soliciting the sex from the person who has been trafficked because they haven't recruited or har what they have done instead is
they know that this person is, you know, if you have eyes, you can see that this person is probably human trafficked, or maybe they don't think about it, and they go in and they know all they know is that they are soliciting some sort of like prostitution, um, and other types of sex work and so that is why the solicitation charge might be brought against These Sams, uh, not John's, and the, the charge of human trafficking would not be brought against them because they
haven't met the specific elements in a one as you noticed. I mean, to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:58:11
that point, this is, that's, that's why they need to be separated. Because, because they're, they're going in soliciting the sex, but they may or may not
have any knowledge of whether this person's trafficked or not, but you still have to address the market and the demand aspect of human trafficking.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:58:33
That's the reason for the bill. OK, my follow up question is, so I understand what
you're saying that there's a high burden on proving human trafficking. And I think the language in the current solicitation crime is a much lower burden. Fair. And, and so with the enhanced penalty, Is, would it be better to have a middle ground? Oh.
Chair
Unverified
2:59:03
Well, 2, maybe 2 things that I would respond with is one, I think we're using maybe the term enhanced penalty interchangeably with another bill that was before this committee earlier today, like cargo theft. It's not really an enhanced penalty. We're just elevating it for this type of conduct, um, but, um, in terms of finding some sort of middle ground, I would defer to the policy of this body, but I I'm not sure it's as much of a
sympathetic plight for a reason to find a middle ground for people who are seeking to solicit. Some of our most vulnerable populations that are forced to do involuntary sex work 7 days a week for 13 hours a day. I'm, I'm not very sympathetic. OK. Thank you. I'm not sympathetic either.
You know, I don't relish dealing with this at all, but I ran for the Senate and I chose to chair judiciary. And so we, that's what we do. And you've talked about the illicit massage parlors and you mention with them the 7 days a week, 13 hours a day, so you can tie that to human trafficking, right? Yes, sir, in that hypothetical, yes, we
Chair
Unverified
3:00:29
were able to tie it to human trafficking. Well, let me again in trying to get it right,
I mean, it's easy this this committee is not made up of shrinking violets, and normally you want an enhanced penalty, you want to fry people. We're your committee. Uh, so, uh, let's get the wrongdoers and let's put them in jail and keep them there, OK, but that being said, we live in a real world. And let's say
that the prostitute is being paid
$10,000 a month, provided a house. These are things I wish I didn't know, but I do. Are we not setting up the perfect thing for blackmail because the person who's paying the $10,000 a month and providing the house. is obviously soliciting. But definitely not tied not to 7 days a week, 13 hours a day. There are different types.
And again, it's not my world it's easy for me just to, you know, but, but, but people
are going to be prosecuted for these crimes. They're going to, they're going to go to prison for these crimes, so I want to be sure. That
we're doing the right thing. So how about the situation where somebody's paying $10,000 a month and providing a house, uh. Yes,
Speaker 191
3:02:06
sir. Um, I, I think in that hypothetical, Without
Chair
Unverified
3:02:13
Other factors that the prosecutor would have to prove and without a willing victim to help testify. That would, that would probably be very difficult. To prove that the purpose of those benefits were for the solicitation or for the the benefit of the pay or to receive sexual benefits in return and to meet the elements of a solicitation crime, but let's assume that that they are able to prove those elements, then It would be a crime whether or
not we enhance the penalties or not. It's no,
it's absolutely a crime under Arkansas law, but I'm saying we want to we don't want to mistakenly At the same time, we like to fry people, this committee, not not y'all, you know, we don't want to mistakenly
Create situations. That Uh We're putting citizens in places
that aren't, uh, again because I have no problem if you tie it to trafficking. That I'm, if this was tied to trafficking, I'm 100% for the bill, OK? And, and then you're playing Russian roulette. Then if you go, then if you're the John and you go out. and it can't be tied to trafficking. It's one thing, but if it's tied to trafficking, it doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what the situation is. Second time the class D felony. I don't have a problem with that, but this isn't tied to
that. Uh, it's, it's for that purpose, and I get it. But why shouldn't it be tied to
Chair
Unverified
3:04:01
If I'm understanding properly, you would prefer to see maybe one section of sexual solicitation that deals As it is, which is for I hate regular pros, I mean,
prostitution where the person is perhaps willing in this situation and then a separate one where there's enhanced penalties for solicitation when the the person who is soliciting the sex. knows that the victim is is being human trafficked, and no, I'm not, no, no, no, no, I'm not
Speaker 108
3:04:33
saying no. No, I said you're playing Russian roulette. I'm saying if you
can tie it. To human trafficking. I'm good with it. OK, because whether you knew or didn't know,
OK, you participate, then you're part I agree completely with Central Urban, you're part of the problem. OK, but But this ties to all cases. As it's written now. Yes,
Chair
Unverified
3:05:07
sir. I would need to research whether or not, and I might look to Some other folks for for some assistance on this, but I think that there would be a question about whether or not you could
have an enhanced penalty. For somebody who has been charged of a crime. Just because you found out later that that victim was under certain circumstances. I think that The state has to put criminals kind of on notice that the conduct that they are doing. Has those those certain types of um
but we just did that in the bill earlier today, you know, if you steal a truckload of weed eaters. We're,
you're not, you're going to go to prison longer, you're not going to get out early. If you steal Amazon packages off the front porch, that was specifically excluded, you're not going to be if you, if you come up, if it's not on a truck and it's
not being transported, if I had, if I bought a truckload of weed eaters and they're sitting in my warehouse, you're, there's not going to be an enhanced penalty. So we're already doing that, are we not?
Speaker 427
3:06:23
Well, I think the distinction between those two hypotheticals is the mental state, the knowledge, what The defendant in both of
Chair
Unverified
3:06:30
these scenarios would know at the time. You may not know that the victim in question has been human trafficked, whereas in this other scenario you would know that the that the things that you are stealing our cargo. I think that that would be the delineation there about the mental state and the mens rea of, but if I'm the driver for a bank robbery.
OK, and I have no idea. That I'm as guilty as as the rest of the if they go in and shoot somebody, I'm guilty of murder too. I don't think that's an element in convicting me.
Is it that I didn't know that that that was the law. I think under that scenario,
Chair
Unverified
3:07:14
they would not be charged with murder. They might be charged as an accessory, depending on what they reasonably should have known at the time. So I think that's another um
hypothetical that would create a different decision tree it's not required that I
Speaker 444
3:07:28
know the law. In order to be prosecuted. Yes, sir,
Chair
Unverified
3:07:32
I think that there's a difference between being required to know what the law is versus a knowing mental mens rea state in terms which is required as an element of any criminal charge. OK, I'm not a lawyer, so, but
I'm betting there's some lawyers that will tell me afterwards that they agree with me, so yeah, I, I mean, I, I, to that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:07:55
to that discussion, I think it's a timing issue and how that would be processed, um. As far as how that would then be prosecuted under the tie of human trafficking. So, um, but I I know everybody needs to go eat lunch. I'm going to pull the bill down. We'll revisit it. We'll have conversations. I'll have the attorney General's office, uh, speak to all the members of the committee, answer all their questions, and if we can reschedule this for an afternoon that doesn't conflict
with public health. I would be greatly appreciated. OK, uh, we, you and
I will have to get together and because we don't know when y'all will meet in afternoons or not, but, but we'll be glad to do that, I worked with you today to make
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:08:40
sure we got you first up at public health, so I think I can do that. Yes ma'am. We'll get together and find a
time. Thank you. Central brought 324, correct whichever one the county clerks are here for.
3 321. Central, uh, Would you identify yourself and both of you identify yourselves for the record. Thank you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:09:25
Mr. Chair. Joshua Ryan, the Senate District 32
Speaker 457
3:09:29
I'm Brenda De Shields, Benton County Circuit Clerk, and speaking on behalf of the Circuit Clerks Association,
and the circuit clerks, I might have said county clerks, but um.
OK, Senator Bright, you are recognized to present SB 321. Yes, Mr. Chair,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:09:43
a Senate Bill 321 just to cover a couple of clarifications on the bill that the lines that are struck. It's nothing new that this bill has done. This is already done via Act 162 of 2025, so I'm just keeping in line with the bill previously passed by this General Assembly, and then we're
where the request by the circuit clerks is to add the administrative Office of courts for the county reimbursement of jurors into the available revenue of remaining AOJ fund balances to be distributed first to this fund. So with that, I'll turn it over to the circuit clerks. Thank you. And I know you've had a long morning, so I'll
Speaker 457
3:10:20
try to make this very brief, jurors, and we can all agree are a vital part of our judicial system and by not their choice of their own. It's a civic duty and
they're summonsed in to serve. The law says we shall provide compensation for the jurors, and that's not really what we're questioning here today. It's how and where they get paid from, um, to expedite their pay for their service cause it's a sacrifice to leave their job. jobs, their families, find babysitters to come in to hear um court cases, the county reimburses them very quickly for that compensation that the law requires. Um, the way it's currently written, 4 times a
year we submit reimbursement requests to the administrative office of the courts out of the administration of justice Fund and it's as available funds are there, they'll pay us. Well, we are falling short. We were being paid in full for this service. We're county. It's a state circuit court that's providing this service that these jurors are coming for, so we're just asking that we be moved to a priority out of the administration of justice fund. That's what the administration of justice is for, and I can't think of something that's more important
than having jurors show up for a jury trial for individual rights. So we're just asking that they be paid in full out of the administration of justice funds, so that would move them from where they're at now to a priority status. Questions from the committee. Tucker, how will this impact the other
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:11:59
entities that receive money out of the AOJ fund.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:12:05
Just Maybe Ms Clark. So I'm Kristen Clark. I'm the director of the Legal Services Division at
Speaker 461
3:12:29
the administrative office of the courts. I didn't know that I was going to be asked questions today about this, but I'm happy to
answer as always. When you take a group that is in um the administration of justice fund and move them up to priority status. That means that they are going to be paid 100% of what, um, needs to be reimbursed, and that will have the impact on the remaining folks who do not have priority status of of decreasing the amounts that they would receive. OK. And so that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:13:02
the other folks are prosecuting attorneys
Association and um the law schools and some some other things like that. That's
Speaker 461
3:13:13
correct. There's a list of about 20 different agencies and programs that do not have priority status
Speaker 462
3:13:17
that would potentially be impacted. OK, thank you. Other questions from the committee. Can I add something to
Speaker 457
3:13:38
the jurors from the 75 counties where we pay the reimbursement was being paid in full until we hit the pandemic. When we came back from the pandemic, it seems like that's when the shortfall has fallen to all of the counties, which is what raised this concern of the counties getting reimbursed for a state court. I can tell you just in 3 counties Benton, Washington, and Salem. 2022 to present, there's been a shortfall of almost 225,000 coming back to the county that
the counties have had to pay versus the state in that being a state court, so counties are having to pick up this expense. And this is going to change it from the
counties having to pick it up. Yes sir, the shortfall, yes. The administration of justice fund already pays. We were just at
Speaker 457
3:14:31
a shortfall now, and they're in agreement with this. And they're in agreement with
this. They being those over the fund that it's coming from, and I can't answer that. I do not know, sir. I don't see anyone touch signed up to testify against. They
must be. OK. Any other questions from the committee? Hearing Nunn, Senator Bryant, would you like to close for your bill? Uh, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:15:01
would just like to just reiterate, it is a fun, it's a cruel fun based on the services that are needed for the state, and while there's a lot of hands out for the pot, I think moving
these up to ensure that our jurors were asking of our citizenry are paid in full, not just out of the county taxes of which they're paying there, but they're paying into the state for these services and for these asks, so with that, I would, I would appreciate a motion and a good vote. will of the committee. Motion from Centra McKee to pass.
Chairs going to center Stubblefield is going to 2nd motion. Any discussion? Harry Nunn. All for the motion signified by saying I. All opposed. Senator Brat, there are not currently enough votes to pass your bill. It did not pass. Thank you. He a motion from the committee to expunge
motion to expunge, seconded by Senator McKee, any discussion here or none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. OK.
Oh Not just when do you want to meet? When should we meet? Uh. Not today. Monday after
session. OK, then, uh, we will meet Monday 15 minutes up on the adjournment of the session.
Unknown speaker
3:16:57
We got a hammer here, some of them we germs.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR NOTARY PUBLIC TO EXECUTE AND RECORD A SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVIT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
SB298 Rice TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DECREE TO QUIET TITLE TO LAND TO ALLOW FOR FINALITY IN QUIET TITLE ACTIONS.
SB300 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT.
SB301 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THEFT OF CARGO; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING HOTLINE.
SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
SB328 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.
HB1465 Gonzales CONCERNING DIRTBIKE USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF AN OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
HB1452 Lundstrum CLARIFYING THE LAW ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN CERTAIN PLACES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF AN UNSEALED CONTAINER OF CERTAIN FORMS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN A MOTOR VEHICLE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 5, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 7
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 13
Speaker 19
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 60
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 74
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 111
Speaker 112
Speaker 117
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 43
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 167
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 196
Speaker 197
Speaker 204
Speaker 216
Speaker 228
Speaker 108
Speaker 195
Speaker 233
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 252
Speaker 260
Speaker 272
Speaker 238
Speaker 246
Speaker 283
Speaker 289
Speaker 290
Speaker 301
Speaker 304
Speaker 305
Speaker 292
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 321
Speaker 325
Speaker 322
Speaker 142
Speaker 349
Speaker 354
Speaker 353
Speaker 351
Speaker 362
Speaker 361
Speaker 363
Speaker 367
Speaker 368
Speaker 377
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 383
Speaker 387
Speaker 390
Speaker 386
Speaker 391
Speaker 407
Speaker 414
Speaker 427
Speaker 428
Speaker 432
Speaker 191
Speaker 444
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 457
Speaker 461
Speaker 462
Speaker 186