Judiciary Committee- House

be Tuesday, this coming Tuesday, the 11th, 9:45 on the house steps. So just kind of make yourself a note in your calendar and I'll remind you at the end of our meeting, uh, in case we, you know, get going and forget. The first bill we have this morning that we're going to take up this house Bill 1049presentative Tasha recognized to go to the end of the table and present your bill. Madam Chair, Committee members, I'm representative Dwight Tosh and uh here today to present the bill that will criminalize unlawful squatting. And uh I know I've visited with many of you about this, and I think one of the things I mostly, excuse me, most of the questions I hear is people feel like we already have a law on the books. That deals with unlawful squatters, but really, we don't because uh Even though we've got trespassing and criminal trespassing on the books. When you look in the civil procedures, uh, here in Arkansas, it, uh, it clearly states that uh squatting is a civil matter, and that's how it has to be dealt with, uh, just to try to define the differences though trespassing is illegal, squatting, squatting is generally left up to the state civil courts. Therefore, law enforcement, and this is the law enforcement cannot automatically help a property, property owner removed squatters. And um Even though you look at it like a trespasser and a squatter, both of them enter the property without permission. Uh, but only squatters are entitled to squatters' rights. The difference lies in their intent. Squatter seek to move on to the property for the purpose to claim it for a trespasser moves on and off the property with no intent to stay there. So that leaves the homeowner, the property owner, and basically this bill is a property owner's property owner's rights versus unlawful squatting. So we established the fact that, yes, trespassing and criminal trespassing is a violation of the law and they can be removed immediately by law enforcement. But unlawful squatters. That's a civil matter. And then so with it being a civil matter, then that causes the landowner, the homeowner, whoever it may be, the private party that owns that property, it causes them to have to utilize the civil courts. And I know most of you are familiar with the process that that involves, but Uh, I just want to kind of run through it because, you know, when someone pulls up and they find someone else has moved in and taken over their property. is actually uh residing there or using it as you could say their place of a boat now. First thing those landowners will do or property owners will do, they will contact the authorities. And this is, we all know this is presumably the first instinct individuals will have to address this problem. But there in my friends is There lies the problem because authorities are often unhelpful and um they directed victims to the overwhelmed courts and the slow civil action that eviction procedures that take place now. And you know, I just want to give you a little quick history, and I'll try not to take a lot of time, but because I finished with many of you individually. But I've been asked What, what brought me to this point to run legislation to criminalize unlawful squatting. Back last spring, I, I had a constituent. that called me and just said that uh he wanted to run something by me just like each one of you at this table, we, a lot of our legislation is constituent-driven, and this one is too. And he reached out and He told me the following story. He said that he was living in his hometown. He had a career opportunity to uh you know, to advance with his job, but it would cause him to have to make a move. So he took the opportunity. He moved, but he decided That He was not going to rent his house. He was not going to sell it. He was gonna just keep it intact. So When the opportunity presented itself. His family and himself, they could return to his hometown and they'd have a place to stay. He told me that They decided after they moved, I don't know how long a period of time it was, but they traveled back to their hometown, and when they pulled into the driveway and he went to the door. His key didn't work. So he knocked on the door. Individual opened the door and he said, This is my house. And The individual told him he said, well, my family and I we're living here now. And he had even changed the locks on the door. So, he calls the authorities. And it's just like I've already described to you and the sheriff's association is here today, and I visited with them, and they've told me story after story after story along with the citizens after I filed this bill all across the state. Even after incident of people just like my constituent conveyed to me. So he told me when he called authorities, Law enforcement showed up. And they realized this was a squatter situation. They knew that feeling fell under the civil procedure. And they directed him. to the civil courts. Many of you that's ever been through that process. You can only imagine If you've ever had to use the process to try to get someone out of your property. You can only imagine, you know, you know it's a long drawn out process, I, I'm not going to go into all of that. But I think it needs to be noted exactly what that involves. Involves But that property owner. Together evidence to be able to present in court. It involves an issue, a notice to quit. To file a complaint of forcible detainer to attend court hearings to obtain a writ of possession. To contact the sheriff's office and the sheriff's office to serve that rent of possession. And then to go back after it's been served so many hours and then remove them. From that individual's property. That's the process. That's where we're at today. That's why it's extremely important that we criminalize Unlawful squatting. And um You know, somebody asked me, can landlords Self-evict squatters here in the state of Arkansas. And the answer to that is no. It's illegal. Even though you own the property, you cannot self evict. You have to go through the process that I just laid out step by step. To give someone that has moved into your house. To get them out. And it doesn't necessarily, necessarily have to be that, uh, it could be that you just go on a week's vacation. And you come back and find somebody living in your house and you You can't get them out because they're squatters. And now you go through the civil process. And I had somebody, I just want you to know, let me add this at this point. I've worked on this bill for ever since my constituent called me and told me his story. I filed this bill 2 days after Filing started in November. I just thought it'd be a simple bill that wouldn't attract a lot of attention and we just, you know, criminalize unlawful squatting and we'd move on. Next thing I know, I'm, I'm in business to my daughter in Nashville, Tennessee for Thanksgiving and I'm getting calls from Channel 7. I'm getting calls from the media here and there, wanting to do interviews. I stopped. And I conduct an interview and tell them why I filed this bill, what it's going to do? And That was it. And then the next thing I know is that uh I start getting emails and text messages and phone calls from people all over the state. And uh about incidents where they've encountered the same type of situations, and I knew then this problem was greater than even our realized. When I filed the bill. So that's why we're here today, and that's what hopefully we'll be able to do with this bill is to correct and make sure that unlawful squatting. is criminalized, and I want you to know this committee members, and I'm busy with most of you on this committee. You can read this bill. And there's been extremely a lot of hard work on this bill, but every meeting that I've had And everybody that I've talked to, I've emphasized Very strongly one thing. That I knew we needed to get this corrected. We needed to criminalize and be able to get these law enforcement arrives at the same, this is a criminal act being committed in their presence and they can remove them immediately. We need to do that. But at the same time, in the language in this bill, I wanted to make sure that this bill did not cross that line and get into landlord tenants disputes. And I've had a lot of people look at this. I've had, uh, I've had meetings with the prosecuting attorney's office with the sheriff's association with the chief of police, and the list goes on and on, and I've had a couple of legislators that, uh, well, we've had several meetings. But there's a group also out of um Well, I guess out of there, I'm not sure what state but they contacted me and their property and a group of attorneys and they kind of look at this type of legislation around the country, and they said, hey, uh, this is one of the cleanest. Bills for property right owners to get rid of unlawful squatters. That we've seen in a matter of fact, they told me Monday they'd already shared this, this draft and this bill. I said well, you, you know, we hadn't got it out of committee yet, so you know I won't hold up, but said it already shared it with 12 other states. He said, this is better than the one that Florida just passed. And uh you know at one time, just a couple of years ago in all 50 states, a lot for squatting was a civil matter in every state. Florida just passed recent legislation to criminalize it. So did Georgia. And um there's a few other states. But um With that, I'm trying to think, I think at this point I'll just stop. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to uh To entertain them at this time. Members representing Tash has explained this bill, are there any questions by committee members representing McCullo, you're recognized for a question. Representative Tosh, um, on page 3, line 11, um, where it says a law enforcement officer acting in good faith in response to reported violation of this section is immune from criminal and civil liability. Could you talk to me a little bit about that and also explain uh what good faith would mean in that instance and and that's yeah, that's a good question. You know, anytime law enforcement arrives at a scene just like here, if they get a call that we already discussed. And they arrive and there's some individuals living in the house and the property owners there. You know, that law enforcement officers got to make a decision at that point. And, and he's faced with evidence that he's presented with, with the documents. So if you'll notice also further in that bill, and when we talk about good faith, one of the things that I wanted to emphasize and I really expressed in this legislation is this. That if you have someone that has taken over your property. And they produce a document. That somehow they've got a lease or they've forged a signature or it's uh invalid lease or any type of documentation they present that to the law enforcement officer and then you've got a property owner that's saying, here's my documentation. And I've been in those situations and you're kind of, what do I do? I mean, I've got documentation in both hands. I know what I do. And, and, but the decision you make may not always be the right. One, you may actually uh move the squatter and maybe they actually had the legal standing and the right to be there, or you may not remove them and the landowner had the legal right for you to remove them. So you make the wrong decision. It happens. But do we hold the officer responsible when you got two individuals there that are presenting documentation to say that they both this right and have this right. So he's gonna err one way or the other. I just don't want him crimly or civilly involved for making a decision at that time, that would lead to him having any repercussions from trying to do his job. Members, any other questions? Representing Clowney, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Representative Tosh, I just, if you could explain, um, and I know my concern with this from the beginning has been how it interacts with failure to vacate. Can you just explain why you included anything related to landlords in here because the way that I read it, there's already criminal remedies for them under the failure to vacate portion of the code. Um, why do we need it here too? What I did and, and If you notice that I'm obviously read the bill and I appreciate that, but I actually put it, if you have a lease agreement. You're good. If you've, even if the lease agreement has expired, which a lot of landlord and tenants, they do that. They have their, their lease agreements. They may be, we just use a 12 month lease agreement. 12 months is up. A lot of them don't go back, they don't go back in. They won't shut down. They don't, they don't renew it. But if that tenant continues to pay. And they make a payment. To me, they're still there in good standing, and this bill says that. This bill also says though that if they decide at some point. That they are no, no, no longer gonna pay and they're no longer gonna be a tended. They're just gonna take that property over. Well, I had a lot of people tell me, hey, they, they shouldn't be allowed to stay there over a week if they do that. Or in some set of month I give and this bill here gives them 60 days from the time which after 60 days, then you become an unlawful squatter. So I think we gave enough time in here to not even give the appearance that in any way does that cross the line between a landlord and tenant relationship. You recognized for a follow up. Thank you. And to be clear, I actually much prefer this language to what I think current law is because I think under current law they only have 10 days. I'm just wondering how those two are going to interact with each other. That was all my question, but I just didn't want, and, and you know, I just did not want this to be used. In any way, For someone to be able to take this and use it as an eviction when somebody had actually illegal, and I probably gave them a little more time than I should, but I didn't even want to give the appearance that it was going to be used that way. OK? Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up, uh, to uh to speak against the bill. Jeff Rosensweig. You'll come identify yourself and then you're recognized to speak against the bill. Jeff Rosenwa Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, not really against it so much as pointing out some drafting problems in there that I think can be easily fixed. The criminal trespass statute has recognizes that there are defenses if you are a guest or an invitee. And I believe our feeling is that this should have the same language because this overlaps with and in some extent coextensive with the criminal criminal trespass statutes. The other and and it's particularly important for two reasons. One, it's a criminal, this is a criminal statute. And, secondly, if the reference is to the the squatting can be any amount of time. It doesn't say, you know, 1 day, 2 days or 24 hours, it could be 10 minutes. And it also doesn't protect legitimate subtenants who I guess are at least a form of invitee. So I think the problem can be generally fixed if you just import the the relevant. criminal relevant defenses of criminal trespass into this bill, and I think that would solve the problem. Members, any questions? Representative Collins, recognized for a question? Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Can you tell me the differences between this and criminal trespass, just kind of, I mean, and I know it's not your bill, but if you uh familiar enough to tell why do we have? I have a copy of it here with me. OK. Uh, a person commits criminal trespass if he purposely enters or remains unlawfully or in or upon a vehicle, the premises owned or leased by another person or or critical infrastructure and then there are various levels depending on the incursion and whether it's critical or not and whether it's the first offense, 2nd offense, etc. but the uh it is but the criminal trespass statute specifically says it is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person was a guest or an invitee where the person was required to enter the premises for a business reason or for health or safety reasons, that probably wouldn't necessarily apply here. A person was authorized by law. law to enter the premises, privately owned premises were made open to the public or someone's traveling over the land with good, in good faith. Uh, I, and it relevantly for for our purposes, I think it's the guest or invitee. because there is no lower time limit on, uh, you know, on the amount of time that the bill before you has as a residence. You're recognized. Thank you, and I understand your point about the defenses, and that makes sense to me, and I would agree with that, but I guess my point is, my question for you is more general. What it would be a situation where this would cover uh a certain behavior in criminal trespass wouldn't, or is there a situation where there would be any difference in what, the way, the way I read this bill, for instance, let's say you're a legitimate subtenant. Uh, and you've paid the rent to You know, the, the main tenant and that he hadn't been paying the rent to the landlord, uh, technically, the way I read this, you, uh, you know, you could be a, uh, you know, you could be a, a, a squatter because you, you know, you were, you were there and someone told you to go, and you've got, you know, here's my receipt. I paid so and so and of course he didn't the guy didn't pay the rent. So I, I, I, and so that's, that's the only. That's the concern we have is that it catches people that I don't think Mr. Tash was trying to catch, but because it's a criminal statute, I think we need to just fix that, and I think it can be fixed with just dropping the relevant criminal trespass defenses into the bill. Reaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So when you refer to guest or invitee, do you mean a guest or invitee of the owner or a guest or invitee of the person who has the leasehold interest in the property. Well, let's say you're let's say the tenant who may or may not be squatting but let's say is the squatter, but uh as uh as a friend to house sit. He's a guest or an invitee that that type of thing and so you mean of the person who has the lease, the tenant, a guest or invited to, well. In my experience, those are the most common people who squat on property or in property because when the landlord shows up and the person that they actually had the lease with is gone, and they say, Who are you? And they say, oh, I was staying here with so and so as if that entitles them to stay there in some way, which it absolutely would not, in my opinion. So I'd like to hear your response, it is a defense, meaning you would have to uh, present it to the, you know, to ultimately to a court and, you know, convince the court that you were that this was a um that that this was, you know, a judge or a jury or both, that it, that you are a legitimate guest or an invitee. one more follow up. And so I, that was, goes back to my original question because I think it does matter to some degree whether the person is a guest or invitee of the owner. So if that person is there saying, oh, no, the owner knew that I was staying here. I was staying here with the owner's permission. Well, that's one thing. But if you're just someone who is staying there at the permission of the person who had the lease. Who doesn't have any privity essentially with the owner. That's to me, that's a completely different, I understand what you're saying. The point is there are people who legitimately think they have, you know, or, you know, legit or, you know, are legitimately there, based upon someone who appeared to have, you know, the power to to invite you and I think it's, I think and it's, it's a problem because there again there's no lower. time limit on the amount of the of the residents if you, you could fix that problem by saying if you were there, you know, you know, for, you know. You know, defined residences as, you know, 2 days, 5 days a week, you know, something to, you know, just so that it would not, you know, that that the person who literally had just, it was, it was house sitting for someone who he thought was legitimate. I, as I say, I think it can be, it's it's easily fixable and we don't have any problem with what, what, uh, the bill is trying to do. It's just we're trying to make sure it doesn't sweep in people. shouldn't be swept in, or at least give them a defense that they can present to a court. Representing Crawford, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, from a layman's point of view. I What I thought we were doing is getting rid of the part of having to take it to court. I thought that was the reason for the bill. The other is there's 60 days there that they're given to get out. If they are In the property and the leaseholder allowed them to, but the leaseholder did not pay the money. The owner should not be stuck with that. So in my opinion, Of a layperson. If we begin changing the language on this? Are we not just going to sit back where we already are to where the courts have to be involved. Well, if you're having a criminal statute, which is what this is, the courts are going to be involved because it's a criminal statute. And so it's going to, you know, someone, uh, is going to be presumably arrested or cited and it's going to end up on a docket of a court. Uh, but doesn't it give the owner more authority. Well, yeah, it does. It says a receipt or other reliable evidence of rent payment made to the other person. In other words, made to made to the owner. You know, is, but what if you what if, what if the person has made the payment but not made it to the owner but made it, made it to the You know, the, the, the tenant of the owner who may be in default. You recognized, but can we not look at that as um. Mm Stolen property to where someone hands you something that's stolen. You're, you're still gonna be charged with that. Well, the question is there are also if you're talking about theft by receiving, you're talking about, you know, did you buy it for less than fair market value. Did you, you know, they got a in a theft by receiving case, for instance, you've got to know you know have good reason to believe that the property is stolen if they sell you a Mercedes for $1. You're gonna have, you know, good reason to believe, but if you paid roughly fair market value, that's a good defense. He recognized OK. Last question. If we pass this bill. In your opinion, what are we going to mess up? Well, I, I think, uh, well, number one, I, I think you just, uh, you solve the basic problem by by just recognizing that there are certain defenses and presumably the person who has a legitimate defense can present it and uh it just because there are all sorts of possibilities that could persons could be swept up in it who you're not intending to sweep up and there's still, uh, you know, uh, that are, uh, just because of the the nature of the of how these things develop. OK, thank you. Members, any other questions? See no further questions, thank you for your testimony. Uh, we have several who signed up to speak for the bill, and I apologize if I get your name wrong, um. Bernier, er oh I'm OK. You're OK? OK, great. Sorry, Mark, I just couldn't read your, uh, Scott Bradley. Oh, no, wait. Uh, killing Lynn Green. is lingering if you'll go to the end of the table, introduce yourself. You'll be recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee members. Um. My name is Colleen Lindgren for the record, and I'm legal policy manager at the Pacific Legal Foundation, where a national nonprofit law firm that represents clients free of charge when they're constitutional rights are violated and uh we have represented individuals in the last 50 years over in over 2400 cases. We've won 18 US Supreme Court cases and about half of those were in the property rights space. And, um, I, I don't want to belabor any of the the great points that Representative Tosh has already made. He's well explained what squatting is, why it's different from trespassing, and why we need, um, this, uh, this, this bill to um uh address the concern that was just brought up about protecting property owners from having to go through, um, a court process, a civil court process just to maybe get a remedy, um, by doing, by, by what this bill does is very cleanly in our opinion, um, move this this process into the criminal code so that law enforcement officers who want to do job to protect people's rights can do that, um, and I think we can all agree that that prop that if uh, you know, if, if, uh, property rights are being violated and we're asking law enforcement officers to make decisions. I think this bill does a really good job of protecting the officers, giving them guidelines, um, as well as protecting the property owners and creating a record and creating a record not only for the property owners but also for individuals who may be wrongly accused. We don't want, you know, this to be weaponized against anybody and um this. bill does a great job. We've looked at a lot of bills around the country. There are 12 states currently considering reforms. This is in the cleanest bills I've seen, um, very, very clear, very simple, and I think it's a really good bill, um, and especially because it includes, um, not, it includes the, uh, private cause of action, uh, towards the end of the bill that I think is really helpful to protect individuals who, um, you know, maybe, uh, maybe we're wrongly accused. Maybe there's there's an issue in the process, and it doesn't, and it, it provides a way for those individuals to get a remedy, um, and so I think this bill does all the things that you want to see a squatters reform do. And I just want to bring up 11 issue, um, that hasn't been addressed today, uh, in 2021, the US Supreme Court decided a case that my firm. Uh, brought to the court. It was out of California and it affirmed the right to exclude trespassers from private property, and based on the language in that decision, we believe that state laws that allow squatters to illegally occupy property. I can't amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. So this is another thing for the state to consider when looking at a reform like this. So where state laws, even if just ambiguous, um, you know, can be relied upon by squatters. Not property owners, um, that can amount to government approved physical occupation, which, which is a taking. And so this bill addresses that problem as well, and um, and it addresses that concern that a state might have in not protecting property owners' rights, um, uh, under its laws. And so we, we are in favor of this bill, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Representative Springer, you're for a question. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. What is your response to turning Rosen Swegg's comments with respect to those defenses that he spoke of. So, um, I definitely understand those concerns. I, I, as, as I, as I read this, I do think it covers those, um, covers the issue, especially the, the sublease issue that was brought up. I mean, if, if an individual can can um prove that they in good faith had a, had a lease. They were subleasing, then the burden and, and the, you know, uh penalties go to the person that did that, the squatter who, um, uh, you know, didn't have the right to be there, didn't certainly didn't have the right to sublease property. And that person will be, will be liable and can be held accountable under this, um, and, uh, you know, I, so I think, I think this bill does a good job of encompassing all of, all of the situations, um, specifically with the, the, the 60 day window, um, so we, I understand those concerns. We share them. I just think this bill already does, does that. Any further questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you for being here and sharing your testimony. Next, speaking in favor of the bill is Gary Sypes, Chief, you're recognized come in the table, identify yourself, and you may begin. Yeah, son Gary Sypes with the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police and speaking for the chiefs across the state. I put this out to them to review and offer any suggestions. We are all in favor of the bill and I would say that Representative Taj called several meetings and invited the chiefs, the sheriffs, all to come in. He tried his very best to cross all the T's and draw it up and and dot all the I's. He did a real good job as far as we're concerned. because it it does help law enforcement. It's a very difficult situation when you go to the scene and this has happened across the nation where the squatters are actually coming up with false deeds and the owner sitting there and they have the same like he pointed out a while ago. So I mean it it's really a difficult situation for law enforcement, but I think this bill clears up a lot. It is a class B misdemeanor, uh, and In most cases that's going to be a citation and release, um. I mean, we're you know, we do like the fact that he put in there the presenting a false uh information document that it would be a Class D felony. So with that, I mean, we really appreciate the bill. We are really supportive of it. Representative Collins, who recognized her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm just kind of curious, uh, from your perspective, you probably know the answer to this. So, um, what would the potential criminal or civil liability be under current law if they were an officer were out trying to enforce the situation. Well it'd be civil. They would have to go through the civil courts, the officer on the scene would just have to deal with it as it is because there's no proof of who owns the property, but in a case where there are two deeds, one being false. I mean, it'd be a difficult situation for police officers to be there and in this bill, it's the officer is protected, uh. With no liability and follow up an officer would only face liability if they were negligent or reckless or something that had some sort of uh, you know, failure to meet their standard of care under current law, right? If they were just out there with the best information they had enforcing the law, that really wouldn't be a situation of negligence. Well, it wouldn't, but it's stated clearly in this bill, and that's what we like about it. It's not always stated, uh. That clearly. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony today. Next up, to speak for the bill is Scott Bradley. Mr. Bradley, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized. Good morning We're here obviously in here to support this bill. Uh, we had many meetings with Representative Tosh and feel that uh This would be a great tool for us to use, um, I've heard a lot of what ifs when I'm sitting out here listening, and that's part of our job. We go there and ascertain what exactly is going on and try to do the right thing for the right people. So I mean, I'll answer any questions, but we, I think everything's been covered by Representative Tosh and Gary, so. Uh, with that, I just asked for a good vote. Members, any questions of Mr. Bradley, Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Sheriff. I, I, I'm just thinking through this time. Blame Rosenzwe, um. Oh, I will. Uh, no, I'm just wondering, I'm just trying to think through, I know the what ifs, um, but I just wanna, I'm looking at this. Um, and I'm wondering if from your perspective you can walk me through particularly the language that says um I'm on page 2 line 18. And it says if the person knowingly resides on the premises for any period of time. So I guess my question is if y'all get a call, um, from say a landlord who says there's been somebody, um, somebody stayed over the night last night in this apartment and they don't have a lease agreement with me. They were a guest of the tenant, um. Is there anything that y'all could lean on in this bill to say that's not unlawful squatting, we're not going to treat it like that. That's my concern. I think we have anytime we write a citation, I think we have some flexibility there. Not every time that I've been stopped for speeding, that I receive a ticket. So I think in this situation is similar, I think you're gonna go and you're going to find out what's going on, try to get to the truth and then you're gonna make a decision based on the facts, so. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony today. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Tosha recognized close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate uh each and every one of you that spoke either for or even against the bill. I really appreciate it and great questions today. And I'll just clo, excuse me, I'll just close by. I really believe this bill is extremely important and there's no need be laboring that issue. We've been over it and over it and why it's critical that we criminalize unlawful squatting. But and I think one of the reasons we, we really need to do this is because, you know, if we, if we didn't have ownerships of property. If people were not allowed to own property. You could have a deed, you could have the mortgage. You could be making the payments. You can have insurance. I mean, it's, it's your property. But, and if we didn't have that right, then we would actually Live in a system of might. MIGHT who's the mightiest? But thank goodness. That we don't. We don't live in a system of might. We live in a system of right. What's right? Colleagues, Madam Chair, I believe this bill does exactly that. It's a bill of right, doing what's right. And with that, I'm closed and I would As make a motion for a due pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of motion do pass, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. That. Members, our next bill is House Bill 1263, Representative Unger, if you'll go to the end of the table, introduce yourself, you'll recognize to present your bill. I Madam Chair, thank you, colleagues. I'm Representative Steve Unger, District 19. What House Bill 1263 does is make it against the law. To remove, dispose, break. Of your electronic failure to charge your electronic monitoring device. Now, if you were here two years ago, I ran a similar bill. This is not the same bill. I have made it. Simpler and less harsh. I had people talk to me, uh, and I got inputs and had made it not quite as uh Harsh as it was two years ago. Basically, if you're arrested, this is an alternative. To incarceration. And I think everybody is for alternatives to incarceration. And so, if you're released from police custody custody, and they give you one of these monitors. Basically, we are trusting you to act like a big boy and a big girl. And to respect the fact That you're out on ation or parole, that you get to drive your own car, you get to eat the food of your choice. You get to sleep in your own bed. Just don't screw it up. That's all we ask. And so this makes it a class A misdemeanor, failure to charge, break, loose. And if you break it or lose it, you have to pay for it. I'm open for questions. Rever Saint Betty, you're recognized for a question. Representative Unger. Was there a problem? Is there a problem in this area that that requires this legislation? Is this not something that's court ordered that, you know, revocation of parole and other issues that would be currently handled through the judicial system. I mean, is, is there, is there a specific reason that we need this legislation. Yes, sir. Thank you for that great question. Basically, this came at the behest of my own county sheriff up in Washington County. It is a problem. And part of it is, if you break it, there's not even a means for the county sheriffs to get their money back. You recognized private entities in in the state that supply and provide these devices to the courts and to the sheriffs and, and under most circumstances, these folks are paying a fee to have these monitoring devices on. I mean, I'm aware of one business that You know, one person that's in this business, so I, I, I'm not aware of it being contracted out. OK? I'll get you some information on that. Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative Ago, I'm just curious as to the price of these monitoring devices. What is the cost of the device. Thank you, ma'am. You tell us that. The less price I heard is r. The price I've heard for an ankle monitor. It is around $500. I, you know, they, they do make different products. They also make wrist monitors and I've also found that there's like an app you can have on your phone that you check in. So the county sheriff really doesn't want to babysit anybody. They'd rather if you're nonviolent, they'd rather you be out. But we need people to work with us on this. Uh A follow up. You're recognized. What is the pillow and teeth once again for this if you damage or lose it or don't report it, what is the, what is the I mean, your proposes what? Basically a class A misdemeanor. Which may be They could just release them and just say, you got to pay us back. And so I would say if John Dillinger breaks his monitor and he has to pay that $500. He'll do it one time. And learn his lesson. So it's just $500 if you, if you're found guilty of it, what's the charge? And what is that? What charge is that I'm, I'm afraid I don't have the exact penalties for that at the tip of my fingers, ma'am. It's up to a year in jail and a $1000 fine, I believe you. All right, that's what I thought of. So the costs 0 $500 500 dollars roughly if you're convicted, you 25, OK, and then if you're convicted, you're in jail $2500 plus a year in jail. Yes, but I'd like to say for the most part, if you I don't know where I got $500. I hadn't heard $25 so it's more expensive than I thought. Price of everything's gone up. Sorry about that. that $2500 was the fine and the cost of a monitor was $500. That's what I'm trying to get clarification on. I was it's gonna cost you, it's gonna cost less just to pay for the monitor than rather being convicted of a misdemeanor and paying a fine staying a year in jail, plus paying the $2500. I'm just trying to see what the how the costs differ here. If I understood the question, if you break your monitor and you offer to pay for it, you're probably off the hook. Uh, let me clarify, so I'll admit to being old the fine used to be $1000 but it's 2500, up to a year in jail and 2500. Inflation got the fines. Representative McCullo, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think you characterize this as a kind of an anti-incarceration um bill, but, um, I, I would think that a lot of the defendants, uh, when they get charged for this, they have to pay a fine or go to jail or probably can go to jail at that. cost is, would you agree with that? You know, our jails are so overcrowded. And Washington County jail is ridiculously overcrowded. If somebody is contrite and just willing to pay for the damages or replacement. Uh, I'm just going to say they're probably going to go home. Yeah, follow up, you recognize that. I, I don't know that, but that's not in the law, right? That they're probably gonna go home? No, ma'am, that's not the law, but frankly we've got people being booked in the county jail for nonviolent offenses up in Washington County, and I can only speak a little bit for Washington County, that frankly, they are, they're out of the jail before the deputies doing the paperwork leave. We've got a woman driving around Elm Springs that has been picked up for driving without a drives owner's license. I, I forgot how many times they've told me. And she This goes back to Elm Springs and drives without a license. So this is part of the issue of jail overcrowding. This feeds into the issue of prison overcrowding. And so we've got so many people locked up, they're doing violent crimes. You know, I was told some time back that the Washington County jail, this is old dad, I can't speak what it is today. We're holding 25 murderers at the same time. In the old days, having one murderer in the jail was a big deal. And so, This is really to me a soft approach on incarceration. We just expect you to like, pick up your toys. This is a like pay for the things you broke. One more follow up, please. I think that that would be wonderful if in reality that that's, that's what happened. But um we've talked a lot in this committee about fines upon fines, upon fines being put on people and um I just, I just, I'd I'd like to know how you think that this is going to be something that will solve this because this may be one more fine that somebody can't pay. I'm not saying they're in the right if they destroy equipment and everything, but if they're, if they can't pay the fine and they're going back to jail, I just, I don't see what the I, I don't see how this helps that issue. I'd say that's the maximum fine. I'm not, I don't know that the judge would levy that. Um, and I'd also say for everybody running around on electronic monitor. I'd like to focus for a minute on the victim of the crime. There's somebody whose house has been broken into. And their peace of mind where they eat, sleep, and their children play has been violated. Their car has been damaged, their property stolen, or they've been assaulted. There's a victim behind every one of these. And I wish we would focus on the victim a little more than we do. Thank you. Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative Unger. Would you not agree that by placing, uh, a perpetrator on a monitor in their own home is a substitute for keeping them incarcerated in a county jail. Absolutely. Follow up, Madam Chair. Would you also not agree that if they were to escape from that county jail that they were were incarcerated in, there would be additional penalties levied upon them. Yes. You recognize. So would you also not agree that if they tried to escape or I'll use air quotes, tamper with their ankle monitors so they could become free of their compounds of their home. That is Equivalent to escaping from that county jail where they were incarcerated. I agree with that. Represent Beatty, you recognized for a question. Representative McCullo, will you turn your microphone off? Thank you. I, uh, represented Unger, um, is your sheriff having other issues with like breathalyzers, GPS trackers or any other electronic devices that are getting damaged at their, they're footing the bill for, um, and did you consider expanding that? Do you know if there are, there are other concerns that the sheriff may have there in Washington County. Well, thank you, sir. Um, this is actually talking about damages occurred by to electronic device. That somebody in the criminal justice system Did not one of the own deputies. And so if one of the deputies decided to hook their dog up to the breathalyzer to see what that would be like. Uh, that's, uh, that's an HR problem, and I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to that. Let follow up let me make my question or comment a little clearer for you. It's not talking about damage by the deputy. I was talking about, you know, someone that's got a um a monitoring device on their car that's been installed by the court. uh, and they tamper with that somehow and damage that equipment, so it's not speaking about a deputy or, uh, the canine um department or, or anyone on on the force, but damage to the electronic equipment by the offender, the person that's mandated by the court to utilize that. Are you aware of any other electronic issues that are being damaged that might benefit your share. Sir, I'm not aware of that. Thank you for that good question. That might be something I bring up in 2026. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Um, we see no further questions, we do have a couple of individuals who have signed up to speak for the bill. Scott Bradley, if you'll come in the table, identify yourself. You're recognized to speak in favor of the bill. Yes, ma'am. I'm Scott Bradley still and uh I'll try to answer any questions. Obviously, we support this bill, just, uh, These people being given an opportunity to go home and not have to sit in the jail. So we just feel like, you know, there should be some repercussions to taking it off, obviously, I think it was a good point made that You're being trusted to stay home and take care of your business, and you don't, you obviously don't. I mean, if you cut it off, um, um, it should be a violation of the law. So We just, we support this bill and Uh, I hope that you guys will too. Members, any questions? See no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Next up to speak in favor of the bills, Gary Sykes. Gary Sypes, Arkansas Police Chiefs Association. I really can't add anything to what Scott said that the main reason the chiefs are in favor of this is because of the overcrowding. They can't make arrest as it is now because of the overcrowding and we don't want this program to go away. And I, you know, if it is a, a private vendor, they're not going to stay in business long if they keep having problems like this, so we are in favor. Seeing the questions, thank you for your testimony today. We have no one else who's signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative Unger, you're recognized to come and close for your bill. People have asked me, isn't this already against the law? And my answer is no, you would think so. And so to me, this is common sense legislation, but as my late father used to say, if common sense were so common, there'd be more of it. Colleagues, I'm closed for my bill and I asked for a motion for due pass. Thank you. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. I'll opposed say no. The eyes have it congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Members, we have one more bill to hear today. Richardson, are you still, there you are, uh, members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1282, Representative Richardson, you're recognized to identify yourself and to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair Jay Richardson, Fort Smith, District 49. This is a very, very simple bill. Uh, it was brought to me by my prosecuting attorney and uh Sebastian County. It basically changes a word in here and goes from uh on line 22, a person commits an offense with intent to obtain. A direct is changed to any. We had an issue in Fort Smith where there was a Basically a family or a couple who was uh operating as though they were uh attorneys, and had solicited clients and were dealing with insurance agencies and all of this, and they operated and apparently their defense was they weren't receiving a direct payment. So Prosecuting attorney ends up prosecuting him, but they said this is what they need to change into the law to address this from happening again. That's all it does. Members, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Richardson, you're recognized to close for your bill. In Englishpresentative Richardson is closed for bill with the will of the committee. We have a motion to pass on the table the Syrian discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Representative Beatty. Members, um, A couple of announcements, one picture Tuesday. The 11th at 9:45 on the house steps, so be sure to put that on your calendar and then Tuesday's bills will be the technical correction bills. With represented gas away, so it'll be it will be an exciting day in judiciary. We invite everybody to join, to watch us as we go through technical corrections. And um I believe that's all the announcements I have, have a great weekend with that, we are adjourned.