TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION TO SERVE ANY OUTSTANDING CRIMINAL WARRANTS RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM.

What bill, representative? House bill 1433, would you identify yourself for the record? Kendra Moore, state representative, district 23. Representative Moore, you are recognized to present House bill 1433. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House bill 1433 simply adds that a law enforcement officer who is serving in order of protection for domestic violence checks for those active warrants before serving that order of protection. The purpose, excuse me, the purpose of this edition is to promote officer, community and court safety. We vetted this bill through the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Judicial Council, the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association and the Arkansas Sheriffs Association. And with that, I'll try to answer any questions. Questions from committee? Hearing no questions from committee. We have Brian Vendiver to speak against. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Vendiver, on behalf of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. I want to commend Representative Moore on her bill, and this amended version is much better than the original version we spoke against in the House. And I appreciate her listening to her bill and the fact that it's not the original version of the original version that we spoke against in the House. And I appreciate her listening to our concerns in the House and amending it, but we still have concerns. And I'd like to try to explain those. What this bill does is it conflates criminal law and civil law. An order of protection is basically an injunction in civil family court. And what this would do is it would require a check from law enforcement before serving that civil order of protection to see if there is a criminal arrest warrant. I guess our concern is why are we singling out this type of civil order and only checking for criminal warrants in those civil cases and not other civil cases where injunctions are awarded? I think that creates a problem with these types of cases and order of protection cases because what it does, we know that these orders of protection are already weaponized in a sense by petitioners, lawyers. It further incentivizes that weaponization of an order of protection to use it as an offensive sword. Finally, what we would say is this bill does nothing to require a check for criminal arrest warrants on the petitioner. It only requires a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. So hypothetically, the petitioner seeking the order of protection could have an arrest warrant for armed robbery. The respondent could have a arrest warrant for failure to appear in traffic court. And this requires only a check for the arrest warrant of the respondent. And I think that's a gross unfairness in how the order of protection law should be applied and our organization is opposed to this bill for those reasons. Questions from committee? Mr. Vendiver, when the order of protection is originally served, is there a hearing after that? Yes, Your Honor, there is generally a hearing after the order of protection is served. But by then, if someone has also been served an arrest warrant, then whoever is arrested is going to be in jail. That's my point though, is that at this point is still contested while the way I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, if a judge has heard enough evidence that they believe there may be a need, but then a respondent appears in court and can I say oftentimes that, order is not continued? I think often many times the order is rescinded, not continued, whether that's a lack of evidence or false allegations, we know that's a problem in our system, false allegations being filed for orders of protections. And so when you have those scenarios and you're requiring law enforcement to then out of their ordinary systems, their ordinary course of doing business of serving criminal arrest warrants, you're mandating, they check that and then serve that criminal arrest warrant in conjunction with a civil order of protection, I think that creates problems, not only for the respondent of the order of protection, but also from a criminal due process standpoint, I think that's creating problems for those criminal defendants. Questions, Senator Gilmour? And I'll show you the same respect that Mr. Vannevar did, sir, in calling you your honor. So thank you. It happens a lot in here, no problem. He's very judicial. Well, I have a habit of 25 years of law practice, so I extend that courtesy to anyone. Again, no point made other than we like to mess with the chair. So speaking back to you said, when the petitioner, there's no warrant check on the petitioner. I guess maybe you can elaborate on the relevance of that, because again, if this is an order of protection, typically there's a reason for that. To the chair's point, a judge would have to agree with that. There being a need for this order of protection. So again, what would we say if there's an active warrant against the petitioner, then what, we don't need the order of protection? We don't, there should be two order of protection served. I guess I'm just trying to figure out the relevance of you stating that. And maybe you can help me. Sure, I'll try to explain. I'm not saying that there may not need to be a basis for the order of protection. What I'm saying is that there's a level of unfairness when we're requiring the law enforcement system to only require a check for a criminal arrest warrant on one of the two parties involved in that civil litigation. If you have someone initiating the civil case, the petitioner asking for an order of protection and now we're requiring that law enforcement only do a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. Again, like in my hypothetical, you very well could have a situation where both parties have criminal arrest warrants and the petitioner's criminal arrest warrant may be much more severe, but we're not asking law enforcement to do a check on the petitioner. It's just the respondent. And we know from the statistics that orders of protection are disproportionately filed against men in this state and in the nation. And so this will have a disparate impact, no doubt, on men. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, Mr. Vandenberg, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No one signed up to speak for or against, representative Moore, you are recognized close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is simply just a protection. Again, this is in order to protect the officer, the community and the court with this law. We are not mandating that arrest happen. This is only an active warrant check and leaving it to the officer's discretion. And again, just promoting safety in the courtroom. And with that, I appreciate a good vote. Will of the committee, motion to pass from Senator Gilmour, second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, representative, you have passed House Bill 1433. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, Senator to present a Senate bill. You go to the top of the list. What bills, Senator Hester? Senate bill 441. Senate bill 441. Would you identify yourself with a record? State Senator Bart Hester, district 33 members. We've had a lot of debate on this. It's the Junk Lawsuit Prevention Act. Visited with some members since the committee and I'm still happy to answer any questions. I think we're quite familiar with it. Okay, questions from committee? Senator Tucker has a question when he gets back to his seat. Is it the same bill or has that been? The exact same bill. All right, thank you. It did have an amendment last time and if it passes today, it will be as amended. Other questions from the committee? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for against. Senator Hester, you're recognized closed for your bill. Senator Zied, I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmour. Second from Senator Johnson. Discussion, Senator Tucker? I'll be brief. I don't want to rehash everything. Just the two quick points. I understand what Senator Hester's trying to do. I don't think we should interfere with ongoing litigation, which this bill definitively would do. And this bill also prevents people who have been injured from seeking recovery for that injury. So I think I'll be opposing it for those two reasons. Thank you. Okay, and let me say that that was do pass as amended. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Congratulations, Senator Hester. Your bill has passed. Roll call. Roll call. Calls for from Senator Stubblefield. What? Yes. Senator Stubblefield? No. Senator Stubblefield, no. Senator Rice? Senator Rice, no. Senator Johnson? Senator Johnson, yes. Senator Tucker? Senator Tucker, no. Senator Gilmour? Senator Gilmour, yes. Senator McKee? Senator McKee, yes. Senator Deese? Senator Deese, yes. Chair votes aye. Okay. Bill passes by a vote of five to three. We got anyone here to representative? Bill number? House Bill 1764, Mr. Chair. Committee House Bill 1764. Representative, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, sir. Kinden Underwood, State Representative, District 16. Representative Underwood, you are recognized to present House Bill 1764.