[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6293635,"mediaKeyId","2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f","parentId",2523038,"title","Representative Clowney presents bill to prohibit nonconsensual tracking devices; survivor urges passage","audioSeconds",493,"startMs",4756000,"endMs",5249000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f&start=4756&end=5249","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f/thumbnail_4756000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6293635/Arkansas/Representative-Clowney-presents-bill-to-prohibit-nonconsensual-tracking-devices-survivor-urges-passage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293635-e0caf05354de90dbd30e83f7e9416e35/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165891&Signature=mWyhMHKuPh059wV9~fD813JwROpNCnakG5JRWJaCDpUK598yC~1h-0dLX063gwUf6YuPpALYXziX3bK5yiAPM0TL-1Se0Kuh1fM6a5AoNSuFFlbCSPjEemJWziDM7vbT03Z-cOabo1j7Wjicvxsk2WUDmKTQVaUBTdSj87gtVN2As2-hsyfRknQ8tI3l7JBZ575k5G0rSf1PiGuR-n7k1yoDy5xHq5pPcgtWI3zIRdCozft9XGvZ7Qhzuk0zEguIOazKNwAxfjkMMMFcJ0vsfT~i~3SpLiRnmrLvIbouF2crzjrVXP3SsxgUl0MxBhrN0ZQ9Fg8ubG8kejVzpyQYTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas Legislature","date","2025-03-06T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Clowney introduced House Bill 1641 and called forward Erin Wadley, a constituent who said an abusive ex had placed a tracking device on her car. Wadley said she discovered the device after hearing a scraping noise and, when the device was removed, found it had been transmitting her location without her knowledge. She told the Judiciary Committee the incident propelled her to law school and to research the issue; she and the sponsor said Arkansas lacks a specific statute addressing nonconsensual placement of tracking devices.

Clowney and witnesses told the committee they modeled the measure on other states’ statutes (testimony noted 27 states have laws addressing nonconsensual tracking) and proposed adding the conduct to the harassment code. The bill includes an existing harassment code’s phrase “without good cause” to allow prosecutors discretion; committee members asked for clarification of that phrase’s contours.

Representative Shepherd asked whether the bill would criminalize commonly shared phone-location services (for example, location-sharing apps or shared accounts) and whether revoking consent would affect culpability. Sponsor and witnesses said voluntary location-sharing (for example, apps or shared family-locator services) would generally constitute consent; revoking consent would remove consent and could support a charge where an unlawful tracking device continued to transmit data.

Representative Tosh asked whether private investigators or licensed law-enforcement personnel would be affected; the sponsor noted the statute includes affirmative defenses and exemptions, and testimony said law enforcement and authorized investigators are covered by those defenses. A citizen witness described working on related cases and said she sees this as a common problem for abuse survivors.

The committee heard limited questions and no final vote was recorded in the transcript. The measure received emotional testimony from a survivor and drew technical questions from committee members about consent, reasonable uses and statutory exemptions. The bill remained under consideration at the session’s close of the excerpt.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Committee Mar 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Clowney presented a bill to add nonconsensual placement or use of location-tracking devices to Arkansas’s harassment statute; a survivor testified she found a tracker under her car and urged lawmakers to act.","taxTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21189,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6293641,"Committee approves bill to allow judges to intercept state tax refunds for unpaid fines and fees",590,4130000,4720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f&start=4130&end=4720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f/thumbnail_4130000.jpg","/articles/6293641/Arkansas/Committee-approves-bill-to-allow-judges-to-intercept-state-tax-refunds-for-unpaid-fines-and-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293641-5e1c51389fb4cf2785d0476b4fbb7113/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165891&Signature=bP4AT4k68UwvJpL~tZOxOwEY~SYQV24A2rZ82G-VFOIqWajXHhw5o6jykVeKZWbxaHOY0IM0alcFlD4oznSS8RsoypI-CPenyo8vvc2RQWggNhJaf8na8lB0NvJeVI1RM25~iv5mmedX7c06zS4FGojSjnKk4x8pmv0MqvcG87MCZA8421PUHusn2DcFzWsiswoNFiTL-VgoWlL4JWFkGi1wkKJFoYit6ywqim123gHJuQCoR9cHo~9T5o9REKURtz-F3BnfyUB8awTavP0LKUvgKbeQAqzkylD6gkrAtGXg3LrrtSYjZF~l-2dR9mtjtR2~y1JUBY5ylVqYX7M7XA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Joshua Bryant (presenting) said Senate Bill 260 would give judges an additional collection tool to recover backlogged fines, fees and court costs by allowing a court, after specified findings, to intercept a defendant’s state income-tax refund. Bryant told the committee that district courts are dealing with substantial unpaid balances and that current civil-judgment procedures to collect are cumbersome and underused.

Bryant said the bill is not a first resort but an additional remedy available when a judge finds the defendant knowingly failed to comply with payment terms and no other mitigating circumstances prevent collection. He said statutory priorities — such as child-support orders and victim restitution — remain in force under existing law, and that tax-intercept requests are ordered pursuant to statutory process (cited in testimony as existing code citations) and are subject to existing priorities.

Committee members asked practical and equity questions. Representative Collins worried that intercepting tax refunds could punish low-income people who can only pay because they are employed and who receive refunds; he warned the measure could disincentivize on-the-books employment. Witnesses and the sponsor said the option is meant for cases where other remedies have been exhausted and could incentivize compliance by using a refund that would otherwise be disbursed.

Representative Gazewell and others asked the fiscal/legal staff’s note that an amendment might change language on line 30 to refer to a tax “refund” rather than a tax “return,” because the two terms have different meanings in tax code; the sponsor said he had not been aware of that drafting detail and acknowledged technical edits may be appropriate. Committee members discussed priority of claims that already exist in statute (for example, child support and restitution) and that an intercept would follow the statutorily established priority order.

Supporters said judges already have limited statutory tools to seek civil judgments to collect fines and fees but that the process is cumbersome; SB 260 would streamline one authorized collection mechanism for judges who find the statutory prerequisites are met. Sponsors told the committee they had consulted stakeholders including CLEST, sheriff and police associations, and the fiscal/legal office; testimony indicated stakeholders were either neutral or supportive. The committee voted to give the bill a do-pass recommendation.","Senate Bill 260 would let judges, under narrow statutory conditions, issue orders to intercept a defendant’s state income tax refund to satisfy unpaid court fines, fees and costs. Sponsors said the authority is a targeted tool after other collection efforts fail; committee approved the bill.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6293647,"Committee endorses statute to mirror district-court postponement practice",142,3918000,4060000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f&start=3918&end=4060","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f/thumbnail_3918000.jpg","/articles/6293647/Arkansas/Committee-endorses-statute-to-mirror-district-court-postponement-practice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293647-5ec1711a347f4a01dee06f9e47098a27/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165891&Signature=SCNCcNuYu1X-J45j5TYeVcvDEt2aXsgoLhkujzWhGBD9~NsRD03I4L~-YZmvR17b9xZHVDzjz5EIsCnDQzX0FKTWCsQOjgK4zyXR6LClb9KhlsCFn3pPqKsOocEtORzWIn5yoDIgeNAGQwhKGTOG40wL9BDxEJar6g5FHF0-~kiKl3V4O1E-ByPeLeFghIH7-4GKkaYMj86rFP4xTnNHQrAFwNnqR0pMUyt5i1IPQX6kXscI-mBZt7A7zocm8ppahjZHj143X3qDPbomOIL7HEcVaN0dWsda4lxN7jlquPhC006KpRf1D1Mg2ul1tmEEl3haAWDql3ofP3U-TIdvYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Joshua Bryant introduced Senate Bill 244 to align statute with common district-court practice that postpones judgment in certain cases and to clarify clerks’ duties for reporting and case processing. Kristen Clark, legal director at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), described the measure as a procedural cleanup to address inconsistent reporting and to avoid confusion when a clerk previously recorded a guilty plea that was later dismissed after conditions were met.

Clark told the Judiciary Committee that the bill clarifies how clerks should report cases taken under advisement and sets out the administrative steps for dismissals that follow successful compliance with imposed conditions. The bill responds to contact from the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) and the AOC after an instance in which a clerk recorded a plea then later tried to dismiss it, producing questions from ACIC about why a previously reported offense was later withdrawn.

Senator Bryant closed and the committee moved and approved a do-pass recommendation. Committee members did not record extended debate on the measure; the chair announced the bill had passed the committee.","Senate Bill 244 would codify the district-court practice that allows judges to place convictions under advisement (postponement of judgment) and clarify clerks’ reporting duties. The committee passed the bill after the sponsor and Administrative Office of the Courts staff explained the procedural cleanup.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6293652,"Committee declines bill to give fire-department bomb techs limited arrest authority",2018,1847000,3865000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f&start=1847&end=3865","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f/thumbnail_1847000.jpg","/articles/6293652/Arkansas/Committee-declines-bill-to-give-fire-department-bomb-techs-limited-arrest-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293652-feb19c1471cc423b60272b01d04b2774/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165891&Signature=NBFXTJVEg060OQ8rBCtCHXvoPHCN3W9ph33azLwfPorPV-8gM4-YvEWTy6RCYqbHPbJNiH-WvTZPwlquzD7aSiI5lergK2XjM85rdiOKbzew0Ycy5kDobzi-YOdIek3jNDMjalU4Y6qbkO4RTSYoCZEswrwdUWKZlAC6DM6yUqiNXmBJUqThFvsBFmMWNKxaDR~wtQ-CPQczVvIdF9dyevewHwxQ7CkPntTIfbaAy8yoNHysMAimYRRyOsh33rF-A3uvA4ZIzc7cEd2KUqdmH2b8CQCZ-0aYsdEuWt1jgkGjwOE1zUHhwsGk9J4833yLg7u~FukB2YpBQK9TjcwYVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Steven Meeks (District 42) presented House Bill 1648 to give certain bomb-squad members the authority to make arrests in very limited circumstances tied to explosives incidents or when assisting law enforcement at request. Meeks and multiple witnesses told the committee the measure would resolve jurisdictional and training issues for fire-based bomb technicians who currently lack arrest authority despite specialized training and federal clearances. The committee discussed training requirements, interagency arrangements and liability; the bill failed to pass.

Meeks said the bill is “part b” of earlier legislation and would allow bomb-squad members, when acting in their official capacity and after completing a part-time law-enforcement training course approved by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training (C-LEST/“CLEST” in testimony), to make arrests related to explosive incidents or while assisting a law-enforcement agency. He and witnesses emphasized the group’s small size — witnesses said there are 21 fire-department bomb technicians in the state — and their specialized FBI hazardous-device-school training. Captain Brenton Grama of the Conway Fire Department’s bomb squad and retired Conway commander Todd Carden described situations where bomb technicians arrived before deputies and could not detain a suspect without arrest authority.

Committee members raised separation-of-functions concerns and asked whether firefighters should take full law-enforcement academy training to obtain arrest powers. Representative Richardson and Representative Tash asked why some bomb squads are fire-based and others law-enforcement–based; witnesses said local history and sheriff or municipal choices drove different models and that the FBI regulates squad numbers and clearance requirements. Witnesses and the sponsor said the bill aimed to create a narrowly tailored option for the handful of trained technicians who would opt into the authority and complete the required part-time training rather than forcing a full academy course on fire departments.

Representative Shepherd asked if the authority was optional and whether a failure to act might create liability; Meeks and witnesses said the statute would be limited and largely optional — trained technicians would act only in specified circumstances and generally would cede to law enforcement when officers were present. Representative Moore asked whether existing law precludes a fire department member from being a part-time deputy; witnesses said deputization was possible but created a jurisdictional and logistical burden (paying overtime to send staff through full academy courses) and shifted liability to sheriff’s offices.

Representative Tash and others expressed discomfort with extending arrest authority outside traditional law-enforcement channels and said such authority should require full academy training. After discussion, the committee took a voice vote and the chair announced the noes had it; the bill did not pass out of committee.

Supporters argued the bill resolves a practical gap: bomb technicians are often the specialized responders to explosive materials and may arrive before or without law enforcement, and they need authority and qualified-immunity protections to secure a suspect until officers arrive. Opponents said preserving a high bar for law-enforcement authority was important and warned about mission creep. The sponsor closed by urging members to support the trained technicians; the motion to pass failed.","Representative Steven Meeks’ bill to authorize fire-department bomb technicians to make arrests in narrow, explosives-related or assisting-law-enforcement circumstances failed to pass after prolonged testimony from bomb-squad members, local commanders and committee members concerned about extending law-enforcement power to fire personnel.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6293656,"Committee rejects bill to codify immunity for volunteer church security teams",1731,80000,1811000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f&start=80&end=1811","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523038-a9f395506011fb4e7a3614a37b40785f/thumbnail_80000.jpg","/articles/6293656/Arkansas/Committee-rejects-bill-to-codify-immunity-for-volunteer-church-security-teams","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293656-03ddb7c717b82d72f965382ab5a19de7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165891&Signature=EhQSoVdteAU9d0zdnDU2ex01Axogks159zbNMJ5hjGITL0kckdQxo6pqfRzqHLI~3kuw1jVaQMXBl~3dny0PJusqgL-7OnopT93LZSkKn8mGIyb5whTgzvSxinxVcu7k4rM8iNRt~KqatGJcHkILO9IF7Ui~gzmE5Bp86k0Pt5yNuYxTrpm05ZIGrxlm14fJMlzgTaRgkBykWPsIzA1cYaQuS0EghDAR6D5-2ckG0e~03vRV2ekgSunvrC6MM95wP8zBBrTVvUo2tUOFgdk6AUROCepHWGpVlHZt5hvoeZtnHZ8y-ClMtFEDsO1RfiZSv5ooiBP864ddMDztSwICSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Tony Furman, R.-District 82, introduced House Bill 1306, a measure that would codify and tighten civil-immunity protections for volunteer church security teams provided the volunteers complete training the congregation requires. The Judiciary Committee discussed the bill at its October hearing, with testimony from faith leaders, a retired FBI agent and an active police officer, and questions from multiple committee members. The committee ultimately voted not to pass the bill.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Tony Furman, said the measure was intended to address a chilling effect he’d heard from church leaders worried that volunteers would be sued if they acted to protect congregants. “A lot of pastors and leaders and church staff have reached out to me and said that they're afraid to even use the security they have if they need it because they're afraid of being sued,” Furman said during his presentation. The bill would require some form of training before immunity applies, but it left the content and provider of that training to the congregation.

Supporters testified the bill filled a gap for congregations that rely on unpaid volunteers rather than paid security or on-site law-enforcement officers. Michael Thompson, a retired FBI special agent who volunteers as a church safety-team leader, told the committee that some states — he cited Texas and Idaho — had enacted similar protections and that volunteers face “a huge civil liability gap.” Michael Peyton, an active police officer and longtime church security volunteer, told the committee volunteers needed protection beyond existing immunity around deadly force.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on several points tied to the training requirement and the bill’s interaction with existing law. Representative Ernesto O’Cline questioned whether the bill’s training language—“requires training”—would give a trier of fact any standard to judge adequacy, noting the draft did not use an adjective such as “adequate.” Representative Furman answered that his intent was for training to be meaningful and for courts to resolve inadequacy claims as fact issues, but acknowledged the bill text did not explicitly include the word “adequate.” Representative Tash asked whether the 2015 civil-liability protections tied to self-defense law would be affected; Furman said he had sought an attorney-general comparison and believed there was no conflict because HB 1306 was narrowly tailored to volunteer church teams.

Representative Dolby opposed the bill on principle, saying charitable-immunity doctrine already covers churches and warning that carve-outs for specific groups could prompt additional special provisions. After discussion, Representative Tosh moved to “do pass.” Committee chairs first took a voice vote, which the chair said favored the noes; the committee then conducted a roll call. The chair announced the bill had failed.

The measure drew testimony from law-enforcement and security practitioners who said volunteers often arrive on scene before deputies and that fear of civil suits discourages volunteers from stepping forward. The sponsor and witnesses said the bill would not create new rights but would codify protections that exist under common-law charitable immunity and the 1987 Volunteer Immunity Act while adding a training condition. At least one committee member pressed for precise statutory language about when criminal prosecution would affect civil immunity claims; the sponsor said the bill did not specify prosecutorial procedures and anticipated courts would sort those issues when cases arose.

Votes at the committee showed a roll-call following voice vote opposition; the chair announced the bill failed on the roll call and the bill did not advance from committee. The committee record contains a roll-call transcript in which members recorded affirmative and negative votes; the chair announced, “Representative Furman, your bill has failed.”

The hearing record shows advocates urging the panel to adopt statutory clarity for volunteers who provide security at houses of worship, and opponents cautioning against statutory carve-outs when common-law protections already exist.

The bill received extensive questioning about training standards, possible interaction with criminal prosecutions, and whether codifying the protection would have unintended consequences for other volunteer groups.

Representative Furman closed reiterating the bill’s limited scope and asked members for a favorable vote; the committee instead declined to advance the bill.","The House Judiciary Committee debated House Bill 1306, which would have codified civil immunity for volunteer church security teams conditioned on training. After witness testimony and committee questions, a motion to pass failed on a roll call and the bill did not advance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Representative Clowney presents bill to prohibit nonconsensual tracking devices; survivor urges passage

Committee approves bill to allow judges to intercept state tax refunds for unpaid fines and fees

Committee endorses statute to mirror district-court postponement practice

Committee declines bill to give fire-department bomb techs limited arrest authority

Committee rejects bill to codify immunity for volunteer church security teams