Arkansas Legislative Council
Game & Fish / State Police Subcommittee
Representative Dwight Tosh Committee members, go ahead and have your seat. Chair sees a quorum. This meeting is called to order. First up on the agenda today is Arkansas State Police. If you would, Colonel, if y’all will go ahead and make your way to the table. And while they’re making their way to the table, let me turn to my co-chair. Senator, you have any opening comments?
Senator Missy Irvin I’m good.
State Police and Tactical Vehicle Interventions
Representative Dwight Tosh She’s good. Okay, Colonel, appreciate y’all being here today. Thank you for, like I said, I know it’s late in the afternoon. I appreciate you taking time to appear before this committee. Before we get started, let me just try to set the stage for what the discussion will be today.
Back at the beginning of the session in 2023, you and I, we had a discussion about the uptick and the number of people that were fleeing from law enforcement here in the state of Arkansas, how those numbers were going up. And I remember one of the concerns was that with this increase and it seemed like how many people now, when the blue lights come on behind them, they took off and they flee from the officer.
And I remembered in that discussion, we talked about how if someone was standing in a Walmart parking lot with an AR-15 and they were spraying bullets everywhere– remember that– that individual would be charged with a felony. However, in comparison, if someone takes a 5,000 or 6,000 pound of steel rubber and glass and they turn it into a deadly missile and they jeopardize so many lives by busting through an intersection, passing on curves or on hills or double yellow lines, those individuals were being charged with misdemeanors from fleeing from a law enforcement officer.
And I remember a statement that you made, it was that a lot of these individuals, once the law enforcement took them into custody, their biggest concern was not the penalty that they were facing, but it was more how much damage had occurred to their vehicle. And at that time, fleeing from a law enforcement officer, as you and I discussed in the comparison I just made, it was a misdemeanor, as serious as that offence is. With your help, we sponsored legislation and we were able to make fleeing from a law enforcement officer a class D felony.
So with that backdrop, and I might go ahead and also add that I know in this past session, 2025, we also had an issue with the fact that individuals fleeing from law enforcement officers, realizing, I guess, the penalty now that they would face and that being a felony, some of them were exiting the vehicle while that vehicle was still moving.
And obviously, for those that may not understand why they were doing that, that was so that they could put more distance because that trooper, he’s going to have to stay with that vehicle. Because now you’ve got an unoccupied, uncontrolled vehicle that has to be secured. And so the trooper’s gotta stay with. The individual that rolls out of that vehicle, the old tuck and rolls we used to call it, and hits the ground, that just puts more distance between him and the trooper.
So to try to combat that, with your help, we sponsored a bill and was able to get it passed with the help of my colleagues to enhance the penalty if you exit the vehicle while it’s still moving. So the reason that we’re here today is I know that’s been a couple of, I felt like a couple of key pieces of legislation to try to do something to combat the number of people that were fleeing from our officers in this state.
And so what I’m looking for today, and I hope you’ve got these numbers or that it’s going to be positive, is did those type of legislation have a positive impact on the number of people that are fleeing? And I know you had a program, and a public service announcement. I really was impressed with that, where you work with the prosecutors and I believe– I remember hearing the statement. I may not say it exactly the way you did.
That’d probably be impossible to say things exactly as articulate as you do, but still I remember the comment was that if you flee from one of our troopers with a prosecutor standing behind you, you said, we’re going to put you in the ditch and they’re going to put in jail. I thought that was pretty effective. And so with that backdrop, that’s why you’re today to give us some numbers to kind of help enlighten this committee if that legislation was useful, that working together on legislation, if it’s had a positive impact.
So with that, if you could share some of that with us, the number of people that are fleeing from troopers as compared to before that legislation, and if those numbers are up or down. So if you would, just identify yourselves to the committee and then you’re recognized to start your discussion or answer those questions.
Mike Hagar Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Mike Hagar. I’m the director of Arkansas State Police and Secretary of the Department of Public Safety.
Jason Aaron Jason Aaron, lieutenant colonel over field operations.
Philip Hydron Philip Hydron. I’m a major of the Highway Patrol Division.
Decline in pursuits
Mike Hagar Mr. Chairman, if you’d allow just to kind of start the conversation, I have an opening statement that I’ll read. And it touches on some of the things that you brought up. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today and talk about a topic we care a lot about. I know the general public and this body also care about the subjects of pursuits and TVIs.
Specifically Chairman Tosh and Senator Wallace sponsored Act 734 of 2023 and Act 822 of last year, which enhanced the punishment for fleeing in a vehicle. Unfortunately, pursuit videos from Arkansas State Police are wildly popular and keep YouTubers’ channels active.
Though most people who watch our pursuit videos focus only on the trooper and the suspect, they lose sight of all the innocent civilians whose lives are at risk because suspects flee from law enforcement. Those innocent civilians are our priority. We had their safety in mind when we instructed our troopers on day one to end pursuits as soon as possible.
We had their safety in our mind when we came to you, the legislature, and asked for laws that would make fleeing from law enforcement a felony. We had innocent motorists in mind when we worked with our prosecutors to make sure that fleeing suspects were held accountable.
But as a result of our work with you and the prosecutors and after a robust campaign using social media and public service announcements, we have seen the number of pursuits decline 29% from 2023 through 2025. We had 180 fewer pursuits last year than we did in 2023.
That means 180 fewer opportunities for innocent civilians, law enforcement officers or suspects to be injured or killed because of a suspect’s selfish choice to flee from troopers. During that same time, we’ve increased the number of troopers by 120. I’d like to take every opportunity to thank this legislature for their support. We could not have added those troopers without your commitment to public safety. Putting more troopers on the highway has resulted in a decrease in crashes and also in crashes with fatalities.
It’s also resulted in an increase in hazardous and criminal arrests, drug seizures, and DWI arrests. You might expect that increasing the number of troopers proactively enforcing the law would also mean more pursuits, but that has not been the case, due in large part to what you just summed up perfectly. Again, we welcome this opportunity to talk about our pursuits and TVIs. We believe our approach to this problem is effective and that those numbers bear that out. And with that, I’d be glad to answer any questions that you guys have.
Representative Dwight Tosh Any questions from committee members? Senator Flowers, would you just hit your button, please?
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Colonel.
Representative Dwight Tosh You’re recognized, Senator.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Colonel, for the report. What’s a TVI?
Mike Hagar I’m sorry, the TVI is a tactical vehicle intervention.
Senator Stephanie Flowers T-V-I.
Mike Hagar T-V-I. Yes. V as in victory. Yes ma’am.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Dwight Tosh It used to be called pit maneuver. It’s still hard for me to get used to saying TVI. I’m sure there was some reason to change the name of it, but I still refer to them as pit.
And, I can tell you, Colonel, as sure every legislator in here can, that as we travel outside the state to different conferences that once people find out that we’re from the legislature here in Arkansas, the conversation before long turns to the fact that they watch the state Arkansas State Police on the videos. I’m sure y’all hear that a lot. And they’re impressed. I mean, the comments I hear just, y’all just don’t play in Arkansas. It’s serious business and we don’t.
And I appreciate your statements a while ago. And let’s see if we’ve got any other committee members have a question. Seeing none– senator, hold on. You’re recognized. You are recognized.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you. I’ll ask. Curious, do you have an idea or indication of where more of these TVIs are happening in the state?
Mike Hagar I would say overwhelmingly in our population hubs. I think Troop A that covers the Little Rock area, Troop D that covers East Arkansas, and Troop L, which covers Northwest Arkansas, I believe are our top three troops that we’re seeing the pursuit numbers in.
Senator Stephanie Flowers And in terms of prosecutions, has that been more prevalent since we’ve passed this legislation that you speak of?
Mike Hagar Yes, ma’am. And that’s a continuing process with us working with our prosecutors. But if you remember in March of last year, all of our elected prosecutors stood with us at our driving track in North Little Rock, and they made the commitment that not only would we pursue these charges, but they would prosecute these charges to the fullest extent.
And we believe that that message has resonated. We’ve had several occasions over the last year where prosecutors have reached out to us and we’re proud of the fact that they had received significant prison sentences based on pursuits that we had made arrests on. So we think that message is getting out there. Unfortunately, it’s a common tactic within law enforcement and prosecution for a lot of reasons where cases are sometimes pled down.
Some charges are nolle prossed and there is an unintended consequence that the message had been received by the criminal element that I may as well run, because even if I get caught, I’m still going to catch whatever felony charge. That literally 90 plus percent of the time is the case. The reason people are fleeing, they knew that they were going to catch that charge anyway.
But in addition to that, they need to know there’s a consequence for fleeing. And what was happening was that through deals that were being made by the prosecutors with the agreement of law enforcement, a lot of those charges were being pled down to misdemeanors or being nolle prossed altogether. It’s a matter of just kind of wrapping that case up.
And unfortunately, that was an unintended consequence and an unintended message that went out to the criminal element that I may as well run. There’s really no reason not to. I’m going to face my charges anyway. If I get away, I get away. If I don’t get away they’re going to do away with this charge anyway. So that was a problem that we had to overcome. And we met with our prosecutors, and they stood with us. They assured us that they were going to pursue these charges aggressively, and we trust that they have.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Well, I was just thinking when you said that about pleading it down, just like DWI cases, some of that, the penalty is mandatory. You don’t get to plead it down. And I’m wondering what your opinion is on a possibility of that being placed in law in terms of TVIs.
Mike Hagar Ironically, that’s kind of what started the conversation with the prosecutors. In the 2025 session, we met with the Prosecutors Association and we made our intentions known that we were going to seek language that mirrored DWI statute to where if you were arrested for felony fleeing, that you had to be adjudicated for felony fleeing and that it can not be played down and it can be not nolle prossed.
For a variety of reasons, prosecutors are very concerned about their discretion, and I completely understand that. It can be a tactic that’s used in some cases. So there was concern on their part about us running that legislation. So as a result, I don’t want to say there was a compromise, but we agreed that if they would stand with us and they would ensure the public that they would pursue these charges to try to get this problem under control that we would not pursue that legislation. So at some point, we’re going to go back.
We’ll tally the numbers and we’ll look to make sure that there’s been an increase and make sure that those numbers bear out that commitment. And before we go into the 2027 session, that conversation will be had about whether or not to pursue that legislation.
Senator Stephanie Flowers And the last thing, Mr. Chair, I would think that a lot of the persons arrested and are fleeing also have other charges that are being filed against them so it’s like give and take. But I’d like to know if they’re ending up pleading to the crime that has a stricter, tougher penalty than the TVI. I don’t know, is that a class D felony?
Mike Hagar It begins at a class D felony. Depending on the pursuit and the outcome of the pursuit, those charges are enhanced if there are, for instance, people that are injured. To reference Mr. Chairman’s bill that they sponsored last year, someone vacates a moving vehicle, that also upgrades the felony charge by one class. So there are a variety of things that could change that from a class to make that a higher class felony. So, it just depends.
But to your point, if someone is facing a first degree murder charge and they flee, and they’re willing to plead guilty on first degree murder if we’ll remove a fleeing charge, I mean, obviously, that’s a concession that we’d be willing to make. But if someone is facing a narcotics charge, a weapons charge, they have felony warrants, which is a lot of what we see and the reason they’re fleeing, those are the type of charges that we do not want to encourage people to take the chance and run.
Because that’s where we ran into that problem. We have to let them know that there’s going to be a consequence for fleeing from law enforcement because the stakes are just simply too high.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Colonel.
Mike Hagar Thank you, ma’am.
Representative Dwight Tosh Senator Hill, you’re recognized for a question.
Officer fired over pit maneuver
Senator Ricky Hill Thank you, Mr. Chair, over here, Colonel. If you would, would you please shed a little light on the pit maneuver that was done on the wrong car for us?
Mike Hagar Yes, sir.
Senator Ricky Hill How is that family doing now? I’ve been told, I don’t know for a fact, that it was a mother, a young child, and a husband that were all in the car. Were any of them seriously hurt? And I know the officer that was in pursuit has been terminated. I’m looking farther now to the citizens that were involved in that. What’s the status of that and what all can you tell us?
Mike Hagar So I can tell you that we made contact with that family immediately after this incident came to light and there were no injuries in the vehicle. The family has maintained that they want to stay out of the public light. They’ve asked for us to help them with that as much as possible and we’ve honored that as we possibly can.
As far as the action itself, it’s unexplainable. If you’ve seen the video, I wouldn’t even offer an excuse or a reason. I have no idea. All I can tell you is that that was the last enforcement action that that trooper ever took. It’s such an outlier. It literally is less than, I believe it’s 0.01% that that’s ever even happened.
I can only recall one other instance in my career that that has happened, totally different set of circumstances. It was a more chaotic situation. But unfortunately, it did happen. It is absolutely inexcusable. We’ve said a lot of times that as long as human beings are doing this job, the human is going to show themselves eventually. And it happened that day. And we made a mistake that we can’t excuse, but all we can do is respond to it after the fact.
Senator Ricky Hill Thank you.
Mike Hagar Thank you, sir.
Representative Dwight Tosh Senator Johnson, you’re recognized for a question.
Addition to drivers manual
Senator Mark Johnson Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate being able to ask a question, though I’m not a member of the committee. Colonel, last session I sponsored legislation to put some clarity and some emphasis in the driver training manual about the dangers to construction workers on our highways. Did that at the request of both the highway police and the people in the construction business, including one big one you know in our hometown.
I didn’t realize how much of a problem it had been, but we did get that bill passed and we put it in the manual. So these young people are emphasized to them that, not only they, but these workers are in danger when they’re speeding in the construction zones and all that.
Should we look at some kind of additional language in our training manual and our courses to emphasize to these young people, please don’t try to flee a police officer because you will become a felon? Should we look at some additional way to emphasize that and, as we say, teach them the right way when they’re young and they’ll hopefully stick with it their life?
Mike Hagar Thank you, Senator, for the question. Thank you for sponsoring that legislation. I’m certainly all for that. We’ve been very proactive in our campaign through social media and public safety announcements and things like that about the dangers of fleeing and the consequences of fleeing. So anything that we could do to try to help or be more proactive to help with that cause, I am absolutely for it. And the people that produce and print and edit our DL manuals will probably cringe at that idea, but that’s okay. There’s always new additions that are being made and I would certainly not be opposed to that at all.
Senator Mark Johnson Great. We’ll be talking about that for the ’27 session. Thank you, Colonel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Dwight Tosh Seeing no further questions, Colonel, thank y’all for being here today and it’s good to know. And I think it’s encouraging to know that legislation can make a difference. And I appreciate you always bringing that to this legislative body so that we can address that. And it’s good to know that it’s saving lives. And hopefully it looks like it’s reduced the number of pursuits so that’s encouraging. So thank y’all for being here today. And y’all can be excused. Good to see you again. Do you have another question, Senator?
Senator Ricky Hill But yes, sir, I was trying to catch him. I thought the Colonel and them were going to do the next part as well.
Representative Dwight Tosh No, they are not.
Senator Ricky Hill Mine is actually going to be other business that I have a question. So you want me to do the other business with him now or wait till the end and call him back up?
Representative Dwight Tosh Oh, they’re leaving.
Senator Ricky Hill Yeah, that’s the reason I was wanting to do it now before they leave.
Senator Missy Irvin I’m sorry. Can somebody catch the State Police to come back to the table?
Jason Aaron If he’s going to hang around, I’ll ask it at the end.
Representative Dwight Tosh I don’t know if he’s going to hang around or not. But go ahead and ask him now. Colonel, I’m sorry about that. I didn’t see Senator Hill, and I apologize, Colonel.
Senator Ricky Hill I was trying to get to you before you left.
Mike Hagar That was a rookie mistake for not turning around and running out the door when I was excused.
Senator Ricky Hill I know you’re out of breath now trying to get back.
Mike Hagar No, I actually have to stay.
State Police Foundation
Jason Aaron Mine is totally different than pit maneuvers and stuff on this one. I know we’ve got a lot of members here and a lot of people don’t know the difference. I just kind of want you to explain what the difference between what y’all do as the State Police side and what the foundation does and the benefits from that.
Because we have a lot members that do not understand the difference between that. I know y’all have that. And I also know the Game and Fish do the same thing. They have a foundation too. Would you kind of just give us a quick overview of that? What’s the difference and what’s the purpose of the foundation and everything? Just so everyone will know.
Mike Hagar Sure, it’ll be high level at best.
Senator Ricky Hill And is there any lobbying involved with the foundation side of it?
Mike Hagar As far as I’m aware, no, sir. No, sir, not that I can think of. I hope I’m not saying that wrong. But the State Police Foundation is a group of supporters of the State Police. And it’s largely made up of businesses and business owners and just members of our state that are supportive of the mission of the State Police.
They raise funds that do a number of things. One is a scholarship program for troopers’ kids. They have a– is it Hearts for Heroes? I’m going to be in so much trouble from Elizabeth Anderson for not being able to just spit this out. The Hearts for Heroes program is something they do where if we have a trooper that’s affected by like a natural disaster, they’ve lost their home in a fire, a tornado, something like that, the foundation will come in immediately and give that trooper and his family relief.
If we have a trooper whose family member is in the hospital, the foundation will frequently put their family in a hotel. They’ll pay for their expenses while they’re in town. There’s also a– did I mention the scholarship program for the– okay. And in addition to that, some of the more notable items are things they’ve done for us in the way of training and our facilities.
I think a lot of you joined us last year at the reception at our driving track. And that facility was almost 100% solely the product of the State Police Foundation. And as we tell people all the time, as this body knows all too well, we’re all competing for tax dollars and we’re all competing for funds. And there’s only so much to go around. And we’re extremely blessed that the foundation has stepped up.
And some things that we were not able to do within our budget, the State Police Foundation has stepped up and they’ve provided that need for us. So I cannot say enough positive words about the foundation. They have been an absolute blessing and a godsend to the State Police.
Senator Ricky Hill Thank you, sir. And the reason I wanted to bring that up to you is just so that all members know that there’s a lot of things that go on behind the scenes that you have a lot of great people working for y’all. They do a lot of very good things, and I don’t think they get enough credit for that. Nor do I think you all get enough credits for that, and just want to make sure that all members of this committee know that you have people working behind the scenes that do a great job supporting y’ all. So thank you for that brief summary on that.
Mike Hagar And since you gave me the opportunity, I do have to, as my son would say, give a shout out to Elizabeth Anderson, our executive director.
Senator Ricky Hill And where’s she from?
Mike Hagar I’m sorry– our president. Elizabeth is from Magnolia. Originally–
Senator Ricky Hill Where is she from now?
Mike Hagar Lonoke County.
Senator Ricky Hill There you go.
Mike Hagar Your district. I know that. Yeah, that’s about it. I know she’s in Lonoke County. But anyway, then our executive director is Emily Hamilton. And then also Sidney is an employee of the foundation. And I cannot say enough good things about the work they do for us. They are truly a godsend. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about it.
Representative Dwight Tosh Colonel, thank you. Sorry I didn’t see Senator Hill. Apologize for that. But I’ve seen no further questions, so y’all can be excused. And thank you for being here today. The next item on today’s agenda is we’re going to have a discussion from the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. And Director Chris Chapman if you would make your way to the table. Director, thank you for being here today. If you would just state your name for the committee.
De-certification for ‘bad’ cops
Chris Chapmond Yes, Sir. Chris Chapmond, Director for Law Enforcement Standards and Training for the state of Arkansas.
Representative Dwight Tosh Appreciate your attendance here today. And I think what we’d like to discuss today or discussion today, if you would, just kind of walk us through and help us to understand. I know one of the concerns over the years has been that a law enforcement officer that may be employed with one agency gets in some type of trouble with that agency, a disciplinary action or whatever the case may be, they resign or they leave that agency and they go to another one.
And I know that was always a real concern in law enforcement that there was no check and balance as to be able to make that agency that was seeking to employ that individual aware of the fact of some possibly misconduct at the agency that they were just leaving from. And I knew that y’all taking on a task to try to be able to follow those types of situations and make sure that any hiring agency is aware of any issues that that officer may have had prior to that.
So also, just with that, if you would, just kind of what you have put in place to make sure they don’t, I guess, to say slip through the cracks and remain to be in law enforcement or some agency hiring them without knowing about it. And also, officers that their misconduct has risen to the level of the possibility of decertification.
I think it’d be very enlightening to this committee if you would walk us through the process as far as someone that has conducted themselves in such a manner that it warrants the review of the commission for decertification and that process as it would move forward in that event. So if you would just take it from there and try to– we’ll just kind of open it up for discussion. And hopefully that’ll kind of get you going in the direction we need to go.
Chris Chapmond Absolutely. So I appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation. I will say that over the last three years under this administration we have taken those aspects that you’ve mentioned very seriously. Not to negatively talk about the way we used to do things, but we do things very differently now.
The accountability portion of the law enforcement standards for the state of Arkansas should be very serious to all of us, and those bad actors should be removed from the profession. So we take that very seriously. Just as an overview, there’s nine reasons under the rules and regulations, the standards, for the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training that you can be removed, have your certification pulled. So we monitor those.
Anytime an officer is separated from an agency, regardless of what the reason is, they have to complete a separation form and send it to us. And so before they can be hired, that paperwork has to be processed. If they are separated for one of those nine offenses, those rules that we can decertify for, it immediately creates a situation where we call that agency and discuss the reason for separation.
If it meets a decertification standard and they did not check the decertification box, then we ask them why. We make them provide an explanation. And there are times where they commit one of those acts that it just doesn’t rise to the level of decertification. But to prevent them from going to another agency without that information being disclosed, we now have a system where we flag that file.
So that individual officer, even though he’s not decertified, he committed an act that falls under one of those categories, there’s a flag placed on that file. If he goes to another agency and they want to employ him, they’re not able to add him to the roster and complete the paperwork without calling us, receiving all the information that we’ve gathered from the separating agency, and having full disclosure of why that officer was separated. We’ve seen that work.
There have been officers that were separated, their files were flagged, agencies attempted to hire them, they were required to call us, that information was disclosed, and then they have full responsibility for either hiring or not hiring that officer. We’ve seen agencies pass on officers for their conduct. In the past, that didn’t exist. So they could go from one agency to the other without consequence. They could be separated from one agency, go to another.
And we have seen that. In your career, I’m sure you’ve seen it. They would bounce from agency to agency to agency. And each time they were committing an offense that should have been either caught or potentially decertified. So we’ve created a system that helps solve that problem.
So if they do ask for decertification, I’ll just kind of give a very short overview of the process. It is a legal process. An administrative hearing is set. Any law enforcement officer within that jurisdiction, whether it be the sheriff, the chief, an investigative authority, or myself, in the worst case scenarios, can request a decertification upon review, if it meets the standard.
If the request is made, then we set basically a probable cause hearing for the commission to look at the facts, to weigh the evidence, and determine if it moves forward to a decertification hearing. If it moves forward to a decertification hearing, that date is set. The officers, witnesses, we have a full legal team that preps for that case. And then that officer basically goes through an administrative trial before the commission to see if they keep their decertification.
You had asked for some numbers. I’m very proud of this. So the previous three years before this new administration, there were 158 requests for decertification. In the three years, not including this January, we went from 158 to 256. Now, a lot of that is due to education. Our relationships with the Sheriff’s Association, the Chiefs Association, us being in front of them, talking about the importance of this, explaining, educating the purpose behind what we’re doing has increased that. So we’re holding more officers accountable.
So right now as we sit, in our last month’s meeting, we heard 28 new requests. And so we have 147 officers pending decertification hearings. That puts us out about a year and a half on some of them. So we were at a four and a half year delay in some of these hearings when we took over. We reduced that to a year-and-a-half. But currently we’re sitting at 147 officers waiting to be heard by the commission. So it’s working.
Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you for that overview. And I know I attended a public safety conference last year and one of the topics was decertification. And I applaud you because Arkansas, the process that we had in place and the way you were handling it here, it was just kind of a role model for other states, to be honest with you, to follow.
They didn’t have anything to safeguard exactly from one officer being able to move from one agency to the other. And you’re right. That used to happen quite often. And pretty disheartening to good law enforcement officers to be able to see that. Let me ask you this, Director, if you have an officer with an agency that’s under investigation and that officer resigns before that investigation is completed, does that open investigation– I’m just curious– does that open investigation, and he seeks employment somewhere else, how is that handled with an open investigation?
Chris Chapmond Again, sir, thank you for that question because that’s asked a lot. So that is one of the nine categories that can create a decertification or a flagging process, they resigned during or under an internal affairs investigation or a criminal investigation. So again, every agency, regardless of the reason for the separation, has to complete that separation form.
So if that box is checked, again, we’re calling, we are requesting that information. And again, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of decertification. Now granted, I now have the option, if the agency doesn’t want to do it, and it’s a severe circumstance, then I can request that decertification after consultation with the legal staff.
And we haven’t had to use that, let’s say, nuclear option yet, because most of the time we’re able to have conversations and convince them that that’s the path to take. But again, if they resign, that file will get flagged.
And so if they try to go to another agency, full disclosure. We’re going to give them that information. That hiring agency is going to have to consider that, take on the liability and the potential risk of hiring that officer that has been under investigation for misconduct for whatever the reason may be. But they’re going to get full disclosure of what happened.
Representative Dwight Tosh I know in the past you didn’t have the authority to, I don’t think you did, to be able to request someone to be reviewed for decertification. So that authority, was it granted to you? I’m glad you have it. That is great news to me. Was that granted through legislation or something we passed? Or was that something internally that you were able to do?
Chris Chapmond So the rules were, let’s just say gray, left up for interpretation. So when I took this position, I requested an attorney general’s opinion. His opinion was that as the director for the Law Enforcement Standards and Training division, that ultimately I had the ability to do that.
Again, we haven’t had to use that. That ruling came out– or that opinion came out two and a half years ago. Again, the relationships that we’ve built with chiefs and sheriffs and prosecutors across the state, once we start having these conversations and talking about the severity of the issues and the potential downflow of what may happen, most of the, I would say that 95% of the officers that need to be heard for decertification, are moving in that direction.
So our sheriffs and chiefs and prosecutors are stepping up to the plate and holding people accountable. And again, a lot of that is education on our staff’s part. So what a lot of people don’t realize is we now have a compliance team that actually is auditing every agency in the state of Arkansas. We’re conducting about 250 agency compliance checks per year and it’s not punitive. What that is, is we’re going in and checking the records, making sure they’re holding themselves to the right standards. If they’re not, we’re helping them get into compliance.
And again, if we’re seeing agencies that are compliant, then they’re holding their own officers accountable. So we’re seeing agencies do a better job on that side as well. But again, that’s proactive. It’s very intentional on our staff’s part, taking on extra responsibility. But we believe that is our job, sir.
Representative Dwight Tosh And Director, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the commissioners of the law enforcement standards and training, that group of commissioners that the officer appears before for consideration of decertification. Is that correct?
Chris Chapmond That is correct, sir. They’re our hearing body. Our division, our staff presents the case. So we’re the prosecutor, so to speak, and we present that case to the commission. And those individuals make the determination on whether that officer keeps his certification or not, sir.
Representative Dwight Tosh How often do they meet? How often does that commission meet?
Chris Chapmond We meet every other month. When we took over, we were doing one day hearings. Based on a current workload, we meet every other month for two days’ worth of hearings. So we have 12 days of hearings per year, sir. We could easily do 18.
Representative Dwight Tosh And it sounds like it. Okay, I’ve got a couple of questions here, director. Senator Blake Johnson, you are recognized for a question.
Senator Blake Johnson So Chris, you said you’re a year and a half out on those hearings.
Chris Chapmond Yes, sir. So his question was, and that’s a great question because–
Senator Blake Johnson [Mic issue] Ball is in his court.
Chris Chapmond Yes, sir. Okay, so I heard the question. So you asked what that officer is doing there in that year and a half period. So again, let’s go back to that flagging system. Because they were separated for an issue that rises to the level of decertification, while they are pending decertification, we flag their file.
So even if they go to work for someone else, if an agency determines they want to take the risk of hiring that officer, we have fully disclosed that they are pending decertification. We have nothing in the rules and regulations to prevent them from being hired. But what we do is disclose all the information to the agency that wants to entertain the idea of hiring them.
Senator Blake Johnson So they possibly can continue to work.
Chris Chapmond We see that happen. Yes, sir. There are agencies out there that struggle hiring people, and they will hire officers that are pending decertification. It doesn’t happen often, but we have seen it happen. Yes, sir.
Senator Blake Johnson Chair, if you hadn’t went out there, I had the opportunity to see one of those hearings and it was very enlightening. And I think what it amounted to more than anything is the guy lied. And that probably hurt him more than the actual offense did. And he didn’t do his paperwork and he lied about it. And that probably hurt him more than anything. But just to hear one of things that, with your background, you would enjoy it a lot more than I did, waiting on what I had to do. I just think you’d enjoy to hear one of those.
Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you, Senator. That’s a good question.
Chris Chapmond Can I add a comment to that?
Representative Dwight Tosh Yes, you can.
Chris Chapmond Specifically to that. Just for information purposes, probably 90 to 95% of the reasons that the commission decertifies officers is tied to an integrity issue, an honesty issue. They may have committed an offense, but then somewhere along the way, you’re absolutely right, they lie about it during the investigation. They withhold information. They don’t disclose all the facts.
And we’ve seen individual officers that curbed a tire and didn’t want to admit to it and lied on a document, an accident report, be decertified. We’ve seen officers lie about not wearing their ballistic vest. And none of that probably would have got them fired. None of it would have gotten them fired. But because they lied about it, without integrity, we cannot carry the badge.
Senator Blake Johnson I appreciate what y’all have to do. I mean, it would be very hard. But I understand. It’s those little things that add up to big things. And if you can’t trust them with little things, they never get to the big things.
Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you, Senator. Representative Puryear, you’re recognized for a question.
Hearings backed up to 18 months
Representative Chad Puryear Thank you. So I think you mentioned over there, I understood your timeline is about a year, about 18 months from a request to a hearing. And I’d say that’s fairly accurate because the last incident in a county next door to me was 15 months. So my question is, if an officer commits an action that is more serious than just something, more serious– I don’t know what that could be. I don’t want to dive into something else. Is that hearing moved up faster?
Chris Chapmond We can. And we have done that in the past, depending on the seriousness of the issue. Now, some of the more serious issues, obviously, potentially have criminal ties, a criminal prosecution tied to that, we usually let the criminal prosecution play out before we have that hearing. Just procedurally, that’s the smart thing to do. But yes, we have had cases that are more severe than others, and we feel the need to move those up. We do try to move them up when we can. It’s not standard practice. But again, it’s based on the severity of the action, sir.
Representative Chad Puryear All right. Well, I appreciate that.
Chris Chapmond But again, four and a half years is what we inherited, and we’re down to a year and a half. And that’s better than it was.
Representative Dwight Tosh Do you have a follow-up?
Representative Chad Puryear No, that’s it. Thank you.
Representative Dwight Tosh Senator?
Senator Missy Irvin Thank you. And your program covers all level of law enforcement, is that correct?
Chris Chapmond Yes ma’am. Every law enforcement officer in the state of Arkansas, regardless state, county or municipal, gets their certification and authority through us to wear the badge and do the job. So, yes, ma’ am, we cover everything from the smallest agency to the largest agency in the State.
Citizen complaints
Senator Missy Irvin Okay, and remind me one more time, your investigations are triggered or initiated by a report? Or is it inter-agency? Is it from citizens?
Chris Chapmond So it can be a number of ways. The citizen complaints are probably the least common. If there’s an allegation made by a citizen of a criminal activity, we would often refer that either to the local prosecutor or the Arkansas State Police for investigation for follow-up. But most of ours are prompted by the separation documents or a conversation with a prosecutor, sheriff, or a local chief.
Senator Missy Irvin Okay. I personally had a real issue that occurred with an officer that was just repeatedly harassing people. And this was several years ago, six, seven years ago perhaps. But I think this person is still an officer. And I was– I didn’t– at the time I was elected, but I chose to file a report as a citizen, just like anybody else. And it was literally dismissed. And it became really, really, really bad.
I had some very strong visits at that point, because it wasn’t just me that was filing report after report. I mean, there were other citizens that were filing reports on this particular person. And it was not taken seriously.
And so I have a lot of concern about that because this was a repeated behavior that was occurring with an officer who was literally throwing his weight around, bragging about it to other officers, and harassing people and eventually was able to be moved to where they had a larger supervision, which I thought was needed and appropriate for this person. I don’t want anybody to lose their job.
However, I also know that when an officer acts like that, they’re putting themselves into danger. They might pull the wrong person over and give the wrong person a hard time and then children may lose a dad. I mean, so I hope that these things are taken seriously from citizens that do have some issues about being harassed or being bullied or so egregious to where I’m going to arrest you, put you back in the back of my police car, travel 10 miles or 15 miles to the police station, but then let you out and not arrest you.
But now you’re stranded and you have no car. And I just basically did it just to show you that I could. That happened and nothing happened to the officer. So I just hope that you will look at citizen complaints just as strongly as you do others. Because I think that’s really important. Because at the end of the day, it should be about the safety of, not just the citizens that are being patrolled and policed, but the officers themselves could be in real danger if they act like that and they just pull the wrong person over at the wrong time.
Chris Chapmond Yes, ma’am.
Senator Missy Irvin So, anyway, I’ll follow up more so on that. But we’ve got to deal with that because not everybody’s meant to wear a badge.
Chris Chapmond I absolutely agree with that. Our number one job as law enforcement officers is to build trust and legitimacy within our communities. That’s our number one job every single day that we walk out the door. And so that responsibility is very great. Our rules and regulations don’t allow for just a ton of action, reaction to the citizen complaint, the way they’re currently written.
So what we traditionally do, if I get a citizen complaint, the first contact is their supervisor, their agency head, whether it’s the sheriff or the chief, potentially the prosecutor. If it rises to the level of something you talked about, there could potentially be a criminal charge there. So we’re talking to the prosecutor, we’re having those conversations. We’ve seen that be very effective.
We’ve seen that be very effective in addressing those issues. Eventually, we’ll get a case probably that rises to the level that we have to consider that citizen complaint and seek a decertification in conjunction by working with the sheriff, the chief, and the prosecutor. So yes, ma’am, we do take those serious.
Every one of them is followed up with. Again, we pass some of those to a local entity or the State Police for investigation because there potentially is a criminal aspect of that. That’s something that we don’t do. We don’t investigate the criminal side. But yes, ma’am, they are taken very seriously.
Representative Dwight Tosh Senator Flowers, you are recognized for a question.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Director, for your testimony. Couple of things. As it relates to what Senator Irvin brought up about citizens complaints, sometimes you have citizens that complain through the local department. Do you all pull those records? Or what happens? Is there an investigation that’s initiated because of an internal or a local?
Chris Chapmond So I probably wouldn’t be aware of those internal complaints unless there was a separation of that officer from the agency. Again, that separation is a key factor in what we base a lot of our decisions on.
So if an officer has multiple complaints and the agency determines that he just doesn’t need to be there– maybe it didn’t rise to a criminal violation, maybe it’s not a policy violation, but he’s just not, shouldn’t be wearing the badge, shouldn’t be doing the job. Once that separation document comes in, then we’re asking those questions.
That’s when I would probably become aware of the complaints, that we would review those complaints, see if it fell under one of those nine reasons for decertification. That would prompt us to have conversations with that chief and sheriff. Does this officer need to be decertified? Do we need to flag his file? But so I’m kind of in on the backside of that. If those complaints are coming to the department, I’m usually made aware of those during that separation process.
Senator Stephanie Flowers And the other question I had was about the process itself. Now, much is done administratively with an administrative hearing, but is there an appeal that can be made by that officer that may be decertified?
Chris Chapmond There is, ma’am. It’s a typical appeal process that would go to, I believe, circuit court. Usually the AG will represent us, the attorney general’s office would represent us in those hearings. But yes, ma’am, there is an appeal process and it’s used. We’ve seen it used numerous times.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Do you have any kind of statistics? Can you offer us any numbers on how many appeals are made?
Chris Chapmond No, ma’am. I didn’t bring that information. But since I’ve been here for the last three years, I can recall probably less than half a dozen. I’ll be glad to provide that information to the body if you would like that. But I believe it’s probably less than half of a dozen.
Senator Stephanie Flowers So, and last, Mr. Chair, I wanted to know, after an officer is decertified, and maybe there are no criminal charges filed against the officer, but depending on the facts and the circumstances, do individual citizens have a right to pull that decertification packet order to pursue civil claims?
Chris Chapmond Yes, ma’am. So our documentation is FOIA’able under the Freedom of Information Act. So yes, a citizen could request and that happens often. We receive a lot of requests for information, very common. So, yes, ma’ am, that exists and it has been used for those purposes, I’m certain.
Senator Stephanie Flowers And so that would probably cause you or some of your staff or maybe the local, either the sheriff or the police chief to come to court and testify, possibly.
Chris Chapmond It could result in that. Yes, ma’am.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Have you ever been in one of those types of appeals?
Chris Chapmond Not as the director. But as a former chief of police, I’ve been in numerous, numerous hearings over my career, ma’am, but not as the director since I’ve held this position.
Senator Stephanie Flowers Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you, Senator. Director, I don’t see any further questions from committee members. Really appreciate you being here today. I’ll just close by saying this. I appreciate you safeguarding and the law enforcement communities across this state by making sure that the bad actors are eliminated and the process that you’ve put in place.
Because there’s always been a saying among law enforcement officers is there’s no one that resents a bad officer more than a good officer. And I can attest to that. And I think you can, too. So we know when an officer’s actions are unwarranted, unjustified, or excessive, they’re going to be scrutinized more greatly than people in comparable walks of life. But that goes with wearing the badge So, with that, you’re excused. And committee members, Senator, do you have anything?
Senator Missy Irvin I’ll just say, March meeting, we’re looking at having a March meeting in Lonoke at the fish hatchery and having a tour of that fish hatchery there. So hopefully we’ll work on getting that going. I talked to the director of the Game and Fish about perhaps doing that next month.
Representative Dwight Tosh That sounds good. Committee members, no further action for this committee, this meeting is adjourned.
