Ark. Code Ann. » Title 17 Chapter 19
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209 (2020)

Violations — Hearings

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The Professional Bail Bond Company and Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board shall investigate any alleged violation of this chapter.
  2. Any person may file a complaint stating facts constituting an alleged violation of this chapter. The complaint shall be signed under penalty of perjury.
  3. All hearings held under this chapter shall be conducted in the same manner as hearings held by the board under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., unless otherwise stated in this chapter.
      1. With respect to the subject of any examination, investigation, or hearing being conducted by the board, the board or the Executive Director of the Professional Bail Bond Company and Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board, with board approval, may subpoena witnesses and administer oaths and affirmations, and examine an individual under oath, and may require and compel the production of records, books, papers, contracts, and other documents.
      2. A professional bail bondsman or professional bail bond company that fails to comply with this section may be subject to penalties under § 17-19-210.
    2. Subpoenas of witnesses shall be served in the same manner as if issued by a circuit court and may be served by certified mail.
    3. If any individual fails to obey a subpoena issued and served pursuant to this section with respect to any matter concerning which he or she may be lawfully interrogated, upon application of the board, the Pulaski County Circuit Court may issue an order requiring the individual to comply with the subpoena and to testify.
    4. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.
    5. Any person willfully testifying falsely under oath to any matter material to any examination, investigation, or hearing shall upon conviction be guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.
  5. Not less than ten (10) days in advance, the board shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing, stating the matters to be considered at the hearing.
  6. The board shall allow any party to the hearing to appear in person and by counsel, to be present during the giving of all evidence, to have a reasonable opportunity to inspect all documentary evidence and to examine witnesses, to present evidence in support of his or her interest, and to have subpoenas issued by the board to compel attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in his or her behalf.
    1. A party may appeal from any order of the board as a matter of right and shall be taken to the Pulaski County Circuit Court by filing written notice of appeal to the court and by filing a copy of the notice with the board.
    2. Within thirty (30) days after filing the copy of a notice of appeal with the board, the board shall make, certify, and deposit in the office of the clerk of the court in which the appeal is pending a full and complete transcript of all proceedings had before the board and all evidence before the board in the matter, including all of the board's files therein.

History. Acts 1989, No. 417, § 1; 1995, No. 827, § 4; 1997, No. 973, § 6; 1999, No. 1477, § 1; 2003, No. 1174, § 1; 2011, No. 218, § 1.

Amendments. The 2011 amendment redesignated former (d)(1) as present (d)(1)(A); inserted “or the Executive Director . . . with board approval” in (d)(1)(A); and added (d)(1)(B).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Former subsection (g)(4), which provided for de novo review, violated the separation of powers doctrine and, therefore, was unconstitutional. Tomerlin v. Nickolich, 342 Ark. 325, 27 S.W.3d 746 (2000).

Counsel.

Bail bond agent did not receive disparate treatment because in the notice of hearing sent to him by the Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board, the agent was advised that he had the right to be represented by counsel; the agent was given the same opportunity to be represented by counsel as were a bonding company and its owner. Hester v. Ark. Prof'l Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd., 2011 Ark. App. 389, 383 S.W.3d 925 (2011).

Improper Action.

Sheriff who was concerned about a bonding company's failure to forfeit a bond should have filed a complaint alleging such violation and the board would have conducted a hearing; the sheriff's unilateral decision to instead accept no further bonds was improper. Holt Bonding Co. v. Nichols, 988 F. Supp. 1232 (W.D. Ark. 1997).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 28× “In the unique circumstances presented here, interveners called upon the circuit court to obtain subpoenas. While I join the majority opinion in denying a writ of certiorari in these circumstances, I do not read the court's opinion to permit a party to circumvent the procedures…”
Tomerlin v. Nickolich, 27 S.W.3d 746 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 8× “Tomerlin filed an appeal in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County alleging (1) that he was entitled to a de novo review of the Board’s decision pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209 (g)(4) (Supp. 1997) 2 ; (2) that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence;…”
Arkansas Prof'l Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd. v. Frawley, 88 S.W.3d 418 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209 (e) (Repl. 2001).”
Holt Bonding Co. v. Nichols, 988 F. Supp. 1232 (W.D. Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 17-19-210 (Michie 1995), which states that the Board may suspend a license for various violations of the rules and regulations governing bail bondsmen and bail bond companies. If Nichols was concerned about HBCI’s failure to forfeit the bonds in the Ford cases, he should have…”
Hester v. Arkansas Prof'l Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd., 383 S.W.3d 925 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-19-209(c) |n(Repl.2001) provides that all hearings held under this chapter shall be conducted in the same manner as hearings held by the board under the Administrative Procedure Act, Ark.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(c): 2 cases
Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000). “In the unique circumstances presented here, interveners called upon the circuit court to obtain subpoenas. While I join the majority opinion in denying a writ of certiorari in these circumstances, I do not read the court's opinion to permit a party to circumvent the procedures…”
Hester v. Arkansas Prof'l Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd., 383 S.W.3d 925 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-19-209(c) |n(Repl.2001) provides that all hearings held under this chapter shall be conducted in the same manner as hearings held by the board under the Administrative Procedure Act, Ark.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(d)(3): 1 case
Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000). “In the unique circumstances presented here, interveners called upon the circuit court to obtain subpoenas. While I join the majority opinion in denying a writ of certiorari in these circumstances, I do not read the court's opinion to permit a party to circumvent the procedures…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(e): 1 case
Arkansas Prof'l Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd. v. Frawley, 88 S.W.3d 418 (Ark. 2002). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209 (e) (Repl. 2001).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(f): 1 case
Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000). “In the unique circumstances presented here, interveners called upon the circuit court to obtain subpoenas. While I join the majority opinion in denying a writ of certiorari in these circumstances, I do not read the court's opinion to permit a party to circumvent the procedures…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(g): 1 case
Oliver v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 13 S.W.3d 156 (Ark. 2000). “In the unique circumstances presented here, interveners called upon the circuit court to obtain subpoenas. While I join the majority opinion in denying a writ of certiorari in these circumstances, I do not read the court's opinion to permit a party to circumvent the procedures…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209(g)(4): 1 case
Tomerlin v. Nickolich, 27 S.W.3d 746 (Ark. 2000). “Tomerlin filed an appeal in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County alleging (1) that he was entitled to a de novo review of the Board’s decision pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-19-209 (g)(4) (Supp. 1997) 2 ; (2) that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence;…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.