Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-129 (2020)
Registered offender working with children prohibited
-
It is unlawful for a sex offender who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997, § 12-12-901 et seq., and who has been assessed as a Level 3 or Level 4 offender to knowingly:
- Engage in an occupation or participate in a volunteer position that requires the sex offender to work or interact primarily and directly with a child under sixteen (16) years of age; or
- Accept work as a self-employed person, an independent contractor, or an employee or agent of a self-employed person or independent contractor that is to be performed at a privately owned daycare facility when the privately owned daycare facility has in its care a child.
- A violation of this section is a Class D felony.
History. Acts 2005, No. 1779, § 1; 2011, No. 1023, § 1; 2013, No. 1125, § 5.
Amendments. The 2011 amendment added (a)(2); and added “knowingly” at the end of the introductory language of (a).
The 2013 amendment substituted “privately owned” for “private” in (a)(2); and substituted “A violation of this section is a” for “A sex offender who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997, § 12-12-901 et seq., and who knowingly violates this section if guilty of” in (b).
Case Notes
Interpretation.
Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee's use of statements the sex offender made during the assessment process, under a grant of immunity, to assess him as a level four offender, did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination under Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 8. Despite subsection (a) of this section, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the assessment and ultimate classification of a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act are not criminal in nature; and one's privilege against self-incrimination may only be violated where one's own statements are used against one in a proceeding criminal in nature. Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. 205, 307 S.W.3d 6 (2009).
Circuit court's finding that defendant failed to comply as a sex offender under subsection (a) of this section because defendant worked at a daycare was against the preponderance of the evidence, as evidence demonstrated that defendant's work at the daycare was carpentry work that was in no way work or interaction with children under 16. Newman v. State, 2011 Ark. 112, 380 S.W.3d 395 (2011) (decision under prior law).