Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/23/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB25 | |
| Presentation: Community Perspectives on Crime | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 23, 2019
9:00 a.m.
9:00:24 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Ed Mercer, Chief of Police, Juneau Police Department; David
Campbell, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department; Michael
Duxbury, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety;
Senator David Wilson; Representative Matt Claman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Steve Dutra, Chief of Police, North Pole; Heath Scott,
Chief, Haines Police Department.
SUMMARY
SB 25 EXTEND BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
SB 25 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note by the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
PRESENTATION: COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the day. She
indicated she hoped to move SB 25 out of committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 25
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Dental Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
9:01:27 AM
Co-Chair Wilson indicated there was a new fiscal note for
SB 25. She explained that the fiscal note regarding just
the board reflected travel costs of $33,600. There was also
an expense of $1,500 for services. In the previous version
of the fiscal note, she thought it did not reflect expenses
having to do with regulations and other things the board
did. In the revised fiscal note on the back page, it showed
incoming revenue, direct expenditures, indirect
expenditures, and total expenses. It also required by
statute that each board was self-sufficient, allowing them
to adjust licensing fees based on gains and deficits. She
clarified that there was a cost to each of the boards for
the review and development of regulations.
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to report SB 25 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 25 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
^PRESENTATION: COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME
9:03:27 AM
Co-Chair Wilson invited the testifiers to the table. She
explained that the committee had heard from the Department
of Law and other departments. She wanted to hear from
people out in the communities. She indicated wanting to
hear about how things were going in communities and
anything that might make law enforcement's jobs easier.
STEVE DUTRA, CHIEF OF POLICE, NORTH POLE (via
teleconference), reported some of the largest impacts
resulting from the passage of SB 91 had to do with efforts
made in his area to crack down on drug use. He had seen a
drastic impact to arrests and apprehension of drug dealers.
He specifically noted the increase to the amounts in
possession of serious drugs to .5 grams and the reduction
to misdemeanors for possession of any 1A or 2A drug. The
changes were significant because alterations from felony to
misdemeanor caused the drug dealers and users to not want
to turn in their drug dealers which hugely impacted being
able to apprehend the "Big Fish." He reported that the
issue was a statewide problem based on his conversations
with other chiefs within the state.
Chief Dutra reported that bail schedules set by the courts
had caused problems with processing. Getting people back on
the streets quickly made it difficult to keep them
incarcerated when they were causing a significant amount of
trouble. He also pointed out issues to do with sexual
assault and sexual abuse of a minor. Some of the
legislation in front of the committee, including HB 52
[Legislation introduced by the governor in 2019 regarding
crimes, sex crimes, sentencing, and parole], HB 49
[Legislation passed in 2019 regarding crimes, sentencing,
drugs, theft, and reports], and HB 14 [Legislation passed
in 2019 regarding assault, sex offenses, and sentence
aggravators] were critical. He also noted SB 3 [Legislation
introduced in 2019 regarding, harassment, sex offender
registry, and sex motivated crimes] and SB 20 [Legislation
introduced in 2019 by the governor regarding the operating
budget]. They all had an impact on statewide efforts to
reduce major problems the state was having with sexual
assault of minors and sexual assaults across the state.
Although he did not have many studies to support his
previous statement, he had been told by several chiefs
within the Alaska State Troopers that it was a large
statewide problem.
Chief Dutra discussed HB 79 regarding the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS) defined benefit currently in front
of finance. There was a huge impact on trying to fill its
ranks. He concluded his testimony.
9:06:37 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked about the drug issues
in his community. She wondered what the drug of choice was.
Chief Dutra responded that he was seeing heroin and
opioids. There was some trickling back of the
methamphetamines.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the issue with the current bail
schedule. Chief Dutra responded that bail schedules were
set across the state as a standard. Many of the schedules
were releasing folks on RO [Released on recognizance]. He
indicated that the chief from Fairbanks was seeing repeat
offenders on a single day causing issues for officers and
increasing call volumes.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if he was talking about pre-trial
where an assessment was done that could allow for someone
to reoffend a second time and still get out on their own
recognizance. Chief Dutra replied, "Yes, that's correct."
9:08:27 AM
ED MERCER, CHIEF OF POLICE, JUNEAU POLICE DEPARTMENT,
appreciated the opportunity to address the committee. He
had been in law enforcement for about 26 years. He spent a
good part of his career in Juneau. He invited his deputy to
introduce himself.
9:09:18 AM
DAVID CAMPBELL, LIEUTENANT, JUNEAU POLICE DEPARTMENT,
introduced himself and indicated he was a lifelong Alaskan
born in Fairbanks. He had been in law enforcement in Juneau
for about 24 years. He had a bachelor's degree and master's
degree and was a graduate of the 2016 FBI National Academy.
Chief Mercer provided a high overview of the crime the
police department was seeing in Juneau. He reported that
from 2015 to 2017 he saw an 84 percent increase in part 1
crimes. He indicated that of the part 1 crimes, burglary
and burglary and theft were the high water marks for the
city. He reported a slight decline in 2018. Some of the
contributing factors included the national opioid epidemic.
He was seeing high volumes of heroin and methamphetamine
coming into the community and users contributing. In terms
of crime statistics, the Juneau Police had been working
double time dealing with repeat offenders. He was asked
frequently by members of the public whether there were more
criminals on the street. He did not believe there were more
criminals. He thought the department had done a good job of
identifying individuals committing crimes and working with
prosecutors to address the issues. Many of the repeat
offenses were burglaries and thefts. He continued that one
of the issues he was running into was a lack of prosecutors
in Juneau. He noted that prior to 2014, there were 4
district attorneys in the area. Since then, the number was
reduced to 3 district attorneys and a reduction in support
staff. Many cases sent to the district attorney's office
were being dismissed. There might 15 cases against the same
individual over similar activities. He also highlighted
that once the police identified the person committing a
crime, they learned that the offender had conditions of
release from the courts, they were being taken to jail and
released within the hour. More citizens were being
victimized within Juneau.
9:12:36 AM
Lieutenant Campbell wanted to provide some real world
examples. He thought it was one thing to say that people
were reoffending over and over. Some of the press releases
the Juneau Police Department had done recently reflected
the non-sensical reality of what was going on. He reported
an incident the previous December where one of the local
high users of police services, someone the department had
dealt with frequently, was involved. The suspect was
arrested for a series of burglaries in August. On his way
back from the court house he kicked out the rear window of
the trooper car that was transporting him and tried to
escape. The suspect had serious charges against him
including his attempted escape. The police found him hiding
under a car a couple of hours later. He continued that he
was released from the court to meet with his attorney on
December 12, 2018. He was told to be back at the jail at
2:00 P.M. He did not return, and the police ended up having
multiple foot pursuits with him until he was apprehended.
Lieutenant Campbell spoke of another case in 2016 where a
man was brutally assaulted in downtown Juneau and was
medevaced to Seattle due to facial injuries. The press
release indicated that the suspect was in the downtown area
and arrested for assault in the second degree. He was also
under court-ordered conditions of release for assault in
the third degree dated 3 days prior. The man had committed
a felony assault, was released from jail, and thereafter
assaulted a Juneau resident causing the victim to be
medevaced to Seattle.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked what aspects of SB 91 [the
omnibus crime bill legislation passed in 2016] or bail
conditions set by the courts applied to the situation in
his last example from 2016. Lieutenant Campbell responded
that the man was arrested for a felony and was released
within days. Under normal circumstances, given the level of
his offense, he would have been held.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the release occurred as a result
of the risk tool. She was trying to figure out why the
incident happened. She was aware that SB 91 was released in
stages. She asked for clarification. Lieutenant Campbell
responded that he did not look at the specifics as to why
the person was released. It was obvious to the police that
the person had committed a very serious crime and within a
matter of days was released and committed another serious
crime. He could investigate the matter further and report
back to the committee.
Vice-Chair Johnston thought it would be interesting to
know, as the legislature was trying to figure out what was
really needed. Lieutenant Campbell commented that he was
providing examples of people who reoffended. He had his
staff pull some numbers prior to the committee hearing to
demonstrate what the police department was dealing with. He
reported that in the last 3 years from 2016 through 2018,
in Juneau there had been 117 different people charged with
violating conditions of release. In other words, they were
released but did not do what they were supposed to. In some
cases, there were multiple charges of violating conditions
of release. For example, in 2019 a person was arrested on
February 26th for resisting arrest and interfering with a
police officer. On March 1st, the same person was arrested
for violating conditions of release and seven days later
for disorderly conduct for challenging a person to fight.
The Juneau Police Department was seeing multiple people
repeatedly committing crimes, being release, and
recommitting crimes. The department had the stats to prove
it.
9:18:11 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to the first example Lieutenant
Campbell had provided. He wondered if SB 91 had anything to
do with the individual being released to visit his lawyer.
Lieutenant Campbell did not know the answer to his
question. He noted that he was simply reporting the things
that caused more work for police officers in the field that
could be rectified.
Vice-Chair Ortiz wanted to know what could be done about
reducing crime. He wondered if Lieutenant Campbell was
saying that nothing could be done about the problem.
Lieutenant Campbell responded in the negative. He had never
in his career seen people being released so early which was
changing the dynamic between law enforcement and
reoffenders. He suggested higher sentences or imposing a
limitation on the courts' ability to release people in
custody. He indicated there were criminals in the field
that were mocking officers, knowing they would be out of
jail quickly.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for clarity. Lieutenant Campbell
responded that it was possible that the recidivism rate
could go down but, the crime rate could go up if there was
a small number of people committing several crimes. He
reported that in Juneau the police department tracked
people who were considered to be high users of services. He
cited a dip in crime in 2018, at which time the frequent
reoffenders were behind bars. He noted the opioid epidemic
across the nation. He suggested there was no such thing as
a functional heroin addict. He was seeing a very large
spike in property crimes due to people trying to fill their
drug habit.
9:22:17 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston spoke to the notion of recidivism. she
noted the prison in Juneau. She wondered if the police
department had statistics for people released from the
prison who were not from Juneau but reoffended in Juneau
after their release. Chief Mercer indicated the department
did not have the data but, he thought many of the
individuals released on probation reoffended.
Representative Carpenter asked if the department had a
process where it took individual cases or data to the court
system to work through process improvements
collaboratively. Lieutenant Campbell responded that the
police department worked with the prosecutor's office.
Recently, the changes in the structure of sentencing was
bogging down the prosecutor's office with more cases. The
opportunity for dismissal was higher than it had been in
the past. Offenders were no longer as willing to take a
plea deal because of the dismissal rate. Many good viable
cases were being dismissed due to a lack of resources. He
asked the chief to comment about the dismissal rate.
Chief Mercer received data from a police officer that in
one jurisdiction 81 percent of the cases submitted were
dismissed. He believed 19 cases were taken. Going back 3
years, the same jurisdiction had about 40 percent of the
cases taken up by the prosecutor's office. He did not have
the information for Juneau.
Lieutenant Campbell added that the problem with dismissing
a viable case was that the offender was not held
accountable and the victim did not receive justice. The
offender never reached the point of having a criminal
history to rise to the higher levels of accountability. The
Juneau police worked with its prosecutor to inform them
that a seemingly low level case was important to prosecute.
It had been helpful working with the state's prosecutors to
enable them to make appropriate arguments in court.
9:27:02 AM
Representative Carpenter suggested that if tougher laws
were in place, more criminals would be behind bars. There
would be fewer repeat offenders and less need for
prosecutors. He asked if his argument made sense.
Lieutenant Campbell agreed with the representative. He was
uncertain of the point of view of time.
Representative Carpenter wondered if adding more
prosecutors would be a band aide on the problem. The
problem was the criminals were not where they were supposed
to be for a reason. He wondered about the 80 percent. He
wondered who owned the problem. He wondered if it was the
prosecutors, law enforcement, or the courts.
Lieutenant Campbell responded that the different entities
needed to work together. He agreed with the underlying
mentality of SB 91 that if a person was a drug addict, they
should be treated for drug addiction. One of the problems
was that there was no place to divert people. Therefore,
people were committing crimes repeatedly in communities
which was why the system was dealing with the same people
repeatedly.
Co-Chair Wilson thought Juneau was a little different than
Anchorage. She asked if Juneau had its own prosecutors
prosecuting misdemeanors. In Fairbanks they [the Fairbanks
Police Department] made the arrest but everything else went
to the state. She revisited her question about Juneau
having its own prosecutors and whether they only prosecuted
misdemeanors.
Chief Mercer responded that Juneau was fortunate to have a
city attorney's office that dealt with misdemeanor type
crimes. Regarding pre-trial, he believed the same matrix
was used to determine how a person was released on bail and
dealt with further through the criminal justice system.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if a backlog remained because of not
having an additional district attorney. Chief Mercer
responded that she was accurate. It was impactful because
the district attorney's office was focused on all the
felony cases. All the misdemeanor cases were being pushed
off to the city prosecutors who also struggled with
resources.
Co-Chair Wilson suggested that if the city did not take
them on [the misdemeanor cases], the backlog of cases would
be even greater. Chief Mercer responded, "That would be
accurate."
Co-Chair Wilson thought Anchorage would concur.
Representative Carpenter asked what process was in place to
address the reoffending individuals. He understood that
multiple entities were involved in the criminal
administration process. He was concerned with not truly
addressing the problem with crime. He wanted to know what
needed to be done to fix the problem. He wondered who was
responsible. He did not think people were engaging in the
improvement process. He asked if a process of improvement
existed. Chief Mercer responded that it existed, but not to
the extent the representative mentioned. The Juneau Police
Department worked very closely with prosecutors to identify
reoffending individuals. The police department had not
combined efforts with the court system.
9:33:19 AM
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that several of the related
entities would be participating in a meeting together in
the House Finance Committee later in the week. She hoped
they would discuss the missing links and how to avoid
working in silos. She mentioned that often the legislature
made changes without all the necessary information. She
wanted to bridge the gap. She admitted that, at times, the
legislature was guilty of working within its' own silo.
Representative Tilton brought up what had been said about
the police being mocked. She had heard the same thing doing
ride-a-longs with other police agencies. She thought there
was an attitude amongst offenders. She asked if Lieutenant
Campbell thought there had been an attitude shift, what
might have powered the change, and when it began.
Lieutenant Campbell believed that the attitude of offenders
had changed. He noted that more officers were having to use
force because of being assaulted. Since the beginning of
the year, three officers within his department had been
assaulted requiring them to go on light duty. He thought
the negative attitudes were increasing. He noted that more
individuals ran from the police to escape. Although he
could not pin point when the attitude shifted, he confirmed
an overall attitude change towards officers.
Representative Josephson asked if either the chief or the
lieutenant attended bail hearings. Lieutenant Campbell
responded that he did not. Representative Josephson asked
if his officers attended the bail hearings. Lieutenant
Campbell responded that they did not typically attend bail
hearings. He explained that once police officers
investigated a case and turned it over to the prosecutor,
they were no longer involved in the process unless asked to
participate.
Representative Josephson asked because sometimes there was
a presumption to overcome OR [Own recognizance] in certain
circumstances. He mentioned that regarding burglaries, at
the peak of the crime wave in Anchorage the crimes were
simply not investigated. The police department did not
respond to calls because there were so many of them. He
asked what the practice was by the Juneau Police
Department. In Anchorage, regarding burglaries, at the peak
of the crime wave, the police department did not
investigate all the crimes. Chief Mercer responded that the
Juneau Police Department investigated all cases. The
reoffenders helped to double their work.
9:37:46 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard noted that part of the
administration's crime bill package related to stricter
drug crime laws. She thought she was hearing the lieutenant
and chief say that most repeat offenders were the ones
using drugs. She asked if the stricter laws being proposed
by the administration would help to get the repeat
offenders behind bars. Chief Mercer thought reclassifying
drug offenders back to the felony level would help
immensely and would help the offenders to get help.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard conveyed an experience of a
friend in Juneau who was a business owner who was
burglarized then stalked. She professed the revolving door
for repeat offenders had to stop. She hoped the committee
would be hearing the administration's course of crime bills
soon.
9:40:05 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston inquired about recreational drug use
amounts versus drug dealer amounts. She asked how the
department handled the different categories and
delineations. Chief Mercer responded that in an officer
came across an individual with paraphernalia with residue,
they would not typically make an arrest initially. The
police would work with a crime lab to evaluate whether
there was enough to justifying a pursuit. Personal use
typically fell under Marijuana use as a gauge. When it came
to more dangerous drugs, being in possession of any
quantity was handled more severely. Possession rather than
quantity was used as a gauge with more dangerous drugs.
Lieutenant Campbell added that the distribution included
intent which was more difficult to prove in court.
Possession was a much easier charge to deal with from a
prosecutor's stand point. He and the chief had worked
narcotics in the early days of their careers and were
familiar with the outlook of the narcotics world. Another
change the department had experienced with drugs going from
a felon down to a misdemeanor was that prior to 2016,
possession of more serious drugs was a felony. After SB 91
the charge was a misdemeanor. He had seen news reports from
Anchorage and Juneau about intravenous drug users in the
public on sidewalks. It was a misdemeanor charge. He did
not ever remember seeing that when the charge was a felony.
Prior to 2016, someone in possession of a harder drug was
automatically sent to jail. Presently, if the department
found someone in possession of a small amount, it merely
required an appearance in court. He concluded that how the
department dealt with drugs changed dramatically because of
the lowering of classifications of them.
Vice-Chair Johnston spoke of a huge meth issue which
eventually shifted to heroin use in the late 90s. She
wanted to better understand the population of drug users.
She brought up 2015 versus prior to 2015. Chief Mercer was
unsure if there were more users out on the streets.
However, he could attest to the larger impact of the use of
the more dangerous drugs. He commented that it was
impactful in Juneau. Vice-Chair Johnston spoke of an
earlier time when hard drugs were out on the streets and
the impact.
9:45:59 AM
Representative Josephson spoke of a case he was previously
involved with in Point Hope resulting in a full trial on
cocaine possession. Currently the offence would be an "A"
misdemeanor. As he understood the law, the first 2 offenses
were not jail-able. The third offense was jail-able as an
"A" misdemeanor. He wondered if an officer looked at a
crime as "not worth their time." He suggested that one way
to leverage a person into treatment would be to have a
jail-able threat. Chief Mercer responded that one of his
concerns as the chief of police was motivating his
workforce to continue to do their jobs. He thought the
scenario the representative mentioned might happen on
occasion. His officers tried to address each issue taking
necessary actions to make good cases. His officers were
using their discretion to apply the law based on their
observations.
Representative LeBon asked if there had been a decrease of
hard drug use with the legalization of Marijuana. Chief
Mercer responded that in his experience in dealing with
hard drug users, they preferred hard drugs. He thought it
was safe to say that not all Marijuana users used hard
drugs, but all hard drug users tended to use Marijuana. He
had not seen the legalization of Marijuana have much of an
impact on the use of harder drugs and other ramifications
dealing with the residual crime of people trying to feed
their habit.
9:49:54 AM
Representative Knopp revisited the example of the guy in
jail who was let out to visit his attorney and never
returned to jail. He asked who allowed the guy to walk out
and visit his attorney. He wondered if SB 91 contributed to
the incident. He was trying to better understand the need
for changing SB 91. Lieutenant Campbell responded that the
guy kicked out the window escaping from the transport.
Later he was released by the court to meet with his
attorney. His release was court ordered and required him to
return by 2:00 p.m. which he did not do. Based on the
offender's history and activities, his actions should not
have been a surprise.
Representative Knopp commented that the judicial system had
changed significantly. When he was young judges decided
penalties of cases. He thought currently, penalties were
negotiated before ever reaching the court room. He did not
understand the rational for that individual's release. He
still wondered if SB 91 influenced the offender's release
to visit his attorney. He was struggling to fix SB 91.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that unless everyone was at the
table to discuss a fix for the problem, it would be
difficult to fix the problem. There was not a fault of an
individual or agency. There were over 5,000 individuals
currently in pre-trial status sitting outside of jail who
would likely reoffend. She suggested finding out where in
the process the system was breaking down. She opined that
SB 91 changed many things at once. There was a vast number
of aspects to SB 91 which made it difficult to collect
data. She was going to try to get everyone together in the
same room.
Representative LeBon asked if it had been an error on
someone's part to release the guy to meet with his
attorney. He wondered if it had to do with SB 91 or
someone's bad judgement. Chief Mercer could not speak to
the case. However, he did relay that the average person
released on bail was likely to reoffend. The police
department was dealing with several challenges daily.
Representative LeBon asked for more details of the case
example and whether SB 91 had to do with the individual's
release. Lieutenant Campbell was unaware of the specific
details of the case. The example was not specifically
supplied to illustrate the negatives of SB 91. Rather, it
was used to show that the Juneau Police Department was
dealing with the same people often reoffending. Every time
a person reoffended, a new victim was created.
Co-Chair Wilson reminded members that at the beginning of
SB 91 there was mandatory own-recognizance which no longer
existed in law. It was fixed in other legislation.
9:59:08 AM
Representative LeBon was trying to make the point that
perhaps the law changed since the incident provided in the
example. He suggested that perhaps the individual had been
mandated to be released to see his attorney. He thought it
would have been better for someone to evaluate whether it
was a good idea to release a jailed individual. He
suggested bringing an attorney to the jail for a meeting.
Co-Chair Wilson mentioned that the risk assessment was
being evaluated to see if additions needed to be made. She
stated that there was a process in place.
Representative Carpenter recognized that the police
department's job was to recognize and deal with bad things
happening in a community. He thought officers of the police
force got to know the habitual offenders in their
communities. He asked if there was evidence that the
state's reformation process or drug treatment process was
affective.
Lieutenant Campbell replied that hearing an offender's
success story was one of the best things to happen on the
job. He spoke of a campaign called the "Year of Kindness."
Part of the event was engaging with a local re-entry
coalition. The coalition had success stories periodically
that were posted on Facebook. In his experience as a
narcotics officer, a person typically had a reason for
choosing the path of addiction which was why he supported
increased penalties for drug possession charges. He thought
giving a reason for a person to change their lifestyle was
crucial. He believed treatment was key to a person's
success and, the state needed more of it.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if either officer had any input
in the pre-trial risk tool. Chief Mercer responded, "No."
Vice-Chair Johnston asked Chief Mercer if he saw
opportunities, going forward, to be involved in the pre-
trial risk tool. Chief Mercer answered that he had not been
presented with an opportunity to be more involved with pre-
trial enforcement. He noted that on the onset of pre-trial
enforcement he tried to work as close as possible [with the
court] about expressing concerns about reoffenders.
10:03:28 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the department had seen the
pre-trial risk tool. Lieutenant Campbell indicated he had
seen it. Prior to pre-trial coming into effect in January
2018, the former mayor of Juneau had put together the
Public Safety Task Force, which he had sat on. A person
from pre-trial came out to show the department the pre-
trial matrix Co-Chair Johnston was referring to. He
reported having monthly meetings with patrol officers and
pre-trial officers and, they were integrating very well.
The communication had really helped. He had heard of
frustration where the matrix tool had been used for a
defendant who scored 10 out of 10 but remained under O.R.
release. He thought the matrix could be improved and was
interested in being involved in the process.
Chief Mercer indicated that his biggest concern was keeping
his workforce motivated. He wanted his officers to be
responsive to citizens if they were being victimized. Also,
he noted the department experiencing a workload double-up.
Law enforcement was already struggling with filling
positions. He opined that the drug classification would be
a good tool. He noted that the pre-trial bail schedule and
holding onto individuals to avoid them reoffending were
worthy things to consider. He suggested that the pretrial
bail schedule should be changed to allow for longer
oversight.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked the presenters for their time and
work.
10:06:19 AM
HEATH SCOTT, CHIEF, HAINES POLICE DEPARTMENT (via
teleconference), introduced himself. He wanted to affirm
aspects of Chief Mercer's and Lieutenant Campbell's
testimonies. He noted seeing some of the same problems as
the previous testifiers with a lack of resources in the
prosecutor's office. He conveyed that a lack of travel
resources for a prosecutor to travel to rural areas had
become an issue. He reported the district attorney's office
in Juneau going through some transitions and, he wanted to
be supportive of that team. He spoke of wanting prosecutors
in rural communities to be able to adjudicate crimes. He
hoped to see prosecutors that represented Haines, Skagway,
and the outlying areas better represented in his community.
The district attorney's office had reported a lack of
travel funding. He thought travel needed to be supported
for prosecutions in rural locations.
Chief Scott agreed with Chief Mercer that there needed to
be a reevaluation of misdemeanor sentences specifically
misconduct involving controlled substances in the 4th and
5th degree. He conveyed that the use of small quantities in
rural communities had a large effect. He thought a
reevaluation of the misdemeanor sentences would go a long
way and supporting some context for attacking problems
earlier. He also noted that the risk tool that was being
used did not take into account out-of-state offenses,
processes currently being dealt with by the courts but not
yet adjudicated out. He relayed he had only been in Alaska
for about 3 years. He was originally from the East Coast
and had spent 23 years in law enforcement. He was concerned
with the rate of attrition - the acquisition rates and
retention rates that the chiefs were feeling around the
state. He supported the way of a defined benefit program
for officers to aid with retention. He thought it was an
important subject that needed to be addressed long-term.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Chief Scott to help the committee
understand the process of an arrest in Haines. Chief Scott
replied it depended on the circumstances. There was a
district court and a magistrate in Haines. Often when the
magistrate was not available in court there was a
magistrate from Yakutat who Haines used. The officers in
Haines dealt with misdemeanor cases and sometimes had to
put on their prosecutor hats. The police department was
supported by the district attorney's office for larger
issues. If an individual was seen in court from an
arraignment on a serious charge and they were unable to
make bond or bail, the Haines Police Department would get a
transport request order and, the individual would be
transported to the Lemon Creek Facility in Juneau.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the individual would be held in
Haines until their transfer. She wondered if Haines had a
community jail. Chief Scott responded that Haines had a
rural jail facility, 1 of 15 in the state. He believed the
facility was classified to hold people up to 14 days. After
14 days, the department had to transfer them to a larger
jail facility. The department often stretched out the
number of days up to 10. It was an intermediate solution.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if a felony court case had to take
place in Juneau or Haines. She wondered if a judge would
have to travel to Haines. Chief Scott responded that it
depended, he had seen both. If there was a case heard by
the Alaska Supreme Court that supplied the defendant and
the defendant's prosecutor some measure of flexibility as
to where they wanted the case to be heard.
10:13:18 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about his concerns surrounding
the travel budget for prosecuting attorneys. She wondered
if interviews had been conducted via teleconference or in
person.
Chief Scott responded he had seen both. The department
leveraged technology very heavily when it came to support
through the prosecutor's office. Most cases in Haines
District Court if a judge was not present, a judge would be
on the phone. If a prosecutor was not present, because of
the remote location, they would be on the phone. Haines had
video conferencing capability. He had not seen it used in
the 3 years of his tenure. He had been assured by the court
that it was functioning, and the equipment was usable. He
had advised the courts of his opinion. It was his opinion
that justice was not served appropriately when the state
was committing resources over the phone. He understood that
it was a means of doing business, specifically because of
remote locations and lack of funds throughout the state. He
thought it was important for a crime suspect, when being
adjudicated, to feel the measure of justice, see the judge
hearing the case, see the prosecutor, and feel the burden
they were under, so they did not engage in committing
crimes continuously. He thought they needed to see the
error of their ways. He did not see a support system in
rural locations in Alaska, especially when using technology
over the phone.
Representative Josephson referred to HB 312 [Legislation
passed in 2018 relating to crimes, criminal procedure,
controlled substances, and bail] restored the authority for
judges across the state to consider out-of-state offenses.
He did not understand how things were integrated into the
risk-assessment score. He asked if Chief Scott had been
before the magistrate as a proxy for the district attorney,
whether the district attorney was on the phone, and whether
out-of-state offenses were brought up.
Chief Scott responded in the affirmative. He had advised
the magistrate that the tool was new and had limitations.
Magistrates had taken the limitations into consideration
about 90 percent of the time. They factored in the tool
being new, and the significance of the individual's
history.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if Chief Scott concurred with what
had been reported by the Juneau Police Department about the
same individuals reoffending versus other individuals
committing crimes.
Chief Scott had seen larger rates of recidivism in his
local communities. He thought it had to do with the
reduction in some of the offenses. He revisited misconduct
involving a controlled substance in the 4th degree as a
Class A misdemeanor and misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the 5th degree as a Class B misdemeanor.
Often, he had heard people say that they were getting a
free pass not taking the issue seriously. He did not know
if it was a message anyone wanted to send to communities.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated there was someone from the Alaska
State Troopers available to testify. Co-Chair Wilson asked
Chief Dutra if he concurred with earlier testimony. Chief
Dutra responded in the affirmative.
10:19:49 AM
MICHAEL DUXBURY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, introduced himself and indicated he had been an
employee for the department for over 30 years.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Duxbury to comment on changes,
good and bad, and on how they have affected troopers across
the state. The committee was trying to find out what issues
existed.
Mr. Duxbury reported the department felt that much of what
was in the governor's crime package was a great beginning
to addressing the crime problems in Alaska. He had been an
investigator, supervisor, and commander of drug enforcement
in the State of Alaska and the Alaska Bureau of
Investigations. He agreed with everything the chiefs had
presented. He thought they supplied a snapshot of what was
happening in Alaska's small communities. He wanted to
address the issue of small individual locations thought to
be drug houses. They created a large disturbance in
neighborhoods affecting quality of life in Alaska. He
thought many legislators received complaints on the issue.
Returning to the previous drug possession and distribution
limits would be instrumental in helping the troopers to
better control of the quality of life issues happening in
Alaska's neighborhoods. He also suggested reinstating the
ability for troopers to use the discretion within the
pre-SB 91 system to have a better impact on what was
happening in communities. After the passage of SB 91, drug
enforcement in Alaska involving a collaborative effort with
federal and local governments were focusing on strategical
amounts coming into Alaska's communities. Opioids and meth
presented the largest drug problems in the state. He noted
that fentanyl was a problem as well. Although meth was not
being produced as much, there was still a large
distribution in the state. Returning to the possession and
distribution limits the state had before would provide
discretion and the tools to get a handle on the issues
mentioned.
Mr. Duxbury had not been exposed to the bail schedule tool.
However, he had seen a certain percentage of people going
through the revolving door; being released and reoffending.
10:24:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilson explained that one of the reasons for the
risk tool was to make it more equitable for people who were
unable to pay. She wondered if there was a correlation
between people who were able to pay bail versus people who
were without resources. She wondered about any available
statistics on the two categories of individuals
reoffending.
Mr. Duxbury hesitated to weigh in on her questions. He
spoke about having experience within the drug unit and the
Alaska Bureau of Investigations. Public safety was a
concept with components that helped to improve happy,
healthy, and whole communities. He believed that all the
individuals involved in trying to make a difference needed
to collaborate. He had not been included in any discussion
about the effects of SB 91. He conveyed that a small amount
of marijuana and a small amount of fentanyl were very
different. He thought collaboration was needed on all
levels to facilitate making decisions that helped the
population.
10:27:39 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if there were statistics on
recidivism for people awaiting pre-trial, under
supervision, or on electronic monitoring. It would be
interesting to find out if one circumstance worked better
than another.
Mr. Duxbury believed there was something put out by the
University of Alaska. Their perspective about recidivism
rates was that it had not changed much in years. He
disagreed, as police officers and troopers in the field
were seeing people going through a revolving door. In other
words, individuals were being arrested, brought to an
arraignment, and within hours of arraignment they were
released back onto the streets. He indicated that offenders
in the back of police cars were calculating the number of
hours before they would be released. He was unsure if the
revolving door he was talking about related to recidivism -
when someone was convicted, served their sentence, and
reoffended.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that recidivism only applied to
someone who had already been convicted. She was referring
to someone who had broken the law and reoffended prior to a
conviction.
Representative LeBon noted that harder drugs were finding
their way into Alaska. He wondered if Mr. Duxbury knew how
drugs were making their way into the state.
Mr. Duxbury responded that the department was dealing with
drug trafficking organizations and individuals that brought
drugs directly across the border into the state. He
reported often dealing with people coming directly from
Mexico to Alaska. Another issue was that in Alaska a person
could make a greater amount of money on the same volume of
drugs than in other states. A significant amount of money
brought half of the normal supply. He noted Alaska was
seeing a lot of money leaving the state, as dealing drugs
was a money-making enterprise. It was also a misogynistic
enterprise because it enslaved young women. It was
devastating to the State of Alaska. He reported that in
2016 the DEAs drug threat assessment showed that the number
one driver of theft, burglary, and property crime was
heroin. The number two driver was methamphetamines. He also
cited that the number one driver of person-on-person crime
was methamphetamine, and the number two driver was heroin.
Both drugs were prevalent in Alaska. He reported that in
the department's drug seizures he usually found 5 times the
number of methamphetamines than heroin. Both drugs were
devastating the state.
10:32:16 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the impact of black heroin
on the state. Mr. Duxbury responded that he saw both black
(tar) and brown heroin. He claimed that about 99 percent of
what he saw coming into Alaska came across the border from
Mexico.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about fentanyl in Alaska. Mr.
Duxbury responded that the drug was primarily coming in
from China.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if drugs were coming in via the
airports. Mr. Duxbury responded that it was easy to say
that Alaska was a five border state. Some came in by
shipment vessels, package, and postal via air. He did not
see many drugs coming in by the road system. The airports
were major conduits for distribution of drugs in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Johnston was glad to hear that Mr. Duxbury
thought all parties should be working collaboratively on
the issue of crime. As part of the administration, she
asked if conversations were ensuing amongst the different
entities within the system.
Mr. Duxbury responded that prosecutors were very important
because the general crime rate had increased. He thought it
would be appropriate to have more state prosecutors. He
noted that in 2017 the troopers embarked on a collaborative
effort with the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) in such a way that, where ever they went in the
United States, other people were taking notes. He supplied
examples of collaborative efforts between the Department of
Public Safety and DHSS and noted their success.
Co-Chair Wilson thought the answer was, "No." She asked
when the last time was that all the parties got together to
collaborate. Mr. Duxbury responded in the negative from his
perspective. The current presentation and similar
presentations were helpful.
Vice-Chair Johnston was anxiously awaiting to hear from the
governor's office. She was doing a shout out to the
administration to encourage the departments to have some
robust discussions on the topic.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that if the department was not
having a discussion with all the parties to fix the
problem, it would be difficult for the legislature to get
tough on crime. She brought up the point that currently
there were several unsentenced individuals. She wondered
about fixing the system, not just adding more stringent
punishments.
Mr. Duxbury understood that there were several components
trying to come together including systems, funding, and
leadership within the administration. It was the reason the
crime package was introduced. The governor's office had
created a position for someone to try to coordinate all the
parts. He was at a supervisor level and knew the realities
and inertia created by everyone putting their head down to
work a job was not always as wide scoped and encompassing
as desired. He thought the new commissioner brought a
different perspective to the department including the
notion of victim advocacy which helped bring change the
department's ability to look at how it provided services.
He thought it was going on throughout the administration.
He was hopeful about being collaborative for the benefit of
Alaskans.
Co-Chair Wilson expressed her disappointment in the
entities working as a system.
10:41:17 AM
Representative Josephson pointed out that one of the things
that concerned him about SB 91 was the movement towards a
Class C felony on drug possession. It was his understanding
that an individual who was a recreational cocaine user was
committing a Class A misdemeanor. It used to be a Class C
felony and the governor would return it to a Class C
felony. He had a certain state of alarm about recreational
cocaine use. He was five times more alarmed at the thought
of recreational heroin use. He did not believe a person
could recreationally dabble with heroin without developing
a problem. He understood how going back to a Class C felony
might force someone into treatment but, he wondered if
Alaska had the bed space. He wondered if the administration
was committed to investing in bed space to help with the
healthcare crisis.
Mr. Duxbury replied that most of what Representative
Josephson asked was beyond his scope. He had been
collaborating with DHSS traveling with them to 19
communities working on special projects. He was aware that
it was one of the impetuses DHSS was putting forward. He
went back to the term "recreational." He opined that the
average person in Alaska did not believe that hard drugs
could be played with recreationally. The average person in
the room knew that hard drugs had terrible ramifications.
He agreed beds were a problem, but it was not something he
could properly address.
Co-Chair Wilson invited Representative Josephson to bring
his question back to the committee the following day when
the committee would hear from DHSS.
Representative Merrick noted Mr. Duxbury's remarks that
drug operations were money-making machines and that Alaskan
females had fallen victim to some of the operations. She
wondered if he was talking about local females who were
becoming drug addicts and falling into a trap or whether he
was talking about sex trafficking being brought into the
state.
Mr. Duxbury appreciated her question, as it provided him
the opportunity to discuss sex crime bills that were part
of the governor's crime package. He had seen people
enslaved by their addiction then taken advantage of by the
people working an operation. He had also seen people get
revictimized because of their offenders getting out. It had
created a road block for some women to want to trust the
troopers and supply information to take down an operation.
He noted 6-9 women bringing drugs into the state and them
being treated as "suitcases."
Representative Sullivan-Leonard was aware the governor was
working on a crime package to address many of the issues
that had been discussed in the current meeting. She thought
it was disingenuous to have a discussion that suggested the
governor and his administration had not been addressing the
various issues around crime. She was aware of the governor
working collaboratively with various departments and
divisions to address many issues concerning crime in
Alaska. She suggested there were several crime bills that
were sitting in Judiciary that had not been heard.
10:47:29 AM
AT EASE
10:48:14 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson recessed the meeting to the Call of the
Chair.
10:48:29 AM
RECESSED
1:02:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Duxbury to approach the testifier
table. She provided a recap of where the committee left off
prior to the recess. She invited members to ask the Alaska
State Troopers questions.
Representative Josephson commented that he had not sat in
on a Criminal Justice Commission meeting. However, there
was a plethora of folks appointed to the commission. One of
the concerns he had was that they did not have rank-and-
file prosecutors there. He wondered about the sharing of
information. He supplied an example of sharing of
information. He wondered if employees were reporting to
their supervisors and having their suggestions rise to the
top translating into policy.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that the Criminal Justice
Commission would be coming before the committee later in
the week. They would provide information and statistics. It
would be a time for legislators to be able to ask
questions. She indicated that part of SB 91 included a
group getting together on a regular basis. She would supply
the committee with the group's most recent report.
1:05:37 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston had been talking with Mr. Duxbury about
working with DHSS during the break. She hoped he would be
willing to place on record the collaborative efforts with
DHSS. Mr. Duxbury clarified that he did not know everything
state government was doing to be collaborative. He thought
Representative Josephson made a very good point that in the
Criminal Justice Commission things had been worked on in a
collaborative manner. The governor's crime package was an
inducement for his commissioner to reach out to the
commissioners of DHSS, DOA, and others. The governor's bill
covered things that the departments were looking to do. His
commissioner, Amanda Price, reached out to the commissioner
of DHSS, Adam Crum, to address issues about how to help
individuals and communities. He reported hearing from one
of the troopers in his department about a suicide in a
village and how reports had come in about the contagious
message of having no hope, no dreams, and no place to go
being spread on social media. The commissioners put their
heads together and, the troopers were sent out to the
village. Currently the commissioners were talking. He felt
that the departments were about to take off on positive
collaboration.
Vice-Chair Johnston believed the Alaska State Troopers were
hiring several younger employees presently. She wondered if
there was a culture starting amongst the younger troopers
around collaboration and looking to solutions other than
the traditional ones.
Mr. Duxbury replied that he had had the conversation with
Representative Carpenter. He indicated that in the first 5
years of a young state trooper's tenure, they focused on
what they could do as an individual. After being mentored
through the process with an older employee, their work
became more about what they could do as a unit. He noted
that the younger generation came with the ability to use
electronics in a way that he was unfamiliar with when he
first joined the troopers.
1:10:51 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard relayed that crime and
sexual assault were up in her district. She asked what the
new troopers were doing to help with the issues, how drug
use and sexual assault were being addressed in the Mat-Su
Valley. Mr. Duxbury relayed that the Division of State
Troopers had 18 individuals being trained at the trooper
academy currently. It was necessary for the trainees to be
placed in locations where there were resources to provide
them with field training. He referred to the locations as
training posts which were in the Mat-Su Valley, the
Fairbanks area, and on the Kenai Peninsula. They were
evaluated by three people and, after 2 years, they would be
eligible for transfer to a rural post.
Mr. Duxbury continued that in response to the
representative's questions about sexual assault and drug
abuse units, the department had general investigative units
(GIU) in each post. It was a different than what the
troopers had in the past. It was an evolving way to try to
respond to the issues of major crimes. He thought it was
necessary for people to develop the reasonable suspicion
and probable cause mind set from the first time a trooper
made a traffic stop to a domestic violence incident or
burglary. The department also had individuals that were
able to take a more in-depth look at some of the more
egregious and hard-to-discern crimes so that it was not
taking a responsive trooper off the road. The general
investigative units tried to come together under the Alaska
Bureau of Investigation (ABI) model when there was a
Western Alaska incident or a major homicide case. In past
years, the state had a larger pool of troopers. As a
result, the troopers have had to modify the way it
responded.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Duxbury to supply the statistics
that Representative Sullivan-Leonard requested. Mr. Duxbury
would provide a written statement in answer to her
question. Co-Chair Wilson requested 3 years' worth of data
to be able to make a comparison.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed the agenda for the following
meeting at 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
1:15:53 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 25 NEW FN DCCED DCBPL 4.22.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/23/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 25 |
| SB 25 updated FY19-3rd-Qtr-Dental.pdf |
HFIN 4/23/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 25 |
| HB 41 NEW FN DFG Statewide Fisheries.pdf |
HFIN 4/23/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |