Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/16/2002 02:14 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
An Act relating to stalking and amending Rule 4, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, spoke in support of
the legislation. He noted that HB 317 would close a
loophole in the Alaska statutes, by allowing unacquainted
victims of stalking to enjoy the security of a judicial
protective order. Current law provides protection to those
in domestic situations and minor children, but enjoins the
victims of strangers from equal protection of the law. HB
317 would allow the victims of stalking to seek and obtain a
protective order in cases of stalking that are not crimes
involving domestic violence. The bill would streamline the
process for public safety and judicial practioners by
harmonizing the warrant and notification procedures to
mirror those already in place for domestic violence
situations. It would add the crime of violation of a child
protective order and of a violation of a stalking protective
order.
JENNIFER ADZIMA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD,
provided a sectional analysis of the bill.
· Section 1. Amends AS 04.11.494(e)(1) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 2. Amends the existing crime of violating
a protective order, AS 11.56.740(a), by adding
violations of stalking protective orders, Sec. 5
of the committee substitute and child protective
injunctions under AS 47.17.069 as alternative ways
to commit the crime.
· Section 3. Amends AS 12.25.030(b) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 4. Amends AS 18.65.530(a) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 5. Amends AS 18.65 by adding new sections
that provide for the issuance of protective orders
in cases of stalking, that are not crimes
involving domestic violence.
· Section 6. Amends AS 18.66.990(3) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 7. Provides notice that Sec. 5 includes an
indirect amendment to a court rule.
Representative Croft questioned why the legislation was
warranted.
Representative Crawford explained that a constituent in his
community was involved with an "unknown" stalker. Current
law only protects those people that are being stalked by
someone that there has been a prior relationship with.
Representative Croft commented that without the legislation,
it puts the person in a situation where they either have had
a relationship with the stalker or waiting until an actual
crime has occurred.
Vice-Chair Bunde inquired the number of people that the
legislation would affect and how many regular restraining
orders are issued each year.
LIEUTENANT JULIA GRIMES, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTEMNT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, clarified that the legislation is
important. She noted that the new version had removed a
requirement for the Department of Public Safety to maintain
the central registry. Lt. Grimes advised how the central
registry facilitates law enforcement in relationship to
violent protective orders. The State knows that the law
enforcement agency in the area where the respondent abides,
is required to enter protective orders within 24-hours.
That entry then becomes the federal registry. The
conditions of the order and/or dismissals of the order,
would be similar to tracking in the central registry and
that the respondents tend to hide from service of those
orders. The central registry provides that when a police
officer attempts to contact a respondent that is trying to
avoid a service, then the action could result in the officer
serving that person and they could no longer avoid that
service.
Lt. Grimes added, an additional benefit would be that the
victims of the orders do not usually carry their papers on
themselves. If there is a registry, it would provide all
the details needed by the law enforcement officers. If
there was a violation, the law enforcement officer would
know the information on the spot. The central registry
definitely enhances the ability of the law enforcement to be
effective in serving the orders and then enforcing them.
Lt. Grimes claimed that without a central registry for
stalking orders, they could then go into absence, as
previously handled. The officers would be alerted because
there would be a note in the system about that person.
Representative Croft questioned why the registry had been
removed.
Lt. Grimes responded that there was a fiscal note for $7,600
dollar included to write the program.
Vice-Chair Bunde addressed the fiscal note and asked the
number of restraining orders that would be run through the
system and how much it would be expanded with passage of the
legislation.
Representative Crawford replied that twenty-two cases
occurred in Anchorage last year. He did not know the
statewide numbers.
TAPE HFC 02 - 85, Side B
Representative Crawford was surprised that that the registry
had been removed.
DIANE SHANKER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA STATE
TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Representative Davies asked why there needed to be a
distinction made between domestic and non-domestic in terms
of the programming.
Ms. Shanker explained that the programming was set up to
look like the original court order, which makes the data
easier to view.
Representative Davies understood that would be the best of
all possible worlds, however, he asked if it would be
possible to enter the data into the existing computer
program.
Ms. Shanker replied that would not be possible. The
proposed screen follows the wording of the protective order.
It could still be placed into the computer in the general
text section, but it would not be preformatted and would not
match the court order.
LAUREE HUGONIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, voiced support for the
legislation. She noted that there have been several
situations in which people have needed that type of
protection. She referenced situations of "stalking" and how
it affected residents. At this time, there is only a "snap-
shoot" of protective orders in the registry. Last year,
there were 11,000 orders and to date there has been around
200 emergency orders. It is possible to contact the
Department of Public Safety to provide the number and she
offered to gather that information.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, offered to
answer back ground questions for the legislation. She
understood that the central registry had been removed which
was a cautionary approach to a new type of protective order.
She pointed out that already there is a provision for an
emergency order and for that reason, it was determined not
to be included that in the central registry.
Representative Croft asked about the three different types
of orders:
· Regular
· Ex parte
· Emergency
Ms. Carpeneti advised that emergency orders usually come
after really stressful circumstances and expires in 72-
hours. She added that HB 317 was similar to the Domestic
Violence Protective order statutory scheme but the relief
was limited to restraints from stalking and communication
with the victim or the members of the family. That is where
relief comes from. The domestic violence scheme has much
broader parameters.
Representative Hudson clarified that the emergency
protective order for stalking for a crime not involving
domestic violence was a new element of the proposed
legislation. He asked if the language indicates what will
be required.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the petitioner has to prove that
the stalking has occurred. She noted that stalking is a
complicated statute. It requires that the defendant place
the victim in fear by repeated acts of criminal conduct with
reckless disregard for that fear. She added that the
problem with stalking is that much of the conduct can be
normal. The person has to know that what they are doing is
knowingly placing the victim in a state of fear that the
acts are frightening the victim. A judicial officer issues
all protective orders.
LINDA WILSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, ANCHORAGE,
testified on the bill. She noted that normally the agency
does not support a bill that is in response to a single
case. However, the agency does not have any strong
objections to HB 317. She made suggestions to improve the
bill, referencing Page 5, Section 4, Line 27 that amends the
definition of domestic violence. That language would need
to have the additional qualifier of AS 11.56.740 (a)(1),
because of the redefinition of Section 1. That section
would then become the domestic violence order. She stressed
that it is important to narrow that language.
Ms. Wilson pointed out that on Page 3, Lines 16, the
sentence in question references AS 18.65.850©. There are
three sections listed in that section and the third section
is the one that is problematic. It does not allow ordering
the respondent to stay away from their home, residence or
school, unless they are provided actual notice. By
including all of Section ©, it becomes confusing regarding
what is allowed. She thought that "provided" should be
replaced by "allowed".
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be acceptable to insert
(1) & (2), after AS 18.65.850©.
Ms. Wilson agreed that would work. She pointed out that the
same language occurs again on Page 3, Line 29. She noted
that in an emergency order, only probable cause must be
proven, which is a lesser standard.
Representative Croft asked about the language in the first
part of (3). He thought it would provide problems for the
remaining portion of (3).
Ms. Wilson agreed it was problematic and that changing the
word to "allowed" would avoid that problem. A sub-section
(4) could be added to address that concern.
Representative Croft clarified an alternative recommendation
which would change "provided" to "allowed".
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that "allowed" would be clearer than
the current language. The language in the last half of (3)
modifies and clarifies it.
Co-Chair Mulder asked Ms. Carpeneti about the reference to
Page 5, Line 26, adding AS 11.56.741(a)(1).
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that would be a good change.
Representative Davies proposed to amend Amendment #1, Page
3, Line 16, delete "provided" and insert "allowed"; Page 3,
Line 29, after "protection" delete "provided" and insert
"allowed"; Page 5, Line 27 after "AS 11.56.740" insert
"(a)(1)". (Copy on File).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the amended
Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. (Copy on
File).
Ms. Wilson stated that the change would make the bill track
the language in the domestic violence protective order
statutes. In that statute, no charge can be implemented and
there can only be a seeking the relief from filing in the
chapter. She added that having that language tracked would
be appropriate. It would also limit the extension for the
filing fee.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to report CS HB 317 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 317 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Law, #2 by the Department of Corrections, #3
by the Department of Administration and a new zero fiscal
note by the Department of Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|