Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB74 | |
| SB193 | |
| SB108 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB218 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 108(JUD)
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records of criminal cases; and providing for an
effective date."
9:36:29 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the CS was introduced at the
request of the administration.
SENATOR FRED DYSON took issue with the CS. He stated that
the CS eliminated a crucial effort to protect privacy.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 108(JUD), Work Draft 28-LS0973\G,
(Strasbaugh, 4/14/14). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for
discussion.
9:38:41 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified in favor of good balance regarding the
legislation. The balance included privacy for those people
mistakenly charged or arrested and those people who should
not be protected.
Representative Costello requested an explanation of the CS.
9:40:18 AM
Ms. Carpeneti explained that the CS proposed that records
be removed from Court View for confidentiality. The records
included those where a person was arrested without a charge
from a prosecuting authority or probable cause. The
difference was that cases for people acquitted after a jury
trial were not removed. She informed the committee that
when a person was acquitted by a jury, the charges were not
established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but
acquittal did not prove that the person did not commit the
offense with probable cause in support of the crime.
9:41:24 AM
Representative Munoz asked if a person would apply to have
the cases removed from Court View after an acquittal.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the course would remain public,
as stated in the CS.
9:42:09 AM
Representative Munoz asked about the situations where cases
were removed from Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti understood that an application for removal of
cases was not necessary in either version of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Vice-Chair Neuman to chair the
remainder of the meeting.
9:42:33 AM
Ms. Carpeneti asked if her explanation of the CS was
adequate.
9:43:32 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman took the gavel.
Representative Wilson commented about the lack of process
regarding whether a person remained on Court View. She
noted that an application for removal of a case or name
from Court View would provide the necessary process.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that a process like the one suggested
by Representative Wilson could provide another solution.
She highlighted the importance of advertising a pattern of
theft or domestic violence.
9:45:13 AM
Representative Gara asked if a lack of evidence could lead
to dropping a charge.
Ms. Carpeneti replied yes.
Representative Gara pointed out page 2, line 2 of the CS
stating that a person with a dropped charge would remain on
Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti replied yes.
Representative Gara discussed a case where an innocent
person had charges dropped and asked Ms. Carpeneti if
innocent people might remain on Court View.
Ms. Anne Carpeneti replied that if a case was presented to
a grand jury who then returned a no true bill, the Court
View documentation would be removed. She added that a
finding of no probable cause at a bail hearing would also
remove the case from Court View.
Representative Gara asked if the crime was a misdemeanor
and the prosecution dropped the charge for lack of
evidence, would the person remain on Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that if a person was charged by a
law enforcement officer, and the case was screened out by
the law office, a charging document would not be filed.
9:46:50 AM
Representative Gara wondered about a case with a
misdemeanor charged and tried without a grand jury. In the
hypothetical scenario, the evidence was not present and the
charge was dropped, yet the accused person's name would
remain on Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti disagreed and explained that the charging
document would not have been filed during the screening
process in the law office.
Representative Gara repeated his question differently. He
asked if the prosecution filed a charge against a person
and found later that the person was innocent, the CS stated
if the charge was dropped, the case would remain on Court
View.
Ms. Carpeneti replied correct. She agreed that the CS was
not perfect but she believed that the CS allowed for the
best balance to protect the public and people who were
mistakenly charged.
9:48:22 AM
Representative Gara agreed that the criminal justice system
was imperfect. He acknowledged that some criminals and
drunk drivers had never been charged and were not on Court
View. Given that the system was imperfect, he believed in
protection of the innocent people first.
9:49:30 AM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that people addressed in the CS had a
probable cause finding.
Representative Gara disagreed. He pointed to line 2,
sentence 2, where it was stated that there was no grand
jury in misdemeanor cases.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed, but stated that a misdemeanant was
arraigned by a municipal officer.
Representative Gara asked why the misdemeanant whose
charges were dropped should remain on Court View.
9:50:30 AM
Ms. Carpeneti suggested that the policy decisions were for
the committee to make. She opined that the balance was
better in the CS, but acknowledged that the decisions were
difficult.
Representative Gara apologized for his argumentative tone.
Ms. Carpeneti asked about dangerous people who would be
removed from Court View and kept in confidential files. She
opined that the CS allowed for the better judgment
regarding the decision about removing names from Court
View. She stated that the original bill allowed dangerous
people to be removed from Court View and made their files
confidential.
Vice-Chair Neuman clarified that the comments made by Ms.
Carpeneti were her opinion.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the administration shared her
opinion.
Representative Costello asked for clarification regarding
the innocent until proven guilty. She asked if the
administration agreed with the statement.
Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the term guilty in the legal
system referred to guilt by proof beyond a reasonable doubt
by a jury of 12 people. She agreed that a person should not
be sent to jail unless the prosecution could establish
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She believed that a person
should be able to review the Court View document. She added
that the Court View document specified that the list did
not include convictions, but only warnings. She believed
that people should have access to the information unless no
probable cause was established or the state or prosecuting
authority did not file charges.
9:53:32 AM
Representative Costello mentioned that the language in the
original version of the bill focused on the acquitted
defendant. She noted that the CS focused the language
toward the prosecuting authority on line 2, page 2 and the
judicial officer on line 4, page 2. She asked why the shift
away from the innocent occurred in the CS.
9:54:41 AM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the entities such as the jury,
the judge, and the prosecuting authority traditionally made
decisions regarding criminal charges. She characterized the
shift as one away from a jury's decision.
Representative Costello discussed testimony on the original
bill regarding the demographic interested in Court View.
She asked the response to the testimony heard interpreting
guilt following an arrest.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the issue was troubling. She
assumed that the population was informed and warned that
charges did not indicate convictions. She suggested further
education about Court View and stated that many people were
listed on the sight for one reason or another. If a person
remained on Court View, it was because a judicial entity
suspected probable cause to charge the person.
9:57:35 AM
Representative Costello asked about the CS, line 9, page 2.
Ms. Carpeneti discussed the exception and noted the
presence in most iterations of the bill. The section
addressed people who worked for the Department of Health
and Social Services regarding decision making related to
the welfare of the child and adult with a disability. The
information available to the department personnel allowed
them to provide a safe situation for a disabled person or
child in need.
Representative Costello asked if the section was in the
original version of the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti did not recall, whether the section was in
the original version of the bill.
9:59:56 AM
Representative Costello acknowledged that the sponsor
concurred that the section was in the original version of
the bill.
Vice-Chair Neuman appreciated the representative's
questions.
10:00:01 AM
Representative Holmes discussed Court View. She expressed
concern about other aspects of the bill. She expressed
greater concern with the fact that the bill sealed records
of cases removed from Court View. She expressed discomfort
with the earlier versions of the bill and appreciated the
CS most for its tailored approach. She noted that a person
might have a long list of arrests without conviction, whose
records would be confidentially sealed. She expressed
extreme discomfort with the broad language included in the
original bill. She argued that Court View was a different
matter. She appreciated Representative Wilson's idea to
petition to have a case removed from Court View. She
requested the opinion of the administration regarding the
sealing of court records.
10:03:24 AM
Ms. Carpeneti shared the concern that the records would be
deemed confidential. She shared a history of the bill. She
agreed that the physical files and those found
electronically on Court View were connected. She understood
that a proposed court rule could separate Court View
documents from the paper ones in the court building. She
stated that neither version of the bill decoupled the
electronic from the paper records. She agreed with the
gravity of the concern.
Representative Holmes clarified that the language in the CS
would also seal the records.
10:04:53 AM
Representative Thompson revisited the statements made by
Representative Gara. He noted the hypothetical case where
charges were made for a reason, but dismissed for lack of
evidence. The case would remain on Court View and affect a
person's ability to achieve employment.
Ms. Carpeneti understood the serious concern. She suggested
that maybe the CS did not extend far enough in the
circumstance mentioned. She preferred the CS to the regular
bill in terms of public protection. She suggested that the
committee "fine tune" paragraph one of the CS. She offered
to help the committee work to implement their suggestions.
10:06:55 AM
Representative Wilson suggested that a representative from
the Alaska Court System join the conversation. She
understood that the automatic withdrawal of some cases
added to the concern from the judicial and court system.
10:07:34 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that with either version of the bill, the qualifying cases
would be made confidential automatically both on Court View
and in paper form. She expressed concerns with the work
draft and the concerns of automatic removal of cases
without petition. She asked if the filing of a petition
with a questionnaire might allow for more comfort in the
bill.
Ms. Meade stated that the court was neutral on the bill.
The petition would have a tremendous fiscal impact on the
court system. She stated that 9,508 misdemeanors were
dismissed last year and an influx of petitions would
increase the caseload and cost. She believed that the
sponsor's decision to avoid the use of petition was due to
the high fiscal impact.
10:09:52 AM
Representative Wilson expressed concern about the number of
misdemeanors on Court View. She suggested a fee for the
petition.
10:10:27 AM
Representative Holmes asked about steps taken by the court
system to address the issue. She was interested in the
separation of Court View as an administrative court
function from sealing confidential records.
10:11:07 AM
Ms. Meade responded that two of the three categories of
cases covered in the CS included those with no probable
cause and no charging documents filed were addressed in a
draft court rule. She noted that the court had an
administrative rule that eliminated certain cases from
Court View. The Supreme Court determined that the cases
should not be posted because of the ease with which the
information could be accessed. She anticipated the adoption
of the proposed rule within the next 60 days, which would
remove a criminal case from Court View that was dismissed
because the prosecuting authority declined to file a
charging document. Also, removed would be a case dismissed
for lack of probable cause. She opined that the bill was
not necessary because of the proposed court rule already in
the public comment process. The cases mentioned were much
less controversial.
10:13:28 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman requested clarification regarding the
version of the bill being discussed.
Ms. Meade responded that the two of the categories
addressed in the CS were covered in the court rule. She
stated that the court rule was less excessive because the
paper record remained accessible. The items covered in the
original version of the bill included all cases that
resulted in full dismissal. Full acquittals were not
covered in the court rule.
10:14:20 AM
Representative Gara asked about a case where the
prosecution charged, but the charge was dropped prior to
the trial. He asked if the people would remain on Court
View after the adoption of the court rule.
Ms. Meade replied yes.
Representative Gara asked if a person was charged by the
prosecution, and the case was dismissed under the original
bill, would the case be removed from Court View. He
hypothetically suggested that a person was charged with a
crime and the prosecution realized after interviewing
witnesses that the case was poor, so the charge was
dropped. He asked if the person would remain on Court View
under the proposed rule considered by the court.
Ms. Meade replied yes.
Representative Gara clarified that legislative intent was
indicated to protect people in the hypothetical scenario.
Ms. Meade agreed and noted that the initial version of the
bill would protect those people in the hypothetical
scenario.
Representative Gara stated that under the CS, a person
wrongly imprisoned would remain on Court View because they
were indicted by a grand jury.
Ms. Carpeneti concurred and noted that the 9000 dismissed
misdemeanors addressed a majority of cases dismissed as a
result of a plea agreement where the defendant agreed to
plead guilty to one charge, while the other charges were
dismissed. She wanted to clarify that mistakenly charged
misdemeanors were relatively rare in the state.
10:17:18 AM
Ms. Meade disagreed and noted that the number of
misdemeanors quoted were those completely closed by
dismissal where there was no guilt found on any of the
charges in the case.
Ms. Carpeneti stood corrected.
Vice-Chair Neuman requested Senator Dyson's presence at the
testifier table.
10:18:02 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the three scenarios
provided in the original bill. He asked if an
administrative procedure was available to appeal for the
removal of one's name from Court View.
Ms. Meade replied that a rule existed allowing a person to
make their case confidential. She noted that a weighing
process existed to allow discernment for removal of names
or cases from Court View. The court would not remove a name
or case from Court View for reasons of privacy.
Ms. Carpeneti mentioned a procedure in AS.12.62 where a
person could have a name or case removed from the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network.
10:19:59 AM
Senator Dyson expressed frustration with the Department of
Law and the Alaska Court System regarding the legislation.
He informed the committee about his multiple requests to
the Department of Law regarding obsolete items in the
criminal code. He mentioned his frustration regarding the
CS introduced at the last moment. He stated that he first
read the CS eight minutes prior to the meeting. He agreed
that the criminal justice system was flawed. He stated that
the procedure for removing one's name from Court View was
ineffective. The procedure allowed a person to visit the
head of the resting department to petition for removal of a
name or case from Court View. Wrongful arrest must be ruled
in order for a name or case to be removed from Court View.
He suggested that a police department admitting to wrongful
arrest was unlikely. He stated that practical matters would
arise, but opposition to the bill came from one person who
was passionate about protecting victims.
10:24:42 AM
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, attempted to
alleviate Representative Holmes's concerns about the
legislation. He stated that the conservative approach of
Court View allowed for maximum details to remain on the
site, even when a plea was accepted in a misdemeanor case.
The bill addressed cases where all charges were acquitted
to restore the presumption of innocence to people who were
not tried or were acquitted. He recalled experiences as a
police officer when prosecutors questioned the system. He
opined that the standard of perfect innocence was not the
goal of the legislation. The bill obtained a balance
because it required all charges to be dismissed. He noted
the exceptions provided at the administration's request for
all health and social services agencies responsible for the
safety of children and vulnerable adults.
Mr. Kopp stressed that the original version of the bill
addressed the balance that the sponsor sought.
10:28:55 AM
Mr. Kopp stated quoted a trial before the Roman Senate.
Representative Holmes appreciated the effort to find the
right balance between protecting people who were falsely
arrested and the public's right to information. She asked
about the original version and whether restraining orders
and multiple charges of domestic violence where the victim
recanted would remain on the site.
10:30:16 AM
Senator Dyson replied that the court rule would remove the
cases because so many of them were spurious and often
related to custody matters. He shared a story about a
friend released from Goose Creek Correctional Center for
domestic violence charges.
10:31:17 AM
Representative Holmes asked the difference between Court
View and the paper records. She asked about the sponsor's
primary interest regarding the sealing of public records at
the courthouse.
Mr. Kopp replied that the concern was the technological
advances that allowed for maximum exposure via Court View.
He pointed to the legislative intent section at the
beginning of the bill stating "to the extent practicable
the court will state records confidential." He stated that
the fiscal note would be enormous if files were sealed. The
records from the date of enactment of the bill would be
deemed confidential upon passage of the legislation. He
emphasized that confidential and sealed were two very
different actions. He noted that any individual with a
written order from the court would allow a balancing test
to be outweighed by a legitimate interest in
confidentiality. He clarified that a judge was the only
person allowed to view a sealed record.
10:34:29 AM
Representative Holmes stated that the Alaska Court System
would look to the legislature for guidance on the issue.
She expressed some concern about Court View, but was most
concerned about the sealing of paper records. She expressed
concerns about some citizen's questionable histories and
the protection of herself and the public.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there had been a robust
discussion on the bill. The bill would be heard again
later.
Representative Gara asked to address a concept that had
arisen. He would address his question at a later time.
CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:37:21 AM
RECESSED
4:28:05 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFC CS SB 108 (FIN).pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| CS WORKDRAFT FIN Y version.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 193 |
| SB 108 Court View Disclaimer.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| SB 64 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS0116Q.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 140 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS1246B.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 140 |
| SB 71 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS0594H.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 MADD Document.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 218 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS1567-P.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 218 |
| SB 71 Amendment Munoz #1 HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 Amendment #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Amendment Replacement #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |