Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/01/1995 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 27 An Act directing the Department of Public Safety to establish and maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification registration system and requiring DNA registration by persons convicted of a felony sex offense; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 27 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with new fiscal 1 notes by the House Finance Committee, the Department of Public Safety, and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law dated 1/26/95 and a fiscal impact note by the Department of Public Safety dated 1/26/95. HOUSE BILL 27 "An Act directing the Department of Public Safety to establish and maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification registration system and requiring DNA registration by persons convicted of a felony sex offense; and providing for an effective date." GERALD LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICE, explained the changes made to CS HB 27 (JUD) in the legislation. He added, he had attempted to give legal credibility to all the amendments although subsection (b) would need to read slightly different with the adopted changes. With the addition of juveniles to those being tested would require a change to the title. He continued, CS HB 27 (JUD) has a tight title especially in regard to who may be tested. The change to the title would require a language change to Page 1, Line 3, following the language "a person", inserting "and of juveniles 16 years of age or older who are adjudicated a delinquent for an act that would be a felony crime against a person if committed by an adult". Mr. Luckhaupt noted suggestions for technical amendments to the proposed legislation. He referenced Representative Parnell's amendment addressing the testing of some juveniles. Mr. Luckhaupt recommended that the Committee change the current language "juvenile" to "minor". "Minor" is the term predominately used in AS 47.10 and appears to be used in connection with a delinquency finding. Mr. Luckhaupt continued, in addition, Representative Brown's amendment attempted to clean up the differences between subsections (b) and (f) addressing the DNA identification registration system in order to clarify that the system would be confidential. Although, the amendment does not mention the tests in the language being added to subsection (f). He suggested that if the Committee believes "tests" should be added, "tests done on the samples", could be inserted on Line 9 of Amendment G.1. The following "samples," and "tests," would be added to Line 6 of Amendment G.2. Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that a new subsection (g) added by 2 Amendment G.2 could be reworked to make it more understandable. He recommended eliminating the language of the amendment and replacing it with the following: (g) The Department of Public Safety shall destroy the blood sampled and any identification data of a person if... (l) the conviction or adjudication that subjected the person to having a sample taken under this section is reversed; and... (2) the person (A) may not be retried or readjudicated for the crime; or; (B) after retrial the person is acquitted of the crime or after readjudication for the crime the person is not found to be a delinquent. Mr. Luckhaupt suggested that if the "systems" were confidential for the DNA, the testing could provide a less complicated legislation. Representative Parnell agreed with Mr. Luckhaupt's recommendation to substitute the term "minor" for "juvenile" throughout the bill. He MOVED to adopt the conceptual amendment to CS HB 27 (JUD). There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt the language provided by Mr. Luckhaupt regarding subsection (g) and (l), Sections 2(A & B). Representative Brown OBJECTED for the purposes of discussion stating that the language did not make sense. Mr. Luckhaupt advised that in Section (2A), the conviction would be reversed, and following the retrial, the person would be acquitted and the samples would be destroyed. Representative Brown asked what would occur if the State chose not to retry. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that would be addressed in Section (2A), new language written by legal counsel. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, offered language to address Representative Brown's concern. In Section 2(A) delete the word "may" and insert the word "is" and delete the word "be"; Section 2(B), delete the phrase "the person" on Lines 1 and 2 or Section 2(B). He pointed out that when reversing a case, the ordinary 3 course would be to send it back to the lower courts and repeat the trial. At that point, the State can decide if they want the retrial or not. He pointed out that the language change would deal with that circumstance and would correct previous loopholes. Representative Parnell WITHDREW THE MOTION to amend. Representative Brown WITHDREW THE OBJECTION in order to correct the language as provided by legal counsel. Following discussion, the Committee brought forth questions regarding the DNA identification registration system. Representative Parnell and Representative Brown debated the confidentiality of those records. Mr. Luckhaupt recommended changing the language on Page 2, Line 25-27 of CS HB 27 (K) version. The proposed new language would read: "The DNA identification registration-system is confidential, is not a public record under AS 09.25.110-09.25.140, and may be used only for..." He added an additional language change to Page 3, Lines 3 - 4, deleting the language "blood or oral samples and any identification data" and inserting "material within the system". Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt the conceptual amendment as recommended by Mr. Luckhaupt to Page 2, Lines 25-27. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that all the changes made thus far would fit within the previous title change recommended. Representative Parnell MOVED the amended title. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 9-LS0148\G.5. [Attachment #1]. She stated the amendment would add a more precise and clear definition of "oral sample" than used in the previous language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 9-LS0148\G.4. [Attachment #2]. She stated that the amendment would identify the direction of the Department of Public Safety and the overall criminal justice system. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 9-LS0148\G.3. [Attachment #3]. Representative Parnell OBJECTED for purposes of discussion, pointing out his original concerns with the amendment in dealing with future court cases. He advised that if a person is accused of another crime, the DNA data would already be available. Representative Parnell said following consultation with Mr. Guaneli, he understood 4 that the amendment would not impact the Rules of Discovery. Representative Parnell WITHDREW THE OBJECTION to the amendment. There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Hanley explained that the new fiscal note provided by the House Finance Committee would increase the previous one by $2 thousand dollars. He asked if there were objections to the revised fiscal note. Representative Brown emphasized that all the fiscal notes failed to reflect the "real" costs of the program. (Tape Change, HFC 95-15, Side 1). Representative Brown recommended that the legislation be held until the overall priorities of spending have been established for public safety and the responsibility of that Department. She emphasized that the fiscal notes are not a true cost reflection of actual costs of the proposed legislation. Representative Parnell MOVED to report CS HB 27 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Brown OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley, Foster. OPPOSED: Brown. Representative Navarre was not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (9-1). CS HB 27 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the House Finance Committee, the two by the Department of Public Safety one of which was dated 1/26/95 and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law dated 1/26/95.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|