Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/14/2014 01:30 PM FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Scheduled But Not Heard
Heard & Held
Scheduled But Not Heard
Scheduled But Not Heard
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
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."                                                                                                           
1:43:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR FRED  DYSON, SPONSOR, remarked that  the legislature                                                                    
infrequently dealt with civil  liberties topics. He believed                                                                    
many members  had handled Second  Amendment issues  well and                                                                    
that  First Amendment  items would  be addressed  on a  more                                                                    
frequent basis.  He relayed that  the bill pertained  to the                                                                    
Fourth,   Fifth,  Sixth,   and  Fourteenth   Amendments.  He                                                                    
discussed that in comparison to  other states Alaska had the                                                                    
most  complete CourtView  system [the  Alaska Trial  Court's                                                                    
online and  publicly accessible database]. He  detailed that                                                                    
most states  had the equivalent  of CourtView in  their city                                                                    
or county, but not statewide.  The bill would strengthen the                                                                    
privacy and  liberty interests of persons  when charges were                                                                    
dismissed or  acquitted by removing records  from CourtView.                                                                    
He  acknowledged that  some  individuals  who were  arrested                                                                    
were  guilty,   but  were   released  due   to  insufficient                                                                    
evidence. He relayed  that over 9,000 of  the 29,000 arrests                                                                    
for  misdemeanor offences  the  prior year  had resulted  in                                                                    
dismissal. He  believed there had  been around  7,000 felony                                                                    
arrests, with 1,700 dismissals.                                                                                                 
Senator Dyson  continued that under the  current system, the                                                                    
dismissed  cases remained  on CourtView  in perpetuity.  The                                                                    
CourtView  system  had  been  implemented  in  2004  and  he                                                                    
guessed  there were  approximately 60,000  people listed  in                                                                    
the database.  He noted that despite  the clear notification                                                                    
that an arrest was not a  guarantee of a person's guilt, the                                                                    
listing  of a  person's name  on  the website  made it  more                                                                    
difficult  to  obtain employment  and  to  rent a  home.  He                                                                    
stated that  the process  of removing  a person's  name from                                                                    
the  site was  structurally  defective. He  detailed that  a                                                                    
police  chief or  equivalent were  required  to approve  the                                                                    
removal  of  a  name  from the  website.  He  believed  that                                                                    
requiring the  arresting department  to remove the  name was                                                                    
counterintuitive  and exposed  the  department to  potential                                                                    
liability. He  relayed that if  the first attempt to  have a                                                                    
person's name  removed was  unsuccessful, their  next option                                                                    
was  to take  the issue  to court.  He stated  that Alaska's                                                                    
statutes were clear  that it was incumbent  upon the accused                                                                    
to prove they had been wrongly arrested.                                                                                        
1:47:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator Dyson stressed  that the practice was  contrary to a                                                                    
person's  constitutional right  to  innocence before  proven                                                                    
guilty. He believed there would  always be pragmatic reasons                                                                    
to trample  on civil and human  rights; however, legislators                                                                    
had   taken  an   oath   to   preserve  the   constitutional                                                                    
provisions.  He  opined that the default should  land on the                                                                    
side of  civil liberties  and the Bill  of Rights.  He asked                                                                    
his staff to address the bill's sectional analysis.                                                                             
Co-Chair Stoltze  noted that there had  previously been some                                                                    
public testimony  on the  subject matter in  a hearing  on a                                                                    
separate  crime bill.  The subject  matter had  subsequently                                                                    
been  removed from  the other  bill to  be dealt  with as  a                                                                    
single issue.                                                                                                                   
CHUCK  KOPP,  STAFF,  SENATOR  FRED  DYSON,  read  from  the                                                                    
sectional analysis (copy on file):                                                                                              
     Section 1                                                                                                                  
     Provides  legislative intent  directing  the Court,  to                                                                    
     the  extent  practicable,   to  treat  as  confidential                                                                    
     records  of  criminal  cases  disposed  of  before  the                                                                    
     effective date of the Act  by acquittal of all charges,                                                                    
     dismissal of all charges, or  acquittal of some charges                                                                    
     and dismissal of remaining charges,  to the same extent                                                                    
     that records are held confidential  by this bill, under                                                                    
     AS 22.35.030.                                                                                                              
     Section 2                                                                                                                  
     Amends AS 22.35 by adding  a new section, AS 22.35.030.                                                                    
     Records   concerning   criminal  cases   resulting   in                                                                    
     acquittal or dismissal confidential.                                                                                       
     This  section  establishes that  a  court  record of  a                                                                    
     criminal case is confidential if  120 days have elapsed                                                                    
     from the  date of  acquittal or  dismissal and  (1) the                                                                    
     person was acquitted of all  charges filed in the case;                                                                    
     (2) all charges against  the person have been dismissed                                                                    
     by  the prosecuting  authority; or  (3) the  person was                                                                    
     acquitted of some  of the charges in the  case, and the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed.                                                                                          
     Provide  exceptions  for  access  to  information  made                                                                    
     confidential  for  state agency  employees  responsible                                                                    
     for health,  safety, welfare, or placement  of a child,                                                                    
     a person  with a  physical or  intellectual disability,                                                                    
     or  a  person with  a  mental  illness; employees  that                                                                    
     protect other  vulnerable citizens, and  state criminal                                                                    
     justice  information network  users. The  Department of                                                                    
     Health and  Social Services  will adopt  regulations to                                                                    
     administer these exceptions.                                                                                               
     Section 3                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the  Applicability of  the Act  to criminal                                                                    
     charges  concluded on  or after  the effective  date of                                                                    
     the Act by dismissal or by acquittal of the defendant.                                                                     
     Section 4                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the  effective date of  the Act  as October                                                                    
     1, 2014.                                                                                                                   
Senator  Dyson  communicated   that  the  information  would                                                                    
remain  available to  police, the  state,  and the  national                                                                    
record; the  bill would remove  public records  of dismissed                                                                    
or acquitted cases after 120 days.                                                                                              
Co-Chair Stoltze asked  for detail about the  law related to                                                                    
the  police  chief.  Mr.  Kopp pointed  to  the  sealing  of                                                                    
criminal justice information under  AS 12.62.180. He relayed                                                                    
that   a  criminal   justice  agency   may  seal   only  the                                                                    
information   that   the    agency   was   responsible   for                                                                    
maintaining. A  person may submit  a written request  to the                                                                    
head  of   the  agency  responsible  for   maintaining  past                                                                    
conviction or  current offender information. The  two issues                                                                    
required  to  be  proven  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  were                                                                    
mistaken identity  or false accusation; the  decision of the                                                                    
agency  head was  the final  administrative decision  on the                                                                    
request. The appellant bore the  burden of proof and if they                                                                    
did not  agree with  the agency  decision their  next option                                                                    
was to  appeal to the court.  He read from the  statute that                                                                    
"a  person  about  whom information  is  sealed  under  this                                                                    
section may deny  the existence of the information  if it is                                                                    
in fact sealed."                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  asked a  question  related  to a  current                                                                    
court case  [specifics on the  case were not  provided]. Mr.                                                                    
Kopp replied  in the affirmative. Co-Chair  Stoltze surmised                                                                    
that the Municipality of Anchorage  had made the decision to                                                                    
litigate. He  stated that the  municipality had  the ability                                                                    
to correct  an action,  but chose  to litigate  instead. Mr.                                                                    
Kopp agreed.                                                                                                                    
1:54:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Neuman  referred to  a  prior  request from  the                                                                    
Office of  Public Advocacy  (OPA) to  seal files  related to                                                                    
decreasing workload.  He wondered if the  bill addressed the                                                                    
issue. Mr.  Kopp replied  that the bill  did not  pertain to                                                                    
lowering the OPA workload.                                                                                                      
Vice-Chair Neuman  clarified his interest in  the sealing of                                                                    
cases. Mr. Kopp answered that  the bill was strictly focused                                                                    
on  individuals  with  acquitted or  dismissed  charges  who                                                                    
remain on CourtView.                                                                                                            
Senator Dyson believed it would  be helpful to hear from the                                                                    
courts.  He noted  that  the court  system  was taking  some                                                                    
action on its own related to the records under discussion.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze remarked  that  many  individuals did  not                                                                    
want to  advertise their  efforts to  have a  charge removed                                                                    
from their record.                                                                                                              
1:57:00 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, relayed                                                                    
that  the court  system was  neutral  on the  bill, but  she                                                                    
appreciated  the  sponsor's  willingness to  work  with  the                                                                    
agency. She communicated that the  bill would make dismissed                                                                    
or  acquitted cases  confidential  in  electronic and  paper                                                                    
form (the  bill did not  include plea bargained  cases). The                                                                    
cases  would remain  in the  state's public  safety database                                                                    
and  would  be  accessible  to arresting  officers  and  the                                                                    
district  attorney's office.  The  legislative intent  asked                                                                    
the department  to make the change  retroactively; the court                                                                    
system could achieve the goal  without a fiscal impact note.                                                                    
She  stated that  it was  possible for  the court  system to                                                                    
take  records off  of CourtView  retroactively; it  would be                                                                    
significantly  more  burdensome  to make  archived  hardcopy                                                                    
files confidential.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  hypothetically  if  the bill  would                                                                    
remove  O.J. Simpson  case records  from  CourtView had  the                                                                    
events  surrounding  the  case occurred  in  Anchorage.  Ms.                                                                    
Meade  replied  that  the  case  would  be  covered  by  the                                                                    
legislation given  that all charges had  been acquitted; the                                                                    
criminal  case  would be  removed  from  CourtView 120  days                                                                    
after acquittal under the legislation.                                                                                          
Co-Chair Stoltze  thought extreme examples could  help frame                                                                    
an  issue.  He  mentioned  an example  related  to  a  false                                                                    
stalking accusation.                                                                                                            
Ms.  Meade  replied  that stalking  was  typically  a  civil                                                                    
protective order  and would not  be covered under  the bill.                                                                    
She noted that  the court was separately looking  at a court                                                                    
rule that would  impact civil actions where  the court found                                                                    
no probable  cause at  an initial  hearing. The  bill before                                                                    
the committee only covered criminal cases.                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze  referred  to  the  conviction  and  later                                                                    
exoneration of Mechele  Linehan and asked if  the case would                                                                    
apply under the legislation.  Ms. Meade replied that because                                                                    
the case had  not been dismissed by the  prosecutor it would                                                                    
not   be  covered   under  the   bill  and   would  not   be                                                                    
2:00:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara   asked  for  verification   that  plea                                                                    
bargained  cases  would  remain   on  CourtView.  Ms.  Meade                                                                    
replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                     
Representative  Gara asked  for verification  that the  bill                                                                    
only dismissed records for cases  when the prosecution fully                                                                    
dismissed   the  charges.   Ms.  Meade   responded  in   the                                                                    
Representative  Gara asked  for verification  that a  person                                                                    
would  end  up on  CourtView  if  they continued  to  commit                                                                    
crimes  and  were convicted  like  O.J.  Simpson. Ms.  Meade                                                                    
replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair   Stoltze   asked   for  a   description   of   the                                                                    
administrative  process.  He  asked about  a  process  under                                                                    
deliberation by  the court system.  Ms. Meade referred  to a                                                                    
proposed court  rule that was  underway. She  discussed that                                                                    
the court maintained  the Alaska Rules of  Court; there were                                                                    
committees  responsible  for  recommending changes  and  the                                                                    
Alaska  Supreme Court  was ultimately  in  charge of  making                                                                    
changes  to the  rules.  She elaborated  that currently  the                                                                    
Supreme Court was  considering (and would go  out for public                                                                    
comment) an amendment to its  existing rule about items that                                                                    
did not appear on  CourtView. She detailed an administrative                                                                    
rule designated items that could  not be on CourtView, which                                                                    
was   slightly  different   than  designating   a  case   as                                                                    
confidential. Anything  the legislature  deemed confidential                                                                    
did not appear  on CourtView including child in  need of aid                                                                    
cases,  protective proceedings  such  as guardianships,  and                                                                    
juvenile delinquency cases.                                                                                                     
Ms.  Meade  communicated   that  additional  categories  not                                                                    
posted  on  CourtView  included the  names  of  children  in                                                                    
domestic  relations cases  (these were  not confidential  in                                                                    
paper form), social security  numbers, and victim addresses.                                                                    
The court  was amending  the administrative rule  to include                                                                    
other items  it found problematic when  listed on CourtView.                                                                    
She pointed  to a  case where  a woman  was arrested  but no                                                                    
charging document  was filed;  the case  was not  covered by                                                                    
the bill, but  it would be covered by  the forthcoming court                                                                    
rule that  would remove anything  where an arrest  had taken                                                                    
place  but   no  charging  document  had   been  filed.  She                                                                    
explained that the  situations were not covered  by the rule                                                                    
because they had  not yet become a criminal  case. The court                                                                    
was  also considering  adding situations  where no  probable                                                                    
cause had been found at  an initial hearing, which sometimes                                                                    
happened   with   stalking   protective  orders   or   other                                                                    
protective order  applications. The  rule was going  out for                                                                    
public  comment  for  wide circulation  and  the  court  was                                                                    
expected to act within the next 45 days.                                                                                        
2:04:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Stoltze   asked   for   verification   that   his                                                                    
constituents who had testified in  the past would be covered                                                                    
under  the administrative  protective order,  but not  under                                                                    
the bill. Ms.  Meade referred to testimony  related to Nancy                                                                    
Means and replied in the affirmative.                                                                                           
Co-Chair  Stoltze  speculated   that  when  an  out-of-state                                                                    
settlement  was won  against the  municipality  it would  be                                                                    
sealed as  well. Ms. Meade  clarified that people  could ask                                                                    
to  have a  confidential  case made  public. She  elaborated                                                                    
that  the court  system's case  records were  not considered                                                                    
criminal  justice information.  Currently, the  only way  to                                                                    
remove  something  from  CourtView  was  through  the  court                                                                    
system. She detailed that there was  a court rule to seek to                                                                    
have cases made confidential that  otherwise were not and to                                                                    
have confidential  cases made public;  it was  the mechanism                                                                    
required to remove something from CourtView.                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze asked  if the process was  initiated by the                                                                    
person wishing  to have  their name  removed from  the site.                                                                    
Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative.                                                                                           
2:06:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CATHERINE STONE,  DIRECTOR, PUBLIC HOUSING  DIVISION, ALASKA                                                                    
HOUSING FINANCE  CORPORATION (via teleconference),  spoke in                                                                    
support  of  the  bill. She  relayed  that  the  corporation                                                                    
initially  had  concerns  about  the  bill  related  to  its                                                                    
ability to  use CourtView  to research  applicants' criminal                                                                    
records;  however, it  ultimately supported  the legislation                                                                    
due to the  way it would affect people  participating in the                                                                    
Alaska  Housing Finance  Corporation  (AHFC) Housing  Choice                                                                    
voucher program. She detailed  that the corporation provided                                                                    
approximately  4,600 vouchers  per month  to families  in 16                                                                    
locations  throughout the  state.  The  recipients passed  a                                                                    
federally required  screening process and  were subsequently                                                                    
issued a  voucher in order  to find  a landlord and  home to                                                                    
rent;  the  voucher paid  a  portion  of  the rent  and  the                                                                    
corporation   provided    the   additional    payment.   She                                                                    
communicated  that sometimes  people who  had an  old arrest                                                                    
that  had  never  resulted in  a  conviction  experienced  a                                                                    
barrier  to   renting  because  CourtView  was   used  as  a                                                                    
screening tool.  She elaborated that even  though the arrest                                                                    
had not  resulted in a  conviction, the record  on CourtView                                                                    
many  times  prevented  individuals  from  renting.  Program                                                                    
recipients were  given an  initial 60 days  to find  a unit,                                                                    
which  could  be extended  to  a  maximum  of 120  days  per                                                                    
federal  law.  She  remarked  that   it  was  a  shame  when                                                                    
qualified  individuals  were not  able  to  locate a  rental                                                                    
based  on  prior  history  or behavior  that  may  not  have                                                                    
resulted in a conviction. She  believed the bill would allow                                                                    
people who  may have made  a mistake in  the past to  have a                                                                    
better opportunity to find housing.                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Stoltze  surmised  that  it would  help  the  AHFC                                                                    
clientele to secure housing if  landlords did not know about                                                                    
prior activity.  Ms. Stone replied  in the  affirmative. She                                                                    
elaborated  that individuals  on  the sex  offender list  or                                                                    
with  violent or  drug related  convictions did  not qualify                                                                    
for the  AHFC program. Once  the individual was  approved in                                                                    
the program screening process they  should be able to find a                                                                    
home;  however,  sometimes  an  old arrest  was  used  as  a                                                                    
screening  tool  by  landlords  which  prevented  them  from                                                                    
finding a rental.                                                                                                               
2:10:05 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMES   MOONEY,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in support  of the  bill.  He spoke  about how  a                                                                    
false  sexual assault  accusation in  2009 had  impacted his                                                                    
life. He stated that his  ex-fiancé had moved from the state                                                                    
with their daughter and had  not seen his daughter since. He                                                                    
had lost his job as a  result of the experience. He had been                                                                    
acquitted,  but  had  never  been  able  to  obtain  another                                                                    
management job due to the  records on CourtView. He spoke to                                                                    
challenges  securing work.  He  stated that  he deserved  to                                                                    
have his life back, had never  hurt anyone, and had not done                                                                    
anything  wrong.  He  pleaded  with the  committee  to  help                                                                    
provide him with  a fighting chance. He  wanted his daughter                                                                    
to know he loved her.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Mr. Mooney's testimony.                                                                            
2:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMIE    ROGERS-JENKINS,     SELF,    TWO     RIVERS    (via                                                                    
teleconference), spoke  in support  of the  legislation. She                                                                    
believed the  bill represented a  civil liberties  issue and                                                                    
could not  thank the sponsor  enough for carrying  the bill.                                                                    
She  opined  that  the  bill  did not  go  far  enough.  She                                                                    
believed people used CourtView as  a screening tool for jobs                                                                    
and  housing  and that  people  did  not follow  through  to                                                                    
determine  what  had  actually  happened.  She  stated  that                                                                    
people had  a "where  there's smoke there's  fire" mentality                                                                    
that could  not be  avoided. She used  AHFC testimony  as an                                                                    
example  and  stated  that  the  testimony  had  assumed  an                                                                    
individual may  have done something  wrong in the  past, but                                                                    
had not  been convicted of  a crime. Although  she supported                                                                    
the  bill she  believed it  should include  expungement. She                                                                    
opined that the bill should include plea bargained cases.                                                                       
Ms. Rogers-Jenkins stressed that  the only cases that should                                                                    
appear  on CourtView  should  be those  that  resulted in  a                                                                    
conviction.  She  stated  that   many  people  had  pled  to                                                                    
something they  had not done  or to a lesser  charge because                                                                    
it was  closer to something that  actually happened. Reasons                                                                    
for  taking a  plea bargain  could include  fear, time,  and                                                                    
expense.  She believed  extreme examples  like O.J.  Simpson                                                                    
should be  avoided. Additionally, she felt  that restraining                                                                    
orders were  abused and should  not be listed  on CourtView.                                                                    
She spoke to a case she had  taken a plea to; she stated she                                                                    
had  not  committed   the  crime  and  there   had  been  no                                                                    
investigation.  She  believed   the  preferable  remedy  was                                                                    
adequate investigation  and no overcharging with  the intent                                                                    
to instill  fear and  gain conviction.  She would  support a                                                                    
state   funded  campaign   to  let   people   know  of   the                                                                    
occurrences.  She   stated  that  police  were   not  always                                                                    
truthful. She stated that the  Office of Victims' Rights was                                                                    
the  primary  opponent of  the  bill  and  that it  did  not                                                                    
acknowledge various abuses. She  asked the committee to pass                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
2:22:13 PM                                                                                                                    
RICK  ALLEN, DIRECTOR,  OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC ADVOCACY,  PALMER                                                                    
(via teleconference),  testified in support of  the bill. He                                                                    
addressed  an  earlier  question by  Vice-Chair  Neuman.  He                                                                    
discussed  that several  years earlier  the Public  Defender                                                                    
Agency  had  changed its  policy  related  to sealing  files                                                                    
internally; the change  had taken place in  effort to reduce                                                                    
the number  of conflicts  and the  number of  criminal cases                                                                    
that  went  to  OPA.  He  spoke  to  his  experience  as  an                                                                    
attorney. He  had seen many examples  of individuals charged                                                                    
with  theft or  robbery;  the cases  had been  appropriately                                                                    
dismissed by a  prosecutor when the defendant  had been able                                                                    
to prove their innocence. He  stated that the allegation was                                                                    
currently recorded  on CourtView indefinitely  regardless of                                                                    
a person's  innocence. He believed  there was  an unintended                                                                    
consequence where  the government was  punishing individuals                                                                    
without   having  proved   them  guilty   of  anything.   He                                                                    
understood that it  had never been the  intent of CourtView.                                                                    
He stated that  the presumption of innocence  and the burden                                                                    
of proof were important bedrocks  in the American system. He                                                                    
believed  the bill  would strike  a good  balance between  a                                                                    
person's  right  to privacy  and  liberty  and the  public's                                                                    
right to important information.                                                                                                 
2:25:26 PM                                                                                                                    
DEANNA   SMITH,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  opposition to  the  bill.  She spoke  to  her                                                                    
personal  experience. She  was currently  staying in  a safe                                                                    
house. She  stated that if  she had known about  the ability                                                                    
to  look on  CourtView it  would likely  have prevented  her                                                                    
current  situation. She  stated  that public  access to  the                                                                    
records would  provide the public  with information  about a                                                                    
person  and would  inform them  about a  possible behavioral                                                                    
pattern.  She  had  used CourtView  to  determine  that  the                                                                    
person her daughter  had begun dating had  an unlawful past.                                                                    
She implored the committee not to pass the bill.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze appreciated  Ms.  Smith's  courage in  her                                                                    
2:28:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CARMEN  GUTIERREZ,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in strong  support  of  the bill.  She  spoke to  her                                                                    
extensive work history with the  criminal justice system and                                                                    
as  former   deputy  commissioner  for  the   Department  of                                                                    
Corrections. She stated that  currently every person charged                                                                    
with an offense had a  permanent public record of the arrest                                                                    
and  charge. She  detailed that  in felony  cases there  was                                                                    
also   a   statement   of  the   alleged   factual   details                                                                    
accompanying the  charging document.  The person's  name and                                                                    
the facts  of the charge  remained public even  when charges                                                                    
were dismissed or  after a jury decided on  an acquittal. An                                                                    
arrest often became synonymous with  conviction in the minds                                                                    
of those  doing an inspection  when the arrest  continued to                                                                    
remain  public information.  She stressed  that the  records                                                                    
greatly impeded  a person's ability  to find  employment, to                                                                    
rent  an   apartment,  and   to  live   a  life   free  from                                                                    
stigmatization  for a  crime they  were never  convicted of.                                                                    
Ms.  Gutierrez relayed  that police  officers tasked  with a                                                                    
tremendous  amount  of  work  were  required  to  make  snap                                                                    
decisions when deciding  it was more likely than  not that a                                                                    
crime had  occurred. The soundness of  an officer's decision                                                                    
often depended  on the experience  of the officer  and their                                                                    
perceived  need  to  diffuse   a  difficult  situation.  She                                                                    
elaborated that  after a person  was arrested and  charged a                                                                    
prosecutor had more  time to review the merits  of the case;                                                                    
in some cases upon more  careful review and with the benefit                                                                    
of  additional  facts,  the  prosecutor  determined  that  a                                                                    
charge  did not  merit  prosecution and  that  it should  be                                                                    
dismissed.  However,  the  individual arrested  was  forever                                                                    
stigmatized by  the arrest.  She noted  that close  to 1,300                                                                    
state  felony cases  and 9,500  misdemeanor  cases had  been                                                                    
dismissed  in  FY  13.  She  communicated  that  cases  were                                                                    
dismissed  for  many  reasons,  but often  due  to  lack  of                                                                    
evidence, misidentification, no  crime committed, and other.                                                                    
She  stressed that  many people  were  arrested even  though                                                                    
they never committed a  criminal offence. The constitutional                                                                    
right  to  due  process  of  law  was  intended  to  protect                                                                    
individuals from being treated  as convicted persons without                                                                    
first  being  afforded  certain procedural  safeguards.  She                                                                    
believed it was the way it  should be. She submitted that it                                                                    
was  the  state's  responsibility  to  uphold  the  criminal                                                                    
justice system.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Gutierrez  spoke to  her prior work  as an  attorney and                                                                    
her oath to uphold the  constitution. She had concerns about                                                                    
the underlying premise of a  letter addressed from Office of                                                                    
Victims'  Rights  to the  legislature  (copy  on file).  She                                                                    
believed  that  the premise  was  that  something less  than                                                                    
innocence  should be  insinuated  each time  an Alaskan  was                                                                    
arrested  even  when the  charge  was  later dismissed.  She                                                                    
detailed that every  day judges were required  to tell every                                                                    
jury convened to hear a criminal  case that the mere fact of                                                                    
an  arrest and  charge  could not  be used  as  any kind  of                                                                    
evidence  of  guilt;   however,  CourtView  information  was                                                                    
causing  people  to  be  judged by  an  arrest.  The  system                                                                    
required criminal  conviction. She  stressed that  an arrest                                                                    
and charge should  not tarnish the reputation  of an Alaskan                                                                    
citizen.  She  thanked  the   sponsor  for  introducing  the                                                                    
2:35:04 PM                                                                                                                    
QUINLAN   STEINER,   DIRECTOR,   PUBLIC   DEFENDER   AGENCY,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF  ADMINISTRATION (via  teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
about the legal analysis  involved in charging an individual                                                                    
and  sustaining a  charge. He  mentioned the  idea that  the                                                                    
probable  cause standard  and a  grand  jury indictment  was                                                                    
sufficient to  conclude when a  person was  guilty. However,                                                                    
he stated that the probable  cause and grand jury indictment                                                                    
standard  was  only  about concluding  when  unexplained  or                                                                    
uncontradicted  items merited  going forward  on a  case. He                                                                    
stated  that an  important part  of the  legal analysis  was                                                                    
that  once an  investigation  continued,  the initial  facts                                                                    
were  explained or  contradicted in  some cases.  He relayed                                                                    
that  the  screening  process  of  probable  cause  was  not                                                                    
sufficient evidence for conviction,  but was about providing                                                                    
sufficient evidence  to move  forward on  a case.  He stated                                                                    
that "not  guilty" meant  not guilty  in the  criminal trial                                                                    
process.  He  remarked  that there  were  many  cases  where                                                                    
charges  were  dismissed  and collateral  consequences  were                                                                    
significant and life-long.                                                                                                      
2:37:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  asked  for verification  that  only  a                                                                    
prosecutor  presents  evidence  before  a  grand  jury.  Mr.                                                                    
Steiner concurred. He  added that a grand jury  was a secret                                                                    
and sealed  proceeding in which  only a  prosecutor presents                                                                    
evidence; defense attorneys were  not permitted to enter the                                                                    
2:38:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MARY GEDDES, SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference), spoke in                                                                    
support of the legislation. She  remarked on her 28 years of                                                                    
criminal law experience in Alaska.  She read from a prepared                                                                    
statement (copy on file):                                                                                                       
     Senate Bill 108, introduced  by Senator Dyson, provides                                                                    
     a simple and sensible  answer to an important question.                                                                    
     What should  happen with  the record  of a  state court                                                                    
     criminal  case when  no convictions  were obtained  and                                                                    
     the case is now closed?                                                                                                    
     Under the current  language of SB 108,  the approach is                                                                    
     straightforward.  Four  months  after such  a  case  is                                                                    
     closed,   the    court   record   is    designated   as                                                                    
     confidential.  This  means,   simply,  that  the  court                                                                    
     record  is   no  longer  offered  for   general  public                                                                    
     Many of  you have heard  the term, expungement.  In the                                                                    
     majority of states, expungement  is an available remedy                                                                    
     for   arrests   and    other   nonconviction   records.                                                                    
     Expungement  typically  means   the  destruction  of  a                                                                    
     record.  But  Alaska  does   not  have  an  expungement                                                                    
     statute.  SB 108  provides a  less drastic  remedy than                                                                    
     expungement. SB  108 would not require  the destruction                                                                    
     of court  records. Nor does it  impede or unnecessarily                                                                    
     burden law enforcement.                                                                                                    
     How often  does it happen  that a criminal  case filing                                                                    
     ends  with   a  dismissal   and  no   conviction?  More                                                                    
     frequently than  you might imagine. In  the last fiscal                                                                    
     year  alone, approximately  7,563  misdemeanor and  945                                                                    
     felony  cases  were  closed because  of  dismissals  by                                                                    
     state  prosecutors.  In   addition,  approximately  100                                                                    
     felony and  misdemeanor cases were  closed as  a result                                                                    
     of acquittals.                                                                                                             
     The  reason  for  making  nonconviction  court  records                                                                    
     confidential is  a good one.  It avoids  an unnecessary                                                                    
     risk of harm  to a person.  Even though  we all know it                                                                    
     should not  make any  difference, just  the information                                                                    
     that there once  was a criminal accusation  can limit a                                                                    
     person's  economic opportunity  and  severely damage  a                                                                    
     reputation.   Life,  subsequent   to   an  arrest,   is                                                                    
     permanently altered. Making  such records confidential,                                                                    
     by contrast,  provides a meaningful  end to  a criminal                                                                    
     Perhaps  there   is  no  better  illustration   of  the                                                                    
     personal impact of criminal  litigation for us Alaskans                                                                    
     than the  case of Senator  Ted Stevens. After  41 years                                                                    
     of  faithful service,  he was  charged with  crimes and                                                                    
     convicted.  He was  convicted. But  his conviction  was                                                                    
     later thrown  out because of  prosecutorial misconduct,                                                                    
     and his case was  entirely dismissed by the government.                                                                    
     Let's suppose for  a moment that Sen.  Stevens had been                                                                    
     charged in state  court. Even after a  dismissal of all                                                                    
     charges, public court records would  forever list him -                                                                    
     really, brand him  - as a "criminal  defendant." Why is                                                                    
     that fair? Why  should any citizen be  treated that way                                                                    
     for all time when  the government has closely evaluated                                                                    
     the evidence  and seen fit  to dismiss the  charges, or                                                                    
     when a defendant has been acquitted?                                                                                       
     Taylor  Winston, an  employee  of the  state Office  of                                                                    
     Victims'   Rights,   recently  wrote   this   Committee                                                                    
     concerning  SB 108.  Ms. Winston  opposes  the idea  of                                                                    
     making  closed nonconviction  records confidential  for                                                                    
     reasons stated in  her column on April  10, 2014. Under                                                                    
     such  a  theory  of  justice, however,  a  person  once                                                                    
     charged of  a crime  should be forever  considered "not                                                                    
     innocent,"  even  though  the  courts  lack  any  legal                                                                    
     authority  to   make  such  a   determination.  Neither                                                                    
     prosecutors acting alone  nor a grand jury  has a 'good                                                                    
     enough'   fact-finding   process    such   that   their                                                                    
     indictments should  forever stand as  public monuments.                                                                    
     Let's remember that  a grand jury meets  in secret with                                                                    
     the  prosecutor, and  that the  accused and  his lawyer                                                                    
     aren't allowed  in. Not only  did the  Founding Fathers                                                                    
     reject  the  grand jury  as  the  means of  determining                                                                    
     criminal responsibility,  they also decided  that there                                                                    
     would be  no continuing  penalty, no loss  of privilege                                                                    
     and  certainly no  lifetime loss  of privacy  for those                                                                    
     who  had  been once  charged  but  not convicted  of  a                                                                    
     Ms.  Winston argues  that the  information provided  on                                                                    
     the court's electronic  website (showing information on                                                                    
     open  and closed  criminal  cases)  is "objective"  and                                                                    
     provides  information the  public  can  use to  protect                                                                    
     itself. In  a letter she submitted  to the Legislature,                                                                    
     she provided an  example: she said she  would check the                                                                    
     website to help  make a decision on  a babysitter. This                                                                    
     is a great example as to  why SB 108 should be enacted.                                                                    
     The website  warns the reader  as to  its unreliability                                                                    
     and  prejudicial effect  and yet  people still  rely on                                                                    
     it,     presumptively,    for     divining    someone's                                                                    
     A  zealous   advocate,  Ms.  Winston   seems  genuinely                                                                    
     concerned,  but her  dire prediction  that "victims  of                                                                    
     domestic  violence, sexual  assault,  and child  sexual                                                                    
     abuse, and  our communities  will suffer" under  SB 108                                                                    
     is certainly not justified by  the very modest reach of                                                                    
     this bill.                                                                                                                 
     Senate Bill 108 would  not block any police, prosecutor                                                                    
     or  judge from  access  to  closed nonconviction  court                                                                    
     records.  Any   party  to  a  closed   case  still  has                                                                    
     automatic  access. Because  Alaska's  statutes and  its                                                                    
     constitution  now  also  require the  criminal  justice                                                                    
     system to  accommodate the rights of  crime victims, it                                                                    
     is  almost certain  that  a  complaining witness  would                                                                    
     also  have  automatic  access.   Access  by  any  other                                                                    
     individuals   can   be   obtained  with   the   written                                                                    
     permission of  the court  if the  court finds  that the                                                                    
     requestor's  interest outweighs  the potential  harm to                                                                    
     the  person or  interests  being  protected. In  making                                                                    
     this  call, the  court will  consider the  (1) risk  of                                                                    
     injury  to individuals;  (2) individual  privacy rights                                                                    
     and  interests; (3)  proprietary business  information;                                                                    
     (4)  the deliberative  process; or  (5) public  safety.                                                                    
     Finally,  it  should be  noted  that  SB 108  does  not                                                                    
     impose  any burdens  of secrecy  or non-publication  on                                                                    
     persons or companies who obtain the record.                                                                                
     Senate Bill  108 is  a neat,  nifty way  to be  fair to                                                                    
     defendants whose  cases are  entirely dismissed  - like                                                                    
     Sen.  Stevens- without  undermining law  enforcement or                                                                    
     prosecutorial functions. Let  your state representative                                                                    
     know that SB 108 should pass.                                                                                              
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  for written  testimony. Ms.  Geddes                                                                    
agreed to provide her testimony to the committee.                                                                               
2:47:02 PM                                                                                                                    
TAYLOR WINSTON,  DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF  VICTIMS' RIGHTS                                                                    
(OVR),  ANCHORAGE, testified  in  strong  opposition to  the                                                                    
legislation. She  believed the  bill was of  grave concerns,                                                                    
particularly to victims in Alaska.  In reference to previous                                                                    
testimony  she stressed  that  the bill  was  not a  "nifty"                                                                    
service to  victims of  the state.  She emphasized  that the                                                                    
victims  had  a  constitutional  right to  be  treated  with                                                                    
fairness, dignity, and respect; the  bill did not treat them                                                                    
with those things. She spoke  to her professional experience                                                                    
working in  the Alaska legal  system. She had spent  over 12                                                                    
years  working on  sexual assault  cases. She  stressed that                                                                    
the  path of  a victim  of sexual  assault was  arduous. She                                                                    
spoke about  the difficulty victims  faced when  reporting a                                                                    
crime including  feelings of guilt and  shame. She discussed                                                                    
that everyone wanted to encourage  victims to report because                                                                    
when victims reported the process  should be able to act and                                                                    
should make  communities safer. She highlighted  the bravery                                                                    
victims showed when  reporting a crime. She  stated that the                                                                    
process did not  restore a victim's sense  of well-being; it                                                                    
was  humiliating  and  constituted a  re-victimization.  She                                                                    
stated  that the  individuals had  to relive  the trauma  of                                                                    
past events in front of a  grand jury. She discussed that it                                                                    
was up to  a jury to determine whether  there was sufficient                                                                    
evidence to  prove the case  beyond a reasonable  doubt. She                                                                    
stated that an acquittal was  like a knife through the heart                                                                    
for the victim.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Winston  testified that the legislation  was contrary to                                                                    
a victim's constitutional right  to be treated with dignity,                                                                    
fairness, and  respect. She asked for  verification that the                                                                    
bill  had been  amended to  only include  dismissals by  the                                                                    
prosecution, not by the court.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  stated that there was  an affirmation, but                                                                    
he had not looked at the minutia of the bill.                                                                                   
Ms. Winston stated  that the bill put the  decision and fate                                                                    
of the  victims in the  hands of prosecutors.  She mentioned                                                                    
her former work  as a prosecutor and the  dismissal of cases                                                                    
that  occurred  for  various   reasons.  She  wondered  what                                                                    
justice the  removal of records  related to  dismissed cases                                                                    
provided  for  victims  of   various  crimes.  She  stressed                                                                    
justice for all and not  just the defendant. She believed an                                                                    
accurate account of information  and a definitive source was                                                                    
important.  She   mentioned  the  O.J.  Simpson   case;  she                                                                    
believed  it  was  important  for the  public  to  have  the                                                                    
ability to  see what  happens in  its institutions.  She was                                                                    
glad  some  of  the  supporters had  brought  forward  their                                                                    
convictions.  She stated  that certain  things would  not be                                                                    
known if the record was not open.                                                                                               
Co-Chair  Stoltze  clarified  that  supporters  had  brought                                                                    
forward their arrests, not convictions.                                                                                         
Ms. Winston  agreed and restated  that the record  was clear                                                                    
regarding   the   testifier's   arrests.  She   pointed   to                                                                    
supportive  testimony  and noted  that  the  bill would  not                                                                    
address some  specific concerns mentioned. She  spoke to the                                                                    
testimony  of  Mr. Mooney  and  stated  it  was one  of  the                                                                    
reasons transparency  of government  was important.  She had                                                                    
prosecuted the case he spoke  about. She provided details of                                                                    
the case. She stated that  the evidence against him had been                                                                    
strong, but the jury had acquitted him.                                                                                         
2:59:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Winston stressed  the importance  of the  court record.                                                                    
She  pointed to  the Mechele  Linehan case,  which had  been                                                                    
dismissed  by the  prosecution  and would  not  stay in  the                                                                    
court  record if  the bill  passed. She  mentioned the  John                                                                    
Carlin  case and  communicated that  there was  going to  be                                                                    
voiding of his conviction; OVR  had submitted that his death                                                                    
in prison did  not mean his conviction should  be voided and                                                                    
the  decision  had been  reversed  related  to the  specific                                                                    
point. She spoke  to the national George  Zimmerman case and                                                                    
believed  it deserved  to have  public scrutiny  and review.                                                                    
She opined  that prosecutors should be  scrutinized for what                                                                    
they dismissed.  She stressed that the  organization was not                                                                    
opposed  to the  concept presented  by  SB 108,  but it  was                                                                    
opposed to  the language the  bill used. She  believed there                                                                    
should be a surgical approach  because the bill would affect                                                                    
many  people. The  organization had  proposed amendments  to                                                                    
the committee to help protect victims.                                                                                          
Ms.   Winston   referred   to   an   earlier   question   by                                                                    
Representative  Gara related  to  a grand  jury and  relayed                                                                    
that   a  prosecutor   was  under   obligation  to   present                                                                    
exculpatory evidence  (any evidence that tended  to negate a                                                                    
defendant's  guilt). She  discussed  grand jury  procedures.                                                                    
She  spoke  to  the  Joshua Wade  cases  related  to  murder                                                                    
convictions.  She  mentioned  that in  cases  of  concurrent                                                                    
state and  federal jurisdiction,  the state would  dismiss a                                                                    
case to  allow it to  move through the federal  process; the                                                                    
detail would  be removed  from the  public's view  under the                                                                    
legislation.  She  did  not  believe  it  was  fair  to  the                                                                    
citizens of  the state. She  believed the bill  was contrary                                                                    
to the First Amendment, the  Freedom of Information Act, and                                                                    
the  transparency of  government.  She  reiterated that  the                                                                    
bill  was   divergent  from  the  constitutional   right  to                                                                    
fairness, dignity,  and respect. She urged  the committee to                                                                    
think about  the victims.  She referred  to statute  and the                                                                    
sealing  of the  process  and expressed  her  belief that  a                                                                    
better process  should be devised  to address  people trying                                                                    
to seal their records.                                                                                                          
3:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson noted  his  compassion for  victims                                                                    
and understood their  constitutional rights; however, people                                                                    
who were falsely accused also  had constitutional rights. He                                                                    
noted  that  under  the legislation  the  records  would  be                                                                    
removed  from CourtView  after 120  days.  He wondered  what                                                                    
timeframe Ms. Winston would be comfortable with.                                                                                
Ms. Winston  replied that there  was a difference  between a                                                                    
case where a person was  falsely accused with no evidence to                                                                    
support  the charge  and a  case where  a plea  agreement to                                                                    
dismiss  had been  agreed upon.  She noted  that a  case was                                                                    
sometimes dismissed  if a defendant  died. She  relayed that                                                                    
the 120-day time  period was not the issue.  She opined that                                                                    
CourtView had been  a problem. She did  not want individuals                                                                    
wrongfully accused of  crimes to be punished  by the system;                                                                    
however,  she  did  want  the public  record  to  remain  on                                                                    
CourtView   for   other   situations.   She   believed   the                                                                    
legislation needed to be further defined.                                                                                       
3:08:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  spoke from the perspective  of a victim                                                                    
and shared that  his father had been murdered when  he was a                                                                    
child;  however, he  would not  feel comfortable  to have  a                                                                    
person who was  wrongfully accused listed as  a criminal for                                                                    
the  rest of  their  life  even if  the  record showed  that                                                                    
charges  had  been dismissed.  He  stated  that it  was  not                                                                    
possible  to have  a  perfect system.  He  would never  feel                                                                    
comfortable having  a murder charge  listed for  an innocent                                                                    
JAMES NOBLE,  SELF, PRUDHOE BAY (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in  support of  the bill.  He stated  that charges  had been                                                                    
dismissed after he had been  falsely accused of stalking and                                                                    
domestic  violence   by  an   ex-girlfriend.  He   had  been                                                                    
surprised and  upset by  a letter  of opposition  written by                                                                    
Ms.  Winston.  After listening  to  her  prior testimony  he                                                                    
agreed with much  of what Ms. Winston had  said; however, he                                                                    
personally  related  to  her   description  of  the  various                                                                    
process of humility and shame  that victims went through. He                                                                    
stated  that  he  was  the guilty  party  according  to  Ms.                                                                    
Winston's  letter and  beliefs. He  addressed the  idea that                                                                    
predators got away  with crimes; he believed  the system was                                                                    
working hard to bring guilty  persons to justice. He relayed                                                                    
that  the   dismissed  charges  against  him   were  on  the                                                                    
CourtView  record. The  charges had  been brought  over five                                                                    
years earlier,  but they remained visible.  He stressed that                                                                    
people  looked  at  CourtView;   it  was  useful,  but  also                                                                    
harmful.  He  emphasized that  the  current  system did  not                                                                    
work.  He agreed  that  there  were a  few  cases where  the                                                                    
guilty  went free  due to  the system,  but that  the system                                                                    
would never  be perfect.  He noted  the high  case dismissal                                                                    
rate of 60  to 70 percent. He asked about  the rights to due                                                                    
process, innocence  until proven guilty, about  his right to                                                                    
privacy,  and  his right  after  proving  his innocence.  He                                                                    
reiterated his  support for the legislation  and thanked the                                                                    
3:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
CSSB 108(JUD)  was HEARD and  HELD in committee  for further                                                                    
3:15:18 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:17:09 PM                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
1.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
3.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Section Analysis.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
5 CSSB 108(JUD) Summary of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6 SB108 Legal Memo 2 26 14.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6.2 SB108 Rule 37.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7 SB108 Support Letters - Dr. Don Brink, Chugiak, AK.PDF HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
12 SB108 OVR Written Testimony.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.1 SB108 Support - Dr. Donna Klecka, Eagle River, AK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.2 Support of SB108 - James Noble, Kenai, AK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Collateral Consequences & Reentry in Alaska.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.3 Support of SB108 - Carmen Gutierrez.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
House Finance OVR Opposition to SB 108.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB178 DOR Letter - Rodell.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
SB 178 Letters of Support.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
CSSB 178 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
SB 127 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Explanation of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 28.10.421 Registration Fee Rates.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Letters of Support.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 16.05.380 & .390 ADF&G.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - DMV Non DL Transactions FY 2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - DMV Revenue Sources.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 28.10.431(e) Re Municipal Tax Collection.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - Alaska Tags & Titles Transaction Count and Revenue 04-13.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB169PayerPyramid_7Mar2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 WhoPaysFor VaccineInAK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
AdultFluPneumoniaImmunizations2012.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
StateSupplyVaccinesDistributedByProviderType2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
Questions from Higgins March 26.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 Vaccines In AK short vsn (2).pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Additional Questions Rep. Higgins.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169FlowChart_7Mar2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 FAQs vsn I.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Support all.batch 1.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 Vaccines In AK short vsn (2).pptx HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Support batch 2.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Sponsor Stmt FIN.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Response to BIO concerns.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Opposition.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Opposition Pharma.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Historic vaccine photo.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB129 Supporting Documents-Letter AK Chamber.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Supporting Documents-DCCED BCREA Audit 2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Supporting Documents-Summary of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB 64 (HJUD) Presentation.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 64
SB 127 Testimony Opposition.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
HB 287 New Fiscal Note CS FIN DOR.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 287
HB 287 New Fiscal Note CS FIN DNR.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 287
test Geddes Letter on SB 108.docx HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
HB 316 Amendment #2 Thompson.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 316
Replacement Amendment #1 Gara.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 316
SB 56 APD Suggested Sentencing.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 56
SB 108 adm-40a Courts.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
AK Chamber SB 127 Stoltze April 17, 2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127