Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/19/2014 08:30 AM FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HFC CS SB 108 (FIN).pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 108
CS WORKDRAFT FIN Y version.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 193
SB 108 Court View Disclaimer.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 108
SB 64 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS0116Q.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 64
SB 140 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS1246B.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 140
SB 71 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS0594H.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 71
SB 64 MADD Document.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 64
SB 218 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS1567-P.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 218
SB 71 Amendment Munoz #1 HFIN.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 71
SB 64 Amendment #1 Holmes.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 64
SB 64 Amendment Replacement #1 Holmes.pdf HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM
SB 64