Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/19/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 64 - ANTI-STALKING LAW Number 261 REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 64, cited statistics and studies relating to female murder victims. She said that California had passed the nation's first anti- stalking law in 1990, and 30 other states had since followed suit. She said that the laws were the result of stalking victims' frustration with law enforcement officials' inability to intervene prior to an outright attack on a victim. REP. TOOHEY said that HB 64 had been modeled after the state of Michigan's law. Since its introduction, she had been working with the Department of Law, the Department of Public Safety, and other entities to address concerns. She noted that the committee members had before them a proposed committee substitute that incorporated changes resulting from that work. She indicated that the draft committee substitute was supported by the Department of Law, the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Homer Police Department, and the Anchorage Police Department. Number 320 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the bill before the committee was the committee substitute which Rep. Toohey had mentioned. In addition, he noted that the committee would address a number of minor amendments to that committee substitute. He indicated his intention to not pass the bill out of committee immediately, but to hold the bill until the new amendments could be incorporated. Number 335 REP. KOTT moved to adopt the blank committee substitute as the document which the committee would be working on. Hearing no objection, CHAIRMAN PORTER adopted the blank committee substitute as the vehicle that the committee would be addressing. Number 341 REP. PHILLIPS asked Rep. Toohey if she had a document outlining the changes between the original HB 64 and the committee substitute. Number 349 REP. TOOHEY said that she did have such a document. REP. PHILLIPS asked that a copy of the document be provided to each committee member. Number 353 MS. KNUTH called HB 64 a very effective tool for the Department of Law. She noted that the law would allow the state to take action before a serious tragedy occurred. She mentioned instances in which women had called police because they were scared, and the police could do nothing. She said that HB 64 would allow police to intervene in situations earlier than they currently were able to. Number 360 MS. KNUTH stated that changes requested by the Department of Law and embodied in the work draft involved elements of the offense. She said the offense described in HB 64 resembled existing offenses in Alaska law, but filled a gap in current law. She noted that the offense described in HB 64 drew upon Alaska's criminal code and would be comprehensible to judges, defenders, and prosecutors. Number 375 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth to give a layman's definition of the elements of HB 64. MS. KNUTH said that HB 64 addressed repeated acts directed against a person that would recklessly place that person in fear of death or serious physical injury. She said stalking differed from existing assault laws in that assault laws required imminence. She added that warrantless arrests could be made for stalking. Number 443 LAURE KNOPP testified via teleconference from Delta Junction that she and her family were being stalked by an individual, and that the state troopers' hands were tied. She noted the empathy and frustration of law enforcement officials, but their powerlessness to act. Because she lived in a rural area, she added, law enforcement officers would be unable to respond quickly enough to a situation of imminent danger. She said that each area of nonconsensual conduct delineated in HB 64 had been committed by the individual stalking her. Number 474 LEE ANN LUCAS, from the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said that HB 64 was a needed addition to the Alaska criminal code. She noted that the department had three concerns with the bill. First, they thought that the definition of "family member" on page 2 should be broadened to include someone in a "dating, courtship, or engagement relationship with the victim." Second, she said the definition on page 2, line 26, was unclear as to whether it would apply to the family of a victim's spouse. Finally, she said the department was concerned that the term "immediate family" used on page 3, line 26, was unclear. CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated to committee members that the changes mentioned by Ms. Lucas had already been noted and would be included in a group of amendments that would be included in a revised draft of the bill. REP. PHILLIPS commented that it was important to have a definition of "family member" in the statute. Number 535 SUSAN PARKES, a member of the COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, voiced the council's strong support of HB 64 via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted that the group had already submitted a position paper, and that she would therefore keep her comments brief. She mentioned the gap in current law that HB 64 would fill. Ms. Parkes noted the frustration currently experienced by victims, prosecutors, and the police. She said HB 64 would allow police to take action before a situation became violent. Number 580 MS. PARKES said the bill's authorization for police to make warrantless arrests was an important feature of the bill. She also noted the importance to prosecutors and police officers of labeling the crime "stalking." She indicated that the council supported the changes made to the original bill, but suggested that a provision be added to the bill that if a stalker was caught with a weapon, a felony would be committed. Number 603 JOEY ADAMS testified via teleconference from Anchorage that she and her family were the victims of a stalker. She stated that her husband was an Anchorage police officer, which did not deter the stalker. She commented that she knew that her stalker carried a weapon, and she was always afraid, and he was always there. Ms. Adams said that the police could do nothing in response. Number 618 OFFICER BUCK ADAMS, the husband of Joey Adams, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that he felt his perspective on stalking was unique in that he had been a police officer for 18 years and was also a stalking victim. He gave examples of the kind of activity his stalker had engaged in and continued to engage in. He mentioned the constant fear that he and his family endured as a result of the stalker's activities. He strongly urged passage of HB 64. He noted his concern about the law's definition of "fear." Number 665 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he also felt that the definition of "fear" should be discussed. He asked Officer Adams if the bill's other provisions met the circumstances that the Adams family faced. Number 670 OFFICER ADAMS responded that he felt the provisions of HB 64 would address his situation, except for the constant, nagging character defamation that his stalker committed. Number 680 ANNE PENCE, testifying via teleconference from Kenai/Soldotna, expressed her support for HB 64. As a former stalking victim, she said that she could attest to the need for an anti-stalking law. She said that law enforcement personnel traditionally either did not believe a victim or had no legal recourse. She suggested that notification of victims when stalkers were released from custody, and bail limitations, be added to HB 64. Number 700 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that under current law, victims of this type of offense were notified when a perpetrator was released. Number 716 MARCIA MCKENZIE, from the COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, reiterated the council's support for HB 64. Number 727 CINDY SMITH, from the ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, said that a fundamental gap now existed in the laws pertaining to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. She stated that passage of an anti-stalking law was the network's number one legislative priority for this year. She cited statistics on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She said that laws similar to HB 64 were on the books in over half of the states in this country. MS. SMITH commented that her organization, victims and police officers all knew what stalking often led to, but were powerless to stop it. Restraining orders, she noted, provided only limited assistance to stalking victims. She mentioned her support of an amendment mentioned earlier regarding classifying the offense as a felony if the stalker possessed a weapon. Number 740 ELIZABETH CUADRA, from Juneau, cited two incidences of stalking that involved her and her family. She said that she had been the victim of a stalker in the 1950s, and her teenage daughter had been stalked during the 1970s. TAPE 93-16, SIDE B Number 000 MS. CUADRA cited a current stalking case that she knew of in Juneau in which a woman had been stalked by another woman for more than a year. She said that she hoped the committee would bear in mind the fear instilled in stalking victims. Number 041 HEATHER FLYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the ABUSED WOMEN'S AID IN CRISIS (AWAIC) WOMEN'S SHELTER in Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage about a former shelter client who was a stalking victim. Despite two restraining orders against her husband, she and her children experienced great emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her husband. She expressed an opinion that, had an anti- stalking law been on the books at the time, the woman's husband would have been stopped before his behavior became as violent as it had. She said that the police needed the tool of an anti-stalking law. She urged the committee to support HB 64. Number 060 ROBERT LAUX testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 64. He thanked Rep. Toohey for introducing the legislation. He stated that he was currently a stalking victim. He noted that his stalker was a woman with whom he had been involved in a relationship. He said that he felt that he had no recourse against the stalker. He commented that he thought the bill should be expanded to include individuals involved in dating relationships with the victim, and not just the victim's family members. Number 223 SUSAN STEGE, a counselor from STANDING TOGETHER AGAINST RAPE (STAR), testified from Anchorage via teleconference in support of HB 64. She said that the bill would help many of STAR's clients. She noted her support of an amendment whereby if a stalker carried a weapon, stalking would be classified as a felony. She reminded the committee of the long-term emotional scars that stalking victims suffer from and suggested that this issue be addressed in HB 64 as well. Number 250 CAPTAIN SHIRLEY WARNER, of the ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 64. She said HB 64 would enable police officers to take quick and sure action in volatile and life-threatening situations. She stated that police officers were often forced to tell victims that nothing could be done about a stalker. She cited a recent case in Anchorage in which an officer was only able to charge a stalker with disorderly conduct. Aside from protecting victims, Capt. Warner said HB 64 would send a clear message to the people that they could not violate the freedom of another individual. Number 296 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned the fact that HB 64 contained a provision allowing the police to arrest stalkers without a warrant. He noted that the general arrest laws provided that if a misdemeanor had been committed, an officer could only make an arrest on the spot if the misdemeanor occurred in the officer's presence. In a felony case, he added, an officer only needed probable cause in order to make an arrest. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that at the present time, an officer could make an arrest for a misdemeanor based on probable cause in a domestic violence/assault case. He said HB 64 would make stalking another crime for which warrantless arrests could be made. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that committee staff would work to incorporate suggested amendments into the proposed committee substitute for HB 64 and that the bill would be back before the committee as soon as that had occurred. Number 328 REP. TOOHEY said that she did not object to any of the proposed amendments, but she encouraged the committee to act on the bill quickly in order that current stalking victims be protected as soon as possible. Number 338 REP. KOTT said that he hoped to discuss HB 64 further so that committee members' views would be addressed in the new committee substitute. He asked if the bill was establishing a precedent regarding the period of probation, citing page 6, section (f), of the work draft. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that an amendment addressing the issue of probation would be incorporated into the proposed committee substitute. Number 386 REP. PHILLIPS commented that she was a co-sponsor of HB 64, but she had only heard comments supporting the bill during the hearing. She said that she wanted to think about potential problems with the bill. She mentioned a hypothetical situation in which a lovesick teenage boy could be charged with stalking. Number 416 CHAIRMAN PORTER called ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MARGOT KNUTH to address the committee on potential abuses of the anti-stalking law. Number 420 MS. KNUTH noted that earlier versions of HB 64 had left others uneasy for reasons similar to those Rep. Phillips mentioned. She commented that the current version of HB 64 specifically addressed Rep. Phillips' concern by creating the crime of stalking in the context of "recklessly placing another person in fear of death or physical injury." She said that this language would separate out the "lovesick puppies" from the stalkers. Number 446 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to speak about what criteria would be used to determine whether someone knowingly engaged in such conduct. Additionally, he asked who would judge the behavior. Number 455 MS. KNUTH mentioned that criminal law employed different standards for conduct and for circumstances. For conduct, she said that it was typical that a person's conduct must be "knowing." She explained that a person under anesthesia would not have acted "knowingly." As to who would judge that, she said that all members of the legal society, from a police officer to the judge and jury, would judge. MS. KNUTH commented that in terms of circumstances, HB 64 referred to "recklessly." She said that reckless behavior, in statute, referred to a person having reason to know that a circumstance existed and disregarded that circumstance. She said that this was particularly relevant in stalking cases, where the stalker often knew his or her victim, and used that knowledge to make his or her conduct so intimidating. Number 492 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to offer a specific example of someone who would have "reason to know" and also asked her if a drunk person would have "reason to know." Number 507 MS. KNUTH responded that the law addressed intoxication by saying that a person who was unaware of conduct or circumstances that they would have been aware of when not intoxicated, would be held to have acted knowingly. In other words, alcohol would not be an excuse for acting knowingly. With respect to acting recklessly, or being aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that one is causing fear to another person, Ms. Knuth said that she was not a good person to come up with stalking examples. MS. KNUTH said that traditional stalking would include leaving threatening communications, following a victim, and leaving items for a victim, as part of a plan to torment someone. Number 544 REP. DAVIDSON said that everyone knew what stalking was when they saw it, but questioned how they could define it in law. He said that he supported an anti-stalking bill that did not overdo it, but at the same time gave victims necessary protections. He asked Ms. Knuth about her earlier use of the term "successive approximations." MS. KNUTH replied that she had been referring to the continual development and amendment of criminal laws, with the goal of perfecting laws so that they neither overaddressed nor underaddressed situations. Number 571 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth what excesses could result from HB 64. Number 577 MS. KNUTH commented that HB 64 was a very carefully tailored bill and she did not see the bill as lending itself to prosecution excesses. In terms of where there might be a problem, she noted that a person could call the police thinking that they were the victim of stalking and the police would not view the crime as stalking. She added that she did not believe that the bill would result in improper arrests or prosecutions. Number 604 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to point out parameters in the bill that ensured that it was not overbroad. Number 606 MS. KNUTH said that the phrase, "in fear of death or physical injury," was a key parameter in the bill that protected against the law being abused. Number 616 REP. GREEN said that although he was in favor of HB 64, he would play the devil's advocate. He said many of the criteria outlined in HB 64 would fall under the category of assault or battery. Number 633 MS. KNUTH noted that the crime of stalking was a combination of the traditional elements found in the crimes of assault and battery. However, she noted that the exact combination of elements did not yet exist in law and needed to be added. Number 653 REP. GREEN asked Ms. Knuth about the language on page 3, line 25, of the work draft. He also expressed a concern about potential abuses of the provision that nonconsensual contact included a person appearing within the sight of another person. Number 678 MS. KNUTH replied that three elements were needed to constitute stalking, and a person appearing within the sight of another person was only one of those three elements. Number 700 REP. GREEN asked who the burden of proof would be on in a stalking situation. Number 707 MS. KNUTH noted that there was a general consensus on what behavior constituted stalking. She agreed that it was difficult to write a law that was unequivocally tailored to do nothing more than what a drafter wanted it to do, but felt that HB 64 came remarkably close to achieving its desired goal. TAPE 93-17, SIDE A Number 000 MS. KNUTH also noted that HB 64 contained some language that was not a change in law, but rather a simple move of a statute from the terroristic threatening statutes to the assault statutes. Number 026 REP. GREEN expressed a concern that language relating to deadly weapons was unfair due to differences in humans' size and their corresponding abilities to inflict harm on other humans, with or without deadly weapons. Number 051 MS. KNUTH said that there were cases in which the Court of Appeals had ruled that feet could be a dangerous instrument. However, she noted that the present criminal law generally made distinctions based on whether or not a weapon was present. Number 079 REP. NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth if the citation on the bottom of page 1 referred to temporary restraining orders. MS. KNUTH responded that she believed that was the case. REP. NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth if a person had to be in violation of a temporary restraining order in order to be guilty of first-degree stalking and why that was not true for second-degree stalking. MS. KNUTH indicated that violation of a temporary restraining order was part of first-degree stalking. She stated that the misdemeanor offense of stalking in the second degree occurred when someone recklessly placed another person in fear of death or serious physical injury. Doing the same thing when a temporary restraining order was in place constituted the felony crime of first-degree stalking. Number 119 REP. NORDLUND asked if arrests could be made without a warrant for stalking in the first degree. MS. KNUTH said that because stalking in the first degree was a felony, a warrantless arrest was possible. REP. NORDLUND asked why suspended impositions of sentence were disallowed for stalking crimes. Number 135 MS. KNUTH stated that a suspended imposition of sentence allowed a defendant to have a conviction taken off of her or his record. She added that it was a policy call as to where the line should be drawn regarding crimes that had suspended imposition of sentence and those that did not. Regardless of suspended impositions of sentences, she noted, the police would always know about arrests for any offenses. Number 173 REP. NORDLUND asked if the lack of suspended impositions of sentence was due to the likelihood that stalkers would repeat the offense. MS. KNUTH said she believed that this was the belief behind that particular provision of HB 64. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that one more person wanted to testify on HB 64. Number 181 DEBORAH LUPER, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SEN. LOREN LEMAN, testified in support of the concept of HB 64. She mentioned that Sen. Leman, for whom she worked, had sponsored a similar bill, SB 22. She mentioned her concerns about several portions of HB 64. She said that she would like to see a definition of "repeated" in the bill. MS. LUPER mentioned a hypothetical situation at the Greens Creek Mine in which HB 64 could be abused. She advocated changing language from "physical injury" to "serious physical injury." She expressed an opinion that "fear" should be defined in the bill as well. MS. LUPER also commented that the notion of delivering an object onto property should be expounded upon. She cited a hypothetical example in which an estranged couple jointly owned property and the husband delivered an object to the property, although he was under a court order to not be there when his wife was there. She said that the bills should be tightened up so that innocent acts would not be prosecuted. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the committee would look into the issues Ms. Luper had raised. Number 277 REP. DAVIDSON referred to Ms. Luper's example of a husband delivering an object to property that he jointly owned with his wife. He asked if there would be an opportunity for a person to ask for permission of the court to make such a delivery. He added that Ms. Luper had brought up a very good point. Number 290 CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that he assumed that a person could petition the court in that case. Seeing that the members had no further questions or points of discussion, CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the suggested amendments would be incorporated into the current work draft as soon as possible. He added that the bill would be brought back before the committee as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there seemed to be a problem in committee members arriving at committee meetings at 1:00 p.m. He asked if any of the members had regular commitments at 3:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Since starting meetings at 1:00 p.m. seemed to be a problem, he wondered if it would be better to start meetings at 1:30 p.m. REP. KOTT said that he was on the Health, Education, and Social Services Committee, which met at 3:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN PORTER then asked if members would make a concerted effort to arrive at 1:00 p.m., particularly when teleconferences were scheduled. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|