Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1997 01:07 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 6 - RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS HB 3 - DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA Number 238 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members the first order of business would be a report by Representative Bunde, subcommittee chairman of HB 6, "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors," HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors," and HCR 4, relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. CHAIRMAN GREEN excused himself for the purpose of testifying in another standing committee meeting. VICE CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE, chairman of the subcommittee assigned to HB 6, HB 3 and HCR 4, advised members that Representative Pete Kelly had provided an updated list regarding the release of information on felonies to the subcommittee. The subcommittee presented several language adjustments to Representative Kelly and asked that he incorporate them into the original version of HB 6, and provide a draft committee substitute for the full committee's consideration. The draft committee substitute could be found in members' bill files. Number 376 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE advised members that the subcommittee also recommended that a draft committee substitute be prepared on HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors," which would incorporate the same list of crimes that would trigger the release of information as in HB 6. VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out that the subcommittee did not take a position as to endorsing one bill over the other. Number 418 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, member of the subcommittee, pointed out that there was a substantial amount of discussion regarding the criteria relating to the appropriate point to release information. He added that the criteria in both bills was the majority opinion of the subcommittee. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER reiterated that the Prime Sponsor of HB 3, Representative Pete Kott, agreed with the recommendations of the subcommittee and a draft committee substitute had been prepared. Representative Porter noted that if both HB 6 and HB 3 passed the legislature, there would not be any confusion or contradiction over what the criteria was for the release of information. Number 519 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT expressed his apologies for the inability to attend Monday's committee meeting because of weather conditions and the need to overhead to Sitka, Alaska. He pointed out that he had been particularly concerned with the lower levels of burglary and arson on buildings other than homes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members he had some additional language changes to HB 6 relating to the burning or burglarizing of a shed, and also the ability to adjust a first time drug offender. HB 3 - DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS Number 2115 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business would be HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors." REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor of HB 3, explained the subcommittee on HB 3 met and the recommendation was to include the list of offenses that are in HB 6. He said that is the only addition to the committee substitute that is before the committee. Number 2167 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said as she understands, the two bills have the same lists. She pointed out the committee did make some other amendments to HB 6 and questioned whether it would be appropriate to include those amendments in HB 3. She said HB 3 makes the disclosure by the police department and HB 6 makes the disclosure by the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that is correct. He said it is done on arrest. The law enforcement agencies may release the information. The bill does not directly have an affect on the federal funding of the DFYS and it does not have the intent of restructuring the DFYS. Representative Kott said, "The previous version essentially said that any crime committed, if it would have been a felony if committed by an adult would have been releasable, would have fallen into that category. I think with the new list that we have, some of the discussion that took place - one out of five basically were found innocent. I would submit that if you look at this list and compare this list with the number of folks who have moved through the system, I would say it's going to be very small." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she had a problem with that because she would like to see the CINA (Children in Need of Aid) and the delinquency separated for other reasons than the committee has heard. TAPE 97-22, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the public wants this disclosure and if the public didn't, the committee wouldn't be dealing with it. Not only does the public want to know who these delinquent kids are out there doing things, but they also want to know what the punishment will be. She pointed out there is more than the public's right to know as there is the punishment. She explained her concern is that had there been a sufficient amount of penalty for bad behavior, as determined by the DFYS in the courts up until now, we wouldn't have had such a push from the general public. Representative James explained a situation where she had a house sitter who kept a snow machine in the garage and it was stolen. The kid who sold the snow machine was caught driving it. The house sitter wanted to be sure that kid was punished and filed a charge against him. Representative James said absolutely nothing was done. The case was turned over to the DFYS and absolutely nothing was done. She noted she supports HCR 4, relating to separate records for delinquents and CINA. Representative James said losing federal funds never breaks her heart because there is always something you have to do to get them. Number 230 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the measure before the committee doesn't carry a fiscal note. He said he thinks what Representative James is talking about is having the punishment fit the offense at the end. He said that's the reason why there is a public outcry for the release of information at the beginning. If there was this kind of punishment at the end, then perhaps the cry at the beginning wouldn't have been so loud. If that's the case, he doesn't believe splitting the DFYS is necessary in order to provide that additional punishment. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained one of the bills addresses releasing general information by law enforcement and the other addresses releasing information by the DFYS. Representative Porter said by passing HB 3, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't pursue HB 6 and they could pursue both. The amendments made in the criteria of HB 6 would be appropriate to make in HB 3. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt CSHB 3, Version F, dated 2/19/97. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB 3, Version F, was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to make a conceptual amendment to include, in the appropriate portions of the bill, the amendments that were made to HB 6 in the similar provisions. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if all of the provisions were applicable. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he thinks Representative Porter said "as appropriate." Where the bill talks about a misdemeanor or a felony, those would be sifted through by the drafter and that's not a major issue. It is the intent. Chairman Green asked if there was an objection to that concept. Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she appreciated the comments by Representative Porter that HB 3 and HB 6 are not mutually exclusive. She said what her real belief is about this issue is that it already distresses her to punish before they're proven to be guilty. Representative James said, "I agree with Representative Porter in his assessment of the discharge of some of these issues that that is probably part of the reasons why were here today, is because many of these offenses are not properly treated." Representative James indicated if the young people had not been getting away with these offenses over the years without any apparent punishment, the public wouldn't be distressed. The public wants it because they have the right to know and they want don't want these kids to be harbored and protected. She said HB 3 and HB 6 doesn't do it for her. She stated she is "more happier with HCR 4 all by itself." Representative James said the DFYS and the courts could have been doing a better job and they haven't been. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated the public is not universally behind any idea of disclosure. He read from information on the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice titled, "Thoughts on Confidentiality of Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings From Around the State: Anchorage, report the incident but not the juvenile's name; Bethel, don't publish names; Fairbanks, names in the paper may create a hero syndrome; Juneau, do not publish names, it stigmatizes the child; Ketchikan, too much is hidden now but unfettered disclosure would create problems with labeling and racial discrimination; Kotzebue, serious offenses in older kids should be made public; Nome, want reporting of outcome, whether names should be reported depends of seriousness of offense, age of offender and whether this is a repeat offender." Representative Berkowitz noted that the problem is in small towns where people know of the incident already. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she attended the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice and that is not what she heard. She noted she has read parts of the information and that is not what she heard at the conference. Representative James said she would have to disagree that that was the message out of Fairbanks. Number 707 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said having voted to move HB 6 out of committee, he questions the need for HB 3. As he understands, it was originally meant as a way not to lose our funds. With the passage of HB 6, it would mean that when a child admits guilt or when there is such a frustration with it that they file a petition, their name is going to be disclosed on identical standards. In terms of either punishment or protection, he would question what would be gained by doing that from arrest. There is a branch point where both ends are covered fairly quickly with just a couple of checks to make sure we have the right person. He said, "Why we would need to disclose it at arrest when have that bill preceding, I seriously question." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believes it is a policy call. If an arrest has been made based on probable cause and based on the seven listed items, he thinks there is substantially good evidence that would be available. He noted probably most of the perpetrators would have been caught in the act. Again, the operative word is "may." If the law enforcement agency doesn't have a suspect or if there is any question, he is sure they won't release the name. They are not going to arbitrarily and capriciously release the name of everybody they apprehend. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the other difference between HB 3 and HB 6 is that it isn't a mandatory release. It says "may." He said it would be his guess that most law enforcement agencies would utilize the release in conjunction with contact and discussions with the DFYS. Number 860 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the liability would be to the state if there is no probable cause for arrest and disclosure is made. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "The same liability that would accrue, whether it was an arrest where there wasn't a release, you have the potential for an improper arrest. If you have released the name, I don't know that there is a distinction between an improper arrest, in an adult's case whether the name was released or not. I don't think that there is such a distinction and I don't know that there would be with a juvenile." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that is probably right. It would be a question of greatly increasing the damages, but the liability wouldn't be any different. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was any further discussion on HB 3. There being none, he asked what the will of the committee was. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHB 3(JUD), as amended, out of committee with the accompanying zero fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was objection and asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Porter, Rokeberg, James and Green voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted against the motion. Chairman Green announced CSHB 3(JUD) was moved out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|