Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/19/2003 01:04 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 52 - SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES Number 0032 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense." CHAIR McGUIRE, speaking as the sponsor, noted that the legislation that is currently HB 52 was originally introduced in the 22nd legislature by Representative Joe Hayes. She said that HB 52 is a good bill and has a good policy behind it. She relayed that there is precedent in other states for the concept embodied in HB 52. Under HB 52, she explained, when someone is [convicted] of a crime - specifically, possession or distribution of child pornography; committing indecent viewing or photography; committing a sex offense; or soliciting the commission of, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense - the items used in the commission of that crime will be forfeit. The intent, she said, is to have the forfeiture of the equipment be an extra penalty - it is meant to be punitive. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that there are two proposed amendments, one of which will address the forfeiture of equipment to law enforcement agencies, thereby providing an ancillary benefit in that the forfeited equipment can be used as an aid in pursuing those that commit such crimes. She also mentioned that one issue the committee will be discussing is whether to have such language be intent language or statutory language. The other proposed amendment, she noted, would remove the reference to [AS 11.41.460, which pertains to the crime of indecent exposure in the second degree]. She said that although there has been previous discussion regarding how far to expand the scope of HB 52, her intent is to keep the scope narrow. Number 0402 DAVID HUDSON, Captain, Administrative Services Unit, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS), after noting that he is the commander of the Criminal Investigation Bureau, which handles computer crimes, said simply that the AST is in support of HB 52, has attached a zero fiscal note, and is appreciative of any funding and equipment that can be channeled its way. Number 0472 KRISTIN T.(KRIS) MILLER, Lieutenant, Commander, Detective Section of Crimes against Children, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), after noting that the Detective Section of Crimes against Children also includes computer crimes, said simply that the APD is in support of HB 52, and that she is available to answer questions. Number 0542 CHAIR McGUIRE closed the public hearing on HB 52, and said that the committee would begin consideration of the proposed amendments. The committee took an at-ease from 1:10 p.m. to 1:12 p.m. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that there was still one person who wished to testify on HB 52, and so reopened the public hearing. Number 0567 JANET L. BROWN said that she is the co-founder of a group called Pissed Off Parents (POP). She said that she is in support of HB 52, and relayed that she is the mother of a child who was one of the victims of a sexual predator, her husband. She listed the different types of evidence uncovered and equipment seized during the investigation of her daughter's rape, and remarked that because that equipment played a large part in the different sexual crimes her husband committed over the course of 20 years, it would be a catastrophe to return the equipment back to him upon his release from prison. She asked the committee to support HB 52 and put the rights of children first, in deed as well as in thought. CHAIR McGUIRE again closed the public hearing on HB 52. Number 0723 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: INTENT. The forfeitures contemplated by this Act are intended to be forfeitures imposed in connection with conviction for a crime. The legislature intends for the forfeiture to be ordered to the commissioner of public safety or other law enforcement agency. Further, the legislature intends for the courts to continue to provide hearings to interested persons who have an ownership interest in equipment subject to forfeiture under this Act and to allow for remission to innocent nonnegligent third parties as applied in State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981), Fehir v. State, 755 P.2d 1107 (Alaska 1988), and Baum v. State, 24 P.3d 577 (Alaska App. 2001). Number 0738 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that there is precedent, in the statutes related to driving while intoxicated (DWI), for having forfeited items go directly to [and become the property of] the Department of Public Safety. She indicated that this forfeiture issue has been researched to ensure that what is proposed by Amendment 1 is constitutional. The remaining question regarding this language, she reiterated, is whether to have it added to the intent section of the bill or directly into statute. She noted that there is precedent, in AS 12.55.015(a)(9), for adding such language directly into statute; nonetheless, she indicated that her preference is to have the language added to the intent section so that it is clear that "we wanted the forfeiture of the items in this bill to be consistent with that public policy and to have them go to the commissioner of [the Department of Public Safety]." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for confirmation that such language is constitutional because it would merely be intent language. [Chair McGuire nodded her head yes.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how it would be determined which agency would get the forfeited equipment. CHAIR McGUIRE, after noting that the language in Amendment 1 mimics language in AS 12.55.015, suggested that for clarity, the words, "or a municipal law enforcement agency" could be added to Amendment 1 after the words, "commissioner of public safety". LIEUTENANT MILLER replied that typically, whichever agency runs the case and ends up seizing the equipment will also be the agency that finally disposes of it. Number 0937 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Amendment 1 needs a technical correction with regard to underlining in that, beginning with the second sentence, the new language to be added should read: "The legislature intends for the forfeiture to be ordered to the commissioner of public safety or other law enforcement agency. Further, CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she would consider that to be a friendly amendment to Amendment 1 and had no objections to it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection. Number 0997 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to adopting Amendment 1 [as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted. CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read [brackets added around text to be deleted, which originally had a line drawn through it; all other punctuation as provided]: Pg. 2, Sec. 2, Lines 4 & 5 Sec. 11.41.468. Forfeiture of property used in sexual offense. (a) Property used to aid a violation of [AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.470] AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.458 or to aid the solicitation of, attempt to commit, or conspiracy to commit a violation of [AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.470] AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.458 may be forfeited to the state upon the conviction of the offender. CHAIR McGUIRE explained that Amendment 2 would exclude the crime of indecent exposure in the second degree. She relayed that previous testimony by Ross Plummer of the APD indicates that he did not consider the aforementioned crime to fall within the scope of the bill. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 2. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 52, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 52(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|