Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
05/05/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB316 | |
| SB134 | |
| SB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 206 - DETENTION /I.D. OF PERSONS;CONTEMPT OF CT 2:04:50 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 206(FIN), "An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention and identification of persons." [In members' packets was a proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06.] CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that proposed amendments have been distributed and that a representative from the Anchorage Police Department (APD) was available for questions. REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided along with a handwritten change]: Page 3, line 23: After "person is", insert "for no longer than is" CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06, ought to be adopted before any amendments to it are addressed. LAUREN RICE, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Bunde and in response to a question, relayed that Representative Gruenberg worked with the sponsor on the changes incorporated into the proposed HCS and could therefore explain the differences. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that proposed AS 12.50.201(c) now contains language stipulating that a person receiving a subpoena may request the district attorney to move to quash the subpoena; that Section 1 has been rewritten to clarify that the contempt provision now also applies to any civil or criminal court proceeding; and that at the request of the APD, proposed AS 12.50.201(d)(1) and (2) - which pertain to how fingerprints and photographs may be used and when they shall be destroyed - now also include the phrase, "unless it is determined that the person is suspected of committing the crime under investigation". 2:10:02 PM CHAIR McGUIRE [although no formal motion had been made] determined that there were no objections to adopting the proposed HCS for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06, as the work draft, and so announced that Version R was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that he wants to ensure that law enforcement can get the information it needs and that innocent people are not detained for any longer than necessary. MS. RICE relayed that the sponsor supports Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:12:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided along with a handwritten change]: Page 2, line 14: Delete "reasonable suspicion" Insert: "probable cause" REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA, on the issue of detaining an innocent person because he/she is a witness, opined that law enforcement should have to meet the higher burden of probable cause - probable cause that the person has information - before being able to detain him/her as a witness. 2:14:24 PM MS. RICE relayed that the sponsor feels that Amendment 2 moves away from the intent of the bill and would weaken it; the situations that the bill is trying to address are often violent, emotional, fluid circumstances, and it would be too hard to prove that one had probable cause to detain someone as a witness. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said the DOL has a real concern with Amendment 2. The current standard for an investigative stop by a police officer is reasonable suspicion, and the bill simply maintains that standard. At a time when a police officer is attempting to investigate what happened, he/she should be able to stop a person if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person has information. Changing the standard to probable cause would be confusing to police officers. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that he would be maintaining his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that law enforcement can't currently detain an innocent person and thus Amendment 2 lowers the standard such that now an innocent person can be detained. MS. CARPENETI opined that for investigative purposes, police ought to be able to stop a person and ask him/her what he/she knows, based on a reasonable suspicion. To require the police to have probable cause is too high a burden and will defeat the purpose of the bill, and for that reason the DOL would object to the adoption of Amendment 2. 2:16:52 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Anderson, Coghill, Gruenberg, Kott, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-5. 2:17:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided along with a handwritten change]: Page 2, line 21: Delete "may have" Insert: "has" REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that being able to detain someone based on a reasonable suspicion that he/she "may have" information would mean that the police would be able to detain everybody. Amendment 3 would stipulate that detaining a person can only be done if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person "has" information, so that law enforcement won't be able to simply detain everybody. CHAIR McGUIRE characterized that as a fair requirement. MS. CARPENETI said that as long as the standard is reasonable suspicion, stipulating "has" is okay with the DOL. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. 2:18:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 4, labeled 24- LS1197\R.1, Luckhaupt, 5/5/06, which read: Page 1, line 8: Delete "or" Page 1, line 10: Delete "(i)" Page 2, lines 2 - 5: Delete all material and insert: "(C) AS 09.50.010(5) or 09.50.010(10) if the conduct involves the failure to honor a subpoena or refusal to be sworn or answer as a witness in connection with a civil or criminal court proceeding or an appearance before the grand jury;" Page 2, line 7, following "(1)(B)": Insert "or (1)(C)" Page 3, line 14: Delete "or move the court to quash the subpoena" Page 3, line 17, following "identification.": Insert "The person may also use other rights provided by law to respond to the subpoena." The committee took an at-ease from 2:19 p.m. to 2:20 p.m. 2:20:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to divide Amendment 4 into Amendment 4a and Amendment 4b. There being no objection, it was so ordered, with Amendment 4a and Amendment 4b reading as follows: Amendment 4a: Page 1, line 8: Delete "or" Page 1, line 10: Delete "(i)" Page 2, lines 2 - 5: Delete all material and insert: "(C) AS 09.50.010(5) or 09.50.010(10) if the conduct involves the failure to honor a subpoena or refusal to be sworn or answer as a witness in connection with a civil or criminal court proceeding or an appearance before the grand jury;" Page 2, line 7, following "(1)(B)": Insert "or (1)(C)" Amendment 4b: Page 3, line 14: Delete "or move the court to quash the subpoena" Page 3, line 17, following "identification.": Insert "The person may also use other rights provided by law to respond to the subpoena." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4a, which he characterized as merely making grammatical changes. There being no objection, Amendment 4a was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti to comment on Amendment 4b. 2:22:28 PM MS. CARPENETI said that the DOL had concern with the language, "or move the court to quash the subpoena" - now contained in Version R - because it implies that a person will get the subpoena quashed as long as he/she provides his/her state ID, and so Amendment 4b removes that language and instead inserts language clarifying that the person has other rights provided by law with which to deal with the subpoena. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is his intention to allow a person who provides valid government-issued ID to file a motion to quash the subpoena if the district attorney won't withdraw it. MS. CARPENETI said that a person always has the right to move to quash a subpoena, but the language currently in Version R implies that the subpoena will automatically be quashed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that the language currently in Version R specifies that the person must first file a motion to quash - and then it would actually be up to the court to decide whether to do so - and that exactly satisfies his intention. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not be offering Amendment 4b. 2:24:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed HCS for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 206(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|