Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/17/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB366 | |
| HB369 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 369 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 369-IMMUNITY FOR DRUG RELATED OFFENSE
2:41:00 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the last order of business would be
HB 369, "An Act relating to limited immunity from criminal
prosecution for a person who seeks medical assistance for a
person experiencing a drug overdose."
2:41:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, speaking as prime sponsor, stated that
HB 369 is a form of limited criminal immunity for a person
seeking medical assistance for an individual experiencing a drug
overdose. Fourteen states have implemented a form of limited
immunity. Legislative Legal and Research Services has offered
an analysis that was performed in Washington that indicates what
could come about from HB 369. He opined that this legislation
focuses on public health rather than whether an individual
suffering from an overdose should go jail. As an example, he
related a situation in Washington in which two friends drove
around with another friend in the backseat who had overdosed on
an opiate. The two friends, who were fearful of legal
repercussions, were hoping their friend who overdosed would just
come out of it, but the friend ended up dying while in a very
close proximity to a hospital. Representative Pruitt noted that
in Washington during an overdose scenario police officers are
unlikely to actually arrest the individual or his/her friends.
However, he contended, most people in that situation are
concerned about the legal aspects of such a situation. The
intent of HB 369 is to create a situation in which an individual
does not have to decide between whether or not he/she will go to
jail by helping someone who is overdosing, but rather allows the
individual to make a good faith effort to assist the individual
wo his overdosing. To be clear, he said, HB 369 does not mean a
drug dealer/trafficker receives a "get out of jail free" card as
that will not happen. Also, the legislation does not allow an
individual to use this immunity multiple times as the goal is to
help people get their lives back on track without being worried
they have to make the choice between their friend dying or going
to jail.
2:46:53 PM
MORGAN HOPSON, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, clarified the sponsor's intent with CSHB 369,
Version 28-LS1515\N, Strausbaugh, 3/14/14, is not to grant
immunity to persons who have the intention to distribute or
manufacture. The committee substitute specifically lists
immunity against certain possession charges. She highlighted
that prior to the State of Washington's law going into effect,
drug users were polled and approximately 50 percent said they
would call in regardless of their fear of legal ramifications.
After the law was passed, 88 percent of drug users said they
would call in. In the State of Washington, the idea was to
create assurances to drug users that they could call in. The
main focuses of HB 366 are saving the life of the individual
overdosing, treating the individual at the hospital, and
referring them for treatment. She explained that the sponsor
would like a good consensus on the appropriate threshold as far
as using HB 369 for immunity for persons who have possession,
but are not distributing or manufacturing.
2:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled that during police ride alongs
she observed individuals who were left alone after a drug
overdose by other individuals were also using or had possession
of a small quantity of drugs and did not want a legal problem
from helping the individual overdosing. Drawing from
conversations with users, she surmised that an overdose that is
rock bottom and they turn their lives around as it is not
something that is pleasant to go through. She characterized
HB 369 as a safety net for people addicted to drugs as it may
keep them from dying. She noted her appreciation for HB 369,
particularly since the bill as the drug culture in Alaska is
changing to a young person's game and the legislation may save
lives.
2:52:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that he has no patience with drug
abuse in all varieties and would prefer to see stronger [drug]
laws rather than weaker. Having said that, he related that he
is pro-life and the state cannot allow someone to not be
admitted for treatment for fear of being prosecuted. He related
his understanding that HB 369 is a one-time "get out of jail
free" card before an individual goes to jail. He then
emphasized that first it is important to save their lives and
HB 369 is a step in the right direction.
2:53:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, in response to Chair Keller, confirmed
that the committee substitute is a work in progress in order to
ascertain that HB 369 is tight enough that individuals cannot
take advantage of it. Version N is the version Kathleen
Strasbaugh, Legislative Legal and Research Services, and Anne
Carpeneti, Department of Law (DOL), agreed upon, he related.
2:54:29 PM
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, deferred to the sponsor as to whether the draft achieves
the sponsor's objectives. She noted that she worked with the
Department of Law and does not know if other issues need to be
discussed.
2:54:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that Section
2 of most legislation involving criminal laws is regarding
applicability as it applies to offenses occurring before, on, or
after the effective date of the act. He requested clarification
on the matter.
MS. STRASBAUGH responded there is language in HB 369 specifying
an immunity rather than a defense. Section 2 is a general
formulation that Legislative Legal Services placed in the bill
itself to show how it applies, she explained.
2:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that rather than having a
"general" paragraph in most of the criminal laws, there should
be language in Title 12 that specifies unless a bill reads
otherwise, the change occurs on or after the effective date of
the act. He pondered whether the committee should explore
including that language in a general section in the Code of
Criminal Procedure as it appears regularly in most of these
criminal [bills].
2:57:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:57 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
3:01:09 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), responding
to Representative Gruenberg's suggestion, stated that it is
currently contained in Title 1. She explained that generally,
unless there is an effective date and a clear indication of
legislative intent to have a law be retrospective, that new
bills are already perspective. She offered to locate the
statute and provide it to the committee.
3:01:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that it appears to be the current
practice, and if that is answered by the general retrospective
statute then the committee should be striking Section 2 and not
including Section 2 in the bills at all.
MS. CARPENETI responded that it could be the Department of Law's
legislative section that is looking to include Section 2 in
bills, especially in criminal law to clarify the legislature's
intent regarding whether or not something should be prospective
or retrospective.
3:03:34 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that HB 369 would be set aside.