Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/20/1994 02:30 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
  SB 252 - THE POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY                                 
                                                                               
  SHARON  CLARK,  Legislative  Aid  to  Senator  Mike  Miller,                 
  described  SB  252.    She explained  AS  11.41.455  and  AS                 
  11.61.125 prohibits the production and distribution of child                 
  pornography.   Current law,  however, does  not address  the                 
  issue of possession.  SB 252  addresses a compelling need to                 
  close  the  loop  by  prohibiting  the possession  of  child                 
  pornography as well  as production and distribution.   It is                 
  crucial that the state's statutes  address this vital issue.                 
  For as long  as the supply  and the demand exist,  producers                 
  will  continue  to  victimize  the  children involved.    In                 
  Osburne vs. Ohio, 495 US 103.109  LED SECOND 98, 110 Circuit                 
  Court,  1691,  1990.   The  court  finally  upheld the  Ohio                 
  statute  that  banned  the possession  or  viewing  of child                 
  pornography.  The  court found that such a  statute protects                 
  the   victims  of  child   pornography  and  encourages  the                 
  destruction of existing child pornography.  The physical and                 
  psychological  trauma inflicted  on  victims of  this sexual                 
  exploitation  is so  devastating  that  some children  never                 
  heal.  If  we regulate when people are  old enough to drink,                 
  drive, and vote, in order to protect them, then why would we                 
  not  also  regulate   and  ban   the  possession  of   child                 
  pornography to stop the  cycle of abuse, in which  the child                 
  is always the victim?  This would be  a Class B misdemeanor,                 
  and subject to  a term of  imprisonment of not more  than 90                 
  days, and to the fine of not more than $1 thousand.                          
                                                                               
  MS. CLARK urged the committee's support of SB 252.  She said                 
  Senate  Judiciary  had  a committee  substitute  for  SB 252                 
  offered  by   Commissioner  Prewitt  of  the  Department  of                 
  Corrections,   which  provides   an   exemption  for   those                 
  professionals providing  sex offender  treatment.   They may                 
  use some pictures or auditory tapes involving children.                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said  he was privileged to welcome the First                 
  Lady of the State of Alaska,  Mrs. Ermalee Hickel, and asked                 
  her to come forward to give her testimony.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 116                                                                   
                                                                               
  MRS. ERMALEE HICKEL  was pleased to  lend her support of  SB                 
  252, prohibiting the  possession of child pornography.   She                 
  encouraged state senators  and representatives to pass  this                 
  extremely   important   bill.     Pornography   should  have                 
  absolutely no place in our lives, and child pornography is a                 
  horrible  outrage  in our  society  as  you all  know.   The                 
  terrible statistics concerning the abuse of our children and                 
  sexual abuse of all  types cannot be ignored any  longer and                 
  these  statistics are  staggering.   As  many  of you  know,                 
  Alaska ranks number one in the nation in child sexual abuse.                 
  It is so  tragic that one in three American girls and one in                 
  seven boys  will be sexually abused by the  age of 18.  Over                 
  80 percent  of  child  molesters admit  to  regular  use  of                 
  pornography, and a serial molester  typically has from 360 -                 
  380  victims  in   his  lifetime.    Those   are  staggering                 
  statistics.  Both adult and child pornography is often  used                 
  as  an aid during these crimes, and often referred to as the                 
  instruction manual.   Approximately 1.2 million children are                 
  exploited every year in the  production of child pornography                 
  and child  prostitution.  Our  children do not  deserve this                 
  kind of treatment, and  they must be protected in  every way                 
  that we  can  find.   By  enacting  legislation  that  makes                 
  possession  of  child  pornography illegal,  we  can  make a                 
  positive step forward  in protecting  our young people,  and                 
  send  the  strong message  to  those who  use  this terrible                 
  material that we are not  going to turn our heads away  from                 
  the abuse of our children any longer.                                        
                                                                               
  MRS. HICKEL stated she  is a member of the  national "Enough                 
  is  Enough" campaign, an  organization to which  many of the                 
  Governors'  wives  belong.    This   campaign  has  done  an                 
  outstanding job  of making  folks aware  of the  devastating                 
  problems  of  illegal  pornography  and  child  pornography.                 
  Their terrific national  advertising, which  I have seen  in                 
  "Time" and "Newsweek" magazines, educating people about hard                 
  core pornography's relationship to  sexual abuse of children                 
  is making a  difference in protecting our  children's lives.                 
  It is having  a very  positive affect on  changing the  laws                 
  concerning  obscenity and  child  pornography.    This  fine                 
  organization is to be commended for it's outstanding work on                 
  behalf of America's children.  Mrs. Hickel said she will let                 
  the organization know what Alaska is doing in legislation to                 
  protect our children in the nation.                                          
                                                                               
  MRS.  HICKEL  said the  devastation  that  child pornography                 
  causes is truly unforgivable.  As Sharon said, it never goes                 
  away, and  we must do  all we can to  stamp it out,  for the                 
  sake of our children  and the families.  She  expressed hope                 
  that each one  of the  committee members would  give SB  252                 
  their  strongest support.  She  said from her heart, "Enough                 
  is enough."   She thanked  the committee for  considering SB                 
  252.                                                                         
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN  PORTER  recognized  and   welcomed  Representative                 
  Bettye Davis.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 200                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  BETTYE  DAVIS   testified  that  she   could                 
  actually say "ditto" to everything Mrs. Hickel had said, and                 
  she  does not believe  in doing a  whole lot of  talk if the                 
  committee is ready to take action.   She did want to say she                 
  was pleased  to be there  to testify on behalf  of the bill,                 
  which she introduced in the House.  She was pleased that  it                 
  had  made  it to  the Judiciary  Committee from  the Senate.                 
  Everything she  had to  say on  her notes  had already  been                 
  said.    She did  illustrate that  it  so important  that we                 
  consider this bill.   We are one  of the 23 states  who have                 
  not taken this particular action.  It behooves us to  do it.                 
  We are  number 47  when it comes  to the  well being  of our                 
  children.  She  said she does not care what people say about                 
  people having the  right to  have things in  the privacy  of                 
  their home.   We have to look at  it from the standpoint, if                 
  you  have  child pornography  materials  in your  home, some                 
  child  had to be  abused for you  to have it.   Even if they                 
  gave  consent, it  is considered to  be abuse.   Most of the                 
  material you see  sometimes would include infants  who could                 
  not even speak for themselves; and it is so devastating what                 
  happens  to children when  they are sexually  molested at an                 
  early age.  If one sexual abuser can abuse over 380 children                 
  within their  lifetime; and we  have many, many  people that                 
  are doing this,  look what we are  doing to the  children in                 
  this state.  She also is a  member of the "Enough is Enough"                 
  group.  It is  time for us  to do the  right thing and  pass                 
  this bill.  If there was anything she could change about it,                 
  she would like for  the penalty to  be even stiffer, but  if                 
  this will  just get  our  foot in  the  door, this  is  good                 
  enough.  This piece of legislation  is long overdue, and you                 
  will serve your state very well if you pass it.                              
                                                                               
  Number 258                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES commented  that she  wondered why  the                 
  penalty was only a Class B misdemeanor.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 275                                                                   
                                                                               
  BOB HEAD,  Chairman, Alaska Human Relations  Commission, was                 
  next to testify.  He summarized  a study of a six step  life                 
  cycle of child pornography.  He  explained that in step one,                 
  the offender displays existing child pornography to a child,                 
  ostensibly as educational material.  Step two is  an attempt                 
  to  convince the child that explicit sex is acceptable, even                 
  desirable,  using photographs and  movies, or  whatever they                 
  have.   In  step  three,  the child  porn  is  then used  to                 
  convince the young victim that children are already involved                 
  and it is  A-okay.  If it is there in  the movies, it cannot                 
  all  be   bad.    At   step  four,  the   child  pornography                 
  desensitizes the child,  lowering his/her  inhibitions.   At                 
  step  five,  some  of  these  sessions  progress  to  sexual                 
  activity, providing the child molester can get away with it.                 
  In step six,  using photographs from this new  activity, the                 
  cycle begins again,  using those  photographs and videos  to                 
  entice another child  into the same activity.  Pain suffered                 
  by children  used in  pornography is  often devastating  and                 
  always significant.  Short term  effects of such involvement                 
  include  depression,  suicidal  thoughts,  feeling  ashamed,                 
  guilt, alienation from family and peers, and a massive acute                 
  anxiety.    Victims  in  the   long  term  may  successfully                 
  integrate the event, particularly with psychiatric help, but                 
  many will  likely suffer a  repetition of this  abuse cycle.                 
  This is key, because  next time around they are  the abuser.                 
  At this time, they are suffering  a chronic low self esteem,                 
  depression,   anxiety   regarding   their  sexuality,   role                 
  confusion, a fragmented sense of  self, and a very  strongly                 
  enhanced probability of entry  into prostitution themselves.                 
  All, of course will suffer the agony, and Mrs. Hickel eluded                 
  to this, of knowing that their  sexual activity, on film, is                 
  now in circulation.   The effects  on their future lives  is                 
  unknowable and  beyond their control,  and may  well be  the                 
  most  unhealable  wound.   This  same commission,  which was                 
  concluded in '86, notes that several states have made kiddie                 
  porn   illegal,  and  consider   this  action  an  extremely                 
  effective weapon against child molestation.  If  we can make                 
  a stronger law to make it uncomfortable for child  molesters                 
  to live in our state, then it behooves us all to do anything                 
  we can to reach that plateau.  Several states currently have                 
  statutes which classify sexual exploitation of children as a                 
  felony,  including possession of child porn.   Some of these                 
  states also mandate registration of sex crime felons.                        
                                                                               
  Mr. HEAD said that considering the life shattering effect on                 
  our  youth,  he  asked,  on behalf  of  the  Human Relations                 
  Commission,  that  the  committee   enact  this  legislation                 
  prohibiting  the possession  of child  porn in the  State of                 
  Alaska.  We would further ask that some real teeth be put in                 
  it.  Let us make the Alaska statute among the strongest, not                 
  the  weakest.    Have  the  first conviction,  for  instance                 
  require registration on a law  enforcement network; and link                 
  that registration to the requirement for lifetime probation,                 
  as recommended in the attorney general's summary.                            
                                                                               
  MR. HEAD noted there is a spectrum of our society that feeds                 
  continually on this kind of thing.  They  are out there, and                 
  they  are involved  in  these things.    They have  journals                 
  within   their  spectrum.      Those  journals   tell   them                 
  periodically  where the easiest places are  to get away with                 
  this  activity,  and where  the  most hazardous  places are.                 
  Whatever we do,  let us make  the State  of Alaska the  most                 
  hazardous place in this nation for pedaphiles.                               
                                                                               
  Number 360                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  PHILLIPS asked  Mr. HEAD  which states  have                 
  enacted the offense as a felony offense.                                     
                                                                               
  MR. HEAD said he thought Idaho and Iowa did.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 378                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  PHILLIPS   asked  Diane   Schenker  of   the                 
  Department  of  Corrections  about  Section  B of  the  bill                 
  starting on line nine.   She noticed that amendment  was put                 
  in by Corrections.  She explained that there was an incident                 
  last year on  the Kenai  Peninsula, where a  group of  upset                 
  parents got together and formed an organization against this                 
  kind of treatment  in the Corrections  system.  She did  not                 
  know if  it was being used  on youthful offenders, or  if it                 
  was being used on adults.                                                    
                                                                               
  DIANE  SCHENKER,  Special  Assistant  to  the  Commissioner,                 
  Department of Corrections,  said she  did not remember  that                 
  particular group,  but from time  to time we  have different                 
  interested citizens question us  about the use of  this kind                 
  of treatment.   Usually when  the department had  given them                 
  the  information and  the reason  behind  it, the  group has                 
  appeared to be satisfied with the explanation.                               
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Schenker if they would use                 
  that kind of treatment on youthful offenders.                                
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER stated the only  people in our institutions are                 
  adults, or a very small percentage of waived juveniles, so I                 
  am not aware what  Health and Social Services does  in their                 
  juvenile facilities.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 400                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what a plethysmograph was.                        
                                                                               
  Number 420                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS.  SCHENKER  said it  is similar  to  a lie  detector, but                 
  measures  the  physiological  arousal  of  the  offender  to                 
  various  pictures or tapes, in  order for treatment staff to                 
  review.                                                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that was an excellent definition.                       
                                                                               
  Number 425                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN  said  he  thinks  he has  gotten  his                 
  children through without having had to be part of this whole                 
  problem.    He  has  a  slew  of grandchildren,  and  it  is                 
  disturbing that  they are going to have to face this kind of                 
  garbage.   He asked  if this  could be  strengthened without                 
  running amuck  of a crazy  judge in  a court saying  that is                 
  overreacting.  If  so he strongly recommended  toughening it                 
  up.                                                                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked  Jerry Luckhaupt, the bill  drafter to                 
  describe the level of  offense that this is, in  relation to                 
  other similarly placed offenses.                                             
                                                                               
  JERRY  LUCKHAUPT,  Legislative  Council, Division  of  Legal                 
  Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated this is a Class                 
  B misdemeanor.   The unlawful exploitation of a minor, which                 
  is something that, if you take pictures of that, it would be                 
  child pornography, basically, is the way we would find this.                 
  The unlawful exploitation of a minor is a Class B  felony in                 
  this state.  We currently have a statute on the distribution                 
  of child pornography.  If  you distribute child pornography,                 
  that  is a  Class  C felony.   There  has  been some  stair-                 
  stepping by the Legislature at the time.  If you follow that                 
  stair-stepping to a logical conclusion,  you would think the                 
  mere  possession,  since  the  legislature  usually  defines                 
  distribution as being worse than  mere possession, like with                 
  drugs, it  would  be  logical  for  this to  be  a  Class  A                 
  misdemeanor.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MR.  LUCKHAUPT referred to testimony  in given to the Senate                 
  Judiciary  Committee,  and  said  there  was  some  material                 
  provided to  them, listing the  numbers of states  that have                 
  laws on this subject,  and it was fairly equally  divided as                 
  to  whether  or  not   they  classify  as  a  felony   or  a                 
  misdemeanor, the  mere possession.   The material  indicated                 
  are  almost 40 states listed, of which  22 of them made mere                 
  possession of child pornography a misdemeanor.  The other 18                 
  states made it a felony.  He did not feel  that there is any                 
  privacy right to  possess child pornography.   He analogized                 
  child pornography to  the possession  of cocaine, which  the                 
  Alaska Supreme Court has not found to be protected under the                 
  right to privacy  provisions of  our constitution.   Whereas                 
  the possession of marijuana by adults for their own personal                 
  use  in  their  own homes  is  protected  under  our privacy                 
  provision, or our  constitution.  He analogized  that to the                 
  mere  possession  of  regular obscenity.    Regular  obscene                 
  material  was  ruled   to  be   protected  under  the   U.S.                 
  Constitution, by the U.S.  Supreme Court in 1969.   The mere                 
  possession of regular  old obscene material in your own home                 
  for   personal  purposes  is   protected,  and   our  Alaska                 
  Constitutional  Privacy Provision  would  protect that  same                 
  material.  Child pornography has a greater danger, and there                 
  is some proven danger  like with cocaine, as opposed  to the                 
  debate that goes  on about  the dangerousness of  marijuana,                 
  which could be  analogized to  the dangerousness of  regular                 
  pornography.  Child pornography does have some proven danger                 
  out there, so a court would not find the possession of child                 
  pornography  to  be protected.    Increasing the  penalty to                 
  Class A would  not affect that rationale.  Even  if you were                 
  going to  classify it  as a  Class C  felony, that  probably                 
  would not actually have an effect.  The Department of Public                 
  Safety  has   stated  in  fiscal  notes  that  they  do  not                 
  anticipate   going  out   and   actively  conducting   sting                 
  operations to prosecute people under this  law.  It would be                 
  something that they  would encounter  in executing a  search                 
  warrant, or something like that, in cases where sexual abuse                 
  has been discovered, or is being investigated.  Sexual abuse                 
  of minors would then  find an executing of a  search warrant                 
  of  the suspects home,  they might  find this  material, and                 
  then  they  would start  prosecution  as part  of  the other                 
  charges.    So  it is  within  your  power  to increase  the                 
  penalty.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN  PORTER  asked  Mr. Luckhaupt  if  he  had attended                 
  hearings where the  decision to  select Class B  Misdemeanor                 
  was discussed, and if he knew what the rationale was.                        
                                                                               
  Number 535                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said they started out, basically reintroducing                 
  a version from Representative Bettye Davis.  Her version was                 
  a reintroduction of  a bill from  the 17th Legislature,  and                 
  that  was  reintroduction from  the  16th Legislature.   The                 
  Class B Misdemeanor  was just  picked out of  thin air,  and                 
  everybody  kept  going   on.    There  was  never  any  real                 
  rationale.    Senate  Judiciary did  discuss  this  matter a                 
  little, and then just passed the bill out without reaching a                 
  conclusion as to whether or not  they wanted to increase the                 
  penalty.    They  amended the  bill  to  include  the penile                 
  plethysmograph treatment, and went ahead  and passed out the                 
  bill without actually addressing the discussion that went on                 
  about increasing the penalty.                                                
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES indicated she did  not think a Class B                 
  Misdemeanor was tough enough.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed  that it did  not seem to be  sending                 
  the correct message.  He asked  Sharon Clark if she believed                 
  Senator Miller would oppose amending the bill.                               
                                                                               
  SHARON CLARK did not think so and offered to check with him.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would like to go all the way up                 
  to a felony.  He thought felony would send a message that is                 
  a lot stronger than any numbers behind a misdemeanor.                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Margot  Knuth to come and  answer some                 
  questions.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 560                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT  O.  KNUTH,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Criminal                 
  Division, Department  of Law,  said  she thought  a Class  A                 
  Misdemeanor makes the most amount of sense from our existing                 
  scheme  because we  have a  Class C  felony offense  already                 
  related to child pornography, which is  distribution.  If we                 
  have  distribution being  the  Class C  felony, and  we have                 
  possession being a Class  C felony, they are going  to point                 
  fingers  at each  other and  say, "Wait  a  minute! Problem,                 
  problem!"   She was not sure  which one would be  thrown out                 
  more readily, but there needs  to be a stacking, and if  you                 
  want it, and if you thought you had enough time this session                 
  to work it all out, you could move everything up so that you                 
  would  be  making  quite  a  change.    But  if  you  wanted                 
  possession to be a "C", you  should make distribution a "B",                 
  and creation or production an "A".  But it is important that                 
  there be the  stacking because the conduct does  become more                 
  culpable,  and  equal protection  requires  that there  be a                 
  relationship between the  culpability and  the level of  the                 
  offense.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 575                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND  questioned about how  this would be                 
  enforced, or what would be the practical situations in which                 
  it this would  be enforced.  Possibly these  materials would                 
  be found in  the investigation of  another crime.   Perhaps,                 
  the activity was actually taking place  in the house and you                 
  are going in to investigate that.  He said his point is that                 
  this would probably  rarely be enforced  in it's own  right,                 
  and it would be a crime added to a number of other crimes in                 
  which  the perpetrator  would get  hit with  a pretty  stiff                 
  penalty anyway.                                                              
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN  PORTER  said it  could  be  a crime  in  which the                 
  original arrest that was made had no relationship to it.  It                 
  could be a  DWI arrest, and at the jail when they go through                 
  the possessions, they find child  pornography.  It could  be                 
  arrest for shoplifting or  whatever.  If it were  an offense                 
  related to  the pornography, more  than likely, we  would be                 
  into  a   felony  situation   in  the   first  place,   with                 
  transporting this material, or child sexual abuse.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN expressed  concern about  if a  person                 
  were picked up  for shoplifting, and  in his possession  was                 
  child pornography, would the offense be bigger or greater?                   
                                                                               
  Number 601                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said no.  He  said that the possession would                 
  not  necessarily   be  discovered   as  a   result  of   the                 
  investigation of a child  sexual assault type of case,  or a                 
  child pornography type of case.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 611                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did  not know whether it  would                 
  be more likely, or less likely, but the mere fact, as it was                 
  brought  out in  some  of the  testimony,  that this  person                 
  happens  to have  this  stuff in  his  possession, tells  us                 
  somebody had  to produce  it and  sell it. If  we can  start                 
  anywhere, and cut that chain, I think we should, and jack up                 
  the penalty as  high as we  possibly think the courts  would                 
  allow.                                                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that is exactly what  we are discussing                 
  and we are  wondering if we would have a problem making this                 
  a Class C felony.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 615                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH said  if it is  a crime at  all, and a  Class A                 
  Misdemeanor is fairly significant,  that is up to a  year in                 
  jail, and  you are  usually talking  about up  to a  year in                 
  jail, and you are usually talking about fines of hundreds of                 
  dollars, that is going to be new and different.  The message                 
  we are  trying  to  send out  is,  "Don't buy,  don't  be  a                 
  consumer, don't be  in possession."   You can  do that  even                 
  with just the  Class A  misdemeanor.   Right now,  everybody                 
  says, "I am  not a  distributer.   I am  just a  possessor."                 
  There are  no consequences for  it.  Where  I expect  we are                 
  going to pick this  up the most  often, is actually when  we                 
  are doing searches of houses for drugs and things like that,                 
  and that  is going to be a big  time offense already so this                 
  gets  added to  the stack.   There  probably will  not be  a                 
  situation where they would  apply for a search warrant  just                 
  because we have reason to think there is possession of child                 
  pornography in the house.  It is much more likely they would                 
  be there for  another reason.  But making it a crime at all,                 
  the  Class  B Misdemeanor  is  pretty  innocuous.   Class  A                 
  Misdemeanor  is pretty  significant.   Right now  it  is the                 
  maximum offense  for a  DWI, and  that is  the most  serious                 
  crime we have in this state.                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER added  that there  would be challenges  from                 
  those charged with this offense in relation to transporting,                 
  if it were a felony.  He  suggested that if someone wants to                 
  entertain moving this out, that we would not go past Class A                 
  Misdemeanor, and if  it is, it  should be revisited this  in                 
  terms of looking  at the entire  structure, that it be  done                 
  that at another  time.  We do not want to hold this bill up,                 
  or jeopardize it.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 649                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if she could make an amendment on                 
  page 1, line 12, delete "B" and insert "A."                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated  there was motion to amend, and asked                 
  if there was any discussion.                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE  PHILLIPS  asked  for  Representative  Davis'                 
  opinion on this.                                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she would  love to see the tougher                 
  Class A penalty, but said she had concerns about getting the                 
  bill back over to the Senate for them to concur this late in                 
  the game.   If it would not cause  a problem, Ms. Davis said                 
  she would prefer to see "A" in there rather than "B".  If it                 
  is going  to cause  some problem,  she would  rather see  it                 
  moved out.  It still has another committee of referral to go                 
  to  on  the House  side.   She  asked  if it  would  go from                 
  Judiciary to Finance.                                                        
                                                                               
  There was They  were not sure if  it would go to  Finance or                 
  not, since there was no fiscal note.                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that there would be time.                     
                                                                               
  SHARON CLARK  interjected that  the main  thrust of  Senator                 
  Miller's bill was to "close the  loop", that we already have                 
  the other two laws on the books,  and now we do not have one                 
  for possession, so that was the main part of getting it, was                 
  to  close  the  loop.    She  would  also  hate  to  see  it                 
  jeopardized and not getting it out this session.                             
                                                                               
  Number 676                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER  asked  if there  was  an objection  to  the                 
  amendment.  Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to pass HCSCSSB 252 (JUD), with a                 
  zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he would ask the Chairman of Finance to                 
  consider waiving the  bill if there  is a Finance  Committee                 
  referral.                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects