Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120

03/28/2008 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Scheduled But Not Heard
Scheduled But Not Heard
Moved Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HB 323 - CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE: OMNIBUS BILL                                                                                 
2:21:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act  relating to the crimes of assault in                                                               
the fourth  degree and of  resisting or interfering  with arrest;                                                               
relating to the  determination of time of  a conviction; relating                                                               
to  offenses   concerning  controlled  substances;   relating  to                                                               
issuance   of  search   warrants;  relating   to  persons   found                                                               
incompetent to stand trial  concerning criminal conduct; relating                                                               
to probation  and to  restitution for  fish and  game violations;                                                               
relating  to  aggravating  factors  at  sentencing;  relating  to                                                               
criminal  extradition authority  of  the  governor; removing  the                                                               
statutory  bar to  prosecution of  certain crimes;  amending Rule                                                               
37(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal  Procedure, relating to execution                                                               
of warrants; and providing for an effective date."                                                                              
The committee took an at-ease from 2:21 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.                                                                       
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
2:29:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved [to  adopt] the proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 323,  Version  25-GH2038\E,  Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/25/08, [as the work draft].   There being no objection, Version                                                               
E was before the committee.                                                                                                     
2:29:47 PM                                                                                                                    
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section, Criminal  Division, Department  of Law  (DOL), explained                                                               
that Sections  1 and 2 of  Version E go hand-in-hand  and require                                                               
pawn brokers - or people who  lend money on secondhand items - in                                                               
municipalities  with  over  5,000  residents  to  maintain  their                                                               
transaction records in an electronic  format.  She added that the                                                               
DOL is considering  asking that these provisions  be amended such                                                               
that  those   electronic  records   shall  be  shared   with  the                                                               
Department of  Public Safety (DPS)  should the DPS  request them.                                                               
The purpose  of these provisions  is to help victims  of property                                                               
crimes find their stolen property.                                                                                              
MS.  CARPENETI explained  that Section  3 of  Version E  provides                                                               
that a third [or subsequent]  misdemeanor injury assault within a                                                               
10-year period would be a class  C felony instead of just a class                                                               
A  misdemeanor.    The  drafter,  who'd  suggested  this  change,                                                               
drafted it  as part of the  statute pertaining to assault  in the                                                               
third degree;  this makes  a lot of  sense, she  opined, "because                                                               
then you  don't need to  go back  to [the statute  pertaining to]                                                               
assault  in the  fourth  degree and  include  all the  conforming                                                               
2:32:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  asked  whether  Sections  3  and  4  are                                                               
similar to  provisions included in  another piece  of legislation                                                               
pertaining to domestic violence (DV).                                                                                           
MS. CARPENETI said  these provisions do something  similar but in                                                               
a different way, and indicated  that the DOL prefers the language                                                               
of HB  323 [Version E]  because the  DOL is concerned  that under                                                               
the  other legislation,  different judges  will treat  similarly-                                                               
situated  people differently.   In  response to  a question,  she                                                               
relayed that  the sponsor of  that other legislation is  aware of                                                               
the  DOL's  concern  and  is willing  to  work  cooperatively  to                                                               
alleviate it.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS suggested  that  the  provisions in  that                                                               
other piece of legislation be  changed to resemble Sections 3 and                                                               
4 of HB 323 [Version E]  so that the underlying policy is adopted                                                               
regardless of which bill passes.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  referring  to  Sections 1  and  2  of                                                               
Version E,  said he wants  to make  sure that they  don't violate                                                               
the single  subject rule, since  they don't appear to  pertain to                                                               
criminal statutes.                                                                                                              
MS. CARPENETI posited  that Sections 1 and 2  would probably pass                                                               
such  a challenge  because both  relate to  the investigation  of                                                               
stolen property.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked Ms. Carpeneti to  provide a legal                                                               
opinion to that effect.                                                                                                         
MS. CARPENETI agreed to do so.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  posited that  such an opinion  may help                                                               
the  courts   see  that   that  issue   was  considered   by  the                                                               
2:36:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI,  turning attention  back to  Section 3,  said that                                                               
the  predicate crimes  would  include  homicide, assault,  felony                                                               
assault, physical injury  assault - not including  fear assault -                                                               
assault  on  an unborn  child,  stalking,  and first  and  second                                                               
degree sexual assault  and sexual abuse [of a minor].   Section 4                                                               
is a conforming amendment that  directs the courts with regard to                                                               
what  the  legislature  means  in terms  of  what  constitutes  a                                                               
MS. CARPENETI  explained that  Version E's  Section 5,  which was                                                               
suggested  by Representative  Ramras -  addresses the  problem of                                                               
people stealing property from  a commercial establishment without                                                               
the property having been concealed; it  will allow a person to be                                                               
detained  and  investigated  even   if  the  property  he/she  is                                                               
attempting to  walk away  with is not  concealed.   She indicated                                                               
that [Section 6  of Version E mirrors Section 3]  of the original                                                               
bill;  that Section  7 [of  Version E  mirrors Section  5 of  the                                                               
original  bill]  but also  adds  the  drug zopiclone  -  commonly                                                               
called  "Lunesta"  -  to  the list  of  schedule  IVA  controlled                                                               
substances;  and  that Sections  8  and  9  of Version  E  mirror                                                               
[Sections 6 and 7] of the original bill.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  [referring to Section 8]  asked whether                                                               
there  is  any constitutional  problem  with  a court  issuing  a                                                               
search  warrant  for  property   located  outside  [the  court's]                                                               
MS. CARPENETI said she doesn't  believe there is, though problems                                                               
might arise  in the other  jurisdiction with regard  to enforcing                                                               
such  a search  warrant.   [The  problem Section  8  is meant  to                                                               
address] is  that some  judges don't  feel comfortable  issuing a                                                               
search  warrant  for  property   located  outside  their  court's                                                               
jurisdiction,  and  Section  8   would  specifically  outline  in                                                               
statute  that it  is  acceptable to  do  so.   In  response to  a                                                               
question, she  agreed to furnish  the committee with  examples of                                                               
such cases, again adding her  belief that any problems [resulting                                                               
from the  adoption of Section  8] would stem from  an enforcement                                                               
issue and  not a  constitutional issue.   In response  to another                                                               
question,  she explained  that even  under Section  8, one  would                                                               
still have  to comply with the  requirements currently pertaining                                                               
to the issuing of search  warrants, such as establishing probable                                                               
cause.  In response to comments and a question, she elaborated:                                                                 
     If the  place where  you were  going to  be [searching]                                                                    
     refused to  cooperate, then you  would have to go  to a                                                                    
     court in  the other jurisdiction  and ask them  to give                                                                    
     full faith  and credit and  issue their own  ... order.                                                                    
     But  this arises  mainly in  [child] pornography  cases                                                                    
     ... [wherein Internet  providers] are perfectly willing                                                                    
     to give  us their  records [but] they  need a  piece of                                                                    
     paper,  and that's  why [the  DOL is  proposing Section                                                                    
     8].    If they  want  to  see  a  search warrant  or  a                                                                    
     subpoena, we can't get a  subpoena 'til there's a court                                                                    
     case going  on, so  we need  the ability  to ask  for a                                                                    
     search warrant.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  just wants  to ensure  that no                                                               
one will move to quash "on that basis."                                                                                         
MS. CARPENETI pointed  out that that can't be  prevented - people                                                               
can say whatever they want and file any motion they want.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  clarified that he doesn't  want a court                                                               
to issue an order quashing a case.                                                                                              
2:42:54 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI went  on to explain that Sections 10,  11, 12, [21,                                                               
and 22] of Version  E are similar to [Sections 8,  9, 10, 19, and                                                               
20 of] the original bill, but  the DOL has worked with the Office                                                               
of Public Advocacy (OPA) and  the Public Defender Agency (PDA) to                                                               
address  their concerns.   These  sections  deal with  situations                                                               
involving persons  who are charged  with a serious crime  but are                                                               
incompetent to be tried, and the  goal is to ensure that they are                                                               
treated in  as fair  a manner as  possible while  also protecting                                                               
the  public.   The language  of  the original  bill provided  for                                                               
mandatory evaluation and  treatment for all people  who are found                                                               
incompetent,  whereas  the language  of  Version  E provides  for                                                               
mandatory evaluation  and treatment  for only those  charged with                                                               
MS. CARPENETI  explained that  Section 13 of  Version E  has been                                                               
ratcheted  down a  bit from  what it  was [as  Section 11  of the                                                               
original bill] by  saying that the court can  order probation for                                                               
an offense under  Title 11 or Title 16 but  not necessarily for a                                                               
violation under  other titles.  Sections  14 and 15 of  Version E                                                               
are similar to  language included in the original  bill.  Section                                                               
16  of Version  E is  a  bit different  than [Section  17 of  the                                                               
original bill] in  that now the governor may  only appoint either                                                               
the lieutenant governor or the  head of a principal department to                                                               
act on the governor's behalf in performing extradition duties.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE    GRUENBERG   questioned    whether   the    U.S.                                                               
Constitution contains a  provision regarding extradition, whether                                                               
extradition  under such  a  provision must  be  performed by  the                                                               
chief  executive, and,  if  so, whether  such  a provision  would                                                               
allow the Alaska  state legislature to provide  the governor with                                                               
the ability to delegate that duty.                                                                                              
MS. CARPENETI said  her research supports the  delegation of that                                                               
duty, and  offered to provide  the committee  with substantiating                                                               
case citations.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that she simply  include them                                                               
in the legal opinion she'll be providing.                                                                                       
MS. CARPENETI agreed to  do so.  She then noted  that the DOL has                                                               
suggested a change  in a Senate bill's version  of this provision                                                               
that specifies  that the delegation  and subsequent action  is on                                                               
the governor's  behalf and  at his/her  direction so  that he/she                                                               
remains  principally  responsible.   That  language  is based  on                                                               
Oregon law and has been upheld  in Oregon.  The DOL reviews every                                                               
extradition in which  Alaska is involved, and isn't  aware of any                                                               
other state  wherein the governor actually  signs the extradition                                                               
documents himself/herself.                                                                                                      
2:46:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  CARPENETI  explained  that  Sections   17  and  18  are  new                                                               
provisions  that  amend  the statute  of  limitations  for  post-                                                               
conviction relief applications  from two years to  one year; this                                                               
proposed  change  will  make the  statutes  pertaining  to  post-                                                               
conviction  relief  uniform  with  regard  to  their  statute  of                                                               
limitations.  She added that the  DOL has worked with the PDA and                                                               
the  OPA  on   these  provisions.    She   indicated  that  these                                                               
provisions  require  the inclusion  of  [an  indirect court  rule                                                               
amendment] found later in the bill.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to  Section 17, asked whether                                                               
there  will be  exceptions to  the proposed  one-year statute  of                                                               
MS. CARPENETI said that there  are several exceptions such as one                                                               
pertaining  to newly  discovered  evidence, but  if an  exception                                                               
doesn't apply, then the statute of limitations will be one year.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  mentioned  the  standard  set  out  in                                                               
Salinas v.  State, 373  P.2d 512 (Alaska  1962), which  he called                                                             
the main first case addressing motions for a new trial.                                                                         
MS. CARPENETI then relayed that Section  25 of Version E has been                                                               
changed from  [Section 22  of] the original  version in  that now                                                               
the  warrant shall  be executed  and returned  within 30  days as                                                               
opposed to just within a reasonable time.                                                                                       
2:49:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked what provisions of  law are being                                                               
repealed by Sections 23 and 24 of Version E.                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI relayed that those  sections repeal provisions that                                                               
were  being  repealed [via  Section  21  of] the  original  bill.                                                               
Under Version  E, Section  23 repeals a  provision of  statute in                                                               
order  to conform  to the  change being  made [via  Section 9  of                                                               
Version E],  the bill's  "telephonic" search  warrant provisions,                                                               
and Section 24  repeals the existing bar against  the state going                                                               
forward with a  criminal prosecution of a criminal  act when that                                                               
act has already  been prosecuted by the federal  government.  She                                                               
offered that even though such  prosecutions by the state wouldn't                                                               
come up  very often -  and the state  would still have  to comply                                                               
with   certain   timeline    requirements/restrictions   -   it's                                                               
important, for the sovereignty of  the state of Alaska, to pursue                                                               
crimes against  its own laws  and not  be usurped by  the federal                                                               
government.  In  response to a question, she said  that the issue                                                               
of double jeopardy  only arises in instances  of two prosecutions                                                               
by the  same sovereignty.   In response to another  question, she                                                               
offered her belief  that a conviction in federal  court could not                                                               
be used as evidence in a state prosecution.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  questioned whether, under the  bill, an                                                               
"ex  post facto"  issue would  arise should  the state  choose to                                                               
pursue those [legislators] who've  recently been convicted by the                                                               
federal government of bribery.                                                                                                  
MS. CARPENETI  opined that such  an issue would arise  because of                                                               
the effective date  of the bill.  In response  to a question, she                                                               
indicated that  in order for  similar cases  in the future  to be                                                               
prosecuted  by both  the federal  government and  the state,  the                                                               
acts would also have to be illegal under state law.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  questioned  whether the  state  should                                                               
enact laws prohibiting acts such as money laundering.                                                                           
MS. CARPENETI  said that might not  be a bad idea,  but she would                                                               
prefer to give that concept further consideration.                                                                              
2:56:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 1 to Version E,                                                                  
labeled 25-GH2038\E.2, Luckhaupt, 3/27/08, which read:                                                                          
     Page 1, line 2, following "felons;":                                                                                     
          Insert   "relating   to   arson   and   criminally                                                                  
     negligent burning;"                                                                                                      
     Page 4, following line 10:                                                                                                 
          Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                     
        "* Sec. 7. AS 11.46.410(a) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (a)  A person commits the crime of arson in the                                                                       
     second degree  if the person  knowingly [INTENTIONALLY]                                                                
     damages a  building by  starting a  fire or  causing an                                                                    
        *  Sec. 8.   AS 11.46  is  amended by  adding a  new                                                                  
     section to read:                                                                                                           
          Sec. 11.46.427. Criminally negligent burning in                                                                     
     the first  degree. (a)  A person  commits the  crime of                                                                  
     criminally  negligent burning  in the  first degree  if                                                                    
     the person                                                                                                                 
               (1)  violates AS 11.46.430; and                                                                                  
               (2)  has been previously convicted of                                                                            
     violating AS 11.46.400  - 11.46.430 or  AS 41.15.150 or                                                                    
     a  law or  ordinance  of this  or another  jurisdiction                                                                    
     with elements similar to those offenses.                                                                                   
          (b)  Criminally negligent burning in the first                                                                        
     degree is a class C felony.                                                                                                
        * Sec. 9. AS 11.46.430 is amended to read:                                                                            
          Sec. 11.46.430. Criminally negligent burning in                                                                   
     the second degree.  (a)  A person commits  the crime of                                                                
     criminally negligent  burning in  the second  degree if                                                                
     with  criminal negligence  the person  damages property                                                                    
     of another by fire or explosion.                                                                                           
          (b)  Criminally negligent burning in the second                                                                   
     degree is a class A misdemeanor."                                                                                      
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 6, following line 19:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 17. AS 12.55.127(c) is amended to read:                                                                     
          (c)  If the defendant is being sentenced for                                                                          
               (1)  escape, the term of imprisonment shall                                                                      
     be consecutive to the term for the underlying crime;                                                                       
               (2)   two  or more  crimes under  AS 11.41, a                                                                    
     consecutive term  of imprisonment shall be  imposed for                                                                    
     at least                                                                                                                   
               (A)     the  mandatory  minimum   term  under                                                                    
     AS 12.55.125(a)  for  each  additional  crime  that  is                                                                    
     murder in the first degree;                                                                                                
               (B)   the  mandatory  minimum  term for  each                                                                    
     additional  crime   that  is  an   unclassified  felony                                                                    
     governed by AS 12.55.125(b);                                                                                               
               (C)    the   presumptive  term  specified  in                                                                    
     AS 12.55.125(c)  or the  active  term of  imprisonment,                                                                    
     whichever is less, for each additional crime that is                                                                       
               (i)  manslaughter; or                                                                                            
               (ii)  kidnapping that is a class A felony;                                                                       
               (D)    two  years   or  the  active  term  of                                                                    
     imprisonment,  whichever is  less, for  each additional                                                                    
     crime that is criminally negligent homicide;                                                                               
               (E)    one-fourth  of  the  presumptive  term                                                                    
     under AS 12.55.125(c) or (i)  for each additional crime                                                                    
     that  is  sexual  assault in  the  first  degree  under                                                                    
     AS 11.41.410 or  sexual abuse of  a minor in  the first                                                                    
     degree    under    AS 11.41.434,   or    an    attempt,                                                                    
     solicitation, or  conspiracy to commit  those offenses;                                                                    
               (F)   some  additional  term of  imprisonment                                                                    
     for each  additional crime, or each  additional attempt                                                                    
     or   solicitation   to   commit  the   offense,   under                                                                    
     AS 11.41.200  -   11.41.250,  11.41.420   -  11.41.432,                                                                    
     11.41.436 -  11.41.458, [OR] 11.41.500 -  11.41.520, or                                                                
     AS 11.46.400 - 11.46.430."                                                                                             
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 11, line 21:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 17 and 18"                                                                                              
          Insert "secs. 21 and 22"                                                                                              
     Page 11, line 22:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 19"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 23"                                                                                                      
     Page 11, line 28:                                                                                                          
         Delete "Sections 3, 4, 7, 13 - 15, 20, and 24"                                                                         
          Insert "Sections 3, 4, 7 - 10, 16 - 18, 24, and                                                                       
     Page 12, line 3:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sections 8, 9, 23, and 25"                                                                                    
          Insert "Sections 11, 12, 27, and 29"                                                                                  
     Page 12, line 6:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sections 10 - 12, 21, and 22"                                                                                 
          Insert " Sections 13 - 15, 25, and 26"                                                                                
     Page 12, line 9:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Section 16"                                                                                                   
          Insert "Section 19"                                                                                                   
     Page 12, line 14:                                                                                                          
          Delete "Sections 17 - 19 and 26"                                                                                      
          Insert "Sections 21 - 23 and 30"                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that Amendment 1  is meant to                                                               
address  the series  of arsons  that have  been occurring  in his                                                               
district  and in  Mountain View.   Amendment  1 will  tighten and                                                               
strengthens  the  current arson  and  negligent  burning laws  in                                                               
three ways:  it alters AS  11.46.410 - pertaining to the crime of                                                               
arson in  the second degree -  by changing the mental  state from                                                               
"intentionally" to "knowingly";  it adds a new section  427 to AS                                                               
11.46,  thus  establishing  the  crime  of  criminally  negligent                                                               
burning  in the  first degree  - a  class C  felony that  will be                                                               
applicable to  repeat violators of  AS 11.46.400 -  11.46.430 and                                                               
AS 41.15.150;  it alters AS  11.46.430 such that it  now pertains                                                               
to  the  crime of  criminally  negligent  burning in  the  second                                                               
degree; [and  it adds violations  of AS 11.46.400 -  11.46.430 to                                                               
the  sentencing provisions  of AS  12.55.127(c), which  addresses                                                               
consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment].                                                                              
CHAIR  RAMRAS questioned  whether [proposed  AS 11.46.427]  would                                                               
address those who set fires to cars in recreational-use areas.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, remarking  that  it  is his  intention                                                               
that it do so, said he would research that issue further.                                                                       
CHAIR RAMRAS  said, "We would  want it to be  at least as  bad to                                                               
commit a negligent  burning in an urban  area as it is  to burn a                                                               
car in the Knik recreation area."                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  concurred.   He noted  that he  and the                                                               
DOL  would be  researching whether  there should  be a  look-back                                                               
period associated with [proposed AS 11.46.427].                                                                                 
3:00:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CRAIG  GOODRICH, Fire  Chief,  Anchorage  Fire Department  (AFD),                                                               
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA),  said the AFD supports Amendment                                                               
1 [to  Version E].  He  went on to  explain that arson is  a very                                                               
prevalent  activity, and  that it  is rare  for someone  [who has                                                               
served or is serving time] in  the criminal justice system to not                                                               
have a background in setting fires.   For example, it was relayed                                                               
to him  by staff at the  McLaughlin Youth Center that  they don't                                                               
track which of  their inmates have committed  arson; instead they                                                               
simply  assume that  all their  inmates have  committed arson  at                                                               
some point in  their criminal careers because almost  all of them                                                               
have.   The  AFD has  two full  time arson  investigators and  is                                                               
considering  adding a  third,  and  this, in  and  of itself,  he                                                               
observed,  speaks to  the  fact  that there  is  plenty of  arson                                                               
investigation work  to be had.   There  are some sections  of the                                                               
municipality  that are  more  prone to  instances  of arson  than                                                               
other  sections.   As  a  practical matter,  the  fires that  are                                                               
started often spread  out of control and do a  great deal of harm                                                               
to both life  and property.  In conclusion, he  said that what he                                                               
likes about  [Amendment 1] is  that it ensures that  repeat arson                                                               
offenders  will  be  treated differently,  adding  "We're  pretty                                                               
excited about  ... all of  this and  the potential for  it moving                                                               
CHAIR  RAMRAS   expressed  appreciation  for  Amendment   1,  and                                                               
indicated that  it would  be included  in a  forthcoming proposed                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  noted  that Representative  Gatto  has                                                               
also been very involved with this issue.                                                                                        
3:04:54 PM                                                                                                                    
RODNEY   DIAL,  Lieutenant,   Deputy  Commander,   A  Detachment,                                                               
Division of  Alaska State Troopers,  Department of  Public Safety                                                               
(DPS), relayed he would be  speaking to the provisions pertaining                                                               
to search warrants -  Sections 8 and 9 [of Version  E] - and that                                                               
the DPS supports  HB 323.  With regard to  Section 8, which would                                                               
allow the court  to issue a search warrant  for locations outside                                                               
the state,  he remarked  that this  proposed change  is important                                                               
when  investigating crimes  involving Internet  technology or  in                                                               
situations  involving   interactions  with  the   Royal  Canadian                                                               
Mounted Police (RCMP).                                                                                                          
LIEUTENANT  DIAL  offered  an  example  of  the  latter  type  of                                                               
situation  involving   law  enforcement  officers   in  Ketchikan                                                               
investigating a  person in Hyder  who had had a  serious accident                                                               
while  driving  under  the  influence  (DUI)  and  had  seriously                                                               
injured  [himself  and] a  number  of  people.   The  driver  was                                                               
transported  to  Stewart, Canada,  for  treatment,  and, in  this                                                               
particular case, the officers were  able to find a local [Alaska]                                                               
judge who issued a search warrant  for the medical records of the                                                               
perpetrator   in   order   to  illustrate   his   blood   alcohol                                                               
concentration  (BAC),  and  this   warrant  was  honored  by  the                                                               
Canadian  government.   However,  the judge  could have  refused,                                                               
since there is  no requirement in state law that  a judge issue a                                                               
search warrant for property located  in another jurisdiction.  He                                                               
added that the DPS definitely supports Section 8.                                                                               
LIEUTENANT  DIAL  posited that  Section  9  - which  pertains  to                                                               
search  warrants  issued  via  telephone   -  will  increase  the                                                               
productivity  of  law  enforcement  officers  across  the  state.                                                               
Working  in remote  areas  of Alaska,  there  are many  instances                                                               
where  the need  for a  search warrant  has been  identified, but                                                               
currently law enforcement officers have  to travel to a community                                                               
with a magistrate  or judge in order to present  evidence and get                                                               
a search warrant.  The ability  to do that telephonically will be                                                               
an enormous  time saver,  but will  in no  way lower  the current                                                               
high standard that  must be met in order to  get a search warrant                                                               
issued; in  fact, it  might even  be more  difficult to  obtain a                                                               
search warrant  telephonically because  the evidence  wouldn't be                                                               
presented in  person at the time  of the request.   Regardless of                                                               
this  potential increased  difficulty, Section  9 will  provide a                                                               
way for  law enforcement officers to  increase their productivity                                                               
and make better use of their time.                                                                                              
3:07:45 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  referring  to Section  8,  questioned                                                               
whether an interstate compact or  federal legislation could be of                                                               
assistance, and whether the federal  government should be looking                                                               
at  international  treaties or  agreements  with  regard to  this                                                               
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he would have to research those points.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  observed  that the  legislature  could                                                               
assist in getting  things moving in that direction  if such would                                                               
be of any help.  He said he  doesn't want the state to get into a                                                               
situation  where there  are conflicts;  it would  be worth  it to                                                               
work out potential problems beforehand.                                                                                         
CHAIR RAMRAS  indicated that  [Amendments 2 and  3 to  Version E]                                                               
would also be included in a forthcoming proposed CS.                                                                            
3:10:30 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  CARPENETI  referred to  Amendment  2,  which read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Page 9, lines 13 - 21:  Delete all material and insert                                                                     
     the following:                                                                                                             
          "(d) The court may not consider a substantive                                                                         
     claim in  an application brought under  AS 12.72.010 or                                                                    
     the Alaska Rules of Criminal  Procedure until the court                                                                    
     has first determined that                                                                                                  
               (1) the application is timely; and                                                                               
           (2) except for an application described in                                                                           
     AS 12.72.025 or allowed under (c) of this section, no                                                                      
     previous application has been filed.                                                                                       
MS. CARPENETI explained that Amendment  2 would address a concern                                                               
the  OPA  has with  regard  to  Section 19  of  Version  E.   The                                                               
intention [with  Section 19  and Amendment 2]  is to  provide the                                                               
courts   with   direction    regarding   post-conviction   relief                                                               
applications,  such  that  the   courts  should  first  determine                                                               
whether  an application  is timely  and whether  it is  illegally                                                               
successive to another application, and  then - if the application                                                               
is timely  and not illegally successive  - go on to  consider the                                                               
merits/substance of  the application.  Because  a post-conviction                                                               
relief  application can  sometimes be  very complicated,  the DOL                                                               
believes that  it will save the  court time if it  is directed to                                                               
bifurcate   its  consideration   of   a  post-conviction   relief                                                               
application in  order to first  determine whether it  should even                                                               
be considered  at all.   She said  that Amendment  2 accomplishes                                                               
this in  a manner that both  the OPA and the  DOL are comfortable                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  indicated  that   he  would  later  be                                                               
researching the exceptions outlined  in Amendment 2's proposed AS                                                               
MS. CARPENETI  noted that they  are located  in AS 12.72  - which                                                               
pertains  to   post-conviction  relief  procedures   for  persons                                                               
convicted of criminal offenses.                                                                                                 
3:12:55 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI referred to Amendment  3, [which was drafted to fit                                                               
the  original  version of  the  bill  and] which  read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Page 8, following line 9:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
       *Sec. 22. The uncodified laws  of the State of Alaska                                                                  
     as enacted  in Chapter 24,  Section 36(c), SLA  2007 is                                                                    
     amended to read:                                                                                                           
          (c) AS 12.72.025, enacted by sec. 25 of this Act,                                                                     
     applies to offenses committed before,  on, or after the                                                                    
     effective date of sec. 25 of  this Act.  A person whose                                                                    
     application  for  post-conviction   relief  was  denied                                                                    
     before the  effective date of  sec. 25 of this  act has                                                                    
     until July  1, 2008,  to file a  claim described  in AS                                                                    
     12.72.025.   This subsection does not  authorize filing                                                                
     a claim under AS 12.72  or the Alaska Rules of Criminal                                                                
     Procedure  that is  not  otherwise  available under  AS                                                                
     12.72,  the  Alaska  Rules of  Criminal  Procedure,  or                                                                
     other provisions of law."                                                                                              
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 9, following line 7:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
       *Sec. 23.  Section 22 of  this Act is  retroactive to                                                                  
     July 1, 2007.                                                                                                              
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
MS.  CARPENETI,  characterizing  Amendment   3  as  probably  the                                                               
cleanest way  to go  about addressing  the issue,  explained that                                                               
Amendment 3 is an amendment  to an applicability section that was                                                               
adopted last  year via HB  90, which provided a  one-year statute                                                               
of limitations  for what she termed,  "Grinols PCRs"; a PCR  is a                                                             
post-conviction  relief  application  and  Grinols  v.  State  of                                                             
Alaska  is a  case wherein  the  court decided  that due  process                                                             
fairness requires  a person to  get a lawyer to  litigate whether                                                               
the lawyer assisting the person with his/her first post-                                                                        
conviction  relief  application  was  effective.    The  one-year                                                               
statute of  limitations adopted by  HB 90 for bringing  a Grinols                                                             
PCR  is one  year  from when  the court  denied  the first  post-                                                               
conviction  relief   application.     She  indicated   that  that                                                               
aforementioned  applicability  section  has been  interpreted  by                                                               
some people to mean that a  person gets "one free application for                                                               
a PCR without  complying with the other  statutory provisions and                                                               
court  common-law   provisions  of  PCRs."     Because  of  [this                                                               
interpretation]  there is  now  someone who  is  claiming, for  a                                                               
murder conviction in 1980, that  this gives him/her "another free                                                               
MS. CARPENETI  said that the  DOL wanted to clarify  that instead                                                               
all the other  provision of law - common law,  statutory law, and                                                               
court rules, such  as the requirement that one  must exercise due                                                               
diligence  in bringing  a  post-conviction  relief application  -                                                               
apply  to Grinols  PCRs too.   Clarity  is needed  on this  issue                                                             
because there is some concern that  there will be "a rash of PCRs                                                               
based on 1980s  and 1990s murder convictions"  since those people                                                               
are still  in jail.  Again,  the goal is to  clarify that Grinols                                                             
requires  due diligence  when bringing  a post-conviction  relief                                                               
application based  on ineffective  counsel for one's  first post-                                                               
conviction  relief  application,  that the  same  standards  that                                                               
apply  to  other  post-conviction relief  applications  apply  to                                                               
Grinols PCRs as well.                                                                                                         
MS. CARPENETI  explained that  the letter  of intent  included in                                                               
members' packets  for consideration would clarify  that Amendment                                                               
3's proposed  change to the aforementioned  applicability section                                                               
is  simply saying  that all  laws that  apply to  post-conviction                                                               
relief  applications also  apply to  "these that  are brought  up                                                               
'til July  1, 2008."   In conclusion, she  said that the  DOL has                                                               
worked  cooperatively with  the PDA  on  Amendments 2  and 3  [to                                                               
Version E], but  has not yet gotten a response  back from the PDA                                                               
regarding the letter of intent.                                                                                                 
[HB 323, Version E, was held over.]                                                                                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects