Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120

03/18/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:32:02 PM Start
01:32:45 PM HB12
02:26:18 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
+ HB 12 PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    HB  12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:32:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 12 "An Act relating to protective orders."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:33:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP,  introducing HB 12 as  prime sponsor, stated                                                               
that  it relates  to  protective orders  and  addresses the  2018                                                               
Alaska Supreme  Court ruling in  Whalen v.  Whalen.  He  said the                                                             
court found  in Whalen v. Whalen  that it was unable  to grant an                                                             
extension or  a renewal of  a domestic violence  protective order                                                               
because the law was unclear  regarding whether or not someone had                                                               
to be  a victim again of  domestic violence after the  reason for                                                               
the initial  order had  already been  adjudicated.   He expressed                                                               
concern  for victims  of assault  whose protective  orders expire                                                               
around the time  their abusers are released from jail.   He noted                                                               
that it  is common for  abusers to threaten to  retaliate against                                                               
victims prior  to incarceration.   He said  this, in  addition to                                                               
the initial  assault, is a  very real reason  for a victim  to be                                                               
fearful of  his/her abuser.  He  stated that HB 12  would make it                                                               
clear that a  person does not have  to be a victim  a second time                                                               
to get a protective order extended or renewed.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:35:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEN  TRUITT,  Staff,  Representative  Chuck  Kopp,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, said HB 12 is very  simple.  He addressed section 1,                                                               
which  he said  deliberately and  carefully amends  AS 18.65.850,                                                               
which relates  to sexual assault and  stalking protective orders,                                                               
to  add  the concept  of  stalking  to language  detailing  court                                                               
prohibitions.    He  said  the   operative  fix  to  the  problem                                                               
identified in Whalen v. Whalen can  be found in [section 1, lines                                                             
7-8].    He said  this,  in  conjunction  with the  language  "or                                                               
extended  under  this  section"  in section  2,  would  create  a                                                               
statutory fix  deemed necessary  by the  Alaska Supreme  Court in                                                               
the Whalen decision.   He pointed to new language  found in lines                                                               
9 and  10 on page 1  and stated that, without  this language, the                                                               
"Whalen problem"  would extend to the  circumstances described in                                                               
paragraph 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. TRUITT  addressed section  2, which  he said  represents  the                                                               
process  and  the  procedure  by which  the  petitioner  and  the                                                               
respondent can respond.   He said  this would still be within the                                                               
court's  discretion.   He  added  that  nothing  in HB  12  would                                                               
address the burden of proof  that the petitioner must meet either                                                               
in  the original  petition for  the  protective order  or in  the                                                               
request for an extension.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  noted  that  the Alaska  Court  System  has                                                               
recommended adding some clarifying language  to lines 9 and 10 on                                                               
page 1 so  that it reads, "(3) a court  previously found that the                                                               
petitioner  was  a  victim  of stalking  or  sexual  assault  but                                                               
declined to order  relief under this section,  and the petitioner                                                               
alleges  a  change in  circumstance  since  the court's  previous                                                               
ruling      He  said  this  edit  refers  to  an  instance  where                                                               
something  has changed  since the  court last  heard a  case that                                                               
would cause  it to reevaluate  the decision.   He stated  that he                                                               
agrees with the court system's recommendation.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN said there will be an opportunity to amend HB 12.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:39:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TRUITT addressed  sections 3  and 4,  which he  said operate                                                               
similarly to sections  1 and 2 except they apply  to the domestic                                                               
violence   protective  order   statute,   which  is   constructed                                                               
differently  from  the  sexual assault  and  stalking  protective                                                               
order statute.  He specified an  example in line 18 under section                                                               
4, which features language that  would limit the extension option                                                               
only to  the protective orders  issued under  AS 18.66.100(b)(2).                                                               
He explained that AS 18.66.100(b)(1)  covers protective orders of                                                               
indeterminate length that can only  be lifted by the court taking                                                               
an additional action.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:41:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  explained   that  the   protective  orders                                                               
referenced in  AS 18.66.100(b)(1)  would be exempted  because the                                                               
court  would never  lift those  orders.   He said  the protective                                                               
orders  in AS  18.66.100(b)(2)  have time  limits  that are  more                                                               
prescriptive.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:41:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked if  anything in  HB 12  would limit                                                               
the  court's ability  to  determine the  length  of a  protective                                                               
order.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP answered   no.     He distinguished  between                                                               
six-month protective orders for  victims of domestic violence and                                                               
one-year  protective orders  for victims  of stalking  and sexual                                                               
assault.  He  noted that the language in HB  12 carefully follows                                                               
current  statutory  language.    He said  HB  12  would  identify                                                               
reasons that, by  themselves, would not disqualify  a person from                                                               
obtaining an extension.  He  added that this responds to concerns                                                               
voiced by the Alaska Supreme Court in Whalen v. Whalen.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:43:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked how  extensions were  handled prior                                                               
to the Whalen ruling.  He asked what has changed.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  explained that  the petitioner in  Whalen v.                                                             
Whalen had  a protective  order which had  expired and  wanted it                                                             
renewed because  she was  still afraid of  [her ex-husband].   He                                                               
said  the Alaska  Supreme Court  decided it  was unclear  whether                                                               
there  was  legislative  intent to  issue  another  order  unless                                                               
another  act of  domestic violence,  sexual assault,  or stalking                                                               
was  committed   against  her.     He  explained  that   this  is                                                               
problematic  because victims  are often  still in  fear of  their                                                               
abuser when that  person gets out of jail, returns  to the state,                                                               
or otherwise  regains access to the  victim.  He said  the intent                                                               
of HB  12 is  to enable the  court system to  renew or  extend an                                                               
order within 30  days of expiration or 60  days after expiration,                                                               
without  the victim  having to  be  revictimized.   He said  this                                                               
would provide more protection to victims.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:45:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked how these types  of situations were                                                               
handled  previous  to  the  Whalen  ruling.    He  asked  if  the                                                               
ambiguities in the law were previously overlooked or ignored.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said the  courts decided  based on  how they                                                               
read the law.   He said the Whalen decision was  the result of an                                                               
appeal based on  an argument of how  the law should be  read.  He                                                               
said the  fix offered in  HB 12  would make things  clearer going                                                               
forward.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  asked Mr. Truitt to  repeat the clarifying                                                               
language recommended by  the court system to be added  to line 10                                                               
on page 1.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. TRUITT  read, "a court  previously found that  the petitioner                                                               
was a victim of stalking or  sexual assault but declined to order                                                               
relief  under this  section."   He said  the clarifying  language                                                               
would be added so that the  next words would be "and the petition                                                               
alleges  a  change in  circumstance  since  the court's  previous                                                               
finding."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:47:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Mr. Truitt to explain section 5.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. TRUITT  apologized for  not addressing  section 5  during his                                                               
initial  walkthrough  of  the  bill.     He  said  section  5  is                                                               
prospective looking forward and also  covers every order that has                                                               
been issued.   He clarified  that every current  protective order                                                               
at the time HB 12 becomes law would be affected.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:48:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  asked  if  that  means  section  5  would                                                               
establish a  retroactivity for  any previously  issued protective                                                               
orders.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  answered "yes, any protective  order that is                                                               
current."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:48:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how HB  12 would affect a person who                                                               
was  previously denied  an extension  or renewal  for one  of the                                                               
reasons included in  the bill.  He  asked if the intent  of HB 12                                                               
is  to allow  those  previously  denied to  "start  with a  fresh                                                               
slate."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said that because  a person has  applied and                                                               
been  denied would  not  prohibit him/her  from  reapplying.   He                                                               
spoke to  the importance of  the to-be-added  clarifying language                                                               
for line 10 on  page 1 that would reinforce this.   He said HB 12                                                               
would not  stop people from returning  to the court to  ask again                                                               
for an extension or renewal.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:50:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN established  a  hypothetical scenario  in                                                               
which a court  denies a request because it  determines the timing                                                               
of the filing  "had something to do with the  intent for which it                                                               
was filed."   He said perhaps  the person making the  request was                                                               
found  to be  abusing the  process in  an attempt  to sabotage  a                                                               
former  spouse's professional  ambitions.   He  asked  how HB  12                                                               
would affect that sort of scenario.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said  the court can decide  that a protective                                                               
order request is meritless on its face.   He said HB 12 would not                                                               
change that at all.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:51:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked for  an example  in which  the court                                                               
might  find that  the petitioner  was the  victim of  stalking or                                                               
sexual assault  but decline to order  relief.  She asked  if this                                                               
is what HB 12 would address.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  said   those  situations   come  up   less                                                               
frequently.   He  gave an  example  in which  a protective  order                                                               
matter happens  simultaneously with  a family  law matter  like a                                                               
child  custody  dispute.   He  said  the  court could  find  that                                                               
domestic violence occurred  but determine that it  was related to                                                               
the custody issue.   He said that, in this  case, the court might                                                               
make a ruling on the family  law matter but not on the protective                                                               
order matter.   He offered another example in  which both members                                                               
of  a couple  are petitioners.   In  this example,  a wife  has a                                                               
petition  for domestic  violence that  is in  effect against  her                                                               
husband.   The husband then  asks for a protective  order against                                                               
his wife  suggesting she  attacked him.   The court  could decide                                                               
that the attack happened but  deny a protective order because the                                                               
husband is  about to leave the  country for six months  for work.                                                               
Representative Kopp  said there many possible  situations where a                                                               
judge  could find  that something  had happened  yet not  award a                                                               
protective order.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  requested  additional  details  from  the                                                               
court system.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:54:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel,  Alaska  Court System,  addressed                                                               
Representative  LeDoux's question  pertaining to  why the  court,                                                               
having found that  domestic violence occurred, would  not grant a                                                               
petition for a  protective order.  She said there  are two things                                                               
the  court  must find  to  issue  a  protective order:  that  the                                                               
petitioner was  the victim  of a crime  of domestic  violence and                                                               
that  the protective  order is  necessary to  protect the  person                                                               
from future harm.   She said a common example  in which the court                                                               
might  find  a protective  order  to  be  unnecessary is  if  the                                                               
respondent  lives out  of state  and the  court cannot  find that                                                               
there is a threat of the petitioner's future harm.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  about the  likelihood a  protective                                                               
order  would not  be issued  because the  respondent is  going to                                                               
prison.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE said  that would  be another  reason why  a protective                                                               
order could be found unnecessary.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:56:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 12.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:57:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAGGIE   HUMM,  Supervising   Attorney,  Alaska   Legal  Services                                                               
Corporation,  also  addressed  Representative  LeDoux's  question                                                               
pertaining to why the court,  having found that domestic violence                                                               
occurred, would  not grant the  petition for a  protective order.                                                               
She  said  most  of  the   common  scenarios  have  already  been                                                               
mentioned.  She emphasized that  the court has discretion whether                                                               
to  issue a  protective order  even if  it finds  that an  act of                                                               
domestic violence has occurred.  She  said an amended HB 12 would                                                               
allow the  court to  reconsider extending  a protective  order in                                                               
the event of a change in circumstance.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:59:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATY  SODEN, Senior  Staff Attorney,  Alaska Network  on Domestic                                                               
Violence  and   Sexual  Assault  (ANDVSA),  stated   that  ANDVSA                                                               
supports HB 12.  She  said domestic violence, sexual assault, and                                                               
stalking are  often a part of  a "cycle of behavior"  that can go                                                               
on  for years  and  escalate over  time.   Because  of this,  she                                                               
argued, survivors often need protection  from abuse for more than                                                               
6  or  12  months,  which  is all  currently  available  to  them                                                               
following  Whalen v.  Whalen.   She  said ANDVSA  supports HB  12                                                             
because it would give discretion to  the courts to determine if a                                                               
survivor still needs safety after 6 or 12 months.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SODEN  discussed  a  client  whose  protective  orders  have                                                               
expired but is still fearful of  a former abuser who has returned                                                               
to  the state  after three  years.   She said  the former  abuser                                                               
knows where  her client  lives, and that  the client  believes to                                                               
have seen him  near her house.  Ms. Soden  stated that her client                                                               
is unable to  obtain a new protective order because  no new crime                                                               
has been committed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SODEN  discussed a  different  client  who had  a  long-term                                                               
domestic violence  protective order against her  ex-husband.  She                                                               
detailed  some of  the ex-husband's  aggressive and  violent acts                                                               
and  behaviors.   She said  the  ex-husband did  not violate  the                                                               
protective order while it was  active but has since contacted and                                                               
threatened her  client.   Ms. Soden  said her  client desperately                                                               
wants a new  protective order but cannot obtain one  as it is not                                                               
clear that her  ex-husband has committed a new  crime of domestic                                                               
violence.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. SODEN said the current law  does not protect women like these                                                               
until they  are revictimized.   She opined  that this is  not how                                                               
the  protective order  statutes  should work.    She said  ending                                                               
domestic  violence   and  sexual  assault  requires   strong  and                                                               
flexible civil protective orders.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:03:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TERYN  BIRD, Attorney,  Interior  Alaska Center  for Non  Violent                                                               
Living  (IACNVL),   said  she  represents  victims   of  domestic                                                               
violence, sexual  assault, and stalking  in protective  order and                                                               
family law matters.   She stated her support for  HB 12 on behalf                                                               
of IACNVL and "countless victims."   She said the Whalen decision                                                               
has had a  devastating effect on men, women, and  children in the                                                               
Interior seeking protection  from potentially lethal perpetrators                                                               
of domestic  violence.  She  added that she  is aware of  over 50                                                               
victims impacted  by the  Whalen decision.   She said  the Whalen                                                               
decision leaves  victims of  egregious crimes  without protection                                                               
unless they  have been revictimized  in a way that  is recognized                                                               
as  a  crime.     She  stated  that   protective  orders  prevent                                                               
escalation  and  protect  victims   from  further  harm,  serious                                                               
injury, or  death.   She added  that one  year is  not sufficient                                                               
time for every  perpetrator of domestic violence  to either "cool                                                               
down," move on, or rehabilitate.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BIRD shared  the story  of one  client who  was abused  in a                                                               
variety  of  ways including  repeatedly  raped  in front  of  her                                                               
disabled  children.   She  said the  client  obtained a  one-year                                                               
protective  order  against  her husband  upon  their  separation.                                                               
According to Ms.  Bird, it took the United States  Army two years                                                               
to criminally prosecute the husband,  who served only one year in                                                               
jail for  his crimes.   She said her  client was not  entitled to                                                               
further protection  when the  husband left  jail.   She mentioned                                                               
that  the husband  blamed her  client for  losing his  career and                                                               
child  custody.   She stressed  the danger  her client  faced and                                                               
reiterated that her client was  unable to secure a new protective                                                               
order  because she  had  already had  one.   Ms.  Bird asked  the                                                               
committee members to  think about people like her  client as they                                                               
weigh their decisions on HB 12.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:06:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN MITCHELL testified in opposition to  HB 12.  She said HB 12                                                               
offers  no protection  for the  falsely-accused.   She  explained                                                               
that  she had  two  domestic violence  restraining orders  issued                                                               
against her  despite the judge  finding no domestic  violence had                                                               
occurred.   She stated she  is disabled, and that  the protective                                                               
orders made  her homeless.  She  said she was denied  medical and                                                               
dental  care.   She relayed  that she  has had  six surgeries  in                                                               
three  weeks  and  is  on  daily intravenous  drugs.    She  gave                                                               
additional details  about the status of  her case.  She  said the                                                               
Alaska Court  System's website does  not offer a  Petition Wizard                                                               
feature  for the  falsely-accused victims  of protective  orders.                                                               
She said  there is no victim  advocate for people like  her.  She                                                               
noted that  she cannot find a  single case in which  a person was                                                               
prosecuted  for  obtaining  a protective  order  based  on  false                                                               
accusations.  She levied a  series of accusations against various                                                               
people.  She listed additional details  about her case.  She said                                                               
she would send a detailed e-mail to the entire legislature.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:08:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STACY WALKER testified  in support of HB 12.   She explained that                                                               
she is  a lawyer who takes  on pro bono cases  through ANDVSA and                                                               
identified herself  as the attorney  who handled the  Whalen case                                                               
at the  trial level.   She said  previous to the  Whalen decision                                                               
judges had the discretion to  consider the course of conduct that                                                               
was the  basis for the  original protective order  when deciding,                                                               
based  on new  conduct, whether  a client  was still  in need  of                                                               
protection.   She described the  Whalen case and  shared examples                                                               
of erratic conduct by Mr. Whalen.   She restated that the court's                                                               
interpretation of the law prevented  Mrs. Whalen from acquiring a                                                               
subsequent restraining order.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. WALKER shared  a personal experience in which  she received a                                                               
call from the Alaska Psychiatric  Institute about a man there who                                                               
had  intended to  kill  her and  a  client.   She  said the  call                                                               
revealed that  the man had been  stalking her and her  client for                                                               
three  months.    She  said  she  was  able  to  get  a  stalking                                                               
protective order  against him.   She  noted that,  if he  were to                                                               
come around her house again, that  would not be enough to justify                                                               
a  new  protective  order.    She explained  she  would  have  to                                                               
establish  a  new pattern  of  stalking  not  based on  what  had                                                               
happened before.   She said  that, if she  were still in  fear of                                                               
this man, there would be "nowhere for [her] to go."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:12:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ALLEN  M. BAILEY  identified himself  as  a family  lawyer and  a                                                               
former  municipal prosecutor.   He  said he  is a  member of  the                                                               
American Bar  Association (ABA) Commission  on Domestic  & Sexual                                                               
Violence (CDSV),  the former Chair  of the ABA Section  of Family                                                               
Law Domestic Violence Committee, and  the co-author of House Bill                                                               
                            rd                                                                                                  
385  [passed  during  the 23    Alaska State  Legislature]  which                                                               
related to awarding child custody.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. BAILEY  said that, statistically,  men are the  vast majority                                                               
of intimate partner violence perpetrators.   He discussed various                                                               
programs to  rehabilitate abusive  men.   He noted  that, despite                                                               
those  efforts, research  suggests  no statistically  significant                                                               
reduction  in recidivism  for men  that  batter.   He noted  that                                                               
abusive women,  who he said  tend to suffer from  mental illness,                                                               
are also unlikely to change their behaviors.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BAILEY argued  that Whalen v. Whalen ignored  what the Alaska                                                             
Supreme  Court  had  previously recognized,  which  is  the  high                                                               
recidivism rate  of people  who abuse their  partners.   He cited                                                               
Lana C. vs. Cameron  P. from 2005 which he said  made note of the                                                             
high recidivism of  batterers.  He also cited  State v. [indisc.]                                                             
from 1992 in which the  court referenced the higher likelihood of                                                               
children being abused  in the homes of people  who have committed                                                               
domestic violence.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. BAILEY said  he supports HB 12 because neither  the trauma of                                                               
victims nor  the behavior  of abusers goes  away after  one year.                                                               
He  said  the first  two  years  after  separation are  the  most                                                               
dangerous time.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:15:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CARMEN  LOWRY, Executive  Director,  Alaska  Network on  Domestic                                                               
Violence  and Sexual  Assault (ANDVSA),  said ANDVSA  supports HB                                                               
12.  She  noted that domestic violence protective  orders are for                                                               
12  months while  sexual assault  and stalking  protective orders                                                               
are for  6 months.   She suggested  an amendment that  would make                                                               
both protective orders for 12 months.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:16:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN, after  ascertaining no one else  wished to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HB 12.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:17:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked  if any part of HB  12 would trigger                                                               
the  court   automatically  reopening  requests  that   had  been                                                               
previously denied.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered  that  nothing in  the  bill  would  require                                                               
opening non-current  or expired  protective orders.   She  said a                                                               
person could come and petition for that.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:18:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  what impact  HB 12  would have  on                                                               
short-term, ex parte protective orders.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  said, by her  reading, HB  12 would not  affect short-                                                               
term  orders.   She explained  that  the statutes  to be  amended                                                               
refer only  to long-term domestic violence  protective orders and                                                               
long-term sexual assault and stalking protective orders.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:18:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  about the  current  justification                                                               
necessary for  someone to receive  a protective order.   He asked                                                               
for confirmation that HB 12 would not change those criteria.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE said  the standards  for granting  a protective  order                                                               
would  not  be  changed.     She  explained  that  to  receive  a                                                               
protective order for domestic violence,  the court must find that                                                               
the petition establishes probable cause  that a crime of domestic                                                               
violence  has  occurred,  and  it is  necessary  to  protect  the                                                               
petitioner from domestic violence in the future.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:20:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Representative  Kopp for his thoughts                                                               
on Ms. Lowry's comments.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said changing  the length of  sexual assault                                                               
and stalking protective orders is a  policy call.  He said sexual                                                               
assault  and  stalking protective  orders  are  more recent  than                                                               
domestic  violence protective  orders,  which  have been  current                                                               
since  the 1970s.   He  said  he did  not know  the full  history                                                               
behind the  legislature's decision to  make them for  six months.                                                               
He said  he did not know  what implications could be  incurred by                                                               
changing the length.  He called it a fair question.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked Representative Kopp if  he thinks it                                                               
is a  good idea  to amend HB  12 to extend  the length  of sexual                                                               
assault and stalking protective orders.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said  he is conflicted.  He said  he wants to                                                               
protect people  as long as possible,  but he also wants  to avoid                                                               
violating  liberty.   He said  he wants  to read  the legislative                                                               
history to understand why the  legislature settled on six months.                                                               
He said he would report back at the next hearing.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thanked him.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN posited  that there must have been a  reason for the                                                               
orders to be only six months.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:22:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  asked   if  victims   receive  adequate                                                               
notification prior  to their abuser  being released  from custody                                                               
so  that  they  have  the  opportunity  to  petition  for  a  new                                                               
protective order or for an extension to an existing one.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN noted  that recent  reform measures  passed by  the                                                               
legislature increased the notice rights  of victims of crime.  He                                                               
said the Department  of Corrections (DOC) is  obligated to inform                                                               
victims.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  said that victims  of any crime  can sign up  with DOC                                                               
through  its  [Victim   Information  and  Notification  Everyday]                                                               
(VINE) program.  She explained  that victims can learn when their                                                               
offenders are to  have a change in status  including release from                                                               
prison.   She added that  the probation conditions of  a domestic                                                               
violence sentence would include a  no contact order enforced by a                                                               
probation officer.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:25:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked what  the time  period is  for VINE                                                               
notifications.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE said she is unable to answer that, noting it is a                                                                     
Department of Corrections program.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:25:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 12 would be held for further                                                                     
review.                                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB012 ver K 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Sponsor Statement 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Sectional Analysis ver K 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Explanation of Changes ver U to ver K 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Supporting Document-ALSC Letter 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Supporting Document-APOA Letter 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Additional Document-CPO Statute and Duration of Order 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Additional Document-Whalen v Whalen 2018 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12
HB012 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 3.18.19.pdf HJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 12