Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1996 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to day fines in certain criminal cases
and release of employment information for use in the
collection of criminal judgments."
Senator Rieger said he did not notice that additional crimes
could be included in the day fine. The problem with the
bill was the treatment of misdemeanants in general. In
Alaska misdemeanants are not going to jail. This bill will
not relieve prison overcrowding. He introduced two
amendments that were recommendations. Amendment #1 makes it
the same calculation for daily income for all individuals.
Amendment #2 sets day fine minimum not below $40 nor above
$4,000. Co-chairman Halford asked if that was a combined
total or was it by the day? Senator Rieger said points are
assigned for various crimes which are multiplied by the
calculation of daily income. Co-chairman Halford said he
would like to see the upper limit a little higher. Senator
Rieger said crimes against individuals are excluded from day
fine. These are misdemeanors. Senator Frank asked what
were the crimes. Senator Rieger said they were driving in
violation of an instruction permit, fraudulent use of a
credit card, concealment of merchandise, contempt of court,
petroleum discharge without a discharge contingency plan,
interference of constitutional rights, operating a
commercial vehicle or being off duty while in possession of
alcohol or controlled substance, leaving the scene of an
injury accident. Senator Frank asked about the $4,000
maximum. Co-chairman Halford said the fine was based on
one's net income. $4,000 is the total fine.
Senator Donley asked about the $4,000 cap. Senator Rieger
said there should not be a range that is greater than a
factor of 100, between the person with the lowest income and
the person with the highest income to pay for the same
offense. The Supreme Court schedule of fines shows many
down around $50 Senator Frank asked what the maximum fine
was. Senator Rieger said that for a class A misdemeanor
including crimes against persons it is $5,000.
Mr. Chris Christensen, General Counsel, Judicial Branch,
Alaska Court System was invited to join the committee. He
said he just reviewed the amendments and indicated the bill
as submitted last year and these amendments to it solved
some technical problems with the day fine statute that was
passed in 1984. The problem was the Legislature's stated
intent in passing what was to help solve Corrections
problems by reducing the number of people who were in jail
and to increase the State's fine collection so the State
could get more income from people who commit criminal acts.
The problem is that 90% of those convicted and sent to jail
for misdemeanors are convicted of either DWI, refusal to
take breathalyzer test, driving with license suspended,
driving with license revoked, simple assault or violating a
domestic violence restraining order. But all of those fines
are excluded from the day fines legislation. A judge cannot
give someone a day fine in lieu of a jail sentence for those
six offenses. The bill will not reduce the overcrowding.
The second problem is that the Department of Law fines
collection unit currently brings in a lot of money each year
but the percentage of fines they are able to collect is
actually quite low and unless they get some new tools that
rate is not going to go up. The day fines committee had
recommended that the legislature consider prohibiting the
issuance or renewal of State licenses and permits to persons
who had not paid criminal fines. That would be one new
tool. The legislature's intent in passing the day fines law
in 1994 will not be met by passage of this piece of
legislation. Co-chairman Halford asked if this was not
introduced by the Court System. Mr. Christensen said that
the original bill was introduced by the Court System and
once the law became effective there was a long term study
done by a committee made up of judges, representatives from
the executive and legislative branches and that was the
point at which we were finally able to determine that in
fact people were not being sent to jail for all those crimes
that were covered by the bill. When the bill was passed by
the Legislature in 1994 they had made a policy decision that
it did not want to include those six offenses. Subsequent
studies showed that those were in fact the offenses that
were causing the problems. The reason none of these are
covered by the bill is because they either have a mandatory
minimum jail sentence or they involve violence against a
person. Those are the two categories that the day fines law
excluded from coverage.
Senator Rieger MOVED amendment #1. Senator Zharoff asked
what was the effect of putting a minimum and maximum on.
Mr. Christensen said that it was a policy called for by the
Legislature. The real effect is if the upper limit insures
that people who make a great deal of money won't be paying a
fine that is commensurate with the fine of a person with a
lower income level. Mr. Christensen gave the committee an
example of a minimum and maximum fine and said this would
essentially have the effect of putting a cap on what people
at upper income levels would pay. Senator Zharoff asked if
this was based on gross earnings. Mr. Christensen said that
it was a complex formula in which the earnings are
calculated. Current law provides the Court to use the
defendant's gross income to calculate net daily income and
essentially we are looking at net daily income and
offsetting the number of dependents.
Senator Donley asked if there was any constitutional or
other reason for the 100 times the daily income standard?
Mr. Christensen said that the law which was originally
passed by the Legislature had suggested that there actually
be a large range and in looking at this the committee
decided that it needed to be lowered because it was getting
into the area of excessive fines. Ultimately it is a policy
call as to how many days of income should be taken for a
particular offense. Senator Donley said this amendment
would put a $4,000 cap on any offense. Mr. Christensen said
that if someone had enough income they might be getting more
than $4,000 for a Class III or V offense. Senator Donley
said it appeared that some of the more serious offenses are
ones that should have the flexibility to go over $4,000.
$40 seems kind of low to put in a statute because this is a
State that gives everyone $1,000 a year. Senators Donley
and Zharoff discuss that there is a separate fine schedule
for corporations depending on what type of crime.
Senator Frank and Mr. Christensen discussed indigency. Mr.
Christensen said that the indigency forms were quite
extensive but the Court could not control determining
income. There is a difference and for purposes of
determining indigency for a public defender one is required
to find out if the person can not afford to pay for a public
defender, which means not just their income is looked at,
but also what else they might have or what might be coming
in such as property. The day fines is just based on a
percentage of annual gross income. However, it will be a
more difficult, complicated and time consuming system. If
the bill is not going to do what the Legislature originally
wanted, which is to bring in more fines and reduce
overcrowding is it worth the expense to give judges this
option? He said one gets the public defender for anything
for which one could be sent to jail.
Co-chairman Halford referred to amendment #1 and there being
NO OBJECTION it was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley mentioned that DWI, refusal to take a
breathalyzer test, and some of the others that would have
generated the most amount of money and was there some reason
that they could not be included? Mr. Christensen said that
was a policy call for the Legislature. Senator Donley said
it would be appropriate to go back and look at those if that
is what the Court System is saying that could make this
work. The exclusion of those from the statute's
applicability should be looked at.
Co-chairman Halford said if that were to be gone into the
bottom limit should then be a lot higher that $40. Senator
Donley said the six categories that seemed to be more
serious crimes could have a separate higher range. Co-
chairman Halford said that was the substance that really
makes the bill work. Day fines could be paid if they were
high enough except for one day that they would have to go
through the process. Senator Donley said the committee
could dissect the fine section from the mandatory time
serving section and have the fine section be a day fine
flexible for those without effecting the mandatory
sentencing provisions.
Co-chairman Halford said that Senator Donley should work on
this matter and HELD the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|