Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/24/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB54 | |
| HB217 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 54 | ||
| = | HB 217 | ||
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(JUD)
"An Act relating to protective orders for crimes involving
sexual assault or stalking, to notifications to victims of
sexual assault, and to mandatory arrest for crimes involving
violation of protective orders and violation of conditions of
release; and amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure."
This was the third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, the bill's sponsor,
explained that committee substitute, Version 24-LS0132\B would
change two provisions. The first being the addition of the words
"and sexual abuse" in the bill's title on page 1 line 2. The second
change, which was requested by the Department of Public Safety, was
the addition of language pertaining to the entry of protective
orders into the State's central registry as specified in Sec. 3
page 2 lines 19 through 24.
Mr. Hooley noted that, rather than imposing new procedures in
regards to the central registry, the language in Sec. 3 would
simply require protective orders to be entered into the central
registry.
In response to a request from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Hooley
communicated that the rational for the inclusion of Sec. 3 is
included in the analysis section of the Department of Public
Safety's February 16, 2005 fiscal note #4.
Co-Chair Green understood the language to relate to peace officers.
Mr. Hooley clarified that the previous committee substitute,
Version 24-LS0132\N, had included a new provision that required
protective order information to be entered into the registry. The
Department of Public Safety suggested that instead of adding a new
provision, the language be inserted into an existing Statute to
which regulations and procedures regarding such things as domestic
violence orders already exist.
9:06:12 AM
Co-Chair Green communicated that the changes included in Version
"B" were recommended by the bill's drafter rather than by the
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute, Version "B" as
the working document.
There being no objection, the Version "B" committee substitute was
ADOPTED.
In order to correct recent criticism regarding his position on
protective orders, Senator Stedman stated that current protective
orders statutes "don't have enough teeth" in them. This is
substantiated by the fact that in one recent case, a woman was
found dead hours after "a particular person" was released from
incarceration. Furthermore, two women with protective orders have
died in his Senate district in the past three years. This issue
must be addressed. He has worked with both Senator Dyson and
Senator Gretchen Guess on this issue.
9:07:45 AM
Senator Stedman stated that he takes "personal offense" to being
mischaracterized as someone who "feels that the State's restrictive
restraining orders are too restrictive. It is actually just the
opposite." He would appreciate his position on this issue to be
clarified with the public.
9:09:01 AM
Senator Dyson stressed that it would be "naïve" for someone to
assume that a protective order would insure the safety of the
person. "It does not unfortunately." While a protective order would
provide another legal tool for arrest in the case of contempt of
the order, it would not prevent "the perpetrator from showing up at
their door or confronting them in a parking lot." A victim should
not interpret a protective order as meaning that they would be
safe. However, a victim should have the right to be notified, "in
real time, before the conditions of restraint of the alleged
perpetrator are changed." While this notification has been
statutorily required, sometimes that notification "breaks down in
execution."
Senator Dyson stated that Senator Stedman has raised a valid point.
While a protective order is a tool that would allow law enforcement
to act, "the order in and of itself does nothing in real world,
real time to protect the victim from physical violence and/or
harassment."
Co-Chair Green observed that several zero fiscal notes accompany
the bill. An updated sponsor statement had also been provided.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS SB 54(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with six new fiscal notes: a Department of Corrections zero fiscal
note dated January 17, 2006; a zero fiscal note dated January 18,
2006 from the Office of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration; a zero fiscal note dated January 17, 2006 from the
Public Defenders Agency, Department of Administration; a $4,200
fiscal note dated January 24, 2006 from the Criminal Records and ID
Division, Department of Public Safety, a $10,000 fiscal note dated
January 24, 2006 from the Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety; and a zero fiscal note dated January 25, 2006 from
the Department of Law
Senator Dyson thanked the Committee, his staff, and the Department
of Public Safety for their efforts in developing this bill.
9:11:59 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|