Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/15/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB209 | |
| SB210 | |
| SB237 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the manufacture and transportation of
alcoholic beverages; relating to forfeitures of property for
violations of alcoholic beverage laws; and relating to
violations of alcoholic beverage laws."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, the bill's
sponsor, read the history and intent of the bill as specified in
the Sponsor Statement.
In 2004, Congress passed legislation recognizing that many
rural communities and their residents "?face the highest
alcohol abuse and family violence rates in the country." and
establishing the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement
Commission. The Commission released a Draft Interim Report in
late 2005 that contained recommendations, including amendments
to several provisions in Alaska Statutes.
Senate Bill 210 changes current law to help law enforcement
better protect communities that have chosen to limit the sale
or possession of alcohol under local option laws. First,
Senate Bill 210 strengthens current forfeiture provisions in
statute by allowing seizure of alcohol transported by common
carrier in violation of current law. Second, it authorizes the
seizure of property determined to have been purchased or
obtained through the proceeds of illegal importation or sale
of alcohol and outlines procedures for a person claiming an
interest in property that has been seized.
SB 210 also defines "manufacture" of alcohol and provides
consistency between statutes by amending the allowable
quantities. While current statute prohibits the manufacture of
alcohol in a community that has adopted a local option, it
does not include a definition. The legislation also clarifies
statutes relating to the presumption of possession for sale.
These provisions provide clarity and assist law enforcement
and communities in their continued interdiction efforts in
damp or dry areas of the state.
More than 100 communities in Alaska have chosen a local option
to combat the problems associated with alcohol abuse and
violence. SB 210 clarifies, strengthens, and brings uniformity
to the state's alcohol and beverage control statutes to assist
law enforcement and communities to fight the illegal
importation of alcohol.
Ms. Brakes noted that the bill would address inconsistencies in
State Statutes retaining to the presumption of guilt, specifically
that were a person to have in their possession more than 10.5
liters of alcohol, an intent to sell could be presumed.
Ms. Brakes noted that, as specified on page eight of the Alaska
State Troopers Alaska Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement 2004
Annual Drug Report [copy on file], "bootlegging is a very lucrative
business in Rural Alaska." Page seven of the report specifies that
681 gallons of alcohol were seized in 2004. A graph on that page
also depicts the number of alcohol related arrests conducted during
the years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
10:25:54 AM
Co-Chair Green understood that the provisions included in this
legislation were based on the Alaska Rural Justice and Law
Enforcement Commission's report.
Ms. Brakes affirmed that the bill was based on determinations made
in the Commission's Draft Report.
10:26:02 AM
Senator Olson asked regarding the decision to lower the alcohol
possession limit from the current 12 liter limit to 10.5 liters.
10:26:24 AM
Ms. Brakes responded that the decision to specify 10.5 liters as
the possession limit was made in order to have consistency in
regulations. An existing separate section of State Statute
specifies that the transportation of more than 10.5 liters of
distilled spirits into a local option community would be a felony.
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that lowering the possession
limit would align that regulation with amounts specified in other
State law.
In response to a question from Senator Olson, Ms. Brakes confirmed
that the 10.5 liter specification is included in other State law.
10:27:12 AM
Senator Bunde asked for an example of what would constitute 10.5
liters, as alcohol is available in a variety of container sizes.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcohol Beverage Control Board, Department
of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from an offnet site
and stated that 10.5 liters of distilled spirits is the amount that
a package store could legally ship to a person each month. This
limit has been specified in State Statute for several years. 10.5
liters would equate to a case of six 1.75 liter bottles.
Mr. Griffin continued that a case of twelve 750 milliliter (ML)
bottles, or "fifths", would total nine liters.
10:28:48 AM
Senator Bunde appreciated the information. It would assist in
physically understanding the amounts being discussed.
ED HARRINGTON, Captain, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, testified via teleconference from an offnet site and noted
that he was a member of the Alaska Rural Justice and Law
Enforcement Commission and had participated in the development of
the recommendations to change State Statutes.
Captain Harrington informed the Committee that the Troopers Drug
Unit had seized approximately 994 gallons of alcohol in 2005. That
was a significant increase over 2004. The changes proposed in this
bill would further assist law enforcement efforts to enforce the
local option laws of "those communities that have elected to
restrict the flow of alcohol to their communities".
Senator Olson asked whether the proposed provisions would affect
air taxi services that serve the communities.
10:30:21 AM
Captain Harrington understood that the changes proposed in this
bill would not affect air carriers. The effort would enable law
enforcement officers to seize alcohol illegally transported on
common carriers. That option has not always been available in the
past. Subsequent court proceedings would transpire in regards to
the forfeiture of the alcohol.
Senator Olson stated that more "concrete" information would be
desired in regards to whether air taxi service aircraft could be
confiscated as a result of these provisions.
Co-Chair Green asked whether this legislation would change existing
regulations pertaining to "the transporter of the product".
Captain Harrington understood that nothing in that regard would be
altered. Any language in the bill pertaining to transportation
would relate specifically to the transportation of alcoholic
beverages transported by a common carrier. There was no intent to
affect air taxi services that transport the alcohol to communities.
While privately owned aircraft involved in the importation of
alcoholic beverages have been seized, no common aircraft have been.
10:32:48 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-
Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, affirmed Captain
Harrington's remarks. "This bill does not change the definition of
common carrier for our bootlegging statutes."
10:33:11 AM
Senator Olson understood therefore that "a common carrier aircraft
would not be confiscated even if they knowingly carry alcohol into
the villages."
Ms. Carpeneti stated that this bill would specifically allow "the
alcohol on common carriers sent in violation of the bootlegging
laws to be seized and forfeited." The bill would not "address the
seizure of the aircraft itself".
10:33:46 AM
Senator Olson acknowledged.
Senator Olson asked for further explanation of language in Sec.
2(a)(6) page 3, line 3 that reads "or items of value purchased from
the proceeds".
(6) money, securities, negotiable instruments, or other things
of value used in financial transactions or items of value
purchased from the proceeds derived from actively prohibited
under AS 04.11.010 or in violation of a local option adopted
under AS 04.11.491.
New Text Underlined
10:33:56 AM
Ms. Carpeneti understood that the language would pertain to such
things as snowmachines and other items that bootleggers might
purchase with the proceeds of their operation.
Senator Bunde asked what proof would be required in those cases.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that like other situations, evidence would
be required to support the claim that the item "was purchased with
funds" generated from bootlegging operations. The burden of proof
must be supported by a "preponderance of evidence in a civil
action."
In response to a comment from Senator Bunde, Captain Harrington
affirmed that 994 gallons of alcohol from bootleg operations had
been seized in 2005.
Senator Bunde calculated that the bootleg profit generated from
that amount of alcohol could amount to $300,000.
Captain Harrington thought that would be correct.
In order to better understand the profits made by bootleggers,
Senator Bunde asked for examples of items that bootleggers might
have purchased.
10:36:05 AM
Captain Harrington communicated that in his experience, "it's
fairly common for people that are involved in bootlegging in the
Rural communities to be fairly wealthy by community standards."
Active bootleggers typically spend "a lot of their money on
conveyances" such as boats, snowmachines, jet skis, "and other more
expensive toys". In a case in Kotzebue, an investigator followed a
bootlegger from the airport where he loaded alcohol into a vehicle,
then drove to a beach and loaded it into a boat to transport to a
local option village. In that case, both the vehicle and boat were
seized. When a search warrant was obtained, brand new snowmachines
and other boats were found. Generally, the interview process would
provide evidence that the person had used the proceeds from the
bootlegging effort to purchase that equipment. Law enforcement
officers could then seize those items for forfeiture in the court
proceeding.
10:37:44 AM
Senator Bunde asked for an estimate of the money that might have
been generated by bootleg operations in the past year.
10:37:55 AM
Mr. Harrington responded that drugs and alcohol totaling
approximately one million dollars had been seized in 2004. He had
no individual data specific to alcohol.
10:38:45 AM
Senator Olson continued to question the language in Sec. 2(a)(6)
pertaining to the process of seizing items purchased with the
proceeds generated from bootlegging operations, specifically
whether a person's house could be confiscated.
Ms. Carpeneti regarded the seizing of a house as being "highly
unlikely" unless it was "an extreme case where a bootlegger bought
a house solely from money obtained from bootlegging profits."
Evidence must be presented to prove that. No house has ever been
confiscated.
Senator Olson stated that the law in this regard, rather than the
practicality of such a thing to occur, was the gist of his
question. Continuing, he asked whether this legislation would allow
for the confiscation of a $100,000 home that a person had purchased
with the help of $10,000 generated from the person's bootleg
operation.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she did not believe that that house
could be confiscated.
Senator Olson asked whether that opinion could be confirmed.
Ms. Carpeneti expressed that the house would not be confiscated
since bootlegging operations did not generate the majority of the
funding used in the purchase.
Senator Olson surmised however that the bill's language would allow
for someone's house to be confiscated.
Ms. Carpeneti opined that, rather than it allowing for the
confiscation of the house, "it might allow for confiscation of an
interest in the house".
10:40:28 AM
Senator Bunde concluded that were a bootlegger with no other source
of income to purchase a home, it might "be possible" that that home
could be forfeited.
Ms. Carpeneti expressed that evidence presented in the court
proceedings would have to prove that "all that money that was used
to purchase that house was derived from illegal transportation of
alcohol". She could not recall this ever having happened.
Senator Bunde remarked that were a person with no other source to
purchase a snowmachine, that machine could be confiscated.
Therefore, were a person with no other source of income to purchase
a house, the house should be treated in the same manner.
Co-Chair Green understood that the bill included new language
through which a person whose possessions were subject to
confiscation could respond and "lay out their case".
Ms. Carpeneti affirmed. A civil lawsuit would be conducted in which
the State must present burden of proof and the accused would be
provided "the opportunity to make a defense". The case would be
decided based on those facts. In other words, forfeiture would not
be automatic.
10:42:25 AM
Senator Olson voiced being uncomfortable with the broad powers
presented in this legislation.
10:42:35 AM
Senator Hoffman asked regarding the anticipated increase in
convictions that might transpire as the result of this legislation.
10:42:57 AM
Captain Harrington was hesitant to respond as that is an unknown.
However, he allowed that the reduction of the possession limit to
10.5 liters might result in a few additional cases during the year.
Overall, he thought that the increases would not be "substantial".
Senator Hoffman stated that the purpose of his question was to
determine whether this legislation would assist "in stemming the
flow of alcohol to dry communities".
Captain Harrington stated that lowering the possession limit to
10.5 liters is a benefit, as it "would clear up the confusion
between law enforcement and the Department of Law and the citizens
in general" because of the differences that exist in current
Statutes.
Captain Harrington informed the Committee that 750 ML bottles are
the most commonly shipped size of distilled spirits. Reducing the
allowable transportation limit from 12 liters to 10.5 liters would
result in "essentially" a two bottle reduction. He did not
anticipate this change to increase law enforcement arrest numbers.
Therefore, the benefit of the legislation would be the removal of
the confusion with the conflicting statutes.
Senator Hoffman understood, therefore, while the bill would
streamline statutes, it might only result in three or four more
prosecutable cases. "The vast majority of the problem would still
exist."
Captain Harrington affirmed that while the bill would streamline
statutes, it would result in fewer than "50 additional cases
through the course of a year".
Co-Chair Green pointed out that the language in Sec. 2(a)(6) is
identical to language in AS 17.30.116, which pertains to drug
forfeitures.
10:45:55 AM
Senator Hoffman stated that he has been working on efforts to stem
the flow of alcohol into communities since the 1980s, and that he
would be supporting this legislation. Continuing, he stressed that
there is "no silver bullet" through which to address the situation.
The abuse of alcohol "is a major cause of problems in Rural
Alaska".
Co-Chair Green remarked "as with many substances that people abuse,
all the efforts in the world don't necessarily address the heart of
the problem which is the hearts of people and the minds of people
to make better choices."
Co-Chair Green asked Senator Olson whether he would desire to hold
the bill in Committee in order to further address his concerns.
10:47:04 AM
Senator Olson suggested that a conceptual amendment to exclude a
person's primary residence from forfeiture be considered in regards
to Sec. 2(a)(6).
Ms. Carpeneti amended her earlier remarks to clarify that a process
does currently exist in regards to the seizure of a person's
residence due to a situation associated with a marijuana growing
operation. As she was unaware of the outcome of that case, further
information on that issue could be provided.
Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
10:49:16 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|