Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/20/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB 206 | |
| SB289 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
9:04:02 AM CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 206(JUD) "An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention and identification of persons." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. 9:04:08 AM Senator Bunde, sponsor of the bill, testified that the genesis of this bill was based on recent situations in Anchorage, which he was concerned could occur in other areas of the state. These situations involved a gang-related shooting and attempts by police officers called to the scene to retain witnesses for the purpose of gathering information about the crime. Alaska Statute currently does not include a material witness provision and the potential witnesses disregarded officers' requests to remain at the scene and to cooperate in efforts to collect information. Senator Bunde stated that this legislation would provide police the ability to detain witnesses in similar situations and possibly defuse the "immediate tension". Senator Bunde assured that the legislation is also intended to not restrict the rights of the average citizen or abuse their constitutional rights. He cautioned against the potential negative impact on innocent parties when providing law enforcement additional authority in their efforts to solve crimes. Senator Bunde indicated that this bill has undergone review and changes have been made to achieve the balance of providing assistance to law enforcement without infringing on the public. He acknowledged the Department of Law efforts to this end. Senator Bunde then overviewed the Senate Majority press release pertaining to this bill, which reads as follows. Summary: · Increases the penalty for contempt of court for failure to honor a subpoena or refusal to answer as a witness in connection with a felony crime or appearance before the grand jury. · Adds a section to AS 12.50 allowing a peace officer to temporarily detain a person under circumstances that give the officer reasonable suspicion that: o The person witnesses a crime or was in the vicinity of a crime such as a homicide or manslaughter; o The person may have information of material aid in the investigation of that crime, and; o The temporary detention is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identification of the person, to obtain an account of the crime, to protect a crime victim from imminent harm, or for other exigent circumstances. · Allows a police officer who has detained a person under these circumstances to: o Photograph the person; o Serve a subpoena on the person to appear before the grand jury if the person fails to provide valid government-issued identification; o Take the person's fingerprints if the person is detained in connection with the investigation of a murder, attempted murder or misconduct involving weapons in the first degree under AS 11.61.190. · Prohibits the peace officer from requiring the person to sign a subpoena issued under this section, and requires the peace officer to advise the person that failure to honor the subpoena is punishable as criminal contempt of court. · Allows a person receiving a subpoena to request the district attorney to withdraw the subpoena if the person provides a valid government-issued photographic identification prior to the grand jury proceeding. · Makes it a class B misdemeanor to refuse or resist the taking of photos or fingerprints under this section. Benefits: · Balances the need to protect individual freedom with the ability to prosecute crime and to provide defendants with witnesses on their behalf. Background: · A material witness is crucial to either the defense or prosecution. Unfortunately, material witnesses often refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials, significantly impeding the ability to bring indictments or prosecute crime. SB 206 protects material witnesses from unreasonable arrests or confinement and helps ensure the availability of crucial testimony. 9:08:50 AM Senator Stedman asked the impact of this bill in domestic violence instances in which children are involved or present. 9:09:13 AM Senator Bunde replied that this provision would apply to situations involving the most serious crimes, such as manslaughter and misconduct involving weapons. 9:09:31 AM DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified that this bill would clarify law that is currently unclear relating to material witnesses. Peace officers would have direction as to their authority in situations involving witnesses at the scene of a crime. Possible witnesses can "drift into the background", making it difficult for law enforcement to gather information. 9:10:42 AM Mr. Guaneli indicated several such instances have occurred in the past. Mr. Guaneli explained the proposed Article 3. Temporary Detention and Identification of Persons., inserted to AS 12.50 in Section 2 of this bill. AS 12.50.201(a) would provide that a peace officer may temporarily detain a person in reasonable situations. The courts recognize this authority as a part of common law, but the exact authority is not defined. This legislation would not only inform police of what actions they could take, but what actions they could not take as well. 9:12:12 AM Senator Bunde stated that the provisions of this legislation would apply in domestic violence situations involving a weapon. 9:12:34 AM Mr. Guaneli continued that the proposed AS 12.50.201(b) specifies the actions a peace officer is allowed with regard to material witnesses of different crimes. In any crime committed against a person, this authority is limited to determining the identification of the possible witness and what may have been witnessed. Only in circumstances in which law enforcement is investigating a murder or an attempted murder, such as the result of a drive-by shooting, could police detain the potential witness. 9:13:52 AM Mr. Guaneli told of one case involving domestic violence. Police witnessed a couple running, then getting into a car and driving away. Police thought the woman in this pair was the victim of a domestic violence assault and stopped the car to determine if this was the case. This action by law enforcement was deemed proper. Mr. Guaneli informed that in the investigation of misdemeanor crimes, police could not take fingerprints of material witnesses. 9:14:59 AM Senator Stedman expressed concern about felony domestic violence crimes. The victimized spouse may leave the home to avoid further confrontation because restraining orders do not offer sufficient protection. He asked if the victim would then be detained by authorities and if so, what would be the fate of any children involved. 9:16:11 AM Mr. Guaneli agreed that domestic violence restraining orders are not always effective. This bill is not intended to prevent a domestic violence victim from seeking safety. Rather it would allow police to determine who was in the vicinity when the crime occurred and what they may have witnessed. In most instances, the domestic violence victim telephones the police. This bill is more applicable to those witnesses who do not wish to be identified or cooperative, such as gang members or friends and relatives of gang members. 9:17:47 AM Senator Bunde emphasized this provision only allows detention of material witnesses long enough to gather verified identification and possibly a statement. It would not require a victim to remain near the perpetrator. 9:18:17 AM Co-Chair Green understood that additional language is necessary to address the provision relating to fingerprinting of material witnesses. 9:18:32 AM Mr. Guaneli told of discussions to limit this provision, in part to be less vulnerable to a court challenge. Law enforcement only requires fingerprints of witnesses to accurately identify these people. The use of those prints should be limited to that purpose and destroyed afterwards. Currently, the Department of Public Safety maintains two databases: "known" fingerprints and "unknown" fingerprints. The known database includes prints obtained from certain job applicants, members of the Alaskan Bar Association and other public protection professionals. The database of unknown prints contains those collected from crime scenes in which the identity of the person has not been determined. Mr. Guaneli noted that for the purposes of this legislation, the fingerprints taken of a material witness could only be compared to the known database. If a match is found, the identity of the witness could be verified and the prints could be destroyed. If a fingerprint record were not found, the prints taken would also be destroyed. 9:21:08 AM Co-Chair Green anticipated an amendment clarifying this matter would be submitted for future consideration. 9:21:13 AM Senator Hoffman asked how the fingerprints taken from a material witness would be used to make a positive identification. He also asked the number of other states that have similar statutes allowing for the fingerprinting of material witnesses. 9:21:33 AM Mr. Guaneli replied that the witness would be identified by police officers at the scene of the crime if an officer had reason to believe the person could be of assistance in solving the crime. He did not know the number of other states with similar laws. A national trend is progressing to improve the ability of police to gather information at crime scenes. 9:22:45 AM Senator Hoffman requested information regarding similar laws in other states. 9:23:00 AM Mr. Guaneli indicated several days would be needed to undertake an exhaustive search. 9:23:21 AM Senator Stedman commented that issues in Anchorage, Mat-Su and Fairbanks are different than those effecting Southeastern communities. He supported the concept allowing police to detain people to obtain a list of names and addresses for future questioning. 9:24:09 AM Senator Bunde, referencing Senator Hoffman's question, informed that other states have a material witness provision and he had submitted a request for information on these statutes. 9:24:32 AM Mr. Guaneli asserted that this provision is based on the obligations of citizens to provide testimony in court. It allows police to issue a subpoena to a citizen who fails to present valid identification. Unless testimony would be self- incriminating, people have a duty to testify when called upon to do so. 9:25:45 AM Senator Hoffman contended that individuals have different abilities to recall a situation. He exampled exercises in which a person passes through a room and the group in that room are asked to describe that person. These witnesses usually have significantly different recollections. Senator Hoffman asked the point that police must accept a witness' inability to recall or accurately describe what they saw. This gave him concern. 9:26:40 AM Mr. Guaneli replied that a balance must be achieved. A person walking a dog in the vicinity of a crime who claims to not have witnessed anything relevant to the crime could be deemed truthful by a peace officer immediately. However, another person running away from the scene of the crime would require further investigation. That person could be fleeing because they heard or saw shots fired and feared for their safety, or fleeing to avoid police capture. Mr. Guaneli inferred the adage of attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar to explain how law enforcement could achieve more cooperation from citizens by being respectful. Because of this, police have an incentive to treat with respect those people who had no connection with the crime. 9:28:55 AM Senator Bunde pointed out that a person at the scene of a crime who provided proper identification to law enforcement could be contacted at a later date for further questioning. That person could have observed something initially thought to be irrelevant, but later determined to be a "piece of the puzzle". 9:29:46 AM JOHN CYR, Business Manager, Public Safety Employees Association, testified about the multiple law enforcement officials belonging to the organization. The Association supports this bill. It would allow for the identification of people present at a crime scene. Too often, potential witnesses refuse to cooperate and leave the scene, making the police officers' job difficult. This legislation would provide clarity. The need is obvious. The impacts of gang-related, methamphetamine-related and organized crime related situations are beginning to become apparent in Alaska. "Bad people" want to remain unknown. 9:32:24 AM Co-Chair Green indicated that amended language would be forthcoming. 9:32:31 AM Senator Bunde remarked that while this bill was generated as a result of situations occurring in Anchorage, the Alaska State Troopers have indicated it could have statewide application. 9:32:59 AM Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|