Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB 206 | |
| SB222 | |
| SB284 | |
| HB274 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 206 | ||
9:06:48 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 second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Wilken moved for adoption of CS SB 206, 24-LS1197\X, as a working document. 9:07:34 AM Senator Bunde noted that Co-Chair Green requested this change that relates to photographing and fingerprinting of material witnesses. This change would provide that use of this information is limited to the proper identification of individuals and that the fingerprints would be destroyed once the specified purpose had been served. 9:08:09 AM Co-Chair Green noted that this provision is akin to current procedure followed for other practices. 9:08:23 AM Senator Bunde reminded of the question raised at the previous hearing relating to material witness statutes of other states. 9:09:10 AM ROB HEUN, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified via teleconference from an offnet location that police often find that witnesses at a crime scene are influenced by fear or peer pressure. Many would provide information but were concerned about repercussions from the "people they have to live with". If required by law to provide information, these witnesses would have "cop cover" to justify their actions to others. When talking with witnesses, officers observe individuals mentally assessing the possible risks and repercussions when making their determination about whether they would cooperate. 9:10:58 AM Senator Hoffman asked the reason both photographs and fingerprinting of material witnesses is necessary. 9:11:19 AM Mr. Heun replied that fingerprints would allow confirmation of identification. Photographs provide an expeditious method to locate the witness to serve a subpoena. 9:12:06 AM Senator Olson understood the purpose of obtaining either prints or a photograph; however, both could be excessive. He asked the number of other states that allow law enforcement to require both from a material witness. 9:12:35 AM Mr. Heun did not know the number of other states. He considered the amount of time required to fingerprint and take a photograph as insignificant. 9:13:15 AM Senator Dyson recalled that the vehicles utilized by the Anchorage Police Department have equipment that allows officers to take photographs and fingerprints. He asked the length of time necessary to secure both. 9:13:46 AM Mr. Heun assured the person would be detained only long enough to obtain the information provided for in this bill. If events prevented officers from processing a witness immediately, that person could not be expected to remain at the scene. He noted that although possible suspects could be directed to "stand over there" to await further questioning, the burden would be placed on law enforcement to expedite processing of a material witness. 9:14:46 AM Senator Dyson surmised such processing of material witnesses would require hours rather than days and weeks. 9:14:53 AM Mr. Heun affirmed. 9:14:57 AM Senator Dyson asked the process of detaining a witness for a longer period if police had reason to suspect a witness would be subjected to intimidation or harm, or would otherwise be unwilling to cooperate. 9:15:27 AM Mr. Heun responded that an arrest warrant would be required to detain a person any longer than necessary for obtaining identification information. Such a warrant would be difficult to secure if the person was not a suspect in the crime. 9:15:43 AM Senator Dyson asked if the process for obtaining a warrant includes presenting the situation to a judge. 9:15:56 AM Mr. Heun affirmed, but stressed this action would not be a preferred option. 9:16:03 AM DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified to the correctness of the previous witness' assertion that the duration of detention would only be as long as required to determine what the individual witnessed. If the person had not seen anything relevant to the crime that occurred, he or she would be released soon thereafter. Mr. Guaneli expected the length of detention would be minutes rather than hours. Suspects could be held for longer periods, but witnesses could only be held long enough to gather information. Courts would require this as a constitutional matter. Mr. Guaneli then spoke to the necessity to obtain both photographs and fingerprints of the witness. The database of known fingerprints that would be used to determine identification is limited to those arrested for crimes, certain job applicants, state license holders, etc. If a subpoena was issued and the witness failed to appear, the ability of using fingerprints to assist in locating the person would be limited. Photographs would better assist law enforcement in locating the witness. 9:18:57 AM Senator Olson asked how this legislation would apply in situations involving a "distraught" witness in which the victim was a loved one. 9:19:36 AM Mr. Guaneli replied that police encounter this situation frequently and consideration is given to the circumstances. The witness is allowed to accompany the victim to the hospital if necessary. This legislation would apply to those wanting to leave the scene of a crime specifically to avoid identification. 9:20:25 AM Senator Bunde offered a motion to report CS SB 206, 24-LS1197\X, from Committee with individual recommendations and new fiscal notes. There was no objection and CS SB 206 (FIN) was MOVED from Committee with four new zero fiscal notes: one dated 3/17/06 from the Department of Administration, Public Defender Agency; one dated 3/20/06 from the Department of Administration, Office of Public Advocacy; one dated 3/17/06 from the Department of Law; and one dated 3/19/06 from the Department of Corrections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|