Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532

03/17/2014 09:00 AM FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
09:04:53 AM Start
09:06:31 AM Confirmation: Department of Revenue, Commissioner Angela Rodell
09:53:46 AM SB161
09:55:53 AM SB135
10:01:00 AM SB108
10:50:57 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Confirmation Hearing TELECONFERENCED
Department of Revenue: Commissioner Angela Rodell
Scheduled But Not Heard
Heard & Held
Moved CSSB 161(FIN) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 135 Out of Committee
SENATE BILL NO. 108                                                                                                           
     "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain                                                                         
     records of criminal cases; and providing for an                                                                            
     effective date."                                                                                                           
10:01:00 AM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR FRED  DYSON, SPONSOR, addressed the  legislation. He                                                                    
believed many  members had  handled Second  Amendment issues                                                                    
well and that  First Amendment issues would  be addressed on                                                                    
a  more frequent  basis. The  bill pertained  to the  Fourth                                                                    
Amendment's right  to privacy. His  concern had come  out of                                                                    
the  task force  currently  working on  barriers to  reentry                                                                    
from  the criminal  justice system.  He  discussed that  the                                                                    
State of Alaska  had a public website  called CourtView that                                                                    
listed criminal  records. He stated that  unfortunately, the                                                                    
website  also   carried  arrest  records.  The   bill  would                                                                    
strengthen  the privacy  and  liberty  interests of  persons                                                                    
when  charges  were  dismissed   or  acquitted  by  removing                                                                    
records  from  CourtView  after 120  days.  The  information                                                                    
would  remain   available  to  police,  the   Department  of                                                                    
Corrections, judges,  and prosecutors.  He stated  that many                                                                    
employers,  landlords,   and  other  frequently   looked  at                                                                    
CourtView  to determine  whether a  person had  a record;  a                                                                    
person's  name  on the  website  hindered  that person  from                                                                    
competing  for jobs  and other.  He  referred to  a case  in                                                                    
Anchorage from the  prior year as an example  of an innocent                                                                    
person with their name posted  on CourtView. He relayed that                                                                    
the record on CourtView was indefinite.                                                                                         
10:04:25 AM                                                                                                                   
CHUCK KOPP,  STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON,  stated that section                                                                    
1  of the  bill  addressed the  practicality  of going  back                                                                    
without incurring a large fiscal  note. The sponsor's office                                                                    
had   developed   the   legislative   intent   language   in                                                                    
conjunction  with  the Alaska  Court  System  that aimed  to                                                                    
address  people  who  were currently  struggling  under  the                                                                    
weight of an acquitted or  dismissed charge on CourtView. He                                                                    
read from the sectional analysis (copy on file):                                                                                
     Section 1                                                                                                                  
     Provides  legislative intent  directing  the Court,  to                                                                    
     the  extent  practicable,   to  treat  as  confidential                                                                    
     records  of  criminal  cases  disposed  of  before  the                                                                    
     effective date of the Act  by acquittal of all charges,                                                                    
     dismissal of all charges, or  acquittal of some charges                                                                    
     and dismissal of remaining charges,  to the same extent                                                                    
     that records are held confidential  by this bill, under                                                                    
     AS 22.35.030.                                                                                                              
     Section 2                                                                                                                  
     Amends AS 22.35 by adding  a new section, AS 22.35.030.                                                                    
     Records   concerning   criminal  cases   resulting   in                                                                    
     acquittal or dismissal confidential.                                                                                       
     This  section  establishes that  a  court  record of  a                                                                    
     criminal case is confidential if  120 days have elapsed                                                                    
     from the  date of  acquittal or  dismissal and  (1) the                                                                    
     person was acquitted of all  charges filed in the case;                                                                    
     (2) all charges against  the person have been dismissed                                                                    
     by  the prosecuting  authority; or  (3) the  person was                                                                    
     acquitted of some  of the charges in the  case, and the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed.                                                                                          
     Provide  exceptions  for  access  to  information  made                                                                    
     confidential  for  state agency  employees  responsible                                                                    
     for health,  safety, welfare, or placement  of a child,                                                                    
     a person  with a  physical or  intellectual disability,                                                                    
     or  a  person with  a  mental  illness; employees  that                                                                    
     protect other  vulnerable citizens, and  state criminal                                                                    
     justice  information network  users. The  Department of                                                                    
     Health and Social Services will adopt regulations to                                                                       
     administer these exceptions.                                                                                               
     Section 3                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the Applicability of the Act to criminal                                                                       
     charges concluded on or after the effective date of                                                                        
     the Act by dismissal or by acquittal of the defendant.                                                                     
     Section 4                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the effective date of the Act as October                                                                       
     1, 2014.                                                                                                                   
Mr. Kopp  elaborated that  that the  original bill  had read                                                                    
that  a   court  record   of  a   criminal  case   would  be                                                                    
confidential  if  90  days  had elapsed  from  the  date  of                                                                    
acquittal or  dismissal; the provision  had been  updated in                                                                    
Section 2 to  120 days per a request from  the Department of                                                                    
Law due to a 120 evidentiary rule.                                                                                              
10:08:52 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Kopp directed  committee attention  to the  zero fiscal                                                                    
notes from the Department  of Administration, which included                                                                    
the  Office of  Public  Advocacy and  the Public  Defender's                                                                    
Office, and one  from the Department of Law.  He stated that                                                                    
the courts could  address the process by  which records were                                                                    
held  confidential under  court  rule. He  noted that  there                                                                    
were  letters of  support in  member  files as  well as  one                                                                    
letter of opposition from the Office of Victim's Rights.                                                                        
NANCY   MEADE,  GENERAL   COUNSEL,   ALASKA  COURT   SYSTEM,                                                                    
testified that the Alaska Court  System (ACS) was neutral on                                                                    
the  bill. She  shared that  she  had worked  with the  bill                                                                    
sponsor to ensure that the  legislation could be implemented                                                                    
with  the   least  amount   of  expense   and  technological                                                                    
problems. She  said that ACS could  make cases confidential;                                                                    
this  would be  a unique  category  of cases,  as all  other                                                                    
cases that were  confidential were so from  the beginning of                                                                    
the  case. She  relayed  that when  the  legislature made  a                                                                    
certain case  type confidential the  case was not  posted on                                                                    
Court View or released in hard  copy. The cases were kept in                                                                    
courthouses in a fluorescent envelope  and were viewed by no                                                                    
one, with  the exception  of: the parties  in the  case, the                                                                    
attorneys  in  the case,  court  staff  for case  processing                                                                    
purposes, and the judge. She  explained that the legislation                                                                    
would  make cases  confidential  after  they had  previously                                                                    
been  public. Provided  that every  charge in  the case  was                                                                    
dismissed  or  acquitted  the case  would  be  removed  from                                                                    
CourtView at  no fiscal  impact to the  state. She  spoke to                                                                    
the  retroactivity provision  in the  bill. She  stated that                                                                    
ACS  had  transferred all  of  its  case management  to  the                                                                    
CourtView system  over the past decade  and different courts                                                                    
had different  dates on  which they  were put  on CourtView.                                                                    
She said  that as long  as courts were on  CourtView certain                                                                    
case types could  be removed. She warned  that removing case                                                                    
files prior to the  conversion date could prove logistically                                                                    
problematic. The  retroactivity intent language in  the bill                                                                    
would  alleviate  the  fiscal   and  logistical  problem  of                                                                    
retrieving   cases  from   storage  and   categorizing  them                                                                    
differently. She reiterated that  ACS could implement all of                                                                    
the  changes proposed  in the  legislation without  a fiscal                                                                    
impact  except  for the  exceptions  that  were created  for                                                                    
certain  state  agencies.  She  stated  that  in  order  for                                                                    
certain people in specific state  agencies to gain access to                                                                    
cases that had been removed  from CourtView a special portal                                                                    
would  need to  be created.  The portal  would need  to work                                                                    
with  the  ACS vendor  and  would  have  an initial  fee  of                                                                    
$22,000, a yearly  maintenance fee of $3000,  and a security                                                                    
fee of $500.                                                                                                                    
10:14:20 AM                                                                                                                   
DR.  NORMAN  MEANS,  SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke in  support of SB  108. He relayed a  story concerning                                                                    
is daughter's arrest for driving  under the influence (DUI).                                                                    
He stated  his daughter  was driving  with friends  when the                                                                    
fuel pump  in the vehicle  went out. The vehicle  stalled in                                                                    
the  middle of  the  road and  an  Anchorage police  officer                                                                    
responded. He said that after  the officer pushed the van to                                                                    
the side of the road while  is daughter steered, he issued a                                                                    
traffic stop.  He explained that  his daughter  provided all                                                                    
of  the   required  documents,  which  were   in  order.  He                                                                    
testified  that   the  officer  then  began   demanding  his                                                                    
daughter's  personal  phone  number, which  she  refused  to                                                                    
provide.   He  stated   that  his   daughter  asserted   her                                                                    
constitutional   right  to   remain  silent,   requested  an                                                                    
attorney,  and  refused  to  consent  to  any  searches.  He                                                                    
furthered that  at that point  the officer placed  her under                                                                    
arrest for DUI;  she was transported to  the Anchorage jail.                                                                    
He read from  the arresting officer's report:  "She does not                                                                    
appear  to be  under  the  effects of  any  drugs, legal  or                                                                    
Dr. Means  related that his  daughter passed  a Breathalyzer                                                                    
Test and was released on  her own recognizance; however, the                                                                    
arrest record currently remains  on Court View. He expressed                                                                    
frustration that the vehicle had  been impounded when it was                                                                    
registered under his name, and  not to his daughter. He said                                                                    
that  he had  had no  fewer than  5 separate  departments of                                                                    
municipal government  find fault with  all, or part,  of the                                                                    
arresting  officer's  actions. He  shared  that  he filed  a                                                                    
complaint   with  the   Chief  of   Police,  and   after  an                                                                    
investigation,  Internal  Affairs  responded  in  a  written                                                                    
letter to  him alerting  him that his  complaints concerning                                                                    
the  vehicle impoundment  had been  sustained. He  felt that                                                                    
his   daughter's   experience   was  an   example   of   the                                                                    
difficulties  a  person  faced when  attempting  to  get  an                                                                    
arrest record  sealed based on  the improper actions  of one                                                                    
police officer.                                                                                                                 
Mr.   Means  lamented   that   despite  the   overwhelmingly                                                                    
controvertible evidence  that his daughter had  done nothing                                                                    
wrong the municipal attorney at the time had written that:                                                                      
     While the officer might not have had probable cause to                                                                     
     arrest her for DUI, he had probable cause to arrest                                                                        
     her for some crime.                                                                                                        
Mr.  Means wondered  what  that crime  would  have been.  He                                                                    
opined that  all that  his daughter had  wanted was  to have                                                                    
her  record sealed,  even  offering to  waive  her right  to                                                                    
pursue any  litigation. As  a result  his daughter  had been                                                                    
forced to  file litigation in  an effort to clear  her name.                                                                    
He shared that  his daughter would be  testifying before the                                                                    
legislature at a later date on  SB 180. He remarked that the                                                                    
system  in the  state made  it  impossible to  get a  record                                                                    
expunged or  sealed. He worried  that his  daughter's record                                                                    
could  limit  her  options for  graduate  school  or  future                                                                    
10:21:27 AM                                                                                                                   
JAMES   MOONEY,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  strong support  of SB 108.  He stated  that in                                                                    
2009 he  had been falsely  accused of sexual  assaulting his                                                                    
fiancé.  He said  that  the relationship  had  lasted for  6                                                                    
years,  but  began  to   deteriorate  after  differences  of                                                                    
opinion arose concerning child custody.  He was arrested for                                                                    
sexual  assault,  fought  the   charge  in  court,  and  was                                                                    
acquitted  on  all charges.  His  accuser  and his  daughter                                                                    
moved  out   of  state  several   weeks  after   making  the                                                                    
accusations, as a  result he had not seen his  daughter in 4                                                                    
years. He  believed that  the accusations  were premeditated                                                                    
because his  accuser had knowledge  of the legal  system. He                                                                    
reiterated that  he had  been acquitted  on all  charges. He                                                                    
shared that  he had lost  his job and  had been out  of work                                                                    
for  months  and was  living  off  savings. He  opined  that                                                                    
employment opportunities  were cut short once  employers ran                                                                    
a  background   check.  He  felt   that  he   was  suffering                                                                    
repercussions as  though he had  been convicted and  sent to                                                                    
10:25:40 AM                                                                                                                   
JAMES  NOBLE,   SELF,  PRUDHOE  BAY   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  support  of  SB   108.  He  relayed  a  story                                                                    
concerning   two  charges   filed   against   him  and   the                                                                    
repercussions  he experienced  following a  dismissal ruling                                                                    
from  a   judge  on  both   cases.  He  stated   that  after                                                                    
researching cases similar to his  he had determined that the                                                                    
common  thread was  revengeful  actions  from a  significant                                                                    
other who  was abusing the  court system. He  explained that                                                                    
he had  been in a  romantic relationship from 2003  to 2007.                                                                    
He   said  that   his   partner   terminated  the   romantic                                                                    
relationship in 2006, but  a platonic relationship remained.                                                                    
He  relayed that  he ended  the friendship  when the  person                                                                    
began  dating a  new person.  He stated  that he  received a                                                                    
domestic  violence  protective  order   from  the  court  on                                                                    
September  17, 2007  and hired  an attorney  who represented                                                                    
him throughout  court proceedings. During the  course of the                                                                    
defense  for  the  domestic  violence  order,  the  attorney                                                                    
discovered a stalking  charge, filed by his  ex on September                                                                    
11, 2007  and had been  dismissed by the court  on September                                                                    
12, 2007. He  argued that he had never been  notified of, or                                                                    
given  any  details  concerning,  the  stalking  charge.  He                                                                    
opined that the stalking charge  could be seen on CourtView,                                                                    
regardless of the fact that  the charges had been dismissed.                                                                    
He  said that  he appeared  before the  court on  October 4,                                                                    
2007  to  contest the  domestic  violence  charge which  was                                                                    
dismissed due to insufficient evidence.                                                                                         
10:28:54 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Noble feared  that the  information on  CourtView could                                                                    
hinder  him when  seeking future  employment. He  added that                                                                    
the  social  stigma could  limit  his  ability to  form  new                                                                    
10:31:10 AM                                                                                                                   
DONNA KLECKA, SELF, EAGLE  RIVER (via teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in favor  of the SB  108. She  testified that she  was self-                                                                    
employed   which  made   word-of-mouth   important  to   her                                                                    
professional  reputation.  She  state   that  she  had  gone                                                                    
through a divorce in 1999. During the proceedings her ex-                                                                       
husband  attempted  to  use  domestic  violence  charges  as                                                                    
leverage for  child custody. She spoke  of another incidence                                                                    
where a  woman, whom she  believed to be  mentally unstable,                                                                    
had made multiple charges against  her of trespassing, theft                                                                    
and stalking. Due to the  charges, she was arrested and held                                                                    
for 24  hours. She  related that  the arresting  officer had                                                                    
lost her  job for  the episode  because she  had not  had an                                                                    
arrest warrant.  She said that  she had  received accusatory                                                                    
notes from  neighbors. She added  that she had  been charged                                                                    
with assault  and battery at  one point as well.  She opined                                                                    
that her children were harassed  at school. She relayed that                                                                    
approximately  a  year  and  a half  ago  she  had  consumed                                                                    
alcohol  and was  pulled over  for speeding  in Seward.  She                                                                    
asserted that the  Alaska State Trooper had  profiled her by                                                                    
pulling up  her record before  pulling her over.  She shared                                                                    
that she  had been nervous  while taking the  field sobriety                                                                    
test, which was  videotaped. She stated that  in the process                                                                    
of her  arrest her arm  was broken  by the police.  She said                                                                    
that  the arresting  officers had  written  in their  report                                                                    
that  she  has not  had  alcohol  on  her breath;  she  also                                                                    
submitted to  a blood  test, which  turned up  negative. She                                                                    
said that  all of  the charges  against her  were dismissed.                                                                    
She  shared  that  during discovery  the  arresting  officer                                                                    
stated that he  had been aggressive with her as  a result of                                                                    
having reviewed her record.                                                                                                     
10:38:55 AM                                                                                                                   
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke  in support of SB 108.                                                                    
She read from a prepared document (copy on file):                                                                               
     Thank you for the opportunity  to comment on SB 108. As                                                                    
     a  former  attorney  for  25   years  followed  by  the                                                                    
     privilege of  serving the state as  Deputy Commissioner                                                                    
     for  the Department  of  Corrections,  I have  observed                                                                    
     first-hand the  need for  the criminal  justice reforms                                                                    
     for which  this Committee  has so tirelessly  worked to                                                                    
     advance. I thank this  Committee for its courageousness                                                                    
     in  promoting   needed  revisions  aimed   at  reducing                                                                    
     recidivism.  Every  former  offender  who  is  able  to                                                                    
     successfully return  to his or her  community means one                                                                    
     less  victim,  one  less crime,  and  one  less  costly                                                                    
     I  believe  that  SB  108   is  another  step  in  that                                                                    
     direction.  As it  stands today,  every  person who  is                                                                    
     arrested for a criminal  offense has a permanent public                                                                    
     record  of that  arrest.  In felony  cases, a  detailed                                                                    
     statement  of alleged  factual  detail accompanies  the                                                                    
     fact of arrest and charge.                                                                                                 
     The  name of  the  person arrested  and then  convicted                                                                    
     always  remains available  to  the  public through  the                                                                    
     period  of prosecution  and after  conviction. That  is                                                                    
     What is not  fair and not in keeping  without system of                                                                    
     criminal justice  is that under current  law a person's                                                                    
     name  and  fact  of  charge remains  available  to  the                                                                    
     public even  when the prosecutor dismisses  the charge,                                                                    
     the charge  is dismissed by  the court of after  a jury                                                                    
     acquits the  person. Despite dismissal of  or acquittal                                                                    
     on the charge, the fact  of arrest and the accompanying                                                                    
     documentation  forever  remains  available  for  public                                                                    
     The  reality is  that  when the  fact  of arrest  after                                                                    
     dismissal  continues to  be made  available for  public                                                                    
     inspection  either   by  an  in-person  visit   to  the                                                                    
     courthouse or by review on  CourtView, the arrest often                                                                    
     becomes  synonymous  with  conviction in  the  mind  of                                                                    
     those  doing the  inspecting.  This  greatly impedes  a                                                                    
     person's ability to find  employment, rent an apartment                                                                    
     and to live  a life free of stigmatization  for a crime                                                                    
     for which the person was never convicted.                                                                                  
     Numerous individuals -  both men and women  - in Alaska                                                                    
     are arrested  for the  crime of  Assault in  the Fourth                                                                    
     Degree. A person may be  charges with this offense if a                                                                    
     police  officer concluded  there is  probable cause  to                                                                    
     believe  that  a  person by  "words  or  other  conduct                                                                    
     recklessly places  another person  in fear  of imminent                                                                    
     physical injury."                                                                                                          
     AS 18.65.530 appropriately provides  that in a domestic                                                                    
     relations context, when a person  reports to the police                                                                    
     that  she/he was  placed in  fear of  imminent physical                                                                    
     injury,  the police  must arrest  the alleged  offender                                                                    
     for Domestic Violence Assault  when the officer decides                                                                    
     there is  probable cause to  believe that  assault took                                                                    
     Needless  to   say,  police   officers  taxed   with  a                                                                    
     tremendous amount  of work have to  make snap decisions                                                                    
     when deciding if there is  probable cause to believe an                                                                    
     assault   occurred.  The   soundness   of  the   police                                                                    
     officer's decision  often depends on the  experience of                                                                    
     the  officer  and  the   officer's  perceived  need  to                                                                    
     diffuse a situation.                                                                                                       
     After the person is arrested  and charges, a prosecutor                                                                    
     later has more  time to review the merits  of the case.                                                                    
     In some  cases, upon more  careful review and  with the                                                                    
     benefit of additional  facts, the prosecutor determines                                                                    
     the charge doesn't merit  prosecution and dismisses it.                                                                    
     The   individual   arrested,    however,   is   forever                                                                    
     stigmatized by  his arrest. It  will forever be  a part                                                                    
     of  the  Alaska  Court  System  records  available  for                                                                    
     public inspection.                                                                                                         
     A good number  of cases filed in  Alaska are ultimately                                                                    
     dismissed. For example, in FY13,  the state filed 6,675                                                                    
     felony  cases.  Of  those, the  state  dismissed  1,289                                                                    
     cases.  Of  the  29,562 misdemeanor  cases  filed,  the                                                                    
     state dismissed 9,508.                                                                                                     
     Our  constitutional  right to  due  process  of law  is                                                                    
     intended  to protect  citizens  from  being treated  as                                                                    
     convicted persons without  first being afforded certain                                                                    
     procedural  safeguards. That  is the  way it  should be                                                                    
     and it  is our responsibility  to uphold out  system of                                                                    
     criminal  justice,  the  shining example  and  envy  of                                                                    
     other countries.                                                                                                           
     There are those  who would have you  believe that their                                                                    
     individual   judgment   is   more  knowing   than   the                                                                    
     collective  wisdom of  a jury;  that a  person's record                                                                    
     should forever  be stigmatized by an  arrest and charge                                                                    
     even though  the prosecutor dismissed  the charge  or a                                                                    
     jury of  his peers acquitted  him of the  charge. These                                                                    
     same individuals would have you  believe that an arrest                                                                    
     should  be equated  to conviction  of  a crime.  Alaska                                                                    
     citizens,  judges, prosecutors,  and defense  attorneys                                                                    
     will  always  have  different  opinions  regarding  the                                                                    
     facts of  a case. That  is why our system  requires due                                                                    
     process under the law before  someone is convicted of a                                                                    
     crime  and   shoulders  the  burdens   associated  with                                                                    
     criminal conviction.                                                                                                       
     For these  reasons, the  fact of  an arrest  and charge                                                                    
     without  conviction  should  not  forever  tarnish  the                                                                    
     reputation of  an Alaskan citizen.  SB 108  is intended                                                                    
     to  rectify these  unintended and  harmful consequences                                                                    
     that  in  many  cases  impact  a  person's  ability  to                                                                    
     successfully live and work in our communities.                                                                             
10:45:10 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms. Gutierrez asserted that for  every individual that could                                                                    
come forward to  say that having access to  CourtView made a                                                                    
meaningful difference  in a decision being  made, there were                                                                    
many more  cases of individuals  who have had  their ability                                                                    
to live successfully in their community compromised.                                                                            
Senator Hoffman inquired if Ms.  Gutierrez would support the                                                                    
legislation for  an individual that  had been  acquitted due                                                                    
to a hung jury.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Gutierrez replied that when  an individual was found not                                                                    
guilty  by virtue  of a  hung  jury the  prosecutor had  the                                                                    
ability to evaluate  the evidence in the  and decide whether                                                                    
the case  merited a  new trial. She  understood that  if the                                                                    
prosecutor decided  that the  evidence supported  the charge                                                                    
it was  the prosecutor's burden to  take the case back  to a                                                                    
jury. She  asserted that, in  the spirit of due  process and                                                                    
constitutional  procedure, in  a hung  jury case  the record                                                                    
would be deemed confidential.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                         
10:48:12 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried  whether the opposition letter                                                                    
from  the  Office  of Victim's  Rights  had  been  submitted                                                                    
before or after changes to  the legislation had been made in                                                                    
the Senate Judiciary Committee.                                                                                                 
Mr.  Kopp replied  that the  letter had  arrived before  the                                                                    
bill  was amended  in Senate  Judiciary. He  added that  the                                                                    
sponsor had not received  any additional communications from                                                                    
the Office of Victim's Rights.                                                                                                  
Vice-Chair Fairclough  understood that  an old  court record                                                                    
could  be  damaging  to  people well  after  the  fact.  She                                                                    
expressed  concern as  to how  the legislation  would affect                                                                    
the rights of victims,  specifically for victims of domestic                                                                    
violence and  rape; however,  she recognized  that instances                                                                    
of false accusation did occur.                                                                                                  
SB  108  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
1 CSSB 108(JUD) SFC Request for Committee Waiver.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
6 4 Support of SB108 - Carmen Gutierrez.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
6 4 Support of SB108 - James Noble.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
6 4 Support of SB108 - Mary Geddes.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
6 4 Written Testimony SB108 OVR.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
CSSB 108(JUD) Section Analysis.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
CSSB 108(JUD) Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
CSSB 108(JUD) Summary of Changes.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
SB108 Rule 37.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
SB108 Support Letters of SB108.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
SB161CS(FIN)-DHSS-SMEO-03-05-14.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 161
1 2 CS SSSB 80 - Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 80
1 3 CS for SSSB80 - Section Analysis.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 80
1 4 Support SB80 Teladoc.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 80
1 5 CS SSSB 80(LC) Telemedicine saves dollars and makes sense for Alaskans.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 80
SB108CS(JUD)-DHSS-CSM-03-14-14.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
Commissioner Revenue - Rodell.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
CSSB108(JUD)-ACS-TRC-03-17-14.pdf SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108
SB108 support - Klecka.docx SFIN 3/17/2014 9:00:00 AM
SB 108