Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/05/2004 08:05 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 336-CORRECTIONS: FEES/SURCHARGE
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that SB 336 was before the committee.
SENATOR OGAN questioned why the charge is only $100 for
violating probation. He felt that amount will not provide enough
incentive.
MS. PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections (DOC), told members that SB 336 requests a
correctional facility surcharge for offenders who have been
convicted of felony and misdemeanor charges. DOC researched
other states' fees, and found they charge a variety of booking
fees, administrative surcharges and other fees. Those fees range
from $20 to $250, depending on the state and whether the fee is
issued by an intake facility, jail, or long-term facility.
Because the State of Alaska has a unified [corrections] system,
the state operates all jails and prisons. Other states have
county and city facilities. Most of the fees in other states
were challenged and upheld in different jurisdictions if the
fees were uniform and treated people equally. She noted that DOC
believes that charging a fee for a conviction as part of the
court judgment would be the safest and easiest way to avoid
challenge, rather than charging a booking or intake fee, which
is problematic when charges are dropped or the offender is not
convicted. DOC decided on the $100 amount based on what it
believes can be collected from this population.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER explained the second part of SB 336
pertains to a $100 application fee for an interstate transfer
for those on probation or parole. Most states have such a
transfer fee. The applicant will also have to file cash or a
bond because DOC often has to go out-of-state to return the
offender to Alaska if the offender commits a crime.
SENATOR OGAN noted that SB 336 does not address indigent people
who cannot pay and he suspects a number of offenders will fall
in that category.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to the Department of Law for
an explanation of the collections process but pointed out that
permanent fund dividends can be garnished, as well as any wages
earned while incarcerated.
SENATOR OGAN questioned whether felons are eligible for
permanent fund dividends.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to the Department of Law for
an answer.
SENATOR OGAN said he would be willing to propose an amendment to
increase the $100 fee for parolee release to provide a
disincentive to violating parole.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the $100 would be collected when a
prisoner is released on parole or whether it would be collected
if the person ends up back in jail.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER said the $100 surcharge on probation
and parole is suspended so it does not have to be paid unless an
offender violates the conditions of probation or parole. She
explained that a felon who is incarcerated would have to pay the
$100 correctional facility fee and then an additional $100 fee
if that felon is released on parole or probation and violates
the conditions. She further explained that a small number of
offenders who want an interstate transfer will also have to post
cash or a bond and that is only paid if DOC has to pick the
person up out-of-state for a violation.
MR. MARC ANTRIM, Commissioner of DOC, clarified that SB 336 does
not address parole. Probation is a function of the court; parole
is the function of an independent board. There is no interaction
between the court system and the parole board so SB 336 does not
have a fee collection process attached to it.
CHAIR SEEKINS indicated that SB 336 is basically a revenue bill
that attempts to recover some of DOC's costs.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said that is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked how much DOC expects to recover at 100
percent.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said about 30,000 bookings are made each
year but not all of those folks are convicted.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER added that the DOL's fiscal note is
based on what DOL believes it can collect, not on 100 percent
collection.
MS. KATHRYN DAUGHHETEE, Director of the Administrative Services
Division, DOL, answered the amount would be $1.3 million if 100
percent was collected.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he watches the judicial system on a routine
basis and often questions, when he sees a DUI reported in the
newspaper, how a $1,000 mandatory fine can be reduced to $300.
He believes the court's rationalization is that it is better to
collect some amount from people who cannot pay the full amount.
He questioned whether the courts will further reduce the fines
if offenders must pay these other fines.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM believed the court's intent is to suspend,
not reduce, the fine to exercise a hammer on a subsequent
offense. He noted that in a typical DUI case, an offender might
be fined $1000 with $250 suspended and the jail time would be 10
days with 7 suspended. However, if that person gets a second
DUI, the $250 fine and 7 days in jail would be added to the next
sentence.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he has no problem with trying to collect the
fines when possible because incarceration is expensive.
SENATOR OGAN jested that the state could probably contract with
the Hilton Hotel to house prisoners for a lesser amount than
prison cells.
CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony.
MS. BARBARA BRINK, public defender for the State of Alaska, told
members that she fears that as the state continues to add
surcharges and fees, it might be imposing burdens on people that
are impossible to meet. Those people who are getting released
from custody have families to support and bills to pay. In
criminal cases, their most pressing obligation is to pay
restitution. In addition, most of these people are disqualified
from receiving a permanent fund dividend. She pointed out that
according to a recent Alaska Judicial Council study, public
attorneys handle 80 percent of all criminal cases. Collecting
fees from 80 percent of that population will be very difficult.
Many of these people have already been fined: the mandatory
minimum fine for DUI penalties ranges from $1500 to $10,000.
Essentially, the state already charges a conviction surcharge of
$100 for a felony, $50 for a misdemeanor, and $75 for a DUI.
Those fees are used for public safety training. Defendants who
need treatment are referred to the Alcohol and Safety Action
Program, and those defendants pay a $100 fee, half in cash,
before they are even accepted to the program. And people serving
sentences for DUIs must pay their cost of imprisonment. Those
costs range from $236 to $2,000. On top of that, the state
imposes Rule 39 costs, which requires offenders to pay $250 to
$5000 for their [court-appointed] lawyer.
MS. BRINK cautioned that because of the way this fine is
imposed, when an offender is brought to jail, whether booked or
not, it provides a lot of opportunity for unfair application.
The fine will be based solely on whether the police officer or
district attorney chooses to issue a summons or to arrest
someone. She feels it is particularly onerous to impose a fee of
$100 and a bond requirement for those who would like to get an
interstate transfer. It seems the state would want to encourage
people to be with families and support networks in other states
while on probation rather than to stay in Alaska because they
cannot pay the fee.
SENATOR OGAN asked Ms. Brink if the statistic she cited about 80
percent of criminal defendants being represented by public
defenders includes people who are on public assistance.
MS. BRINK said it does. A person on public assistance is
presumed to be indigent and is entitled to public counsel. Of
the 80 percent, 63 percent are appointed a public defender and
17 percent are appointed to the Office of Public Assistance.
SENATOR OGAN said his knee-jerk reaction is that public
assistance should be cut off for repeat felons.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if a booking facility is a correctional
facility.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said it is.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if any person who is convicted would pay for
the booking, even if that person does not spend a day in jail.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said that is correct. He then agreed with
Ms. Brink that a lot of fees already exist but some people keep
re-offending and find money to buy drugs and alcohol and pay
impound fees for their cars. He does not believe an additional
$100 will slow them down. He noted the bond for the Interstate
Compact is designed to recoup some of DOC's costs. DOC must fly
a state trooper to another state and usually house that person
for a night so DOC must buy three plane tickets and pay per diem
plus the personnel costs.
CHAIR SEEKINS informed members that an amendment proposed by DOC
had been distributed.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER told members that DOC worked with the
court system and DOL on the amendment, which makes some
technical changes to improve the collection procedure,
particularly as it relates to the probation fee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt the proposed amendment
[Amendment 1], which reads as follows.
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE TO SB 336:
Page 2, lines 5 and 6:
Delete: ", as a condition of probation,"
Page 2, line 14:
Between "under" and "this" insert: "(a) of"
Page 2, line 15:
After "conviction." Insert: "The court shall include the
imposition of a surcharge under (c) of this section in the order
revoking probation."
Page 2, line 20:
After "28.30.032(o)." insert, "The state may enforce
payment of a surcharge under this section under AS 09.38 as if
it were a civil judgment enforceable by execution. This
subsection does not limit the authority of the court to enforce
fines."
SENATOR OGAN objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked if
the intent of the amendment is to allow a person who cannot pay
to be put on probation.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER said if a person is on probation and
their provision is revoked, that person will have to pay the
$100 fee. That language was rewritten so that the fee is not
listed as a condition of probation because there was no way to
make that work. The fee would be imposed once revocation occurs.
SENATOR OGAN asked for a description of the second change the
amendment will make.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to DOL.
TAPE 04-16, SIDE A
MS. ANNE CARPENETI, representing the Criminal Division of DOL,
told members that the amendment was suggested by a judge who
reviewed the bill and was concerned about the possibility of
collecting the surcharge for revocation of probation. DOL agreed
with the judge's assessment and made minor amendments to make
the collection of that surcharge similar to the process used to
collect the facilities fee.
SENATOR OGAN referred to the language on page 20 and asked what
"a civil judgment enforceable by execution" means.
MS. DIANE WENDTLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, explained
it means that DOL can garnish permanent fund dividends, wages,
or bank accounts. In general, DOL would not do that for amounts
as small as $100. DOL handles a large volume so it is not
economically feasible to do more than attach the permanent fund
dividend. Without the amendment, DOL would be unable to get a
writ of execution, meaning it could not do any involuntary
collection. DOL could only accept voluntary payments, which
would be fairly low.
SENATOR OGAN referred to the fiscal note and asked if the state
will collect more money than the collection costs.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that depends on how much can be collected.
SENATOR OGAN removed his objection to adopting Amendment 1,
therefore it was adopted.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
SENATOR OGAN moved CSSB 336(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, the motion
carried. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|