Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
03/05/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB7 | |
| SB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| SB 7 | |||
| * | SB 89 | ||
| SB 36 | |||
SB 89-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER
2:16:42 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 89 by Senators
Wielechowski and McGuire.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, Co-Sponsor of SB 89, explained that the
bill is in response to burgeoning gang-related activity,
particularly in Anchorage. Anchorage has had 20 gang-related
crimes this year and in 2006 the municipality had 122 gang-
related cases. Thus the issue is a legislative priority for both
the Anchorage Police Department and the Municipality of
Anchorage.
Basically SB 89 requires gang members who are on probation to
wear electronic ankle monitors. This would help police to
monitor violent offenders' movements and to supervise their
activities. He noted that San Bernardino California initiated a
similar program that has been very successful.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the fiscal note and suggested it
is a little high. He understands the cost for each unit is about
$8 per day so most of the cost in the fiscal note is for
personnel services, which increase in successive years. The
question to address, he said, is whether the monitoring should
be active or passive.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an explanation of the difference between
active and passive management.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his understanding is that there is a
continuum for management, but typically one person is able to
monitor 15 people. Under active monitoring, which is what the
fiscal note assumes, all movement would be monitored
continually. If a person is shown visiting a place that is off
limits, a police officer could be sent to investigate. Under a
more passive option, someone would check the monitor several
times a day. If the monitor showed that a person visited some
place that was off limits, a probation officer or police officer
would possibly be sent out to investigate.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there are known vendors that supply this
service.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he couldn't speak to specifics, but he
understands that electronic monitoring is currently used and
that there are different management levels.
2:21:57 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE, Co-Sponsor of SB 89, added that this may seem
like an unusual step, but indications from other states are that
electronic monitoring is a successful way to contain activity.
"We want to stop the deaths. We want to stop these young people,
in particular young people, from getting involved in these gangs
and ending up losing their lives and this is one step toward
it," she stated.
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony.
2:24:41 PM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of the Anchorage School District
and member of a task force on gang and youth violence, voiced
support for the legislation if the courts have adjudicated the
person as a gang member. She said the district already has
students who are on probation and wearing electronic ankle
bracelets in school. SB 89 would give the authorities another
tool and would allow students to go to school and get an
education.
MS. COMEAU referenced active and passive monitoring and opined
that the judge should decide which method to use for a
particular individual.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the task force she is on had
recommended either active or passive monitoring.
MS. COMEAU said the policy task force did not make a
recommendation, but Chief Heun would probably have that
information.
2:27:20 PM
KEN GARDNER COBB, Anchorage Police Department, explained that
part of his job is to coordinate a response to gang activity and
SB 89 would be an asset in that effort. He has done some
Internet research and has learned that the ankle monitors have
Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capabilities. Also they
have software so that inclusion and exclusion zones can be
established. An inclusion zone might be a school or a place of
employment and an exclusion zone might be a night club, movie
theatre or a certain part of town. If the device works as
described and is cost-effective there is reason for great
enthusiasm.
He said the bill calls for adjudicating gang members who have
been involved in gang motivated crimes. Those are crimes that
are for the benefit of a gang or in association with a gang. In
Anchorage a majority of the crimes are what are called gang
related, which is where a gang member or associate is involved
in a fight over a girl, over property, or over a showing of
disrespect.
Initially the bill will not affect many people so it would be a
cost-effective trial. If it is effective the program could be
expanded to include gang related crimes. "That is where we will
see the real value in the future," he said.
2:31:17 PM
RICK SVBODNY, Chief Assistant District Attorney General,
Criminal Division, stated support for SB 89. Gang violence,
particularly in Anchorage, is a major problem and is a difficult
area to prosecute. SB 89 would provide a tool that could benefit
law enforcement and the prosecution, he opined.
MR. SVBODNY, responding to previous testimony, said that under
the current structure it is probable that Blakeley would be
implicated. That is the state would be required to prove that
the individual is a gang member or has gang involvement. He
suggested that a way to get around that is to require wearing an
ankle monitor as a general condition of probation. He noted that
that gives the judge discretion, which is absent under the
current structure. If the judge does not exercise that
discretion he or she would have to make written findings to
explain why an ankle bracelet is not appropriate.
If wearing an ankle monitor is a condition of probation, the
prosecution would not be required to prove gang involvement
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. At a sentencing hearing the
prosecution would have to prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that there was gang involvement. That is another and
easier way that the underlying purpose of the bill can be
fulfilled, he stated.
MR. SVBODNY said just two district attorneys responded to a
statewide query and they told him that the aggravating factor
necessary for this to be implemented has rarely, if ever, been
found. He suggested that given that history this would not be
implemented very often.
MR. SVBODNY referenced the discussion regarding active versus
passive monitoring and opined that technology is ahead of what
is recognized here. In fact parents are able to monitor their
children's movements using GPS tracking devices that are
implanted in their kid's shoes. The idea behind SB 89 is to keep
gang members from congregating and technology isn't too far from
helping that to happen in a cost effective way, he said.
He relayed that he is a member of the Policy Board of the
Western States Information Network, a regional intelligence
sharing system that deals with gang members and drugs. Part of
that includes running a watch center in Sacramento to avoid
conflicts or shootouts when different agencies end up working on
different cases in the same general area. Basically the officers
wear ankle monitors and that information goes to the center for
deconfliction. In that system one person is able to monitor the
entire state of California and the entire state of Hawaii.
Clearly, it can be cost-effective, he stated.
MR. SVBODNY pointed out that judges continue to rule that
electronic monitoring is the functional equivalent of jail time.
To address that he would suggest that the bill specifically say
that someone who is on probation and wearing an ankle monitor
does not get credit for serving jail time. In addition he asked
the committee to consider allowing the parole board to make this
a condition of parole.
Responding to Ms. Comeau's comment about wearing ankle monitors
to school, he advised that the bill applies to adults. In his
view it would not include juveniles.
2:40:28 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded that he does not believe this
legislation is the appropriate vehicle to define incarceration
so he does not favor incorporating the suggestions.
MR. SVBODNY clarified he was not suggesting the bill define
incarceration. Simply say that under this bill electronic
monitoring does not count as incarceration.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for confirmation that his canvas of district
attorneys found that this aggravator is rarely used.
MR. SVBODNY replied he was told that it has never been found. He
understands that it has been stipulated to a couple of times in
the Anchorage Superior Court.
CHAIR FRENCH added "as a course of agreed upon disposition."
MR. SVBODNY replied it would be that or with other aggravating
factors having been found or stipulated to.
CHAIR FRENCH responded, "Stipulated to, but not found. Not after
a contested hearing."
MR. SVBODNY agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH remarked that making it a general condition that
every convicted felon is subject to takes care of the problem of
proof, but then someone would have to review 2-3 thousand felony
cases every year to decide who would wear the expensive ankle
monitors.
MR. SVBODNY replied it isn't that onerous because there must be
a nexus between a condition of probation and the crime that was
committed. "A judge may decide if a person has shoplifted 80
times from Fred Meyer that they are going to monitor you to see
that you don't go to Fred Meyer. But they would have to be
making that nexus."
CHAIR FRENCH questioned what the nexus is between an ankle
monitor and criminal street gang activity.
MR. SVBODNY replied "You presume that if a court makes a finding
that this is gang related - that is by preponderance of evidence
because it is a condition of probation - that it is necessary
for there to be electronic monitoring unless the court finds a
reason not to do it."
CHAIR FRENCH mused he can see the defense argument already. That
is that the first ankle monitor is of no value whatsoever; it
will provide no information about whom the individual is
associating with. Not until a number of monitors are out in the
community will it be possible to see whether people wearing
ankle monitors are spending time in the same proximity.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said one rationale is to keep gang members
from congregating, but it's also a powerful tool to track gang
members and keep them from going to prohibited places.
SENATOR McGUIRE opined that wearing an ankle monitor might help
some people get out of a gang and on with their lives. Certainly
other gang members wouldn't want someone around who was wearing
an ankle monitor and was under scrutiny.
2:47:12 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that he received a letter from Fairbanks
Police Chief Daniel P. Hoffman supporting the bill.
DWYANE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
stated that the department supports the concept of SB 89. He
explained that to develop the fiscal note he worked with the
prime sponsor of the companion House bill [HB 133]. It assumes
that there would be a fairly large body of offenders that would
be monitored this way. Coming up with a number has been
difficult, but right now about 96 people with gang related
associations have been identified.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would be interested to know whether all the
people are from Anchorage.
2:49:50 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT joined the meeting.
MR. PEEPLES said juvenile justice has about 75 individuals in
that would fall under this issue and the Municipality of
Anchorage has identified 122 individuals. The fact that there
are people in both the juvenile and the adult system is an
indication that this is a pervasive issue, he said. And the
fiscal note assumes that the numbers will build by about 15 to
20 per year. According to the people running the San Bernardino
system, this is a very tough group to monitor, which is part of
the argument for having GPS tracking.
MR. PEEPLES reported that system vendors are currently available
in Alaska so that isn't a big issue.
CHAIR FRENCH, noting the high and escalating fiscal note, asked
if the fiscal note compensates for population growth or assumes
that more and more people will be placed on probation.
MR. PEEPLES responded he calculated 15 additions each year.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he was saying that the cost to monitor 15
probationers for a year is $174,000.
MR. PEEPLES said yes and most of the cost is staff time. He
elaborated that the original interpretation was for active
continuous monitoring - 24/7. The computer software that
monitors the GPS would notify whoever is responsible if someone
exits or enters an exclusion zone. Individuals could also be
monitored in the field using a laptop. He noted that the
California program, which is fairly intensive, has a 1:20
monitoring ratio and that is inadequate. After looking at other
models he chose a 1:15 ratio.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what a passive system would entail
and how much it would save.
MR. PEEPLES replied there are various models, but the system
could be set up with large inclusion zones. "If it went off you
could go pick somebody up and not be too concerned about how
much movement they had. Or you could just download the GPS on a
daily basis, review what they've done and then do some
reinforcement on if they are deviating out of an inclusion
zone." Under the least active model one person could probably
monitor 50 people, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he had prepared a fiscal note for
a passive system.
MR. PEEPLES said no, but it would be fairly easy to do.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd like to see that so the options
could be evaluated.
SENATOR McGUIRE commented she appreciates the work that has been
done on the fiscal note and she looks forward to seeing one for
a passive model.
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions or testimony and
announced he would hold SB 89 in committee to allow time to get
some questions answered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|