Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
05/11/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB90 | |
| HB217 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 217 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 90 | ||
| = | HB 118 | ||
CSHB 90(FIN) - CRIMES/CRIM PROCEDURE/SENTENCING
1:47:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CSHB 90(FIN). He
said an SCS incorporates a number of other provisions.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt SCS CSHB 90(JUD), version V.
There were no objections and it was adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH explained that sections 1-3 (of version V) are the
elements of HB 14. The thrust of the provisions are to put a
little more downward pressure on those who commit crimes
involving alcohol, get on probation and then go back into the
public. The idea is to put a mark on their I.D.s to let liquor
store and tavern owners know this person is on probation. It's
one more brick in the wall of trying to keep problem drinkers
away from law abiding citizens. He asked if there were questions
about these provisions and noted there were none.
1:49:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved on to section 4 that he said is a carryover
from the original bill. Section 5 comes from SB 5 and those
provisions relate to the duty to report a crime that is being
committed. It goes by the name of "Kiva's Law" and is covered in
sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Sections 10-11 come from the
original HB 90. Sections 12-21 are from Senator Dyson who wanted
to strengthen laws on prostitution and in particular child
prostitution. He saw no questions about those provisions.
He continued to explain that sections 23-24 are from the
original HB 90. Section 25 goes back to SB 157, the promoting
prostitution bill. Section 26 is from the original HB 90.
Section 27 is from SB 157. Sections 28-29 come from HB 90.
Sections 30-34 come from HB 14, the alcohol I.D. bill. Section
35 is from HB 90.
CHAIR FRENCH said that section 36 relates to the DNA provisions
that are on behalf of Karen Foster and many of the citizens
across the state who are particularly interested in them. He
asked Mr. Svobodny to comment on whether "arrested" on page 20,
line 8, was a workable point at which to ask the police or other
corrections individuals to grab a DNA buchal swab from suspects
and how would it work in Anchorage as well as other parts of the
state.
1:52:49 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), answered that Anchorage is different
from the rest of the state because it has 24-hour committing
magistrates. So, if someone is arrested there, they are brought
before a magistrate and bail is set. Then they are transferred
to jail where the booking process takes place - where they would
be finger printed, identified by photograph and a thorough
records check occurs. In Anchorage, that is where a correctional
officer or other officer who had brought the person to the jail
would take a mouth swab from inside the person's cheek and
appropriately identify, package and label it.
The rest of the state doesn't have 24-hour committing
magistrates. If someone is arrested for an offense they are
brought to the local jail where that same process happens, but
it's within 24 hours of the arrest that they are brought before
a court.
He said DPS is concerned because the bill doesn't cover all the
times when a juvenile might be detained, because they may be
detained by a police officer and released to their parent or
brought to some kind of juvenile detention facility. A majority
of those cases don't go through the formal court process. He
clarified that while the language in this bill doesn't cover
arrested juveniles, but it does cover juveniles who have been
adjudicated under certain circumstances.
He said the DPS is concerned both from a financial point of view
and an evidence collection point of view in terms of how that
would be done. With an arrest a whole system is in place.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that it is not his intent that this
bill apply to minors.
1:56:54 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT joined the meeting.
SENATOR McGUIRE referred to page 20, line 8, and asked if they
could insert language saying the person who is arrested is not a
minor.
MR. SVOBODNY replied that it would make it clear, but he didn't
think it was necessary. The issue has legislative history and he
had told the DPS, given this language, he would write an opinion
that it doesn't include juveniles. The department is just being
conservative and letting the legislature know their thoughts.
1:58:17 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that they were discussing whether language on
lines 8-10 on page 20 included minors and it seems that there is
universal acclamation that it's not intended to include taking
buchal swabs from minors.
MR. SVOBODNY clarified "Not at the time of arrest. Existing law
allows for it at certain times."
CHAIR FRENCH said that sections 7, 38, and 39 also related to
DNA samples.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that language in section 39
changed from the earlier version.
At ease from 1:59:03 PM to 2:03:27 PM.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said section 38 on page 21 is new to
version V and was incorporated through the drafting process. All
it does on line 14 is changes (b)(1)(5) to (b)(1)(6). The change
is in section 39 on line 16 where "after the department shall
make every reasonable effort" was added. A number of concerns
were voiced that the 90 days requirement was too stringent
because you could have a technician who is in Barrow on a trial
or someone who is sick for instance. It potentially exposes the
state to liability and so this provides a small way out for the
state.
CHAIR FRENCH noted there was no discussion on section 39. He
said that section 22 incorporates the kidnapping statute of
limitations fix that was requested by the Bonnie Craig folks. He
also stated that they had been working very closely with
drafting folks and the DOL to make certain it was cohesive and
consistent.
SENATOR McGUIRE added that the fiscal note would reflect the
position of a criminalist, as well.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he had no objection to that, but he
haven't talked to DPS about it.
2:06:04 PM
LAUREN RICE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Public Safety
(DPS) responded that their new fiscal note would have four new
positions for the crime lab.
2:06:36 PM
DAVID SHADE, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), said he has added a full time
CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) manager position, two
Criminalist II technicians and a forensic technician. So, he
feels there will be enough tracking of the samples coming in.
The samples that come back out will require full-time
administration. The two criminalist II technicians will actually
be doing the analysis and the forensic technician will be
physically receiving the samples, making sure they are ready to
go into the laboratory information system (LIM). He would also
be responsible for pulling those samples out and following the
court order to destroy them. All four positions will be
reflected in their fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH found no further testimony and closed the public
hearing on HB 90.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if new money was being budgeted for the
positions or were they otherwise budgeted into the process
somewhere.
MR. SHADE answered that these positions are not budgeted
currently. They would need new funding.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that before the conference
committee closes out, they have to make sure the adjustment is
made to the fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH said that was his responsibility.
SENATOR McGUIRE encouraged Mr. Shade to use the existing $1
million grant to fund those positions.
MR. SHADE responded that of the two DNA grants they have
currently one is a DNA backlog reduction grant and the other is
a capacity building grant. The money for personal services would
allow overtime for overtime-eligible employees, but does not
allow him to hire a new employee.
SENATOR McGUIRE encouraged him to use that money for overtime.
2:10:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that language on page 22, line
16, has a different effective date for DNA processing (section
39). Testimony from DPS indicated that it wasn't possible to
have a 90-day effective date because they have to hire people
and the training takes six months. The person then has to work
under someone for another six months.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that they may as well recognize reality
in their effective dates.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved to report SCS CSHB 90(JUD), version V,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s). There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that SCR 9 goes with the bill to change the
title.
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt SCR 9. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|