Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB30 | |
| SB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 30-RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
1:35:42 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 30.
1:36:02 PM
SENATOR DYSON, sponsor of SB 30, said the bill is about
restorative justice. It is designed to enhance the process of
returning property to victims whose property has been seized as
a result of a crime. He became interested in the issue after a
custom boat builder he knows lost $40,000 worth of electronics
one night. The builder got about two-thirds of his property back
by visiting pawnshops and through Craigslist, but the police
seized it as evidence and he had to repurchase the electronics.
To avoid this situation, he said, some people don't report the
theft of equipment; instead, they repossess it themselves.
Several years ago a law was passed so that a fisherman could get
his nets back right away. However, a jeweler in Anchorage has
been unsuccessful in recovering $3,500 in inventory that law
enforcement seized more than four years ago. He noted a letter
from the Home Builder Association indicating the same problem.
The Office of Victim Rights has said the same thing. Trooper
Dial has testified that returning property in a timely manner is
not a problem.
1:41:07 PM
CHUCK KOPP, staff to Senator Dyson, said the difference between
the legislation introduced last year and this bill is that the
Office of Victims Rights (OVR) would act as an intermediary to
vet the claims to ensure they aren't frivolous. If a person can
show a claim to property and the law enforcement agency does not
show otherwise, OVR is able to request a hearing. The agency
then has 10 days to request the court for a hearing. This gives
victims a voice in the process and an opportunity for judicial
intervention in the event that there is no resolution in getting
their property back.
CHAIR FRENCH said page 2, lines 23-24, defines a crime victim to
include any person who is the owner of property that's in the
custody of a law enforcement agency, and he likes to call the
person that has property in the custody of a law enforcement
agency the defendant. He asked if this definition potentially
makes all defendants crime victims.
MR. KOPP explained that they did that because the OVR statutes
don't include the authority to identify this class of people. If
a person was a suspect or defendant, OVR could easily explain
why they wouldn't request a hearing for return of the property.
CHAIR FRENCH said we can trust OVR to know the difference.
MR. KOPP said they've been doing good advocacy with respect to
the law for a number of years.
SENATOR PASKVAN pointed out that if the defendant was asserting
property rights, he or she would have to waive the right to
remain silent and that could be a problem.
CHAIR FRENCH said his concern was that OVR might be pestered by
requests from defendants claiming to be a victim.
MR. KOPP agreed that could happen, but a defendant who is
charged is not be able to get their property back because it's
evidence of a crime. Also, with OVR as the intermediary, an
automatic request isn't filed.
CHAIR FRENCH said he likes the idea of having OVR act as the
clearing house.
1:46:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
SENATOR DYSON said DOL suggested including OVR as the
intermediary to avoid burdening the judiciary.
1:47:02 PM
VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director, Alaska Office of Victims
Rights, said he was testifying in support of SB 30. It provides
a mechanism for crime victims of theft to gain custody of their
property in the course of a criminal prosecution. A crime victim
may request a court hearing to seek release of his or her
property that was recovered by law enforcement and was being
held as evidence. The OVR seeks to work cooperatively with
criminal justice agencies and other governmental agencies to
help crime victims and to promote the interests of justice.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the definition of "crime victim" on page 2
might pose a problem when OVR screens cases and determines which
to pursue. He said he would work with the sponsor and the
committee, but he was considering an amendment that says, "but
does not include the defendant in a criminal case."
MR. KESTER said he would defer to the committee, but OVR is
often asked to make a determination about who it can and cannot
help. There have been instances where defendants have sought
assistance and OVR has said no; OVR doesn't help criminal
defendants. He has confidence that the OVR advocates would not
use SB 30 as a way to help defendants get property that law
enforcement was holding as evidence.
1:51:08 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he would ponder this further.
SENATOR DYSON said sometimes the police seize property when it
has nothing to do with the crime. He asked Mr. Kester about
excluding a defendant's property if it wasn't related to the
crime.
MR. KESTER said the purpose of SB 30 allows a mechanism for an
individual to address the court if they make a threshold
showing. The OVR functions as a clearing house to determine who
meets that threshold requirement. If law enforcement has a
position against the OVR position, there is a mechanism where
all parties can go to the court and ask a judge for his or her
perspective.
1:54:36 PM
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that both Senator Dyson and Mr. Kester
are making the point that if the definition of "crime victim" is
inadvertently too broad, nothing is automatic. It all winds up
in front of a judge.
MR. KESTER added that there needs to be a mechanism whereby
people whose property wasn't involved in the crime have an
expedited process to get access to their property. For example,
a laptop may be held for an extended period causing the small
business owner to be in a bind professionally.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Trooper Dial why this wasn't a problem for
the Troopers.
1:56:42 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS) said the department supports the intent of
SB 30 and has no concerns. For at least 20 years it's been
standard practice to promptly return and dispose of all evidence
retained in the trooper facilities. In the few cases that a
person seeks to have property returned that the troopers think
should be retained, they contact the district attorney's office
to look at other options, such as taking photographs. His
experience is that they've found some resolution in virtually
all those situations. In the last decade the troopers have made
a concerted effort to tighten the evidence facilities and insure
that evidence is in and out as quickly as possible.
1:57:59 PM
LES SYREN, Attorney, said he was representing Lon Lam, a jewelry
store owner in Anchorage.
LON LAM, representing himself, explained that the police called
him in the middle of the night to come to his jewelry store. The
police seized about 50 items worth between $5,000 and $10,000
because they believed they were related to a burglary.
MR. SYREN added that some of the property was on layaway so Mr.
Lam had to return the money to his customers. This occurred in
May 2007 and despite several written requests to the police, the
property has not been returned. He has since learned that the
jewelry is evidence in a criminal case currently on appeal. His
clients have nothing to do with the criminal matter and have not
been charged, but the jewelry in question somehow ended up in
their store and was seized. He wonders why the DA couldn't take
pictures of the jewelry or whatever was needed and let his
client get his property back.
2:03:27 PM
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it was surprising that the property
had been held for over 3.5 years and that there should be some
process for resolution.
2:04:17 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and announced he would hold
SB 30 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|