Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/29/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 64-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
1:31:50 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 64. [CSSB
64(STA) was before the committee.] He explained that the bill
was heard twice during the Interim and he brought a new work
draft committee substitute (CS), Version G, for the committee to
discuss today.
1:33:28 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
CHAIR COGHILL described the proposed outline for the meeting
today, Friday, and the coming week.
1:36:28 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated that SB 64 implements proven practices to
reduce recidivism, reduce the cost of corrections, and maintain
public safety within a structure that currently exists in state
government. He described certain terminology and provisions in
the bill including the 24/7 Sobriety Program, the new Criminal
Justice Commission, the Probation and Parole Accountability with
Certain Enforcement (PACE) program, the Recidivism Reduction
Fund, property felony theft thresholds, limited licenses, credit
for time served in residential treatment, and expanded risk-
needs assessments.
1:40:21 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, presented a
PowerPoint on the omnibus crime bill, starting with a chart that
explains the impetus for SB 64. He pointed out that the offender
population is growing about three percent a year while the
number of prison beds remains constant since Goose Creek opened
in 2011. Noting that Alaska has one of the highest recidivism
rates in the nation, Mr. Shilling warned that the state will
need to build another prison very soon if something isn't done
to reduce recidivism.
MR. SHILLING displayed a chart showing the Smart Justice policy
reforms that other states have initiated to keep from having to
build additional prisons. In 2007, Texas pioneered Smart Justice
policy reforms as an alternative to building four new prisons;
the state was able to close a prison a few years later. He noted
that Alaska was not on the chart because it has initiated few
Smart Justice policy reforms.
MR. SHILLING highlighted that the goals of SB 64 to improve
public safety, reduce recidivism, and reduce costs are similar
to the mission of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide
secure confinement, reformative programs, and a process of
supervised community reintegration to enhance community safety.
He said it's important to look at how DOC is allocating
resources to accomplish its mission; 86 percent is allocated to
secure confinement and 4 percent is allocated to reformative
programs. About 80 fulltime DOC positions are dedicated to
reformative programs and about 1,600 are dedicated to secure
confinement. Although there was a 1.5 percent drop in recidivism
in the four-year period ending in FY10, the rate is still 63.54
percent, which puts Alaska at the top of the list in terms of
recidivism.
MR. SHILLING reviewed the eight components in SB 64: the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, a limited license, a 24/7 Sobriety
Program, the PACE program for felony offenders on probation, the
Recidivism Reduction Fund, adjusting the felony theft
thresholds, a less cumbersome process for credit for time served
in a residential treatment program, and increased use of risk-
needs assessments.
1:44:31 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Sections 1-15 adjust, from $500 to
$1,000, the property theft thresholds between a class C felony
and a class A misdemeanor. Fifteen areas of statute are
affected. He displayed a chart of the felony theft thresholds in
western states and noted that Alaska's thresholds haven't
changed since they were established in 1978. He also pointed out
that in FY11 and FY12 property crimes made up the largest
proportion of felonies in Alaska.
1:45:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was data on what percentage
of prisoners are in prison for felony theft.
MR. SHILLING said yes, but there isn't data about the value of
the item that was stolen so it's difficult to predict the
potential savings.
Sections 16-18 establish the 24/7 Sobriety Program in the
pretrial phase. The main tenants of the program are a twice
daily Breathalyzer test, swift and certain sanctions, it may be
used for any crime where alcohol is a factor, it's funded by the
testing fees, and it's run by DOC/ASAP.
CHAIR COGHILL added that the committee would hear about the 24/7
pilot program for Alaska.
1:47:37 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the cost per individual, if there
were provisions for indigent offenders, and if there were
accommodations for the program to operate in rural Alaska.
MR. SHILLING directed attention to page 19, line 14. Paragraph
(3) requires a person to pay the cost of participating in the
program, based on their ability under established financial
guidelines. The three testing devices are a portable
Breathalyzer, a desktop Breathalyzer that is suitable for use in
rural Alaska, and the SCRAM bracelet that provides continuous
testing. He explained that SB 64 also provides drug testing
through the 24/7 program on a random basis.
He reviewed several charts with data from South Dakota to show
how the 24/7 Sobriety Program works. In that state, about 60
percent of the participants are on the program as a result of a
DUI. Most of the participants spend 30-180 days on the program,
and the data shows that this results in a significant reduction
in recidivism.
CHAIR COGHILL relayed that there would be testimony in a
subsequent meeting about what this tool is and how to use it.
MR. SHILLING continued to explain that in South Dakota a
majority of the tests are done with an in-person portable
Breathalyzer. In Montana, about half the participants are on
electronic monitor, but anyone living in an urban center does
in-person testing.
He restated that the 24/7 Sobriety Program is applicable to any
crime where alcohol is a factor, and it can be used pretrial and
post-conviction for probation or parole. The results are
promising. A majority of the people that are placed on the 24/7
Sobriety Program remain sober for the duration of the program,
and 30 percent stay sober after one or two failures.
1:52:11 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 19 deals with credit for
time served in a residential treatment facility; this is
commonly referred to as Nygren Credit. In 2007, the legislature
put credit for time served in a treatment facility in statute,
but it was more restrictive than case law. SB 64 removes one of
those restrictions and creates an incentive for seeking
treatment. Importantly, the offender is able to leave the
facility if they are limited to time and a rehabilitative
purpose.
Section 22 establishes a special requirement for fiscal notes.
Any bill that creates a new criminal offense or affects an
existing criminal justice practice requires a fiscal note that
describes the projected 10-year effect on court prosecution,
public defense, and corrections resources.
1:54:12 PM
Section 23 establishes that the court may terminate a revocation
for DUI if:
· The person successfully completed a court-ordered treatment
program;
· The person has not been charged or convicted of DUI since
completing the program; and
· The person has successfully driven under the limited
license without having those privileges revoked.
Section 24 establishes that the court may grant a limited
license if:
· The revocation was for DUI;
· The person participates in a court-ordered treatment
program;
· The person provides proof of insurance;
· The person has not been previously convicted during the
first 30 days of the revocation;
· The person shows proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device;
· The person is enrolled in alcohol screening and testing;
· The person has not previously been granted a limited
license;
· The person totally abstains from alcohol; and
· The person pays the cost of testing.
The court is required to immediately revoke a limited license if
the person is charged with or convicted of DUI or tests positive
for alcohol or drugs.
CHAIR COGHILL added that the forgoing was a new approach and it
would be debated thoroughly.
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 25 gives the court the
ability to reduce a person's penalty in order to allow them to
go into the program. This essentially allows the other limited
license sections to work together, he said.
Sections 27-28 provide a path for a person who has driven on a
limited license to get their license back. The requirements are
the same for DUI revocation and refusal revocation. The driver's
license may be restored if:
· The person has been granted limited license privileges and
has successfully driven under that limited license without
having the limited license privileges revoked;
· The person has successfully completed a court-ordered
treatment program;
· The person has not been convicted of a criminal offense
since the license was revoked; and
· The person provides proof of insurance.
CHAIR COGHILL explained that he wanted to include these
provisions for two reasons. First, people with 10-year and
lifetime revocations are still driving and they're dangerous,
unaccountable and they're hurting people. The other reason is
that the people who have accepted responsibility and changed
their lives face severe limitations because they're unable to
drive. This allows people the opportunity to redeem themselves,
although the threshold has to be fairly high, he said.
1:59:06 PM
MR. SHILLING described the procedure that allows a first time
DUI offender to serve their mandatory three-day sentence on
electronic monitoring. He said that Anchorage adopted this
policy in 2011 and the bill attempts to put the rest of the
state under those same rules. The cost savings are significant
compared to putting an offender in prison. Electronic monitoring
costs $20-$30 per day, whereas a prison bed costs $159 per day.
He pointed to the legislative research report that calculates
the savings at close to $1 million.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced a previous chart and asked why
the numbers dropped so much between 2011 and 2013. [The chart
showed the numbers of DWI convictions that resulted in
electronic monitoring. In 2011 there were 612; in 2012 there
were 497; and in 2013 there were 368.]
MR. SHILLING offered to follow up.
Section 29 directs DOC to establish a Probation Accountability
and Certain Enforcement (PACE) program for probationers that
relies on swift and certain punishment in the event of a
violation. The probation officer no longer has discretion on
when to submit a petition to revoke probation. Data from the
Anchorage PACE pilot program shows that recidivism drops
markedly after the first violation. He confirmed that PACE was
modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement
(HOPE) program.
MR. SHILLING said that [Section 30] requires DOC to establish a
program to conduct risks needs assessments on offenders that are
incarcerated for 30 days or longer. The effective date for this
section is 2016 to give DOC time to prepare for this change.
Section 31 establishes the Recidivism Reduction Fund to promote
rehabilitation through transitional re-entry programs for
persons released from prison. The commissioner may make grants
from the fund for programs that provide case management, sober
living, residential treatment, work placement, and a cap on
residential placement.
CHAIR COGHILL said the committee would hear from DOC and service
providers when this new approach is discussed.
2:06:04 PM
MR. SHILLING described the new commission.
CHAIR COGHILL discussed the conversations over the Interim and
the difference between the two CSs.
2:07:09 PM
MR. SHILLING compared the composition of the Criminal Justice
Commission outlined in the State Affairs committee substitute
(CS), Version O, to the current CS, Version G. Version O
describes 17 members and Version G describes 11 members.
CHAIR COGHILL highlighted the discussions throughout the Interim
and the conclusion that more people make it more difficult to
come to a decision.
MR. SHILLING spoke to the following Structures:
Version O CS Version G CS
3 Senators 2 Senators
3 Representatives 2 Representatives
1 Supreme Court Chief Justice 1 Supreme Court Chief Justice
1 Superior Court Judge 1 Superior Court Judge
1 District Court Judge 1 District Court Judge
1 Member AK Native Community 1 Member AK Native Community
1 Attorney General 1 Attorney General
1 Commissioner DOC 1 Private Attorney
Chief, Municipal Law Enforcement
1 Commissioner DPS 1
1 Commissioner DHSS
Director, Public Defender Agency
1
Director, Office Public Advocacy
1
Victims' Rights Advocate
1
He pointed out that Version G adds a 5-year sunset to the
commission. Another change is that the Member of the Alaska
Native Community will be appointed by the Alaska Native Justice
Center.
CHAIR COGHILL said discussion is welcome, but his intention is
to keep the commission compact.
MR. SHILLING directed attention to a list of the powers and
duties of the commission, and noted that they come directly from
the Alaska State Constitution. The Commission will be staffed by
the Alaska Judicial Council, will meet at least quarterly, and
will submit an annual report with recommendations to the
legislature.
CHAIR COGHILL stated his preference for having the Alaska
Judicial Council staff the commission.
2:10:27 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to walk the committee through
the bill starting with Section 16. He noted that representatives
from the Department of Corrections, the Department of Law, the
Public Defender Agency, the Judicial Council, and service
providers were available to answer questions.
MR. SHILLING explained that Sections 16-18 have the release
before trial statutes and the 24/7 Sobriety Program has been
inserted in each of those sections of law.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of AS 33.05.020(g).
MR. SHILLING replied that's the meat of the 24/7 Sobriety
Program, which is located on page 18, line 27, through the end
of Section 29. Subsection (f) establishes the PACE program and
subsection (g) establishes the 24/7 program.
The 24/7 program requires twice-a-day alcohol testing and random
drug testing. If there is a violation, notice is sent to the
probation officer, prosecutor's office, or local law enforcement
within 24 hours so that a complaint and petition can be filed
with the court seeking appropriate sanctions.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if this section has rural provisions.
MR. SHILLING said the language is broad enough that it could
work in rural Alaska. In-person testing isn't required because
it's impractible in a lot of places.
2:14:17 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI read the first line of AS 33.05.020(g) in
Section 29 that says "The commissioner shall establish a program
and eligibility requirements for certain persons..." He asked
who the certain persons are and if the legislature can delegate
to the commissioner the authority to establish the eligibility
requirements.
MR. SHILLING replied the certain persons are either misdemeanant
or felony offenders that have a condition of probation that
includes not consuming alcohol.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed interest in hearing from
Legislative Legal about whether the legislature could delegate
the authority for the commissioner to determine whether or not
certain people go to jail.
2:16:07 PM
DOUG GARDNER, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, said he didn't believe it was an impermissible
delegation because there is guidance from the legislature for
the commissioner to establish the program and create the
eligibility requirements. The commissioner has the unique skills
to do that, he said.
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that AS 12.30, which is
referenced in subsection (g), is a pre-trial statute.
MR. GARDNER confirmed that it addresses people on release on
bail conditions. This subsection gives the commissioner of DOC
the flexibility to make decisions through regulation about which
offenders are eligible to be managed and monitored in the
program.
CHAIR COGHILL indicated he had additional questions such as
whether direction is needed on what an eligibility requirement
would be.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for additional guidance on the
eligibility and application under AS 33.05.020(g).
MR. GARDNER posed a hypothetical example of assault in the 4th
degree in a domestic violence case. He explained that the court
would go through the considerations in AS 12.30 and balance the
factors such as the ability of the person to have the most
limited bail conditions possible but still secure community
safety. In the hypothetical example, the court might believe
that by imposing a condition in AS 12.30 that the person could
be released with less bail if they were in a program like this
that tracks their alcohol issues.
Under the current drafting, the commissioner, in the course of
creating regulations, would be making evaluations about how the
program would work and the eligibility requirements. He
acknowledged that the bill is broad, but that it could be
limited at the legislature's option.
CHAIR COGHILL highlighted that on page 19 three conditions are
set out and provide guidance: if the person fails to appear for
testing, tests positive, or fails to comply with program
requirements. He acknowledged that further discussion was
warranted to find out if those requirements have been effective.
2:24:19 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to discuss the new language in
Section 30.
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 30 imposes a duty on the
commissioner of DOC to establish a program to conduct
assessments of the risks and needs of offenders sentenced to a
term of 30 days or longer, and to submit an annual report to the
legislature by January 15 with the findings of those
assessments.
CHAIR COGHILL discussed Section 31 that establishes the
Recidivism Reduction Grant Program and Fund. He listed the five
requirements for a program to qualify for a grant (page 21,
lines 3-8) and stated that his intent is for these individuals
to be productive. For example, if full-time employment sets the
bar too high, perhaps part-time should be considered. He
welcomed discussion about making the grant fund as effective as
possible.
2:27:24 PM
MR. SHILLING pointed out that the Department of Corrections
currently does not provide grants, so this would be a "first"
for the department.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that he was looking for input from DOC,
because he believes it would be a valuable tool.
He directed attention to Section 32 that establishes the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission in the Office of the Governor. It is
modeled after a program that was established in the early 1990s
and later decommissioned. This new commission has a longer
effective date and it tries not to duplicate things that were
ignored in the earlier commission.
MR. SHILLING explained that the State Affairs version of the
bill domiciled the commission in the Court System, but the Court
didn't want the appearance of making policy recommendations.
Thus, it is established in the Office of The Governor.
CHAIR COGHILL directed attention to page 22, line 11, subsection
(d) that says that the Alaska Judicial Council shall provide
staff and administrative support to the commission. He welcomed
discussion on that provision.
SENATOR DYSON reported that during the Interim he attended the
U.S. Sentencing Commission national meeting. He said he was
impressed by the history and record of accomplishments and it
was clear that Alaska is behind the curve.
CHAIR COGHILL described the outline for the meeting on Friday
and the coming week and encouraged the various parties to come
forward with suggestions and concerns about who should be at the
table as a voting member and who should be invited. He read the
list of proposed members of the commission and noted his
intention to make the legislators ex officio members.
2:33:49 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested the committee consider adding a
substance abuse and/or mental health professional, because the
statistics show that over 90 percent of offenders have some sort
of substance abuse problem, and 40-50 percent have a mental
health issue.
CHAIR COGHILL said he'd add that suggestion, but his expectation
was that they would be non-voting.
He flagged Sec. 44.19.645 on pages 22-23, and asked interested
parties to study paragraphs (1)-(10) and provide input. He also
asked the Department of Law and the Department of Corrections to
comment on the methodology outlined in Sec. 44.19.646 on page
23.
2:38:36 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the committee skipped from
Section 18 to Section 29.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to discuss Section 19.
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 19 amends AS 12.55.027(c)
relating to qualifying for credit against imprisonment for time
spent in a treatment facility. It adds a circumstance when a
resident may leave the grounds of a treatment facility without
an escort. The new language permits a resident to receive credit
when they leave for rehabilitative purposes that are expressly
limited as to time and purpose by the treatment program.
CHAIR COGHILL added that the intention is to give value for
receiving treatment.
SENATOR DYSON suggested he think about the program that allows
prisoners in state facilities to go to work in canneries.
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that this, too, affects
a narrow population.
MR. SHILLING said this is to incentivize people who are trying
to better their lives by paying their way for treatment. He
opined that the term "rehabilitative services" on page 11, line
18, strikes a balance and avoids giving credit for a leisure
activity like dinner and a movie.
Section 20 applies 24/7 sobriety as a condition of probation.
Section 21 describes the staffing of the commission.
Section 22 describes the additional fiscal note requirement for
bills that either create a new crime or affect an existing
crime. The idea is to look at the fiscal impact of increasing a
crime penalty. He noted that this is similar to the section of
law that requires any bill that alters a retirement system to
undergo special fiscal analysis in the first committee of
referral.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he likes the concept but worries about
the workability. He asked how this would affect amendments in a
subsequent committee of referral or on the floor, and if this
could open opportunity for cases to be dismissed.
CHAIR COGHILL agreed it was possibly problematic.
2:46:04 PM
MR. SHILLING reviewed Sections 23 and 24. Section 23 amends AS
28.15.181(f) by adding provisions under which the court may
terminate a license revocation for DUI or refusal. The person:
has successfully completed a court-ordered treatment program,
has not been charged with or convicted of a DUI or refusal since
completing the program, has been granted a limited license and
has successfully driven under that limited license without
having those privileges revoked.
Section 24 adds a new subsection (g) to AS 28.15.201. It says
the court may grant a limited license privilege if the
revocation is for DUI or refusal and the person is participating
in a court-ordered treatment program, provides proof of
insurance, is using an ignition interlock device, enrolls in
alcohol testing, abstains from alcohol use, signs an affidavit
attesting to that, and participates in the cost of testing. The
court is required to immediately revoke a limited license if the
person is charged or convicted of a DUI or refusal or tests
positive under the alcohol screening program.
2:47:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a person who is required to have
an ignition interlock on their personal car would be required to
have one on a company car.
MR. SHILLING said he believes so but he would defer to the
department.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that the Court System and the Division of
Motor Vehicles might want to discuss some of the issues this
provision may present.
2:49:37 PM
MR. SHILLING reviewed Section 25. It amends AS 28.35.028(b) to
include imprisonment, fine, or license revocation.
Section 26 amends AS 28.35.030(k) to allow electronic monitoring
to be used for a first-time DUI conviction.
Section 27 amends AS 28.35.030(o), which is the process where a
person convicted of a DUI has driven under the limited license
successfully and is seeking a regular license. The new language
says a driver's license shall be restored if the person: has
been granted a limited license and has successfully driven under
that limited license without having those privileges revoked;
has successfully completed a court-ordered treatment program;
has not been convicted of a criminal offense since the license
was revoked; and provides proof of insurance.
Section 28 amends AS 28.35.032(q), which is the process where a
person convicted of refusal has driven under the limited license
successfully and is seeking a regular license. The new language
says a driver's license shall be restored if the person: has
been granted a limited license and has successfully driven under
that limited license without have those privileges revoked; has
successfully completed a court-ordered treatment program; has
not been convicted of a criminal offense since the license was
revoked; and provides proof of insurance.
Section 29 adds two new subsections (f) and (g) to AS 33.05.020
and it establishes, respectively, the PACE program and the 24/7
Sobriety Program. Subsection (f) says the commissioner shall
establish a program and eligibility requirements for felony
offenders who have conditions of probation that include not
consuming drugs or alcohol and have been identified as being at
high risk for violating their conditions of probation. These
individuals are tested randomly and the probation officer is
required to file a petition with the court seeking appropriate
sanctions if the probationer fails to appear for an appointment,
tests positive for drugs or alcohol, or fails to follow any
condition of probation.
Subsection (g) says the commissioner shall establish a program
and eligibility requirements for certain persons with release
conditions ordered under AS 12.30, or offenders with conditions
of probation, that include not consuming drugs or alcohol. The
program requires twice-a-day testing for alcohol and random
testing for drugs, and it must provide a means for the probation
officer, prosecutor's office, or local law enforcement to
receive notice within 24 hours so that a complaint and petition
may be filed and the court may schedule a prompt hearing if the
person or offender fails to appear for an appointment, tests
positive for the use of drugs or alcohol, or fails to comply
with the program requirements. The person or offender is
required to pay for the cost of participating in the program,
based on their ability under established financial guidelines.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that for the DUI laws there will be some
discussion about the point at which the program will be
required.
He asked Senator Dyson for a motion to adopt the work draft
committee substitute (CS), Version G, as the working document.
2:55:29 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to adopt CS for SB 64, labeled 28-LS0116\G,
as the working document.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that without objection, Version G is the
working document for SB 64. [The bill was held for further
consideration.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Infographic.pdf |
SJUD 1/29/2014 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOC performance indicators.pdf |
SJUD 1/29/2014 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 64 (draft, version G).pdf |
SJUD 1/29/2014 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 64 Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 1/29/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 1/29/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |