Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/05/2014 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 | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 64-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
1:35:27 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 64. [The
committee was considering CSSB 64, Version G.]
CHAIR COGHILL opened public testimony.
1:39:04 PM
M. RANKINE FORRESTER, CEO Intoximeters Inc., St. Louis,
Missouri, informed the committee that Alaska uses his company's
hand held devices for DUI enforcement. He explained that
Intoximeters got involved in the 24/7 program about seven years
ago and found the early results in South Dakota to be
impressive.
MR. FORRESTER said he watched the 24/7 program in North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Montana and learned that the program's
strength for reducing recidivism is the immediacy of the
sanction. The Rand Study and the Mountain Plains Evaluation from
South Dakota proved that. Both showed a dramatic reduction in
recidivism, and he attributes those results to the twice-a-day
breath testing in a central location. In this model, the person
immediately faces the consequence of arrest if he/she tests
positive.
In both North Dakota and Montana, geography limited some people
from getting to and from a central testing site, he said. In
that circumstance, an ankle bracelet with a transdermal alcohol
detection device was used. The Rand Study documented that about
15 percent of the test subjects were tested on the remote
testing device and 85 percent were tested twice-a-day.
MR. FORRESTER noted that data from the South Dakota 24/7 program
was presented at a recent highway safety meeting in San Diego.
It showed that the remote testing had very little impact on
long-term recidivism compared to the twice-a-day central
location testing. The point, he said, is that if the goal is to
reduce recidivism, there's more bang for the buck with twice-a-
day testing. The problem with remote testing is that an
immediate sanction is less likely. The other issue with relying
on remote testing as the backbone of a 24/7 program is that
there's a bit of an unfunded mandate; there's a cost attached to
sending somebody out to arrest an offender that isn't covered
under the program.
MR. FORRESTER urged the committee to consider twice-a-day
testing as the backbone of the 24/7 program; the evidence shows
it has a greater effect on recidivism.
1:45:42 PM
SENATOR DYSON commented that twice-a-day testing would make it
difficult for a person to be productive.
MR. FORRESTER responded that there is a bit of a burden, but it
has not been an issue in any of the programs he's worked with in
Montana or South Dakota.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Forrester.
1:48:12 PM
KELLY FREDERICK, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said
she was calling to comment on the amendment regarding custodial
interference. She explained that on January 14 a man walked into
an Anchorage elementary school and asked for her daughter by
first and last name. Falsely claiming to be her father, he said
he was there to pick her up. When staff disputed his claim, he
said he was there to pick up a different girl. Office staff
identified him and asked him to leave. Ms. Frederick said the
school called her and she immediately called the police. When
she met the police at the school, she was told there wasn't a
charge for what the man had done. Later she was told that the
man had been arrested and that he was going to be charged with
criminal trespass and two counts of contributing to a minor.
MS. FREDERICK said she was disturbed and concerned because the
man's intent was to take the girls from the school. She
questioned why there isn't a law to protect children in this
circumstance.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Wielechowski to explain the
amendment he drafted to address some of Ms. Frederick's
concerns.
1:51:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he heard from a number of constituents
about this issue and called the prosecutor's office. John
Skidmore returned the call and said that what the man did
doesn't meet the statutory definition of attempted kidnapping
and that it will be difficult to prove criminal trespass. He
noted that the person who was ultimately arrested in this case
has a long history of crimes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the amendment, which was a
collaborative effort, is an attempt to put something in statute
to make schools and kids a little bit safer.
CHAIR COGHILL said the committee would consider the amendment
after public testimony.
1:52:48 PM
MIKE MILLER, representing himself and National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB), North Pole, Alaska, said he was
testifying to voice concern about raising the felony theft
threshold from $500 to $1,000. For larger businesses it's the
cost of doing business, but for small businesses $500 is a lot
of money, he said. The NFIB in Alaska was polled and a majority
of the members do not support doubling the limit at this time.
1:55:41 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked Mr. Miller if he's seen evidence that
shoplifters or burglars are paying attention to the dollar limit
between a misdemeanor and felony when they're contemplating a
crime.
MR. MILLER said no, but many small businesses feel that
increasing the limit rewards the person who perpetrates the
crime.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he's implying that NFIB members have been
comfortable with the $500 limit for the past 20 years.
MR. MILLER replied small business owners probably are
comfortable with the law because they're accustomed to it.
SENATOR DYSON pointed out that $500 probably had three times the
value when the limit was established. He asked if small
businesses though it was excessive at that time.
MR. MILLER replied they probably did feel it was excessive 22
years ago. He reiterated that NFIB isn't comfortable doubling
the limits.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Miller if he's found that misdemeanor
charges are ignored in court.
MR. MILLER said his business hasn't experienced much theft, but
some members have expressed frustration about losing higher
value items.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would entertain amendments, but he needed
to know if the misdemeanor charges that could result in a year
in jail [and] $10,000 fine have been so misused that the felony
hammer is necessary.
He asked Mr. Miller if a $750 threshold would be acceptable.
MR. MILLER answered that in his particular case it would, but a
lot of businesses would probably still find it difficult to
accept. He reiterated that doubling the amount was particularly
unpalatable.
CHAIR COGHILL requested an opportunity to address NFIB on what
happens when a felony charge is levied.
2:03:50 PM
ANDY PEVEHOUSE, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, stated
support for increasing the felony theft thresholds. Clarifying
that he was not speaking as a public defender, he disputed the
notion that small business owners would not be protected by
making theft a class A misdemeanor versus a class C felony. He
maintained that it potentially would benefit NFIB members
because it is easier for a misdemeanant to pay restitution.
Whereas a convicted felon has many doors closed and is severely
hampered in his/her ability to reenter society, get a job and
pay back the dollar value of the theft.
He agreed with Senator Dyson that theft is typically a crime of
opportunity and the person who commits the crime isn't
necessarily thinking about whether the crime is a misdemeanor or
a felony. The same logic applies to criminal mischief; the
offender doesn't necessarily consider the value of the property
damage. He opined that most people would agree that the
potential penalty of up to a year in jail, a $10,000 fine and
paying restitution is a fairly significant deterrent as it is.
MR. PEVEHOUSE also stated strong support for the minor changes
to drug treatment in the bill. He said drug and alcohol
treatment options are limited in Kenai, and anything that helps
increase the ability to get into treatment and resolve a
person's legal problems through incentivizing treatment is
worthwhile.
2:07:58 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the fines and jail time penalties for
theft valued under $500 had been enough of a deterrent to show
that it could be used in the $50 to $1,000 category as well.
MR. PERVEHOUSE offered his belief that business owners
absolutely are protected under the current statute. He also
pointed out that the recidivist theft statute provides that
multiple misdemeanor thefts aggravate on the third offense to a
class C felony.
CHAIR COGHILL said the committee was alerted to that when the
bill was introduced, and the Department of Law (DOL) questioned
how that would be implemented.
SENATOR DYSON encouraged the Chair to stick to thresholds and
make the second offense a felony.
2:12:35 PM
H. THOMPSON PRENTEZEL III, representing himself, said he was
testifying from a halfway house/jail in Ester to offer
suggestions about the cost and ineffectiveness of the prison
system. He urged the committee to think about the philosophy of
punishing crime and opined that the biggest problem relates to
legislating morality and the creation of victimless crime. He
cited statistics that show that in Alaska about 6 percent of the
population annually gets brought into a jail, and that this
state is number one for recidivism.
He offered the following suggestions: get rid of mandatory
parole, get rid of presumptive sentencing, allow parole for
people who don't admit their guilt, offer juries a third option
of a not proven verdict, review the number of felony cases that
are brought and dropped, and look into why so many people flat-
time their sentences.
CHAIR COGHILL asked him to submit his suggestions in writing.
2:20:21 PM
MARTHA KINCAID, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, said she
supports SB 64, but has additional comments. First, a proactive
approach of redeeming, restoring, and instilling hope should be
the goal of the proposed commission. Second, in convictions
where there is no damage to persons or property, the felony
should be reduced to a misdemeanor. Third, the current DUI laws
impose a life-long sentence that is inappropriate for the
infraction, especially if no damage to person or property has
occurred. There is no incentive to become well. Fourth, the
Alaska Sentencing Commission is missing the voice of the
offender. She concluded that the state can do better by
achieving a balance between correction, redemption, and
restoration.
2:22:54 PM
JANET KINCAID, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, echoed her
daughter's comments and added that the state needs to improve
ways to help people who are released from prison and have
alcohol problems. She noted that the Salvation Army and Set Free
Alaska help people with alcohol problems and both have long
waiting lists. These people need hope and to be given a chance
to become tax paying citizens who support their families and
communities.
2:23:56 PM
MARY GEDDES, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said she
is a retired public defender who served 28 years in both state
and federal courts. She said she would address two issues that
were touched upon in previous testimony: the retroactivity of
the changes in the theft statutes and the type of commission.
She offered three suggestions related to retroactivity of the
changes in the theft statutes, and noted that she submitted
language to address this issue. The first suggestion was that
for those cases for which there is not a guilty, a no contest
plea or a verdict, the prosecutor can simply amend any charging
documents; for those defendants who have already been found
guilty but have not been sentenced, the trial court should be
authorized to vacate the plea or verdict.
The second suggested change provides retroactive relief to those
whose judgments are final and don't have an appeal pending. In
order to obtain this relief, the offender would have to file a
post-conviction action based upon the change in law. The bill
could specify one year to file and the trial court could then be
authorized to resentence the offender. She explained that this
is a matter of fairness. Not extending retroactive effect to
this group denies relief to those defendants who readily pleaded
guilty and accepted their penalty without filing any appeal.
The third suggestion is to give retroactive relief to defendants
who entered guilty or no contest pleas pursuant to agreements
with the state. She said she submitted proposed language that
allows a defendant to be resentenced under the revised law with
notice that the plea agreement is not otherwise voidable by
either of the parties.
2:32:24 PM
MS. GEDDES addressed the issue of whether or not the commission
ought to be a sentencing commission as opposed to a criminal
justice commission. She suggested sticking with the sentencing
commission as originally envisioned because the duties and
methodologies set in the legislation are more specifically
geared to sentencing. She also recommended including at least
one defense attorney on the commission who is the public
defender, the public advocate, or their designee because most
private attorneys lack the specific expertise of a criminal
defense attorney.
She said the previous draft recommended that the Judicial
Council provide staffing for the commission, but she believes
that a commission comprised of so many busy professionals
requires the coordination, direction, and leadership of an
executive director. In light of the duties assigned to the
commission, she recommended the executive director be a licensed
attorney.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that Mr. Steiner would agree.
2:35:29 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to present the ideas in
Amendment G.2.
SENATOR OLSON noted that he had an amendment to offer.
2:37:33 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, explained that
Amendment 28-LS0116\G.2 addresses some of the concerns that the
Department of Law expressed on the Nygren credit section.
Subparagraph (C) clarifies that a person may leave the facility
for employment, vocational training, or community volunteer.
Subparagraph (D) still expressly limits it to time and purpose
but adds oversight by the director of the treatment program.
AMENDMENT G.2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 64( ), Draft Version "G"
Page 11, lines 8 - 27:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) To qualify for credit against a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program, the
treatment program and the facility of the treatment program
must impose substantial restrictions on a person's liberty
that are equivalent to incarceration, including the
requirement that a participant in the program
(1) must live in a residential facility operated
by the program;
(2) must be confined at all times to the grounds
of the facility or be in the physical custody of an
employee of the facility, except for
(A) court appearances; [,]
(B) meetings with counsel;
(C) employment, vocational training, or
community volunteer [, AND] work required by the
treatment program [AND APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE
COURT]; and
(D) periods during which residents are
permitted to leave the facility for rehabilitative
purposes directly related to the person's treatment
plan, so long as the periods during which the
residents are permitted to leave the facility are
expressly limited as to both time and purpose by the
director of the treatment program;
(3) is subject to disciplinary sanctions by the
program if the participant violates rules of the program
and facility; sanctions must be in writing and available
for court review; and
(4) is subject to immediate arrest, without
warrant, if the participant leaves the facility without
permission."
CHAIR COGHILL asked about oversight by the Department of
Corrections (DOC).
MR. SHILLING replied the amendment doesn't mention DOC.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed interest in getting an answer to the
question.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that the amendment offers a
reasonable compromise.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Dyson to provide an explanation of
Amendment G.9.
SENATOR DYSON summarized that the amendment provides judicial
discretion in the waiver of certain juvenile cases to adult
court.
2:41:23 PM
CHUCK KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, explained that the
proposed Amendment G.9 introduces a safeguard into the juvenile
auto waiver law that sends a 16 or 17-year-old into the adult
system when the crime is an unclassified felony, a class A
felony in which it is a crime against a person, a class B felony
in which it is a crime against a person and a deadly weapon is
used or alleged to be used, or arson in the first degree. The
amendment would allow a judge to make a determination, based on
a risk needs assessment, that the juvenile is amenable to
treatment under the juvenile justice system and does not need to
be waived into the adult system.
AMENDMENT G.9
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 64( ), Draft Version "G"
Page 2, line 1, following "beverages;":
Insert "relating to waiver of jurisdiction in
juvenile cases;"
Page 24, following line 20:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 47.12.030(a) is amended to read:
(a) When a minor who was at least 16 years of
age at the time of the offense is charged by
complaint, information, or indictment with an offense
specified in this subsection, and, when after a
hearing and consideration of the minor's
individualized risk and needs assessment, the court
determines that the minor is not amenable to treatment
under this chapter, this chapter and the Alaska
Delinquency Rules do not apply to the offense for
which the minor is charged or to any additional
offenses joinable to it under the applicable rules of
court governing criminal procedure. The minor shall be
charged, held, released on bail, prosecuted,
sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as an
adult. If the minor is convicted of an offense other
than an offense specified in this subsection, the
minor may attempt to prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the minor is amenable to treatment
under this chapter. If the court finds that the minor
is amenable to treatment under this chapter, the minor
shall be treated as though the charges had been heard
under this chapter, and the court shall order
disposition of the charges of which the minor is
convicted under AS 47.12.120(b). The provisions of
this subsection apply when the minor is charged by
complaint, information, or indictment with an offense
(1) that is an unclassified felony or a
class A felony and the felony is a crime against a
person;
(2) of arson in the first degree;
(3) that is a class B felony and the felony
is a crime against a person in which the minor is
alleged to have used a deadly weapon in the commission
of the offense and the minor was previously
adjudicated as a delinquent or convicted as an adult,
in this or another jurisdiction, as a result of an
offense that involved use of a deadly weapon in the
commission of a crime against a person or an offense
in another jurisdiction having elements substantially
identical to those of a crime against a person, and
the previous offense was punishable as a felony; in
this paragraph, "deadly weapon" has the meaning given
in AS 11.81.900(b); or
(4) that is misconduct involving weapons in
the first degree under
(A) AS 11.61.190(a)(1); or
(B) AS 11.61.190(a)(2) when the firearm was
discharged under circumstances manifesting substantial
and unjustifiable risk of physical injury to a person.
* Sec. 34. AS 47.12.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) For purposes of making a determination under
this section, the standard of proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence, and the burden of proof
that the minor is amenable to treatment under this
chapter is on the minor."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 25, line 4:
Delete "and"
Page 25, line 5, following "Act":
Insert ", AS 47.12.030(a), as amended by sec. 33
of this Act, and AS 47.12.030(d) as enacted by sec. 34
of this Act,"
Page 25, line 6:
Delete "36"
Insert "38"
Page 25, line 12:
Delete "36"
Insert "38"
Page 25, line 13:
Delete "36"
Insert "38"
CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted the concept brought forward today
and would possibly take testimony on it at a later date.
2:44:31 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Wielechowski to present the ideas in
Amendment 28-LS0116\G.10.
2:44:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that this amendment is based on
an issue that arose when a man entered an elementary school in
his district and attempted to remove two children. The man was
arrested and charged with criminal trespass, but there is
clearly a gap in the law because even that charge will be
difficult to prove. The purpose of SB 64 is rehabilitation and
part of that is public safety; this amendment will make
communities safer, he said. The essence is on page 1, lines 15-
18, of the amendment; if a person who is not a relative and has
no legal right, represents to the lawful custodian of a child
that he/she has the legal right to take the child that is
custodial interference in the second degree.
AMENDMENT G.10
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 64( ), Draft Version "G"
Page 1, line 2, following "Commission;":
Insert "amending the criminal offense of
custodial interference in the second degree;"
Page 2, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 11.41.330(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of custodial
interference in the second degree if
(1) [,] being a relative of a child under
18 years of age or a relative of an incompetent person
and knowing that the person has no legal right to do
so, the person takes, entices, or keeps that child or
incompetent person from a lawful custodian with intent
to hold the child or incompetent person for a
protracted period; or
(2) not being a relative of a child under
18 years of age or a relative of an incompetent person
and knowing that the person has no legal right to do
so, the person represents to the lawful custodian that
the person has a legal right to take, entice, or keep
the child or incompetent person.
* Sec. 2. AS 11.41.330(b) is amended to read:
(b) The affirmative defense of necessity under
AS 11.81.320 does not apply to a prosecution for
custodial interference under (a)(1) [(a)] of this
section if the protracted period for which the person
held the child or incompetent person exceeded the
shorter of the following:
(1) 24 hours; or
(2) the time necessary to report to a peace
officer or social service agency that the child or
incompetent person has been abused, neglected, or is
in imminent physical danger. "
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 24, line 25, following "(a)":
Insert "AS 11.41.330(a), as amended by sec. 1 of
this Act, AS 11.41.330(b), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act,"
Page 24, line 25:
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 3"
Page 24, line 26:
Delete "sec. 2"
Insert "sec. 4"
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 24, line 27:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 24, line 28:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 7"
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 24, line 29:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 9"
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 24, line 30:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 11"
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 12"
Page 24, line 31:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 13"
Page 25, line 1:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 14"
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 25, line 2:
Delete "sec. 14"
Insert "sec. 16"
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 25, line 3:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 18"
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 25, line 4:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 25, line 5:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 25, line 6:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 31 and 33 - 38"
Page 25, line 7:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 25, line 8:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 25, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 26"
Page 25, line 9:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 27"
Page 25, line 10:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 28"
Delete "sec. 27"
Insert "sec. 29"
Page 25, line 11:
Delete "sec. 28"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 25, line 12:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 31 and 33 - 38"
Page 25, line 13:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 31 and 33 - 38"
Page 25, line 17:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 25, line 19:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 25, line 21:
Delete "Section 30"
Insert "Section 32"
CHAIR COGHILL asked what happens in legitimate circumstances
when somebody is picking up another person's child.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that would be acceptable.
CHAIR COGHILL said he likes the idea.
2:48:22 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to discuss Amendment G.7.
2:48:57 PM
MR. SHILLING said the first substantive change is found on page
1, lines 16-22, of the amendment. It allows 24/7 sobriety to be
applied in pretrial only in certain cases: unclassified felony,
class A felony, sexual felony, DUI felony, refusal felony, and
crimes of domestic violence, which can be a misdemeanor or
felony.
Page 2, lines 1-2, deletes the fiscal analysis Sec. 22 of the
bill.
Page 2, lines 6-7, of the amendment removes the requirement that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) establish eligibility
requirements for the PACE program. The reasoning is that it is
not appropriate for the DOC to turn someone away from the
program when the court has mandated they enter the program.
AMENDMENT G.7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 64( ), Draft Version "G"
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "relating to fiscal notes for bills related to
criminal offenses and suspension of offenders;"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "relating to conditions of release and
probation;"
Insert "relating to conditions of release, probation,
and parole;"
Page 1, line 10, following "corrections":
Insert "and board of parole"
Page 2, line 1, following "beverages":
Insert "requiring the board of parole to establish
programs for persons on parole that require testing
for controlled substances and alcoholic beverages;"
Page 9, lines 18 - 20:
Delete all material and insert:
"(18) require the person to comply with a program
established under AS 35.05.020(g) if the person has
been charged with an alcohol-related or substance
abuse-related offense that is an unclassified felony,
a class A felony, a sexual felony, a felony under
AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032, or a crime of domestic
violence."
Page 12, line 22, through page 13, line 3:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 18, line 7:
Delete "and eligibility requirements"
Page 18, line 10:
Following "at":
Insert "moderate to"
Following "probation":
Insert "as identified by a risk-needs assessment"
Page 18, line 17, following "officer;":
Insert "or"
Page 18, line 19:
Delete the second occurrence of "or"
Insert "and"
Page 18, lines 20 - 21:
Delete all material.
Page 18, line 27:
Delete "and eligibility requirements"
Page 19, line 1, following "testing":
Insert "in person if practicable"
Page 19, line 4:
Delete "within 24 hours"
Insert "by the close of the next business day"
Page 19, line 10, following "requirements;":
Insert "or"
Page 19, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "or
(C) fails to comply with program requirements;"
Page 19, following line 16:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 29. AS 33.16.060 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) The board shall establish a program for a parolee
who has conditions of parole that include not
consuming controlled substances or alcoholic beverages
and who has been identified as being at moderate to
high risk as identified by a risk-needs assessment.
The program must
(1) include random testing for controlled substance
and alcoholic beverage use;
(2) require that a parole officer file a parole
violation report by the close of the next business day
if a parolee
(A) fails to appear for an appointment as directed by
the parole officer; or
(B) tests positive for the use of controlled
substances or alcoholic beverages; and
(3) include a means to notify the board by close of
business on the next business day that a parole
violation report has been filed on a parolee placed in
the program by the board.
* Sec. 30. AS 33.16.150(b) is amended to read:
(b) The board may require as a condition of special
medical, discretionary, or mandatory parole, or a
member of the board acting for the board under (e) of
this section may require as a condition of mandatory
parole, that a prisoner released on parole
(1) not possess or control a defensive weapon, a
deadly weapon other than an ordinary pocket knife with
a blade three inches or less in length, or ammunition
for a firearm, or reside in a residence where there is
a firearm capable of being concealed on one's person
or a prohibited weapon; in this paragraph, "deadly
weapon," "defensive weapon," and "firearm" have the
meanings given in AS 11.81.900, and "prohibited
weapon" has the meaning given in AS 11.61.200;
(2) refrain from possessing or consuming alcoholic
beverages;
(3) submit to reasonable searches and seizures by a
parole officer, or a peace officer acting under the
direction of a parole officer;
(4) submit to appropriate medical, mental health, or
controlled substance or alcohol examination,
treatment, or counseling;
(5) submit to periodic examinations designed to
detect the use of alcohol or controlled substances;
the periodic examinations may include testing under
the program established under AS 33.16.060(c);
(6) make restitution ordered by the court according
to a schedule established by the board;
(7) refrain from opening, maintaining, or using a
checking account or charge account;
(8) refrain from entering into a contract other than
a prenuptial contract or a marriage contract;
(9) refrain from operating a motor vehicle;
(10) refrain from entering an establishment where
alcoholic beverages are served, sold, or otherwise
dispensed;
(11) refrain from participating in any other activity
or conduct reasonably related to the parolee's
offense, prior record, behavior or prior behavior,
current circumstances, or perceived risk to the
community, or from associating with any other person
that the board determines is reasonably likely to
diminish the rehabilitative goals of parole, or that
may endanger the public; in the case of special
medical parole, for a prisoner diagnosed with a
communicable disease, comply with conditions set by
the board designed to prevent the transmission of the
disease."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, lines 20 - 22:
Delete "and provide to the legislature by January 15
during the First Regular Session of each legislature,
a report, summarizing the findings and results of the
program"
Page 21, line 5:
Following "provide":
Insert ", on-site or by referral,"
Following "abuse":
Insert "or mental health treatment"
Page 21, line 6:
Delete "full-time"
Following "employment":
Insert ", vocational training, or community volunteer
activities"
Page 21, lines 7 - 8:
Delete "150 days"
Insert "one year"
Page 22, line 1, following "two":
Insert "nonvoting members, serving ex officio, who
are"
Page 22, line 3, following "two":
Insert "nonvoting members, serving ex officio, who
are"
Page 25, line 6:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 30 and 32 - 37"
Page 25, line 8:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 25, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 25, line 9:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 25, line 10:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 25"
Delete "sec. 27"
Insert "sec. 26"
Page 25, line 11:
Delete "sec. 28"
Insert "sec. 27"
Page 25, line 12:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 30 and 32 - 37"
Page 25, line 13:
Delete "secs. 1 - 29 and 31 - 36"
Insert "secs. 1 - 30 and 32 - 37"
Page 25, line 17:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 25, line 19:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 25, line 21:
Delete "Section 30"
Insert "Section 31"
CHAIR COGHILL said he'd like to study Amendment G.7 further
before going forward. He asked Senator Olson if he had an
amendment to offer.
2:52:16 PM
SENATOR OLSON said the concept was embodied in Senator Dyson's
amendment.
CHAIR COGHILL stated his expectation to take public testimony on
Friday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|