Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/14/1994 01:44 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 sponsored by request of the Governor and invited DEAN GUANELI,                
 Chief of the Criminal Division for the Department of Law to                   
 MR. GUANELI gave some previous history, explaining in 1972 the                
 voters amended the constitution by providing a Right to Privacy               
 statute, prompted by implementation of the Alaska Justice                     
 Information System (AJIS).  He explained it frightened some people            
 that a large computer system would be used to keep track of the               
 criminal records of Alaskan citizens.  He said the fears engendered           
 by the AJIS has never come to pass, and the system is now used all            
 over the United States.                                                       
 MR. GUANELI said the promise of AJIS has not really come to pass,             
 because it has not been fully used nor has it been completely                 
 accurate.  He explained the AJIS, known as the Alaska Public Safety           
 Information Network (APSIN) primarily keeps records of convictions.           
 He further explained these records are used for sentencing by                 
 judges, for a records check for licensing of those admitted to the            
 Alaska Bar Association, and is used for the purpose of licensing              
 foster parents, day care operators, teachers, and others working              
 with children.                                                                
 Number 061                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI described the computer systems developed by other                 
 agencies such as the Department Corrections and the Department of             
 Law.  He reviewed the provisions in AS 12.62, now over 20 year old,           
 that provide oversight for some of the systems, but the provisions            
 are tied to federal funding, which has diminished.  He claimed                
 there was no effective use of the system in statute or regulation,            
 and he outlined the provisions SB 276 seeks to correct.                       
 MR. GUANELI explained the legislation would create a board, the               
 Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, made up of executive             
 branch agencies plus a member of the supreme court to give over-              
 sight and direction to criminal justice recommendations to the                
 governor and the legislature.  Presently, he said there was no                
 statutory requirement to link these records to a fingerprint, which           
 is the most accurate identifier, and this legislation would mandate           
 fingerprints be taken by all police agencies upon arrest.  In fact,           
 he said there is presently no statutory requirement that finger-              
 prints be taken at all.                                                       
 MR. GUANELI explained the legislation would allow a person to                 
 review their own records and to make an application to correct                
 their records, if they believe they are inaccurate.                           
 Number 116                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI said the other major purpose of the legislation is to             
 establish rules for the use of the records and who might use them.            
 Presently, he explained each agency does this on their own, but MR.           
 GUANELI thought there should be some statutory guidance as well.              
 MR. GUANELI discussed the difficulty for agencies to get access to            
 records of conviction in other jurisdictions is Alaska, but SB 276            
 would propose conviction records be generally available to ordinary           
 citizens for any purpose.  He said it would completely open the               
 records, and he explained the Department of Safety contracted with            
 a nationally known consulting organization, which disclosed it was            
 a trend for many states to open up their records.  MR. GUANELI                
 explained how this would make complete records on prospective day             
 care workers available through the legislation.                               
 MR. GUANELI reviewed the limitation as suggested in the statute,              
 which would not allow records to be disseminated to the public more           
 than ten years after the person's release from state supervision,             
 thus closing the records.  He concluded by describing SB 276 as a             
 long and complex bill, and reviewed the pertinent provisions.                 
 Number 170                                                                    
 SENATOR JACKO questioned the use of data entry with so many rural,            
 remote locations and a possible backlog of information.                       
 MR. GUANELI explained the court system would send records to the              
 Department of Public Safety, where the data would be entered as               
 soon as possible, centrally in Juneau and Anchorage. He said, at              
 present, there was some delay and some backlog in getting the                 
 information entered into the system.                                          
 SENATOR JACKO asked if more data would be entered, and SENATOR                
 TAYLOR said there would be.                                                   
 MR. GUANELI said there was a provision to permit the Department of            
 Public Safety to ask agencies to submit a larger amount of data               
 than currently entered, and the legislation would allow the agency            
 to adopt regulations to include that information, only to the                 
 extent of their funding.  He explained the selective nature of the            
 present data entry system, essentially conviction information and             
 ongoing court proceedings, also tied to fingerprints to maintain              
 accuracy.  As they have the ability, he said the records will                 
 include additional information.                                               
 SENATOR JACKO asked how SB 276 related to the Brady Bill.                     
 MR. GUANELI said there was no direct connection between the bill              
 and the Brady Bill, but would guarantee information reviewed under            
 the Brady Bill is accurate.  It would provide a greater level of              
 confidence in the review process effected by the Brady Bill, and              
 MR. GUANELI described the role and purpose of the Brady Bill.  He             
 noted the FBI had adopted national standards for all states to try            
 to meet, and these have been reflected in SB 276.                             
 Number 225                                                                    
 SENATOR JACKO suggested the legislation would allow just the                  
 collection of the information, but would not require the system be            
 put in place.  He asked what it would cost and suggested the fiscal           
 note must not include all of the costs.                                       
 MR. GUANELI explained the ASPIN system currently collects                     
 information about convictions, and the Department of Public Safety            
 is set up to collect the information, with a computer system in               
 place, but they are not accurately linked to fingerprints.  He                
 further explained there was no oversight of that system beyond                
 Public Safety, which has no board to review their policies and give           
 them consultation.  The fiscal note indicates the computers are in            
 place, but not yet connected to the fingerprinting.                           
 SENATOR JACKO said there was a whole list of new information to               
 collect, and he thought there would be a price tag in terms of                
 staff to do data entry, and he referred to pages 4 and 5.  He asked           
 when they would know the fiscal impact of collecting and processing           
 the new information.                                                          
 MR. GUANELI referred SENATOR JACKO to page 4, line 13 which would             
 permit the commissioner of Public Safety, by regulation and after             
 consultation with the new advisory board, to begin to collect a               
 larger amount of information than currently collected.  He said the           
 collecting would take place after the technology has improved and             
 the funding has been increased.                                               
 Number 263                                                                    
 SENATOR JACKO asked if there was any idea what the framework was              
 going to cost.                                                                
 MR. GUANELI suggested that KEN BISCHOFF, Director of the Division             
 of Administrative Services for the Department of Public Safety                
 discuss their fiscal note.                                                    
 MR. BISCHOFF explained the legislation, by itself, does not require           
 anything because the legislation, as drafted, does not take effect            
 until the adoption of the regulations.  In the Public Safety fiscal           
 note, he said much of the information required by SB 276 is already           
 being captured by some agency, and nation wide the information                
 needs to be reported centrally.  To answer SENATOR JACKO's question           
 about cost, MR. BISCHOFF said, to minimize the cost, they will                
 write electronic interfaces with the Department of Law, with                  
 Corrections, and the court systems, when they become automated.  He           
 explained this would preclude manual data entry, but only the cost            
 of writing the program.                                                       
 MR. BISCHOFF reiterated the capture methods presently in use, and             
 explained the police agencies are not being required to do anything           
 differently.  He reviewed the arrest, booking, and fingerprinting             
 of those arrested for criminal offenses.  He stressed there will be           
 no additional finger printing, but will provide the framework to              
 show the legislature recognizes the need for linkages between the             
 various criminal justice agency information systems.                          
 MR. BISCHOFF outlined the process of working out the fiscal note              
 with the advisory group and the criminal justice work group to                
 identify those areas.  He did think the agencies were doing about             
 75% of all that is required by the legislation now, but he said               
 they need to implement the tracking number and get all agencies to            
 use the person identifiers in all systems.  If additional funds are           
 needed, he explained it would be worked through regulation process            
 as well as the normal budget process, which would be submitted for            
 legislative review.                                                           
 Number 320                                                                    
 SENATOR JACKO asked if the legislature would ever really know until           
 sometime in the future whether the fiscal impact would appear as an           
 MR. BISCHOFF replied SENATOR JACKO was nearly correct, but he                 
 explained it in context of the criminal justice budget of about               
 $300 million, using the presumptive sentencing law as a reason to             
 have the data base complete.  Without the correct information the             
 presumptive sentencing law would be nullified.  He listed those               
 persons who require a background check before employment, and the             
 problems when there is not complete, correct information.                     
 SENATOR JACKO expressed appreciation for their accomplishments, but           
 he was still concerned the actual costs would never be known.                 
 SENATOR LITTLE asked for some idea of the mechanisms that would be            
 needed in rural areas, and how the fingerprinting would be linked             
 to records.                                                                   
 In answer to her question, MR. BISCHOFF first explained virtually             
 all criminal cases are prosecuted by the Department of Law, and in            
 order to get a criminal case accepted, the arresting officer needs            
 to complete a Department of Law criminal case intake disposition              
 form.  He further explained the Department of Law modified the form           
 to allow a unique arrest tracking number on the form which ends up            
 on the fingerprint card in Public Safety.  He then explained how              
 all of the identifiers culminate in being accepted by the court               
 system as a number on their judgement forms.  MR. BISCHOFF                    
 maintained all of these processes needed to be in place to make               
 fingerprint identification work properly.                                     
 Number 367                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR rephrased SENATOR LITTLE'S question by asking what             
 happens in the remote community, and he quoted MR. BISCHOFF'S                 
 answer about the booking procedure and the assignment of a tracking           
 MR. BISCHOFF answered the tracking number would already be on the             
 form the arresting officer would fill out.                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR returned to SENATOR JACKO'S fiscal note question and           
 said, in reference to page 5, line 14, he could see an extension              
 into areas of privacy.  He remembered objections to similar                   
 legislation several years ago by the Chiefs of Police, who were               
 concerned at the additional paper work for their personnel, and he            
 listed several questions from those objecting to overhead.                    
 Number 392                                                                    
 MR. BISCHOFF explained currently the chiefs are represented on the            
 criminal justice working group and supported the need for this type           
 of legislation.  He further explained his department has not waited           
 for passage of the legislation before trying to implement some of             
 the processes, using existing procedures to the extent possible.              
 The Department of Law criminal case intake disposition forms, which           
 are familiar to the chiefs, is the vehicle for the implementation.            
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BISCHOFF if he had any additional details.           
 MR. BISCHOFF summarized by suggesting those interested in the                 
 captured information should look at the spreadsheet in the bill               
 packet entitled CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD REPOSITORY OVERVIEW, dated            
 2/24/94.  He explained there were eighteen data elements listed               
 which are already in place.  On the national level, he said there             
 were approximately 53 million records, with 500 thousand of those             
 in Alaska, and 150 thousand currently indexed with the FBI system.            
 MR. BISCHOFF explained Alaska should enter into compacts because              
 Alaska has such a small share of the total criminal history record            
 population.  In the South 48, most of the crimes involve going                
 across state lines, and he explained how Alaska would benefit by              
 being able to access these systems.  He further explained Alaska              
 will be held to the same standards as the rest of the states in               
 terms of indexing criminal records, and he gave some examples where           
 it would have helped if Alaska had access to records from other               
 MR. BISCHOFF quoted two thirds of arrests in Alaska are from repeat           
 offenders, and he used this to stress the importance of good clear            
 fingerprint cards.  He explained how the identity can be known or             
 verified from fingerprints, and gave some examples of how the                 
 process would enable police to be more efficient and effective in             
 their jobs.  He thought this would offset any increase in cost.               
 SENATOR LITTLE asked if he was talking about an automatized                   
 fingerprint and whether it was currently used.                                
 MR. BISCHOFF said they were, and SENATOR LITTLE asked if it was a             
 paper fingerprint, but not computerized.                                      
 MR. BISCHOFF explained Alaska has an automated fingerprint                    
 identification system, which also networks with approximately eight           
 other Western States, with a combined access of about 12 million              
 fingerprint records.                                                          
 SENATOR LITTLE asked if there was a central Alaska location for the           
 access, and MR. BISCHOFF explained there was currently two points             
 of contact in Anchorage.                                                      
 Number 448                                                                    
 SENATOR LITTLE asked MR. BISCHOFF if the network would be expanded            
 with the implementation of SB 276.                                            
 MR. BISCHOFF explained SB 276 would not be the direct basis for               
 expansion, but as more criminals are added to any system, the more            
 the records in the system will grow.  This would include persons              
 who apply for employments or need a background check for any reason           
 and would also be added to the data base.                                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR expressed amazement at the speed the State of                  
 Washington dispatchers could respond to an officer who had called             
 in a license plate number or even a vague description of a car,               
 even from another state.  He was also amazed at the amount of                 
 information that could be given on the individual driving the                 
 vehicle, including a description of the person.  He hoped Alaska              
 would have a system that good.                                                
 MR. BISCHOFF assured SENATOR TAYLOR that Alaska uses the same                 
 system as the State of Washington along with the rest of the United           
 States and Canada, and is known as the National Law Enforcement               
 Telecommunications System, which allows message traffic from all of           
 those states and Canada.                                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR described the arrest of persons in Alaska for                  
 innocuous offenses, only to find they are wanted elsewhere, and he            
 recalled some experiences in this respect when records were not               
 readily available for law enforcement.                                        
 MR. BISCHOFF described the innovations in technology and explained            
 currently a low-cost pilot program was being implemented on two               
 live scans, one of which will be placed the 6th Avenue jail, which            
 will allow for the remote printing of fingerprint cards at Tudor              
 Road to be sent to his PROMIS staff for verification while the                
 person is being detained at the correction facility.  MR. BISCHOFF            
 thought the success of this program might be a future subject for             
 a capital appropriation, to more fully implement the live-scan and            
 remote verification from corrections booking locations across the             
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked CHIP TOMA for waiting and invited him to               
 testify on SB 276.                                                            
 MR. TOMA testified in support of SB 276, and he gave some history             
 on the guidelines for obtaining certain criminal information and              
 the right of privacy in public safety records.                                
 Number 502                                                                    
 MR. TOMA explained all of the bills and previous research were                
 generated by the lack of statutes and regulations concerning the              
 privacy, security, access, and importantly - the release of                   
 criminal records and the need for control to prevent the misuse of            
 those records.  He thought SB 276 addressed the deficiencies in               
 state law, which he noted are in federal law.                                 
 Despite his support, MR. TOMA claimed SB 276 has been remiss in               
 providing adequate protection, and he said the door was still open            
 to the abuse of records, both state and federal.  He asked the                
 committee to consider some minor, but substantive, amendments to              
 the legislation.  Specifically on page 7, line 1, after the word              
 maintained, he asked that the words or released be added, and that   hat  
 an be substituted for the before agency in the same line.  He             
 explained why he thought there should be an account of the records            
 released, which he said would clear up the problem of the abuse of            
 records.  SENATOR TAYLOR discussed his proposed changes with MR.              
 TOMA to give a clear understanding of the changes.                            
 Additionally, MR. TOMA referred to page 9, line 23, to suggest that           
 after records, the following should be inserted, and maintains for    or   
 at least three years the name of the person or agency that is to             
 receive the information, the date the information was released, the     e    
 purpose of the request, and the nature of the information; and....    ..   
 He explained both of these additions tie the release of information           
 to the audit procedures envisioned under page 6, line 29 of this              
 legislation, and he said the purpose of the request was on page 9,            
 line 27, where it addresses the purpose.                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR checked to be sure he had noted the wording, and MR.           
 TOMA reiterated his proposed changes, which he said would tie it to           
 the audit procedures, which are envisioned under the paragraph (3)            
 beginning on page 6, line 29.  SENATOR TAYLOR urged MR. TOMA to             
 MR. TOMA directed attention to page 3, lines 7 through 9, and asked           
 that may be substituted for the word shall.  MR. TOMA thought the    he   
 clause was too strong, should not be mandatory, and he explained              
 his reasoning.  He thought using the word shall would postpone the     e    
 MR. TOMA reiterated his support for SB 276, and SENATOR TAYLOR                
 asked MR. GUANELI to comment on the recommended amendments, which             
 he tagged as Amendments #1, #2, and #3, beginning with the first              
 amendment on page 7, line 1.                                                  
 Number 557                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI said he would have to consult with Public Safety on the           
 suggestion to keep track of released information, to determine the            
 feasibility of the suggestion, and he reviewed the present release            
 procedures, which is usually done by phone.  He considered the cost           
 of keeping track of each time an officer in the field calls into a            
 dispatcher, who checks the computer and releases the information to           
 the officer.                                                                  
 MR. GUANELI was directed to Amendment #2 on page 9, which would be            
 to maintain the record information for three years, and to include            
 the purpose of the request.  He in turn directed the committee to             
 the number of provisions on page 7, beginning on line 14 and going            
 all the way to page 9, line 27, and he discussed the thirteen                 
 specific categories of people or agencies to whom information maybe           
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. GUANELI to comment separately on two                 
 different changes, the first being, the legislation as drafted                
 would require the department to record the name of the person or              
 agency to receive the information, and MR. TOMA asked that the                
 record be kept by the department for three years.  MR. GUANELI had            
 no problem with that change.  SENATOR TAYLOR noted that as Part A.            
 SENATOR TAYLOR directed MR. GUANELI'S attention to Part B, which              
 included the words dealing with the purpose of the request.                   
 Number 585                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI clarified the statutory authority under Sec. 12.62.170            
 subsection (b) paragraph (1) through (13) to conditionally approve            
 of MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, but thought it might be inappropriate             
 to ask the person seeking the information to state a specific                 
 purpose.  He suggested it might be released under the stipulation             
 of Sec. 12.62.170 subsection (b) paragraph (10), which addresses              
 current offender information in prison or under supervision.  He              
 thought requiring a criminal justice agency to state with a lot of            
 specificity ...                                                               
 TAPE 94-10, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 ... may be inappropriate, but suggested it could be released under            
 Sec. 12.62.170 subsection (b) paragraph (4), which includes a broad           
 SENATOR TAYLOR concluded with MR. TOMA'S Amendment #3 on page 3,              
 line 8, which substitutes may for shall.                                  
 MR. GUANELI indicated no problem with the proposed change in words,           
 but the Department of Corrections had requested the specific word             
 shall, and he quoted the department as being worried about the              
 fiscal implications of regulations that might impact them.                    
 SENATOR JACKO asked about the effect indicated by MR. TOMA if shall    l   
 was left in the sentence.                                                     
 MR. GUANELI thought, because the advisory board was going to be               
 composed of a number of commissioners, including the commissioners            
 of Corrections and Public Safety, the agency concerns would be met,           
 and whether it is may or shall probably won't make any difference.   ce.  
 He didn't have a problem either way.                                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR thought it was because the commissioner was mandated           
 to consult, but not necessarily listen.                                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR invited WILLIAM COTTEN, Executive Director for the             
 Alaska Judicial Council to comment on the bill.                               
 MR. COTTEN quoted the Alaska Judicial Council as supporting this              
 important legislation to assist the council in working better and             
 more efficiently, and he reviewed the letter presented by the                 
 judicial council to SENATOR TAYLOR and the Judiciary Committee, as            
 well as the letter submitted to the governor on behalf of the                 
 Criminal Justice Working Group.  He said the working group decided            
 unanimously SB 276 was important legislation, and he was amazed the           
 public defenders, the prosecutors, the local police chiefs, and               
 representatives from Corrections and Public Safety all agreed on              
 the legislation.                                                              
 MR COTTEN referenced his letter of 2/11/94 to quote, "The Judicial            
 Council has an independent interest in this legislation stemming              
 from the legislative directive to the Council last year to work               
 with the criminal justice agencies to develop a plan to coordinate            
 the various criminal justice computer information systems."                   
 MR. COTTEN explained the Council has hired a consultant who agreed            
 with the remainder of the paragraph that, "Accurate and fingerprint           
 backed criminal history is an absolute pre-requisite to coordinate            
 systems.  Information cannot be shared ... unless the systems can             
 accurately identify offenders and tie them to their criminal                  
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. COTTEN to comment on the changes as                  
 suggested by the Judicial Council.                                            
 Number 047                                                                    
 MR. COTTEN referenced page 3, line 30, five working days and it was    as   
 suggested by the consultant it should be shortened to one working            
 day.  He used an argument given by SENATOR TAYLOR to minimize the            
 situation where someone is released from custody before the                   
 identification has been made.                                                 
 MR. COTTEN said the other change would be to include the Judicial             
 Council on the Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, as                
 referenced on page 1, line 6, Sec. 12.62.100.  SENATOR TAYLOR                 
 agreed the Judicial Council needed information to conduct studies             
 on sentencing.                                                                
 MR. COTTEN explained the Judicial Council in the past several years           
 has had some experience and perspective on the criminal justice               
 system as a whole in trying to get the various computer parts of              
 the system to work together, and he gave some background on his               
 reasons.  Included in these was their formation of the Computer               
 Coordination Policy Group, which includes representatives from all            
 the same departments, but without a public member.                            
 SENATOR TAYLOR referred to page 2, line 8, and suggested it would             
 be new paragraph (9), and he asked MR. COTTEN, whom he would like             
 to see represented on the Advisory Board.  MR. COTTEN said there              
 should be someone representing the Judicial Council, the executive            
 director or a designee.                                                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved Judicial Council Amendment #1 on page 3                  
 changing the word five to the word one.  He discussed with SENATOR   TOR  
 LITTLE the use of qualifier, but it was decided none was needed.              
 The amendment was adopted with no objections.                                 
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved Judicial Council Amendment #2 on page 2, line            
 7, following board insert (9) the Executive Director of the Alaska    ka   
 Judicial Council or the executive director's designee.  The                  
 amendment was adopted with no objections.                                     
 Number 101                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #1, on page 7, line 1,              
 which would insert or released after maintained, and replace the   the  
 word the with an in the same sentence.  He was not sure he would     d    
 support the amendment.                                                        
 SENATOR JACKO asked SENATOR TAYLOR why he objected to the                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR quoted MR. GUANELI who suggested the dispatchers               
 would have to record a release of information, which might cause a            
 recording problem.  He also thought it was covered in Amendment #2.           
 SENATOR JACKO and SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the ramifications of the           
 SENATOR LITTLE posed a hypothetical example, and suggested with               
 computers it would easy to record the information using some kind             
 of code.  SENATOR TAYLOR said it might be a duplication of the next           
 section, Sec. 12.62.170, which requires keeping a record of who               
 received the information.                                                     
 MR. TOMA didn't think the two sections were mutually exclusive, but           
 explained his amendment would tighten up the information release              
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BISCHOFF to assist in the discussion.                
 MR. BISCHOFF outlined the exchange as to how long and what is                 
 maintained for audit purposes and said there were two elements plus           
 some traditions involved in the information system.  He described             
 those persons and agencies with whom the system would enter into a            
 written agreement as to the extent of the access and the rules and            
 regulations to follow.  He pointed out the penalties for violations           
 including the termination of the agreement.                                   
 MR. BISCHOFF then discussed who should receive the information, and           
 said if it was a criminal justice agency, all pertinent information           
 would be logged in a computer journal.  He then explained the                 
 dissemination process for such agencies as HESS and DFYS.  SENATOR            
 TAYLOR said all he discussed was presently required, and he                   
 returned the discussion as to how MR. TOMA'S recommended amendment            
 might change or disrupt the system.                                           
 MR. BISCHOFF misunderstood the question and there ensued a                    
 discussion of what was required of the question from SENATOR                  
 Number 153                                                                    
 MR. BISCHOFF explained the amendment would add to the information             
 dissemination, which SENATOR TAYLOR said was covered in the next              
 section.  MR. BISCHOFF said the goal, in terms of maintaining the             
 criminal history data base, is to keep the records complete,                  
 accurate, and timely available to legitimate user.  He paraphrased            
 the intent of MR. TOMA'S amendment to keep the records for three              
 years and indicate who, where, and why.  SENATOR TAYLOR said he was           
 MR. BISCHOFF explained currently he assumed the information was for           
 criminal justice purposes, and he further explained the data base             
 has approximately 50 thousand queries and updates a month, making             
 about 600 thousand transactions per year.  He discussed the data              
 entry impact and the need for a purpose code in the system, or else           
 to provide a description line in the log.                                     
 Number 202                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR explained the proposed legislation, SB 276 in Sec.             
 12.62.170, would include the request made by MR. TOMA in his                  
 Amendment #1.  After some discussion and no objection from the                
 committee, SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his  previous motion.                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, Part A, on page 9,              
 line 23, after the word records, to insert the words and maintains    ns   
 for at least three years.  He noted that MR. GUANELI and MR.                 
 BISCHOFF had no objections to the amendment, and there being no               
 objections from the committee, Amendment #2, Part A carried.                  
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, Part B, on page 9,              
 line 24, following  released, but before the , the words, the            
 purpose of the request.  He said MR. GUANELI had an objection,               
 because he couldn't figure out what the purpose might be, and he              
 asked MR. BISCHOFF if he had any objections.                                  
 MR. BISCHOFF was concerned that since it would be secondary                   
 information, it might incur some additional costs.  MR. TOMA                  
 defended his amendment saying it tied into the word purpose on page    ge   
 9. line 27, and would strengthen paragraph (4).                               
 SENATOR TAYLOR said the word purpose was still undefined, but he            
 had no objection to the amendment.  He suggested this might be used           
 in implementing the Brady Bill.                                               
 MR. GUANELI proposed instead of language about the purpose of the             
 request, that the request be supported by statutory authority which           
 permits release of the information.  SENATOR TAYLOR asked if would            
 be pursuant to ... and MR. GUANELI gave some suggested language.              
 SENATOR LITTLE questioned whether it would explain any particulars            
 about requests for the information.                                           
 Number 258                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI gave an example of a reporter requesting information on           
 a convict and said the language would not tell the reason for the             
 request.  SENATOR TAYLOR explained it would be more of a recording            
 SENATOR TAYLOR rescinded his previous motion and proposed an                  
 amendment to page 9, line 25, following the ; to insert and the     e    
 statutory authority that permits such release; and.  He asked MR.            
 TOMA if he understood the amendment, and he had no objections.                
 SENATOR TAYLOR restated the motion for SENATOR LITTLE, reading the            
 amended paragraph (4).  There were no further objections to the               
 SENATOR JACKO questioned page 9, lines 18 through 21, requiring               
 fingerprint identification.                                                   
 MR. GUANELI said there was a commentary accompanying SB 276 on                
 sexual analysis, which would explain some of these provisions.  He            
 said fingerprint comparison is going to be the preferred method of            
 identification, but in some cases the name and date of birth will             
 be sufficient identification.  There was a general discussion to              
 clarify the use of fingerprints, such as for day care operators and           
 their employees.                                                              
 Number 309                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI and MR. BISCHOFF both stressed the need for accurate              
 records and positive identification, and MR. BISCHOFF gave an                 
 example of an inmate in Corrections with twenty four aliases for              
 one set of fingerprints.  He said, on the national level, finger-             
 prints are the only reliable source of identification.                        
 SENATOR TAYLOR introduced MR. TOMA'S Amendment #3 on page 3, line             
 8 to replace shall with may.  There were no objections to the             
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 276 as amended                   
 (CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION) from committee with individual                 
 recommendations.  Without objections, so ordered.                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects