Legislature(2003 - 2004)

04/02/2004 09:10 AM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
       SB 170 - CRIMINAL LAW/SENTENCING/PROBATION/PAROLE                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN moved to adopt version I as the working document                                                                   
before the committee. Without objection, the motion carried.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DEAN GUANELI,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney General,  Criminal                                                               
Division, Department of  Law, thanked the committee  for the hard                                                               
work it has done on SB 170. He then offered to answer questions.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Guaneli  to standby because the committee                                                               
was  given two  proposed  amendments from  the Public  Defender's                                                               
Office on short notice.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN  referred to  Section 17  on page  10 of  version I,                                                               
regarding   violation  of   custodian's  duties,   and  said   he                                                               
understands the  intent but  has spoken  with foster  parents who                                                               
have ended up being third parties  for foster children who got in                                                               
trouble. He said  the intent is to go after  people who blatantly                                                               
disregard  their duty  and  are not  diligent  about holding  the                                                               
released  party accountable.  He  said Senator  French made  some                                                               
excellent points  about the risk  to the public when  people fall                                                               
down  on those  duties.  He  pointed out  that  in reality,  some                                                               
infractions  do  not get  reported.  For  example, if  the  court                                                               
orders the  offender to  be at  home by  10:00 and  the custodian                                                               
does not  report the offender  at 10:01  for not being  home, the                                                               
custodian  could  be guilty  of  a  class  A misdemeanor  if  the                                                               
offender was  a felon. He expressed  concern that the idea  is to                                                               
hold  people  accountable  and not  to  criminalize  every  minor                                                               
infraction, but the bill is not written that way.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said  he had a couple of responses  to Senator Ogan's                                                               
concerns.  He  said he  does  not  believe  Section 17  covers  a                                                               
situation of foster  parents whose children get  in trouble. Line                                                               
12  specifically refers  to  a person  released  under AS  12.30,                                                               
which are  the bail statutes.   He said theoretically  that could                                                               
involve someone under  18 who is charged with  drunk driving, but                                                               
most juvenile  offenses are dealt  with in juvenile  court, which                                                               
falls under Title 47. He continued:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     If the  court says  something like 'be  in at  dark,' I                                                                    
     think there's a range of  reasonableness that has to be                                                                    
     applied  but if  a judge  thinks it's  important enough                                                                    
     that  a person  have a  specific curfew  at a  specific                                                                    
     hour,  then I  guess then  the  question is  - and  the                                                                    
     judge directs  the custodian, you know,  if this person                                                                    
     isn't  in by  10:00,  I'm ordering  you to  immediately                                                                    
     report  that to  the police  -  are you  willing to  do                                                                    
     that? Yes I  am, your honor. You  understand that there                                                                    
     are  penalties associated  with  that? Yes  I do,  your                                                                    
     honor, and I'm still willing to do that.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     I guess  to me it's  a judicial decision that  10:00 is                                                                    
     more important  than 10:01 and  I'd rather leave  it to                                                                    
     the judge  to make that  decision than someone  who has                                                                    
     undertaken responsibility  and given  a promise  to the                                                                    
     judge  that they  would undertake  that responsibility.                                                                    
     And when  you're talking about people  who are released                                                                    
     on  felony offenses,  I think  that that  is a  weighty                                                                    
     responsibility. I  know the judge  is always  very good                                                                    
     about  making  sure  the  custodian  understands  their                                                                    
     duties so  I guess I'd have  to say I think  the system                                                                    
     works  by allowing  the judge  to make  a determination                                                                    
     whether  10:00  is  so important  or  whether  daylight                                                                    
     hours,  which gives  them  a  little more  flexibility.                                                                    
     That's my response.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS said  he agrees that with adult  offenses where the                                                               
conditions of  release are the  conditions of  imprisonment, they                                                               
would have no leeway  if they were in jail. He  said if he agreed                                                               
to take  on a certain  responsibility, he  should live up  to the                                                               
terms of that agreement. He  believes that provision was meant to                                                               
protect the  public as much as  anything else. He then  said when                                                               
one talks about  the boundaries of an  infraction, the infraction                                                               
becomes a whole new term.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  said the Municipality  of Anchorage has  had this                                                               
law on  its books for a  couple of years  at least and he  is not                                                               
aware   of  any   third   party   custodians  being   egregiously                                                               
overcharged.   He said the  legislation is crafted to  relate the                                                               
penalty  to the  offense and  every person  has the  right to  go                                                               
before a  jury if charged with  a crime. He doubted  a jury would                                                               
convict a person  for not reporting a 10:01 violation  on a 10:00                                                               
curfew.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR THERRIAULT  said a  constituent asked  him to  consider a                                                               
potential  amendment.  The  constituent  is  a  referee  who  was                                                               
assaulted by  a parent as the  result of his officiating  a game.                                                               
The  constituent  asked him  to  consider  creating a  heightened                                                               
crime for  assaulting a sports  official. He countered  by saying                                                               
he would  consider adding that  crime to the list  of aggravators                                                               
for sentencing. The  legal drafters suggested adding  a number 31                                                               
to AS 12.55.155. He read the proposed amendment:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     The   defendant   knowingly    directed   the   conduct                                                                    
     constituting  the  offense  at  a  sports  official  or                                                                    
     referee during or because of  the exercise of duties as                                                                    
     a sports official or referee.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
He asked  Mr. Guaneli if he  had any comments on  whether such an                                                               
amendment would be workable.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  said that when presumptive  sentencing circumscribes                                                               
the sentencing  discretion, an aggravating  factor can  allow the                                                               
judge to go  beyond that. Aggravating factors  currently apply to                                                               
those  who  knowingly  direct illegal  conduct  toward  a  police                                                               
officer or  emergency responder. He  noted that a few  bills were                                                               
recently introduced  to expand the coverage  to include teachers,                                                               
education officials  and possibly clergymen. He  said the concern                                                               
is whether  the legislature wants  to expand  aggravating factors                                                               
that were  provided for people  involved in  inherently dangerous                                                               
occupations to  a wider  range of  activities that  people engage                                                               
in. He said that is a  matter of legislative policy. He concluded                                                               
that when  the judges feel  the conduct is egregious  enough, the                                                               
judge has the sentencing authority to  address that so he was not                                                               
certain  that  expanding  those   protections  to  a  referee  is                                                               
necessary to achieve justice.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN  said he has  trouble creating different  classes of                                                               
people for which  a crime is elevated because  of that particular                                                               
class of person. He believes  the elevated level is justified for                                                               
police officers  and emergency responders  because they  must put                                                               
themselves in harms way.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  shared Senator  Ogan's  concerns  and said  that                                                               
judges  know  when an  outrageous  crime  has happened  in  their                                                               
communities, which could include a crime against a referee.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS  jested that  he has found  sports officials  to be                                                               
very aggravating at times.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  THERRIAULT said  he  did not  intend  to distribute  the                                                               
amendment and was asking to determine the correct policy call.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  moved  to  adopt Amendment  1,  which  reads  as                                                               
follows.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                      A M E N D M E N T  1                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                           
     To: CSSB 170(JUD) Work Draft 23-GS1024\I  4/1/04                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Page 9, line 15                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1(4)  with  criminal  negligence  and when  as  determined  by  a                                                           
chemical test taken  within four hours after  the alleged offense                                                           
was  committed,  there is  0.05  percent  or  more by  weight  of                                                           
alcohol  in  the person's  blood  or  50  milligrams or  more  of                                                           
alcohol  per 100  milliliters of  blood,  or when  there is  0.05                                                           
grams or more  of alcohol per 210 liters of  the person's breath,                                                           
causes  serious  physical  injury under  AS  11.81.900(55)(B)  to                                                           
another person by means of a dangerous instrument.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS  objected for the  purpose of discussion  and asked                                                               
for a cross-reference to the correct page in version I.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  said it  would replace language  on page  9, line                                                               
15.  He then  said the  idea is  to avoid  prosecuting the  "cell                                                               
phone,  make-up application  on  slippery  roads" scenarios  that                                                               
could  cause car  collisions that  might  result in  a charge  of                                                               
assault in the third degree. It  narrows the scope of the bill to                                                               
those instances where there's enough  alcohol involved to justify                                                               
a finding of criminal negligence.  He said in his experience, .05                                                               
percent amounts to at least three or four beers.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI read the definition as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Serious physical injury means  a physical injury caused                                                                    
     by an  act performed under circumstances  that create a                                                                    
     substantial  risk  of  death or  physical  injury  that                                                                    
     causes    serious    and   protracted    disfigurement,                                                                    
     protracted  impairment of  health,  protracted loss  or                                                                    
     impairment of the  function of a body  member, organ or                                                                    
     that unlawfully terminates a pregnancy.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He explained  that as a  practical matter, that often  amounts to                                                               
an injury more serious than a  broken limb because most juries do                                                               
not  find a  broken limb  to be  a protracted  loss. He  said the                                                               
quintessential example  of a serious  physical injury  is someone                                                               
who ends up in a wheelchair.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH said the annotated  statutes say that a broken jaw                                                               
constitutes  a serious  physical injury  and a  grand jury  could                                                               
find  injuries to  the  eyes  and skull  to  be serious  physical                                                               
injuries. He  said the (a)  subsection is more inclusive  and the                                                               
(b) subsection is fairly narrow.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Wilson to testify.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LINDA  WILSON,  Deputy  Director,  Public  Defender  Agency,                                                               
Department of Administration,  said the effort made  to trim down                                                               
the  definition of  "serious physical  injury"  is in  subsection                                                               
(a), which  requires physical injury  caused by an  act performed                                                               
under circumstances that create a  substantial risk of death. She                                                               
said anything  involving a car  accident creates a risk  of death                                                               
so that could apply to any  physical injury that resulted from an                                                               
accident.  She said  the definition  in (a)  is overly  broad and                                                               
would  include any  scratch  or  bump that  resulted  from a  car                                                               
accident. She said limiting it to  the (b) definition gets to the                                                               
targeted group -  that being people who  sustain serious physical                                                               
injuries. She disagrees with Mr.  Guaneli about what qualifies as                                                               
a serious physical  injury. She added that  including the alcohol                                                               
requirement  pinpoints   the  targeted   group  and   avoids  the                                                               
unintended group, such as cell phone users.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN  asked why it  is narrowed  to alcohol use  only and                                                               
does not include drug use. He noted  he would like it to apply to                                                               
marijuana and controlled substance use.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI said,  in regard  to Senator  French's comment  that                                                               
this  would  avoid prosecutions  based  on  cell phone  use,  for                                                               
example,  he does  not believe  the state  prosecutes anyone  for                                                               
collisions caused  by cell phone  use. Senator Ogan  introduced a                                                               
bill several  years ago to at  least allow the state  to revoke a                                                               
person's license if  no crime was committed but a  person died as                                                               
a result of a crash. He spoke  to Senator Ogan at that time about                                                               
people driving too fast on  slippery roads and causing a fatality                                                               
as  a  result. The  state  simply  cannot prosecute  those  cases                                                               
because that behavior does not  rise to a prosecution level under                                                               
criminal negligence and the standard  mental states. As a result,                                                               
Senator Ogan's  bill was enacted  but it  only gives a  judge the                                                               
discretion to  take away  someone's license. He  said there  is a                                                               
much more  serious offense  called criminally  negligent homicide                                                               
but  those  prosecutions  are  very rare.  He  pointed  out  that                                                               
prosecutors nationwide simply cannot  prosecute every driver in a                                                               
car crash  that causes a death.  Cases of death that  result from                                                               
car crashes are  handled under wrongful death in  civil courts or                                                               
through insurance claims.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI said  with respect  to narrowing  the definition  of                                                               
serious physical  injury, Ms. Wilson indicated  that the elements                                                               
could be  met by minor  injuries resulting  from a car  crash. He                                                               
remarked that  a horrendous car  crash caused by a  person acting                                                               
with criminal negligence where the  car is completely mangled but                                                               
only  minor  injuries  are  sustained  is  equally  deserving  of                                                               
punishment because it  is only fortuitous that  the person walked                                                               
away  with  minor injuries.  The  Department  of Law  favors  the                                                               
original version.  He believes  this version  is much  too narrow                                                               
and will  frustrate the department  because it will be  unable to                                                               
prosecute.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON  said she  sees two parts  to Senator  Ogan's question                                                               
about controlled substances. She explained:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Controlled substances,  I believe, if you're  driving I                                                                    
     believe   with  a   controlled  substance   other  than                                                                    
     alcohol, I  think you probably  could be  charged under                                                                    
     the  impairment statute,  which would  probably qualify                                                                    
     for  reckless. I  think  you  could address  controlled                                                                    
     substances  beyond  alcohol,  which seemed  to  be  the                                                                    
     targeted group  with that. On  the question  about that                                                                    
     the DAs  or the prosecutors cannot  prosecute, we never                                                                    
     prosecute,   I  certainly   want  to   caution  against                                                                    
     adopting  that approach.  The  DAs  have an  incredible                                                                    
     amount  of  discretion  and,  unfortunately,  sometimes                                                                    
     they charge things - they  overcharge and I don't think                                                                    
     anybody can dispute that. I  keep hearing over and over                                                                    
     again  'trust us,  trust  us, trust  us'  but our  laws                                                                    
     should  not   depend  on  the   discretion  of   a  DA,                                                                    
     especially a  single DA.  These things  are and  can be                                                                    
     overcharged   and   to   say  that   they're   not   is                                                                    
     disingenuous.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     I  haven't wanted  to bring  up the  Wally Taslow  (ph)                                                                    
     case but that's a  perfect example of overcharging. You                                                                    
     had a vehicular  accident, not much injury,  and it was                                                                    
     charged much higher than it  should have been so to say                                                                    
     that it's not overcharged is not very believable.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   OGAN  said   because  he   believed  some   cases  were                                                               
undercharged, he introduced legislation 10  years ago. He said it                                                               
took him eight years to get that law changed.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEEKINS said  in trying  to figure  out what  is fair  and                                                               
right,  regarding  public  safety, that  to  encourage  selective                                                               
prosecution is very  dangerous. He said he  must feel comfortable                                                               
that  the intent  of the  legislation is  the right  thing to  do                                                               
before he  will pass  the bill  out of committee.  He said  he is                                                               
attempting   to  do   the  right   thing,  not   what  is   least                                                               
controversial.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS reminded  members that Amendment 1  was pending and                                                               
asked if there was further discussion.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH thanked members for  the discussion on Amendment 1                                                               
but said he was persuaded by  Mr. Guaneli that the law as written                                                               
can  be used  in  the right  way. He  then  withdrew Amendment  1                                                               
without objection.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, which reads as follows.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                      A M E N D M E N T  2                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     To: CSSB 170(JUD) Work Draft 23-GS1024\I     4/1/04                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Page 3, line 9:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Sec. 4  AS 04.11.491  is amended  by adding  a new  subsection to                                                               
read:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     (g) If a municipality or established village has adopted a                                                                 
local option under (a)(1),(2),(3), or  (4), or (b)(1),(2), or (3)                                                               
of  this section,  the municipality  or  established village,  as                                                               
part of the local option  question or questions placed before the                                                               
voters, may                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (1) adopt an amount of alcoholic beverages that may be                                                                
imported  that   is  less  than   the  amounts  set  out   in  AS                                                               
04.11.150(g);                                                                                                                   
          (2) adopt an amount of alcoholic beverages that would                                                                 
give  rise  to  a  presumption  that  the  person  possessed  the                                                               
alcoholic  beverages for  sale;  the amounts  adopted under  this                                                               
paragraph may be lower than those set out in AS 04.11.010(c);                                                                   
          (3) adopt an increased penalty for furnishing or                                                                  
delivery of alcoholic  beverages to persons under  21 pursuant to                                                           
AS 04.16.051(d)(3).                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Page 4, lines 17-19:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Sec. 7 AS 04.16.051(d) is amended to read                                                                                       
     (d) A person acting with criminal negligence who violates                                                                  
this section is guilty of a class C felony if                                                                                   
          (1) within the five years preceding the violation, the                                                                
person has been previously convicted under                                                                                      
               (A) this section; or                                                                                             
               (B) a law or ordinance of this or another                                                                        
jurisdiction   with  elements   substantially  similar   to  this                                                               
section; [OR]                                                                                                                   
          (2) the person who receives the alcoholic beverage                                                                    
negligently causes  serious physical  injury to  or the  death of                                                               
another  person  while  under  the  influence  of  the  alcoholic                                                               
beverage  received   in  violation  of  this   section;  in  this                                                               
paragraph,                                                                                                                      
               (A) "negligently" means acting with civil                                                                        
negligence; and                                                                                                                 
               (B) "serious physical injury" has the meaning                                                                    
given in AS 11.81.900; or                                                                                                     
          (3) the violation occurs within the boundaries of a                                                               
municipality or the perimeter of  an established village that has                                                           
adopted a  local option and  the increased  penalty of a  class C                                                           
felony under AS 04.11.491.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                              
CHAIR SEEKINS objects for the purpose of discussion.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  OGAN says  this amendment  makes it  a local  option for                                                               
people who  live in areas who  have voted to be  "dry" to ratchet                                                               
up  the penalties  for offenders  who supply  alcohol to  minors.                                                               
Since  the  community  has identified  alcohol  as  a  particular                                                               
problem, the "local  option" part of the  legislation would allow                                                               
the local  community to put  it on  the ballot and,  for example,                                                               
raise the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON agreed that is exactly what the amendment does.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Wilson  to provide an explanation for the                                                               
amendment and the purpose for proposing it.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON said  the point of the amendment was  to let the local                                                               
option area choose  how to deal with those who  supply alcohol to                                                               
a minor.  It lets local areas  choose whether or not they want to                                                               
ratchet up the offense from a misdemeanor to a class C felony.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEEKINS asked  Ms.  Wilson  if she  is  familiar with  the                                                               
definition of  an established village under  statute, and pointed                                                               
out that  it is  any group  of 25 people.   He  asked her  if she                                                               
believes that  we should allow any  group of 25 people,  at their                                                               
own discretion, to vary the state penalty.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON suggested tightening  the definition of an established                                                               
village.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  asked if  the municipality  or village  could set                                                               
the infraction above a Class C  felony, i.e., if the local option                                                               
areas could label the offense as a Class B or Class A felony.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WILSON referred  to  section 7,  which  allows an  increased                                                               
penalty if there are prior  convictions.  She suggested adding an                                                               
option in  section 4  to allow for  increased penalties  and then                                                               
limit the increase.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN recognized  that local areas must  already adopt the                                                               
local  option   as  law  and   questioned  the  criteria   of  an                                                               
"established  village" in  regards  to the  ages  of the  village                                                               
members.   In  that  light, he  is hesitant  to  extend too  much                                                               
leeway to village members for the purpose of law interpretation.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  proposed  to  amend the  amendment  in  Sec.  4,                                                               
subparagraph  3, to  read "adopt  an increased  penalty of  a 'C'                                                               
felony  for  furnishing or  delivery  of  alcoholic beverages  to                                                               
persons under 21 pursuant to AS 04.16.051(d)(3)".                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS  asked and heard  no objections but  voiced concern                                                               
regarding  the change  of  the  level of  penalty  and asked  for                                                               
further discussion.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  said he understands  from most village  leaders that                                                               
there are  two purposes for  the local option laws,  which create                                                               
immediate benefit  to village society:   1) stops  domestic abuse                                                               
and crimes by  adults therefore lessening social  problems and 2)                                                               
teaches young  people that use  of alcohol is unacceptable.   The                                                               
long-term goal of  the villagers is to limit the  use of alcohol,                                                               
especially to  young people.   The original draft  reflects these                                                               
goals.  Dry   villagers  are  particularly  offended   by  people                                                               
supplying  alcohol  to  minors since  they  made  the  deliberate                                                               
effort to  vote the  village dry.   He  feels this  current draft                                                               
puts an  additional burden  on the  villagers to  hold additional                                                               
elections.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-32 SIDE B                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI added  that he thought we ought to  uphold the intent                                                               
of  the  villagers  who voted  to  go  dry;  it  ought to  be  an                                                               
aggravated offense and recognized as such.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEEKINS  iterated  that  he  is  most  interested  in  the                                                               
amendment, which  could allow unincorporated  groups to  have too                                                               
much leeway.   He also questioned the need to  revise the current                                                               
penalty.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN  stated the people  in the villages should  have the                                                               
ability  of  self-determination to  decide  whether  they have  a                                                               
problem and  how to address  the problem.  This  amendment serves                                                               
that purpose.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  clarified that  currently,  the  law states  the                                                               
first  offense is  a  misdemeanor  and the  second  offense is  a                                                               
felony.   He states  that the effect  of the  amendment basically                                                               
allows local areas  the option of raising the level  of the first                                                               
offense to a felony or leaving it as a misdemeanor.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH added  - to the point that the  local areas decide                                                               
whether they want  to be dry or  not.  He stated  support for the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OGAN opined  that he is willing to give  the local option                                                               
but would rather the state set the penalties.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Amendment  2 failed  with Senators                                                               
Ogan  and French  voting  in favor  and  Senators Therriault  and                                                               
Seekins voting against.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS referred  to a letter received  from Legal Services                                                               
and the Revisor  of Statutes regarding section 32  of the current                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                      A M E N D M E N T 3                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
"*Sec 32 AS 47.12.310 (c) is amended to read:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     (c) A state or municipal law enforcement agency                                                                            
          (1) shall disclose information regarding a case that                                                                  
               is  needed by  the person  or agency  charged with                                                               
               making   a  preliminary   investigation  for   the                                                               
               information of the court under this chapter;                                                                     
          (2) may disclose to the public information regarding                                                                  
               a criminal offense in which  a minor is a suspect,                                                               
               victim, or witness if the  minor is not identified                                                               
               by the disclosure;                                                                                               
          (3) may disclose to school officials information                                                                      
               regarding a  case as may  be necessary  to protect                                                               
               the  safety of  school  students and  staff or  to                                                               
               enable   the   school   to   provide   appropriate                                                               
               counseling  and supportive  services  to meet  the                                                               
               needs  of  a  minor   about  whom  information  is                                                               
               disclosed.                                                                                                       
          (4) Or a state or municipal agency or employee may                                                                
               disclose  to the  public  information regarding  a                                                               
               case as may be necessary  to protect the safety of                                                               
               the public; and                                                                                                  
          (5) May disclose to a victim or to the victim's                                                                       
               insurance  company  information, including  copies                                                               
               of reports, as necessary for civil litigation or                                                                 
               insurance claims pursued by or against the                                                                       
               victim."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS  heard no objections  to the  amendment, recognized                                                               
there  was  also an  amendment  to  the  title and  directed  the                                                               
committee's focus  to Section  25, which was  also included  as a                                                               
concern in the memorandum from Legal Services.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI expressed concern over  the suggested revised wording                                                               
and would prefer to have time  to review it. His main concern was                                                               
about interpretation  in a court  of law  and he wants  to ensure                                                               
that the language written in the document is clear.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEEKINS  asked  that  Amendment 3  be  withdrawn  for  the                                                               
moment.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEEKINS asks  for public testimony and hearing  none SB 170                                                               
is moved out of committee.                                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects