Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/19/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB33 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
3:36:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to pretrial release; relating to sentencing;
relating to treatment program credit toward service of a
sentence of imprisonment; relating to electronic monitoring;
amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
He advised that this bill was last heard last Thursday 3/14/19
and public testimony was heard and is closed. Written testimony
may be submitted to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov until 6:00 pm
this evening, assuming the bill moves from committee today. He
noted that there was one amendment for the committee to
consider. He noted who was available to answer questions.
3:36:58 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1030\M.1, on behalf of Senator Reinbold as sponsor.
31-GS1030\M.1
Radford
3/15/19
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR REINBOLD
TO: CSSB 33(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "38.2"
Insert "5(a), 38.2,"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "48 [24]"
Insert "72 [24]"
Page 9, line 21:
Delete "48 [24]"
Insert "72 [24]"
Page 13, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
DIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. Rule 5(a), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read:
(a) Appearance Before Judicial Officer After
Arrest.
(1) Except when the person arrested is
issued a citation for a class C felony, misdemeanor,
or a violation and immediately thereafter released,
the arrested person shall appear before a judicial
officer without unnecessary delay and in any event
within 72 hours [24 HOURS] after arrest, absent
compelling circumstances, including weekend days and
holidays.
(2) If
(A) the judicial officer commits the
arrested person to jail for a purpose other than
to serve a sentence, and
(B) the jail is situated in a
different community from the place where the
judicial officer committed the arrested person to
jail, and
(C) the arrested person is not
represented by counsel, and
(D) the arrested person has not
previously had a bail review, and
(E) the arrested person has no date,
time and place established for his or her next
court appearance,
then the arrested person shall appear before
a judicial officer the next business day
(i) in order for bail to be
reviewed, and
(ii) in order to determine if the
person is represented by counsel, and
(iii) in order for the counsel to
be appointed, if appropriate.
(3) The responsibility for ensuring that
the arrested person appears before a judicial officer
as specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection shall be borne equally by
(A) municipal police officers and
municipal jail personnel, and by
(B) state troopers, state jail
personnel, and all other peace officers.
No distinction shall be drawn between cases
in which arrest was made pursuant to a warrant
and cases in which arrest was made without a
warrant.
(4) Whenever the person arrested on a
warrant appears before a judicial officer other than
the one who issued the warrant, the complaint and any
other statement or deposition on which the warrant was
granted must be furnished to the defendant and must be
communicated to the judicial officer before whom the
person arrested appears.
(5) Whenever a person arrested without a
warrant appears before a judicial officer, a complaint
shall be filed forthwith.
(6) Judicial officers and jail facilities
shall be available at all times to receive bail, and
each judicial officer individually shall have
authority to delegate this duty to the person
admitting the defendant to jail, or to such other
person as shall in the determination of a judicial
officer be qualified for this purpose."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, line 22:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 22 - 25"
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 22 - 25"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
3:37:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that the amendment modifies the title and
changes the timeline for arraignments from 24 to 72 hours. She
offered that 72 hours allows the troopers time to interview
witnesses and allows more time for the victim who may be too
"beat up" to be interviewed right away. She shared that both
troopers and police officers have complained to her repeatedly
"that the guys or gals are getting released before the ink is
dry on the reports." She said 72 hours allows more flexibility,
particularly in rural communities where resources are less
available and crime is higher.
3:38:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI recalled that earlier testimony from the court
indicated that 48 hours was already the outside limit and there
wasn't any need to extend beyond that. He questioned the
necessity of the amendment.
3:39:41 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Council, Administrative Service, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
suggested it might be best if the sponsor also explained her
view. She confirmed Senator Kawasaki's recall that the court
system schedules arraignments for court appearances within 24
hours. Current law allows up to 48 hours and that extension is
used occasionally for such things as the defendant is not in
shape to appear in court. She noted the statute also allows the
prosecutor up to 48 hours to gather the evidence for the bail
hearing. "But the court does schedule them within 24 hours."
CHAIR SHOWER asked her to comment on the situation Senator
Reinbold cited about the victim being in such bad shape they
were unable to provide information.
MS. MEADE suggested he ask law enforcement to comment on that
because she didn't have that information.
3:41:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if witnesses are called in an arraignment.
MS. MEADE replied not usually.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the courts requested the proposed
extension and if the court feels the extension is necessary.
MS. MEADE clarified that the courts did not request the
amendment. She noted that she previously testified that the
courts schedule arraignments within 24 hours. The law allows up
to 48 hours, but the court's perspective is that more time is
not needed.
3:42:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that the amendment is not about the
courts; it is about the troopers and victims. She commented on
pretrial delays and the emphasis that the courts place on the
defendant and that the process is not victim oriented.
3:43:40 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, introduced herself.
3:43:57 PM
MICHAEL DUXBURY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, Anchorage, explained that rural Alaska has Village
Police Officers (VPOs), Tribal Police Officers(TPOs), and
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs). VPSOs have a good amount
of law enforcement training whereas the VPOs and TPOs need help
and guidance from the Alaska State Troopers to prepare the
reports and charging documents in a format that is acceptable to
the courts. He described the process in Bethel as an example.
When the troopers arrive in the morning, they are likely to find
up to six reports on the FAX machine from VPOs and TPOs in
outlying areas. Because of the lack of training, the information
in these reports - about probable cause for example, may not be
in an acceptable format for the court. The troopers contact the
VPOs or TPOs to supplement and clarify the reports before they
are sent to the court. This may take some time because the
village officers may have gone off shift. In these circumstances
the extended timeframe is helpful, he said.
3:46:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he sees a need to extend the timeframe to
72 hours.
MR. DUXBURY offered his personal opinion that 48 hours is better
than 24 hours and 72 hours could sometimes be important.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the need for a longer timeframe is unique
to Alaska because of geography and weather.
MR. DUXBURY replied, "In a place that is one-fifth the size of
the United States with only 13,500 miles of road, this is
definitely one of our issues."
CHAIR SHOWER asked the Department of Law to comment on the
timeline.
3:47:52 PM
MS. SCHROEDER said 72 hours would provide more flexibility in
the scenarios that Mr. Duxbury described. The Department of
Law's perspective is that it trails the Court System and will
continue to show up whenever there are hearings.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there may be constitutional or unintended
consequences associated with extending the timeline to 72 hours.
MS. SCHROEDER replied DOL did not assess the amendment for
constitutional issues, but would not recommend extending beyond
72 hours
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the amendment would increase costs because
people would potentially stay in jail longer.
MR. DUXBURY said he didn't believe this would generate a fiscal
note from the troopers.
3:50:02 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she sees a lot of benefit in providing
more flexibility in the timeline. This could potentially reduce
costs associated with travel and staffing on holidays and
weekends and reduce stress on prosecutors that she's heard have
morale issues.
MS. SCHROEDER said it would be difficult to assess any cost
savings because DOL will continue to show up when the courts
hold hearings and the court has said it will continue to arraign
people within 24 hours. She confirmed that there is a fiscal
impact associated with the district attorney offices in
Anchorage and Fairbanks staffing up on weekends to help the
prosecutor handle the inflow.
3:52:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Ms. Meade why the court wouldn't want to
avoid some weekend work if it reduced costs somewhat. "Is there
a reason we feel like we need to get to an arraignment within 24
hours?"
MS. MEADE replied the current law is 24 hours so that is what
the court follows. She noted that at some point in the past the
timeline was changed to 48 hours, but the courts continued to
arraign people within 24 hours. She described the Anchorage
"jail court" that's held on the weekends. A judicial officer
goes to the Anchorage jail and starts arraignments at noon. What
used to take a couple of hours can now last until 5:00 pm, she
said, so it would not be feasible to wait and arraign all those
people on Monday. She said she anticipates the court will
continue to schedule arraignments on the weekends to keep up
with the work.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified for the public that Senate Bill 91
reduced the arraignment timeline from 48 hours to 24 hours, the
courts continued to hold arraignment hearings within 24 hours of
arrest, the administration's SB 33 returns to 48 hours, and Mr.
Duxbury testified that the flexibility in extending the timeline
to 72 hours would be helpful [in rural Alaska]. He asked Mr.
Duxbury to comment.
3:55:33 PM
MR. DUXBURY said his intent was to relay his experience that the
24 hour timeline has been difficult in the circumstances he
described and that 48 hours provided welcome flexibility for
troopers to better support TPOs, VPOs and VPSOs in the villages.
He clarified that he was not testifying in support of or
opposition to 72 hours because he did not have any experience
with or data for that timeline.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what process is followed when somebody isn't
arraigned within 24 hours.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that if DOL doesn't communicate with the
court to get a special dispensation, the risk is that the case
would be dismissed. She added that DOL does watch the clock and
communicates with the court when it's warranted.
3:57:22 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the courts, public safety, and the
district attorney's office would respond to the proposed change
to 72 hours.
MR. DUXBURY said he didn't have enough experience to say any
more than the fiscal note would be indeterminate. However, it
would provide the flexibility to allow an officer who has been
up all night and working on overtime to go home for some needed
rest and go to court after the weekend.
MS. MEADE said she did not anticipate any operational or fiscal
impact on the Court System by changing the timeframe from 24
hours to 48 hours or 72 hours.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the administration is asking to
change the timeline to 48 hours to provide time for such things
as engaging in conversations with the court about structuring
arraignments. The current law does not provide any flexibility
for such things.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there is data to show that cases have been
dismissed because time ran out.
4:00:10 PM
MS. MEADE said she was not aware of any data about that, but
Section 3 of the bill says a person can be held up to 96 hours
if law enforcement or others legitimately need the time.
CHAIR SHOWER said the struggle is to strike the right balance
between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused.
4:01:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD restated her reason for offering the amendment
had nothing to do with the Court System. Rather, it's that 24
hours is too rushed to ensure that the charging documents are
prepared correctly and this puts the public at risk. Law
enforcement has repeatedly said they don't have time and she
believes that extending the timeline to 72 hours would help
rural communities. Some people in the Department of Law have
also acknowledged that the extension would be helpful when
weather is a factor. She opined that the extension would save
money and improve morale. She said she intended to withdraw the
amendment but wanted the discussion on the record. "We've got
some serious issues; we need to become far more victim-centered
and not so much defendant-centered," she said.
4:04:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 1.
SENATOR COGHILL clarified that he made the motion. He added that
he did not support the amendment but appreciated the sponsor
clearly articulating the benefit of pretrial services and the
risk assessment tool.
4:04:30 PM
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew Amendment 1, work order 31-GS1030\M.1.
SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that she did not talk in support of
the pretrial risk assessment tool. She said she hates that tool
but does support watching people pretrial.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further amendments and stated that the CS
for SB 33 is before the committee for final discussion.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion and solicited a motion.
4:05:44 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 33, version M, from committee
with individual recommendations, attached fiscal note(s), and
authorization for legislative legal to make appropriate
conforming technical changes.
4:06:02 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected to state that there is obviously a
fiscal impact to SB 33. He said he highlighted the lack of
determinate fiscal notes during the last hearing and he doesn't
like to move a bill from committee without clarity on the costs.
SENATOR KAWASAKI removed his objection.
CHAIR SHOWER advised that the judiciary committee will look
closely at the provisions for electronic monitoring and the risk
assessment tool.
SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that the most important costs are
those to victims, businesses, and society, not the state.
4:07:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and CSSB 33(STA) moved
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| Gov. Appointee, Police Standards Council - Jennifer Winkelman - resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Jennifer Winkelman - Resume |
| SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| M.pdf |
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
CS for SB 33 Ver. M SB 33 |
| SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 Leg. Legal Accompanying CS Memo.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - Dept. of Law Memo.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #1 - DOL.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #2 - DPS.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #3 - DOA-Public Advocacy.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #4 - DOA-Public Defender Agency.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #5 - DOC-Pre-Trial Services.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - FN #6 - DOC-Instution Director Office.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - REVISED FN - Court System.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 Amendment #1 - Sen Reinbold.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| Gov. Appointee, Personnel Board - Johnson -resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
craig johnson resume |
| Gov. Appointee, Human Rights Commission - Sanders -resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
MArcus sanders resume |
| Gov. Appointee, APOC-Hancock -resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Suzanne Hancock Resume |
| Gov. Appointee, APOC-McDermott -resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
James McDermott Resume |
| Gov. Appointee, APOC-Stillie -resume.pdf |
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Rick Stillie Resume |