Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

02/19/2019 03:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 6:00 p.m. --
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
-Public Testimony Estimated to Start at 6:00 pm-
<Time Limit May Be Set>
           SB  33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                       
3:33:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER announced  the consideration of Senate  Bill 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  asked Mr.                                                               
Skidmore to go through the sectional analysis for SB 33.                                                                        
3:34:06 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  SKIDMORE, Director,  Criminal Division  Department of  Law,                                                               
Anchorage, provided the following overview of SB 33:                                                                            
     Section 1:  Legislative intent. Expressing  intent that                                                                    
     the  Alaska  Court  System  use  videoconferencing  for                                                                    
     pretrial hearings.                                                                                                         
     Section 2:  Increases the amount of  time available for                                                                    
     an  arraignment to  happen from  24 hours  to 48  hours                                                                    
     from the  time of  arrest. Eliminates  language related                                                                    
     to  proceeding with  an arraignment  regardless of  the                                                                    
     availability  of  a  risk  assessment  conducted  by  a                                                                    
     pretrial services officer.                                                                                                 
He advised that  when the law changed in  2016, arraignments were                                                               
still held  within 24 hours  of arrest in  95 percent or  more of                                                               
the  cases.  The expectation  is  that  this will  continue.  The                                                               
benefit of  48 hours is that  it allows more discretion  in three                                                               
areas:  1)  when  arrests  occur on  weekends  and  holidays  the                                                               
additional day provides  relief for prosecutors who  are not paid                                                               
to work on those days; 2)  when a case is particularly complex it                                                               
may take  more time to  determine the appropriate charge;  and 3)                                                               
when the volume of cases is high  in any one day it may translate                                                               
to  rushed  analyses.  He  pointed out  that  when  Alaska  first                                                               
adopted the 48 hour rule in  2010, just two other states required                                                               
arraignments within  24 hours. The  other states all  had systems                                                               
that allowed more time.                                                                                                         
3:38:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked what  happens when  an individual  is not                                                               
arraigned within the required time.                                                                                             
MR. SKIDMORE replied he has  not encountered that, but a possible                                                               
consequence  would be  the case  is dismissed,  the defendant  is                                                               
released, and the state would need to refile charges.                                                                           
SENATOR  MICCICHE  noted that  the  language  in the  bill  says,                                                               
"including  Sundays and  holidays" but  it does  not specifically                                                               
say "Saturday." He  further noted that the  language continues to                                                               
say  that the  requirement applies  to municipal  police officers                                                               
and  the troopers.  He questioned  why that  sentence remains  in                                                               
Section 2 because there are only state courts.                                                                                  
MR. SKIDMORE explained that while  Section 2 doesn't specifically                                                               
say weekends,  it's clear that  it is always 48  hours regardless                                                               
of  what type  of  day it  may have  been.  Regarding the  second                                                               
question, he said  the language makes it clear  that this applies                                                               
in  all cases  whether the  charge is  by a  municipality or  the                                                               
state. He  also agreed that  there are no municipal  courts, just                                                               
state courts.                                                                                                                   
CHAIR SHOWER  asked if the  specific listing of  municipal police                                                               
officers and troopers blanket-covers  any officer that might make                                                               
an arrest.                                                                                                                      
MR. SKIDMORE replied  the rule is meant to  be inclusive applying                                                               
to any  and every peace  officer who  is making an  arrest. While                                                               
there  are officers  beyond those  two designations,  he had  not                                                               
considered whether an amendment was needed to be more specific.                                                                 
CHAIR SHOWER commented that it seems to be a loophole.                                                                          
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section  3:  Eliminates  language  related  to  a  risk                                                                    
     assessment conducted by a pretrial services officer.                                                                       
He related that in some  respects this is a conforming amendment,                                                               
but  the language  is also  removed because  the risk  assessment                                                               
tool  has  fundamental  flaws.  If  the  policy  decision  is  to                                                               
continue  to use  a risk  assessment  tool, it  needs be  refined                                                               
before it's used in state law.                                                                                                  
     Section  4: Eliminates  language  requiring a  judicial                                                                    
     officer  to review  any condition  of release  that has                                                                    
     prevented  the  defendant  from  being  released.  Also                                                                    
     eliminates  language requiring  a  judicial officer  to                                                                    
     find  by  clear and  convincing  evidence  that a  less                                                                    
     restrictive  condition  cannot  reasonably  ensure  the                                                                    
     defendant's appearance or the safety of the victim.                                                                        
MR. SKIDMORE said removing the  requirement that the court review                                                               
and change  the conditions  of release  to allow  a person  to be                                                               
released appropriately returns the law  to the pre-Senate Bill 91                                                               
language. Section  4 also appropriately eliminates  the clear and                                                               
convincing  evidence   standard  for  the  court   to  find  that                                                               
additional  restrictions are  needed.  This is  a  return to  the                                                               
prior law  that is based  on a  preponderance of the  evidence in                                                               
what the courts believe to be appropriate.                                                                                      
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section 5: Eliminates inability to  pay as a reason for                                                                    
     a judicial officer to  conduct subsequent bail hearings                                                                    
     and a review of the person's conditions of release.                                                                        
He  explained  that  this provision  indicates  that  the  courts                                                               
should and  can review a  person's bail  status if they  have not                                                               
been released from  custody after 48 hours, but  the inability to                                                               
pay  should not  be  considered new  information  because it  was                                                               
considered initially.                                                                                                           
     Section 6:  Conforming amendment.  Eliminates reference                                                                    
     to AS 33.07.                                                                                                               
     Section 7: Largely reenacts the  bail statute as it was                                                                    
     prior to  January 1,  2018. Eliminates  the requirement                                                                    
     that the  release decision be  tied to a  person's risk                                                                    
     assessment  score.   Eliminates  the   presumptions  of                                                                    
     release  and the  requirement that  a judicial  officer                                                                    
     find  by clear  and  convincing evidence  that no  less                                                                    
     restrictive condition can ensure  the appearance of the                                                                    
     defendant or  safety of the community  or victim before                                                                    
     a judicial officer can impose monetary bail.                                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE explained that under  current law, AS 12.30.011 ties                                                               
the risk  assessment tool  to the  court's determination  of what                                                               
bail  would be  appropriate. The  implementation of  that concept                                                               
was found  to be  flawed and  Section 7 returns  the law  to pre-                                                               
Senate Bill  91 language almost  verbatim. The exception  is that                                                               
there is  a rebuttable  presumption that  there is  a substantial                                                               
risk that  a person charged  with certain types of  crimes either                                                               
will not appear,  or they pose a danger to  the victim or others.                                                               
The  language  is  different  than the  law  pre-Senate  Bill  91                                                               
because  the Alaska  Court  of  Appeals in  Hamburg  v. State  of                                                               
Alaska found it was unconstitutional  to say that reasonable bail                                                               
could not be set for certain persons.                                                                                           
     Section 8:  Eliminates the requirement that  a pretrial                                                                    
     services officer not be available  in the area before a                                                                    
     third-party custodian can be appointed.                                                                                    
He  explained that  current  law says  if  the pretrial  services                                                               
officers in the  Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED)  do not have                                                               
a PED officer available in a  community, a court could consider a                                                               
third-party custodian. When a PED officer is available, third-                                                                  
party custodians could not be  considered. The premise of Section                                                               
8 is the reverse, and instead  gives the court as many options as                                                               
possible in determining what conditions  would be appropriate for                                                               
a person's release.  He said the more options the  court has, the                                                               
more likely it  will find conditions other than  monetary bail to                                                               
ensure the individual will appear  for court hearings and present                                                               
the least risk to the community when they are released.                                                                         
     Section  9:  Reenacts  the  prohibition  on  appointing                                                                    
     individuals who may be called  as a witness in the case                                                                    
     from being appointed as third-party custodians.                                                                            
He  summarized that  somebody with  material information  about a                                                               
case should  not serve as  a third-party custodian.  This section                                                               
also  ensures   the  third-party  will  be   more  objective  and                                                               
reasonable than somebody who has a connection to the case.                                                                      
3:52:14 PM                                                                                                                    
     Section  10: Prohibits  the  court  from granting  jail                                                                    
     credit for  time spent on electronic  monitoring before                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  advised that this  addresses the point  that giving                                                               
somebody jail  credit for being  released pretrial  on electronic                                                               
monitoring  (EM)  does not  fit  the  Chaney criteria  [State  of                                                               
Alaska v. Donald Scott Chaney] for an appropriate sentence.                                                                     
     Section 11:  Conforming amendment  to the  changes made                                                                    
     by section 10.                                                                                                             
     Section 12:  Adds prosecuting authority to  the list of                                                                    
     entities  that   can  be  notified   if  a   person  is                                                                    
     discharged from a treatment program for noncompliance.                                                                     
He  advised  that  prosecutors  want  notification  so  they  can                                                               
request a bail  hearing and the court can  address the conditions                                                               
of  release based  on  the person's  discharge  from a  treatment                                                               
program for noncompliance.                                                                                                      
     Section 13: Limits  the amount of jail  credit that can                                                                    
     be granted  for time  spent in  a treatment  program to                                                                    
     180 days.                                                                                                                  
MR. SKIDMORE  said Section  13, like Section  10, is  designed to                                                               
create  efficiencies  and  eliminate   the  incentive  to  extend                                                               
treatment as long as possible.  He shared his experience that not                                                               
many  treatment programs  last longer  than 180  days and  opined                                                               
that a person who needs  longer treatment should be convicted and                                                               
sentenced before following up with the appropriate treatment.                                                                   
     Section  14:  Conforming  amendment.  Conforms  to  the                                                                    
     change made in section 2.                                                                                                  
     Section 15: Adds authority for  the commissioner of the                                                                    
     department   of  corrections   to  supervise   pretrial                                                                    
He explained that this addresses  the elimination of the Pretrial                                                               
Enforcement  Division and  clarifies that  the DOC  maintains the                                                               
authority  to  supervise pretrial  by  its  probation and  parole                                                               
     Section   16:   Requires   the  commissioner   of   the                                                                    
     department  of corrections  to make  officers available                                                                    
     to  the courts  for pretrial  supervision. Also  allows                                                                    
     the commissioner to contract  with private entities for                                                                    
     electronic monitoring services.                                                                                            
MR.  SKIDMORE  explained  that   SB  33  provides  that  pretrial                                                               
supervision will  be available in every  community throughout the                                                               
state and  this section  allows DOC to  contract with  private EM                                                               
companies to help DOC conduct that supervision.                                                                                 
3:57:44 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  he supports  returning to  private sector                                                               
electronic monitoring.  He asked if individuals  under electronic                                                               
monitoring  could  be  held  responsible  for  the  cost  of  the                                                               
equipment, so they  have some "skin in the game"  and also remove                                                               
the cost burden from the state.                                                                                                 
MR. SKIDMORE replied there would  be potential for individuals to                                                               
be  responsible for  the cost  of renting  the equipment  if they                                                               
were released  directly to  a private EM  company, but  he didn't                                                               
know if that  possibility exists for individuals  released to the                                                               
DOC for monitoring.  He suggested directing that  question to the                                                               
Department of Corrections representative.                                                                                       
3:59:52 PM                                                                                                                    
JEN  WINKELMAN,  Director,  Division  of  Probation  and  Parole,                                                               
Department of Corrections, Juneau,  said the department will need                                                               
to  look into  holding individuals  responsible for  the cost  of                                                               
their  private company  electronic monitoring.  The people  being                                                               
monitored by the Pretrial Enforcement  Division currently are not                                                               
paying for  the EM services.  The department will look  into that                                                               
in the context of the bill, she said.                                                                                           
SENATOR  MICCICHE requested  she provide  the information  to the                                                               
chair  when it's  available. He  also  asked if  the bill  should                                                               
clarify that an individual on  EM would be personally responsible                                                               
for  keeping their  EM equipment  in  working order.  He noted  a                                                               
provider in his district offered this suggestion.                                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN said this matter also  came up in the discussion of                                                               
SB 32 and is something the  department will look into and provide                                                               
an answer to the committee.                                                                                                     
CHAIR  SHOWER offered  his  understanding  that previously  there                                                               
were 13 private EM companies in  the state and now there are just                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN said she wasn't sure about the numbers.                                                                           
CHAIR SHOWER noted the head nod  in the audience. He asked if DOC                                                               
was communicating  with the private  monitoring companies  in the                                                               
state or waiting to see whether or not the bill advanced.                                                                       
MS. WINKELMAN deferred the question to Ms. Goode                                                                                
4:02:27 PM                                                                                                                    
KELLY   GOODE,  Deputy   Director,  Department   of  Corrections,                                                               
Anchorage,  Alaska, advised  that the  department was  waiting to                                                               
see what happens  to the bill but would reach  out to answer some                                                               
of the questions the committee  has raised. She acknowledged that                                                               
Senator Micciche raised  a good question and  reiterated that DOC                                                               
would look into that and give the committee an answer.                                                                          
CHAIR SHOWER  said he raised  the question because  this industry                                                               
has been depressed and he  was concerned about whether they could                                                               
quickly handle the load should the bill pass.                                                                                   
MS. GOODE  said she  would reach  out to  the companies  that are                                                               
still in business and ask what "ramp up" would look like.                                                                       
CHAIR  SHOWER commented,  "We  don't  want to  turn  that on  and                                                               
suddenly realize we don't have the capacity."                                                                                   
SENATOR MICCICHE  opined that electronic monitoring  is a perfect                                                               
example of what the state should not be done in-house.                                                                          
4:04:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  echoed  the  previous  comments  about  making                                                               
individuals responsible  for maintaining their EM  equipment. She                                                               
requested  information  about the  best  and  worst EM  equipment                                                               
currently available.                                                                                                            
MS. GOODE  stated that DOC would  look into matter and  follow up                                                               
with their findings.                                                                                                            
SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized  that, "These people need  to be held                                                               
accountable. Not  only the defendant,  but [also] the  people who                                                               
are providing the services."                                                                                                    
4:06:32 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  observed that private contractors  can generally be                                                               
held  to  a  higher  standard  than the  state.  He  opined  that                                                               
requiring defendants to have skin in  the game is a good idea and                                                               
that the people  who work for these EM companies  and live in the                                                               
community certainly have skin in the game.                                                                                      
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   asked  how  many  people   are  currently  on                                                               
electronic monitoring.                                                                                                          
MS.  WINKELMAN  replied  DOC  currently has  887  people  are  on                                                               
pretrial EM,  and just under  200 people who have  been sentenced                                                               
are on electronic monitoring.                                                                                                   
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked if DOC  does all the  pretrial electronic                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.                                                                                                     
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  asked  how  many  of the  people  who  are  on                                                               
electronic monitoring  post sentence are monitored  by DOC versus                                                               
a private company.                                                                                                              
MS.   WINKELMAN  replied   the  Department   of  Corrections   is                                                               
monitoring  all the  people currently  serving their  sentence on                                                               
CHAIR  SHOWER  commented  that the  three  remaining  private  EM                                                               
companies  must  be  doing  things   in  addition  to  electronic                                                               
monitoring in order to remain financially viable.                                                                               
4:09:30 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was  thinking about requiring electronic                                                               
monitoring to  be privatized; he believes  that having defendants                                                               
compensate the  private company for their  monitoring would shift                                                               
the  majority of  the  cost from  the state.  He  asked what  the                                                               
annual cost is to monitor the  [887] people that are currently on                                                               
pretrial EM.                                                                                                                    
MS. WINKELMAN offered to follow up with the cost information.                                                                   
SENATOR  MICCICHE  expressed  interest  in  getting  the  answer.                                                               
Should  the bill  pass, he  said the  EM numbers  and costs  will                                                               
increase  dramatically and  he didn't  believe  the state  should                                                               
pick  up the  peripheral  segments  of the  costs  that could  be                                                               
picked up by the defendants.                                                                                                    
4:11:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE, responding  to Senator  Shower's earlier  question                                                               
about the  time to ramp  up for increased  electronic monitoring,                                                               
clarified  that   any  proposal  for  electronic   monitoring  is                                                               
something  the  court evaluates.  That  requires  the private  EM                                                               
company to go into court to  confirm they offer the service, what                                                               
it looks like,  and that they are prepared to  offer the service.                                                               
Referring to  Senator Micciche's  comment about mandatory  EM, he                                                               
advised  the  committee  to  keep in  mind  that  providing  some                                                               
flexibility  at  the  start  would allow  a  slow  transition  to                                                               
private  EM   for  the  [887]   people  now  on   DOC  electronic                                                               
monitoring. Subsequent  cases would be under  private EM provided                                                               
a private company was capable of  taking on new cases. This would                                                               
allow the  system to transition  itself without a  requirement in                                                               
the law.                                                                                                                        
CHAIR SHOWER commented that that approach makes sense.                                                                          
4:13:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE continued the Sectional Analysis for SB 33.                                                                        
      Section 17: Clarifies that probation officers may be                                                                      
     made available to district courts.                                                                                         
He  advised that  under current  law, probation  officers do                                                                    
not  have responsibilities  in district  court because  they                                                                    
are  generally assigned  to just  felony cases.  However, if                                                                    
they were  to handle  pretrial services,  they would  have a                                                                    
significant  role in  district  courts.  Section 17  ensures                                                                    
that  they  are available  to  district  courts as  well  as                                                                    
superior courts.                                                                                                                
     Section 18:  Adds pretrial supervision  to the  list of                                                                    
     duties  which  a  probation  officer  may  perform  and                                                                    
     clarifies that  when performing those  duties probation                                                                    
     officers are pretrial services officers.                                                                                   
MR.   SKIDMORE   said   this   section   helps   transition   the                                                               
responsibilities from  a separate pretrial division  to probation                                                               
and parole officers.                                                                                                            
     Section 19: Lays out the  duties of a probation officer                                                                    
     when  acting  as  a pretrial  services  officer.  These                                                                    
     duties   include   arresting  defendants   and   filing                                                                    
     criminal  complaints for  violations  of conditions  of                                                                    
He described  these as critical components  to ensure enforcement                                                               
     Section  20:   Conforming  amendment.   Eliminates  the                                                                    
     reference  to AS  33.07, which  is  where the  pretrial                                                                    
     services  program is  currently  located.  AS 33.07  is                                                                    
     repealed in the bill. SB 33 Sectional Analysis.                                                                            
He explained this helps put the responsibility for pretrial                                                                     
services with probation and parole officers.                                                                                    
     Section  21:   Eliminates  the  requirement   that  the                                                                    
     Department   of  Corrections   report  to   the  Alaska                                                                    
     Criminal Justice Commission  on pretrial defendant risk                                                                    
     levels  and charges  and pretrial  recommendations made                                                                    
     by pretrial services officers.                                                                                             
He  explained that  this maintains  the authority  within DOC  to                                                               
supervise someone pretrial,  but the risk assessment  will not be                                                               
written up  and sent to  the courts.  Therefore, a report  is not                                                               
     Section 22:  Conforming amendment  to the  changes made                                                                    
     in section 23.                                                                                                             
He noted that this updates language in the court rules to                                                                       
reflect the use of new technology. The term "television" is                                                                     
updated to "two-way video teleconferencing."                                                                                    
     Section  23: Expands  the  types  of pretrial  hearings                                                                    
     available   to  the   Alaska   Court   System  to   use                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  said this  section encourages  judges to  use video                                                               
teleconferencing by giving them  the discretion to determine when                                                               
video teleconferencing  would be used  as opposed to  a defendant                                                               
making  that determination.  He  highlighted  that discussion  is                                                               
ongoing with the  Court System to ensure that  the language works                                                               
for  the Court  System.  He  noted that  further  changes may  be                                                               
suggested later on.                                                                                                             
     Section  24:  Allows  a defendant  or  the  defendant's                                                                    
     counsel to consent to a continuance of trial.                                                                              
He explained that  this is to help eliminate  the requirement for                                                               
transportation to  courts. Under  current law, a  continuance can                                                               
only  occur  with  the  defendant's  consent.  This  has  created                                                               
problems  when the  defendant refuses  to consent  to give  their                                                               
attorney more  time to prepare,  the case  goes to trial  and the                                                               
defendant is convicted, and the  defendant subsequently files for                                                               
post-conviction   relief   arguing   that  their   attorney   was                                                               
ineffective.  This is  an effort  to streamline  the process  and                                                               
place the responsibility  on the defendant's attorney  to ask for                                                               
the continuance.                                                                                                                
     Section 25: Repealer section.                                                                                              
He said  the first  repealer is about  credit for  the sentencing                                                               
for  pretrial  electronic  monitoring or  treatment.  The  second                                                               
repealer  deals with  the  Pretrial  Enforcement Division;  those                                                               
duties are transferred to probation and parole officers.                                                                        
     Section 26: Applicability section.                                                                                         
     Section  27:  Transition   section.  Ensures  that  the                                                                    
     Department  of   Corrections  can  still   monitor  any                                                                    
     defendant  that is  currently on  pretrial release  and                                                                    
     under the supervision of  the Department of Corrections                                                                    
     despite  the  transfer  of   that  authority  from  the                                                                    
     pretrial services program to probation.                                                                                    
     Section   28:   Uncodified   law  talking   about   the                                                                    
     requirement  of a  two-thirds majority  vote to  change                                                                    
     the Court Rules discussed in the bill.                                                                                     
     Section 29:  Effective Date. This  Act takes  effect on                                                                    
     July 1, 2019.                                                                                                              
4:22:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  questioned why  the  bill  talks about  danger  to                                                               
victims,  other persons,  or  the community,  but  does not  talk                                                               
about property  crimes despite their  prevalence, in his  area in                                                               
MR.  SKIDMORE clarified  that property  crimes  are not  excluded                                                               
although  not expressly  called out.  This is  the same  language                                                               
that existed  prior to Senate  Bill 91. He directed  attention to                                                               
page 6  that lists  the factors  to be  considered as  to whether                                                               
somebody poses  a danger to  the community.  DUI is one  of those                                                               
crimes  and all  class A  felonies fall  in that  category. Also,                                                               
subsection (c)  on line  29 says  a person  who commits  a felony                                                               
offense  while  on conditions  of  release  is a  presumption  of                                                               
dangerousness  and  should be  taken  into  consideration by  the                                                               
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  if  there are  any  associated  Court  Rule                                                               
MR.  SKIDMORE  replied  he  did not  anticipate  any  Court  Rule                                                               
changes other than those listed in the bill.                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER said he wanted that on the record.                                                                                 
4:26:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD opined  that  DUI  is a  person  crime and  she                                                               
believes in holding  high or drunk drivers  accountable. She said                                                               
she  also wants  a discussion  at some  point about  a particular                                                               
couple who continue to drive impaired and without a license.                                                                    
4:27:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE clarified  that SB  33 is  about pretrial  bail                                                               
4:28:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER found  no further comments and stated  he would hold                                                               
SB 33 in committee.                                                                                                             
He recessed the meeting until 6:00 pm.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA .pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB0033A.PDF SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOL-FN#1.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DPS-FN#2.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#3.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#4.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#5.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#6.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-Court System-FN.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB0034A.PDF SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB 34 Highlights.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB0034-1-2-012319-LAW-N.PDF SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB0034-2-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB0034-3-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
Court System Fiscal Note.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
Court System FN
SB33&34-GOA Bills Matrix 1-30-19.pdf SSTA 2/19/2019 3:30:00 PM