Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

03/12/2019 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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSSB 23(STA) Out of Committee
Moved CSSB 24(STA) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
-Public Testimony Estimated to Start at 6:00 pm-
<Time Limit May Be Set>
+ Consideration of Governor's Appointees: TELECONFERENCED
Boards TBA
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
           SB  33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                       
4:22:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   SHOWER  reconvened   the   meeting   and  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                                                               
4:22:40 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT  HENDERSON, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department of Law, Juneau, introduced himself.                                                                                  
CHAIR SHOWER  directed attention  to the  language in  Section 2,                                                               
page 2,  line 8 and  questioned why the arrest  provision doesn't                                                               
apply   to  peace   officers  generally.   He   also  asked   for                                                               
clarification  of  the difference  in  the  definition for  peace                                                               
officer versus police officer.                                                                                                  
MR. HENDERSON  said, regarding the  first question, it  would add                                                               
clarity to  include VPSOs and  VPOs certified under Title  18. In                                                               
practice, the  troopers are generally  involved when  arrests are                                                               
made by VPSOs  or VPOs and will be the  public entity responsible                                                               
for  getting  the person  to  court  within 24  hours.  Municipal                                                               
police officers provide  the service in the  communities that the                                                               
troopers do  not service.  The answer to  the second  question is                                                               
much  more  complicated, he  said.  In  part it's  because  peace                                                               
officer is defined in at least two places in the law.                                                                           
4:27:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  if people  arrested by  park rangers  or                                                               
citizen's  arrest  are  handed  off  to either  a  trooper  or  a                                                               
municipal police officer for the official arrest.                                                                               
MR. HENDERSON responded that AS  12.25 talks about peace officers                                                               
and [AS 12.25.150] is the  only place that limits the requirement                                                               
to municipal  police officers. If  that reference was  changed to                                                               
"peace  officer,"  any  public servant  authorized  to  make  the                                                               
arrest would be  obligated to bring the person  to the magistrate                                                               
within  24  hours.  Practically, municipal  police  officers  and                                                               
troopers  are  the entities  with  the  means and  mechanisms  to                                                               
ensure the person appears before  the municipal officer. He noted                                                               
that  VPSOs and  VPOs are  certified peace  officers but  may not                                                               
have the means or mechanism  to ensure that person is transported                                                               
and appears before a judicial officer within 24 or 48 hours.                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked how an  arraignment would be  impacted if                                                               
the certified  peace officer was  weathered in and  couldn't meet                                                               
the deadline for the arraignment.  He asked if language should be                                                               
added  to  accommodate  that  scenario  and  not  jeopardize  the                                                               
MR. HENDERSON  said he'd like  public safety to discuss  how they                                                               
would manage that type of scenario.                                                                                             
CHAIR SHOWER noted that VPSOs don't have the same powers.                                                                       
4:30:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that the  discussion on the timeline was                                                               
how to  accommodate the right of  people arrested to go  before a                                                               
magistrate without unnecessary  delay. The idea was  also to have                                                               
someone explain to the magistrate  or judge the reason the person                                                               
was  arrested. He  said  he wants  to  include pretrial  services                                                               
without delay  and have  the 48  hour limit  as the  backdrop. He                                                               
said he'd  like to hear why  the administration chose to  put the                                                               
48  hour requirement  first instead  of last  and eliminated  the                                                               
extenuating circumstances language.                                                                                             
4:32:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  said the collective  reference to 48  hours refers                                                               
to  the  constitutional  obligation   to  ensure  that  a  person                                                               
arrested  is brought  to court  within a  reasonable time.  Under                                                               
U.S. Supreme  Court case law,  states are entitled to  define the                                                               
boundaries  of reasonable  time. The  bill sets  48 hours  as the                                                               
maximum  time.  He  said  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  law                                                               
enforcement  will make  a reasonable  effort to  ensure that  the                                                               
arrestee  appears  before  a  judge  or  magistrate  as  soon  as                                                               
possible. Changing  the maximum limit  to 48 hours  provides more                                                               
flexibility when there are extenuating circumstances.                                                                           
CHAIR SHOWER  said his office  researched precedents for  both 24                                                               
and  48 hours  and  the  U.S. Supreme  Court  held  in County  of                                                               
Riverside v.  McLaughlin that suspects must  generally be brought                                                               
before a court  within 48 hours of arrest. He  noted the footnote                                                               
about court  rule 5 on  page 15 regarding  the 24 hour  rule with                                                               
the intention for 48 hours.                                                                                                     
SENATOR REINBOLD  said she's talked to  a lot of people  and many                                                               
think 72  hours is  better than  48 hours  because of  courts not                                                               
being open  over the  weekend or  court staff  being unavailable,                                                               
and it could  reduce the fiscal impact. She advised  that she has                                                               
an amendment drafted for 72 hours.                                                                                              
4:34:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned whether running  over 48 hours for an                                                               
initial hearing would be an issue.                                                                                              
SENATOR  COGHILL  asked  if  there has  been  a  problem  getting                                                               
arrestees before a judge in 24 hours.                                                                                           
MR. HENDERSON  said he can't  think of a  case where there  was a                                                               
dismissal as  a result of not  meeting the 24 hour  timeframe but                                                               
that's because  the rule was  set and  that became the  norm. The                                                               
bill returns to pre-2016 law to provide flexibility.                                                                            
SENATOR REINBOLD said she'd like to hear from the court.                                                                        
4:36:41 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel,  Administrative Services, Office of                                                               
the  Administrative  Director,  Alaska Court  System,  Anchorage,                                                               
said the statute has gone back  and forth between 24 hours and 48                                                               
hours, but with very few  exceptions all defendants are arraigned                                                               
within  24 hours.  There is  a judicial  officer on  call at  all                                                               
times on weekends. The only  times people have not been arraigned                                                               
within 24  hours were  the rare  situations where  the prosecutor                                                               
asked for more time to gather  information for a bail hearing for                                                               
certain  felonies.  A more  common  reason  for not  meeting  the                                                               
timeline is because the person was  not in a medical condition to                                                               
appear  in court.  Intoxication is  an example  when cases  could                                                               
extend to  48 hours. She said  the court has not  experienced any                                                               
problem with either 24  or 48 hours. Even if the  rule was 48 the                                                               
arraignment  would   occur  within  24  hours   in  almost  every                                                               
situation, she said.                                                                                                            
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  if  the proposed  change  to  provide  more                                                               
flexibility would be helpful for the court.                                                                                     
MS. MEADE replied  the court hasn't had a problem  with either 24                                                               
or 48 hours.  Responding to the chair's summary,  she agreed that                                                               
the change isn't needed based on current information.                                                                           
4:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said  she'd  like  to  reduce  costs  whenever                                                               
possible and that  might include not requiring court  staff to be                                                               
on call  on weekends  and holidays.  She added,  "I've definitely                                                               
heard a different opinion than what you just brought forth."                                                                    
MS.  MEADE said  she can't  identify any  cost that  is added  by                                                               
having judges on call on the  weekend because a judge must always                                                               
be  on call  for not  only this  but also  things like  emergency                                                               
domestic violence (DV)  petitions or child in need  of aid (CINA)                                                               
issues  or  search warrants.  "So  I  can't identify  any  fiscal                                                               
impact from the timeframe," she said.                                                                                           
SENATOR REINBOLD  expressed surprise  that there's no  added cost                                                               
for work done on weekends.                                                                                                      
MS. MEADE  confirmed that judges  and other staff don't  get paid                                                               
extra to  work on weekends. She  added that she cannot  speak for                                                               
the agencies.                                                                                                                   
MR. HENDERSON  clarified that there  will be a fiscal  impact for                                                               
the Department of  Law. The attorneys are salaried  so their cost                                                               
is fixed but support staff is not a fixed cost.                                                                                 
CHAIR SHOWER  requested the  data that  shows what  the increased                                                               
cost might be if the timeline is increased.                                                                                     
MR. HENDERSON said he'd try to get the information.                                                                             
4:41:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  if  the  committee  should  change  the                                                               
definition of peace officers in this section.                                                                                   
MR. HENDERSON said he'd like to  talk to the Department of Public                                                               
Safety (DPS) before he gives a formal answer.                                                                                   
SENATOR MICCICHE said  he was willing to wait for  the answer. He                                                               
then asked  if a process exists  today to apply for  an extension                                                               
beyond 24 hours.                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered yes. He  noted the corresponding change in                                                               
Section 3 of the bill. He  advised the committee should also keep                                                               
in mind  that the  change to  48 hours  would be  consistent with                                                               
Court Rule 5, which allows 48 hours.                                                                                            
SENATOR  MICCICHE  observed  that  unless  somebody  is  arrested                                                               
between 5:00 pm on Friday and  6:00 am on Saturday, it seems that                                                               
a 48 hour timeframe negates the need for weekend services.                                                                      
MS. MEADE said  she understands the point but  it's standard that                                                               
people call  right away  because of  the constitutional  right of                                                               
people to be seen without  unnecessary delay. She also reiterated                                                               
that the  court already has a  judicial officer on call  for many                                                               
SENATOR  MICCICHE  clarified  that   the  question  was  for  Mr.                                                               
Henderson who said the Department of  Law would have to staff for                                                               
weekend calls.                                                                                                                  
MR. HENDERSON  responded that 48  hours would alleviate  the need                                                               
to staff  for Saturday  unless there  is an  arraignment, because                                                               
the prosecution is always present when arraignments occur.                                                                      
4:43:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL advised that he had  a comment on Section 2 and a                                                               
question  about  intent  in  Section 1.  He  explained  that  the                                                               
bookends  for the  24 hour  timeframe were  to provide  swift and                                                               
certain  action and  to recognize  that  there are  good and  bad                                                               
actors and that  some governments are overzealous  and others are                                                               
lazy.  All these  things have  to  be considered  in context,  he                                                               
said. "We  were trying  to get  somebody in front  of a  judge so                                                               
that  they have  to  answer,  but they  also  have  the right  to                                                               
He asked Ms.  Meade to comment on the intent  language in Section                                                               
1 and  discuss what the  court is  doing now to  video conference                                                               
pretrial hearings.                                                                                                              
4:45:06 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  MEADE  responded  that  she  has  been  discussing  possible                                                               
language modifications  in Section  1 and the  corresponding rule                                                               
changes  relating to  video conferencing  with the  Department of                                                               
Law  and they  are considering  those suggestions.  She said  she                                                               
raised her  eyebrows a little  when she read the  intent language                                                               
because there is already a  lot of video conferencing between the                                                               
court system  and jails. The  courts are 100  percent responsible                                                               
for that happening,  she said, and 100 percent of  the savings is                                                               
attributed  to  the  Department   of  Public  Safety  (DPS).  She                                                               
acknowledged that  the legislative  intent language does  no harm                                                               
because the court will continue  to work on finding efficiencies.                                                               
She listed  the advantages of  video conferencing  including that                                                               
it is safer  not transporting prisoners and not  having them move                                                               
around in  the courthouse,  it's better for  DOC because  they no                                                               
longer have  to search people when  they leave and return  to the                                                               
facility, and it's  better for DPS fiscally. The  court system is                                                               
dedicated to  video conferencing and  the Supreme Court  has made                                                               
it a priority  for [information services] staff to  work on this.                                                               
She cited  an example at  the Anvil Mountain  Correctional Center                                                               
to demonstrate that the court  system purchases and maintains the                                                               
video conferencing  equipment in  the jails throughout  the state                                                               
and will continue  to do so. She noted that  the executive branch                                                               
shares in the cost of the equipment but not the staff time.                                                                     
She described  the legislative intent language  as acceptable but                                                               
not required.                                                                                                                   
SENATOR  COGHILL  opined that  everyone  should  work to  further                                                               
video conferencing  not just  the court system.  He asked  if the                                                               
language  in the  court rule  change has  to work  in conjunction                                                               
with the intent language.                                                                                                       
MS. MEADE responded  that she has been talking  to the Department                                                               
of Law about  modifications in all three court  rule changes. She                                                               
related  that  she  suggested changing  the  intent  language  in                                                               
Section 1 to say that the  Court System, the Department of Public                                                               
Safety, and  the Department  of Corrections  continue to  work on                                                               
increasing the  use of  video conferencing.  The language  in the                                                               
other court rules is modified a little to allow more discretion.                                                                
She  talked  about  the  work  the  Supreme  Court  has  done  to                                                               
carefully craft the  video conferencing rule. She  said the court                                                               
system carefully considered the changes  proposed in the bill and                                                               
suggested  modifications  to  reflect   what  the  Supreme  Court                                                               
believes ought to happen with video conferencing.                                                                               
SENATOR COGHILL  expressed interest  in looking at  the suggested                                                               
4:49:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  MEADE  added that  the  Court  System is  reexamining  their                                                               
fiscal  note  in   light  of  this  being  a   priority  for  the                                                               
administration and the legislature, and  they may ask for funding                                                               
for the positions and equipment to continue to do this work.                                                                    
SENATOR  KAWASAKI asked  if somebody  who is  arraigned by  video                                                               
conference has counsel present.                                                                                                 
MS.  MEADE  offered  her  understanding that  there  may  not  be                                                               
defense counsel present for arraignments  in Fairbanks. She added                                                               
that whether counsel is present  and has the ability to privately                                                               
consult with their  client is one of the  big problems associated                                                               
with  video conferencing.  To  be  approved, there  has  to be  a                                                               
privately   accessible  phoneline   and   a   room  for   private                                                               
conversations  at DOC.  This has  been  identified as  a need  in                                                               
Fairbanks and she didn't know if that had changed.                                                                              
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked how a  public defender  would communicate                                                               
with  a  defendant  who  is arraigned  by  video  conference.  He                                                               
questioned  whether they  are being  deprived of  their right  to                                                               
have counsel present in this circumstance.                                                                                      
MS. MEADE said she'll look  into where and when the communication                                                               
happens. She  reiterated that providing  a means for  the defense                                                               
to  talk  to  their  client   is  a  sticking  point  with  video                                                               
conferencing,  and  it's  particularly  important  in  subsequent                                                               
hearings. That's  the reason  video conferencing  isn't available                                                               
in every jail.                                                                                                                  
4:52:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  expressed  concern  about  victims,  that  the                                                               
courts allow  so many  pretrial delays, that  so many  people are                                                               
released, and  that tens of  thousands of people are  affected by                                                               
the horrible crime epidemic. "We need to do something about it."                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL  commented that  there are a  couple of  sides to                                                               
video conferencing.  One is how  quickly it's done and  the other                                                               
is the right to counsel.  In video conferencing somebody could be                                                               
intimidated or  have a language  barrier of some sort.  He opined                                                               
that the  intent language isn't wrong  and expressed appreciation                                                               
for Ms. Mead's work on the bill.                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Shanigan to  speak to the policy change of                                                               
taking pretrial services out of  the probation section because he                                                               
has  a  broad law  enforcement  background  and can  provide  the                                                               
perspective of someone on the street.                                                                                           
4:55:16 PM                                                                                                                    
TERRENCE  SHANIGAN,  Staff,  Senator Mike  Shower,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau,  stated that  when he talked  to corrections                                                               
officers about  the pretrial  services unit,  he learned  that it                                                               
was initially  staffed both by seasoned  corrections officers and                                                               
by  people who  had no  experience  in corrections.  Many of  the                                                               
corrections officers  that were hired  for the new unit  had been                                                               
probation officers  and that  is how  they are  still classified,                                                               
although they  perform the duties of  pretrial services officers.                                                               
Corrections officers  also pointed out the  redundancy in current                                                               
law that  separates people who  perform pretrial  services duties                                                               
and  probation officers,  because it  essentially designates  two                                                               
people to  do one person's job.  They suggested it would  be more                                                               
streamlined if the duties of  pretrial had been combined with the                                                               
duties of  the probation  officer. Their  reasoning is  that this                                                               
would take advantage of institutional knowledge.                                                                                
MR. SHANIGAN  said he's also  asked people outside the  system if                                                               
all parts of  the pretrial services unit should  be discarded and                                                               
the answer  was no. The  pretrial services duties  addressed some                                                               
of  the very  good  parts of  Senate Bill  91.  For example,  the                                                               
pretrial services component allows  some prevention activities in                                                               
a specialized situation.  He said that may have  a fiscal impact,                                                               
but the cost of pretrial services could be supported privately.                                                                 
He directed  attention to Section  15, line 18, that  talks about                                                               
the  powers  of the  commissioner  and  describes establishing  a                                                               
probation  system. Then  Section  16 returns  to  talk about  the                                                               
pretrial services  officer. He described  it as  an uncomfortable                                                               
nuance to  ask probation officers  who still identify as  such to                                                               
do pretrial work.  He cautioned against losing  the good elements                                                               
of  the pretrial  services unit  in the  responsibilities of  the                                                               
commissioner. He  pointed to Section  19 that adds a  new section                                                               
titled  "Duties of  probation officers  when  acting as  pretrial                                                               
services officers."  and advised that  it would be  more accurate                                                               
to say,  "Duties of probation  officers when  conducting pretrial                                                               
services  responsibilities."   This  goes   to  the   point  that                                                               
probation officers are  clear that they continue  to be probation                                                               
officers  even  though  they were  performing  pretrial  services                                                               
CHAIR SHOWER drew  an analogy between F15 pilots  and F16 pilots.                                                               
F15C pilots  are air to air;  they specialize in one  mission and                                                               
get very  good at it. An  A10 pilot specializes in  air to ground                                                               
and they get very  good at it. There are also  a lot of platforms                                                               
that  specialize in  a  lot of  things and  it's  hard for  those                                                               
people to be good at all the missions.                                                                                          
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the upcoming committee schedule.                                                                          
5:02:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER recessed the meeting to 6:00 pm.                                                                                   
6:11:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  reconvened  the   Senate  State  Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting and opened public testimony on SB 33.                                                                         
6:12:19 PM                                                                                                                    
KATIE  BOTZ, representing  self, Juneau,  asked if  the committee                                                               
was taking testimony  on repealing Senate Bill 91  or comments on                                                               
SB 33.                                                                                                                          
CHAIR SHOWER clarified the hearing was on SB 33.                                                                                
MS. BOTZ responded  that she wanted to testify  about Senate Bill                                                               
CHAIR SHOWER  explained that the  governor filed four  bills this                                                               
year  that  relate to  changes  to  Senate  Bill 91  and  Senator                                                               
Micciche filed one  bill on the topic. He asked  if she wanted to                                                               
testify on  SB 33, which  would change the law  regarding arrest,                                                               
release, sentencing, and probation.                                                                                             
SENATOR MICCICHE  said he can't apologize  for the administration                                                               
for  posting a  very confusing  Facebook  note,   but all  [five]                                                               
bills relate to  Senate Bill 91, they're just split  up by topic.                                                               
He said  you have  expressed interest  in SB  35 that  relates to                                                               
sexual  assault.  SB  33  specifically   relates  to  arrest  and                                                               
pretrial  bail issues.  He suggested  she  give her  view on  the                                                               
Senate  Bill  91  issue  and the  committee  would  consider  the                                                               
MS.  BOTZ  offered  her  understanding  that  there  is  lots  of                                                               
confusion  associated  with  Senate   Bill  91  regarding  police                                                               
officers and state troopers not being  able to do their jobs. She                                                               
voiced  support for  returning to  the "basic  of what  our state                                                               
troopers and what  our police officers are supposed  to do." That                                                               
is protect  the people,  keep criminals  in prison,  and ensuring                                                               
that  communities are  safe.  She said  the  reports that  police                                                               
officers  and state  troopers don't  think  they are  able to  do                                                               
their jobs adequately is very  frustrating and it's reduced these                                                               
professionals' standing in the public's eye.                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER asked  if she supports or opposes SB  33, which does                                                               
repeal portions of Senate Bill 91.                                                                                              
6:16:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BOTZ replied, "I do support SB 33."                                                                                         
6:17:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  VAN  LINDEN,  Alaska  Therapeutic  Court  Alumni  Group,                                                               
Juneau,  Alaska, during  the hearing  on SB  33, stated  that the                                                               
pretrial services  unit helped funnel people  into the previously                                                               
underutilized therapeutic  court in Juneau  to get the  help they                                                               
needed. He said it's also  important to not discriminate based on                                                               
the ability to  post bail. He summarized his opinion  is that the                                                               
pretrial services unit  provides a great service  that hasn't had                                                               
enough time  to work.  "We need  to give this  a little  bit more                                                               
time before we start repealing anything."                                                                                       
6:18:41 PM                                                                                                                    
DON  HABEGER, Community  Coordinator, Juneau  Re-entry Coalition,                                                               
Juneau, advised  that the  history of this  coalition is  that it                                                               
was functioning prior to criminal  justice reform and Senate Bill                                                               
91. When Senate Bill 91  was enacted, the coalition supported the                                                               
provisions  that  allow  people  that   want  to  return  to  the                                                               
community and  become productive members. The  coalition supports                                                               
giving good  tools like the  pretrial assessment to the  court to                                                               
make  informed  decisions. He  said  the  evidence suggests  that                                                               
anybody assessed as  low risk is at increased  risk to recidivate                                                               
if  they are  mixed with  a  high risk  criminal population.  The                                                               
coalition opposes this.  He asked the committee to  be mindful to                                                               
provide appropriate exit strategies for  those who want to return                                                               
to their community and be participating members.                                                                                
6:20:50 PM                                                                                                                    
ERIK REED,  representing self, Wasilla,  shared that  on December                                                               
13, 2017  he and his  family were struck  by a drunk  driver. His                                                               
wife was  killed and he  and his son  survived but are  left with                                                               
ongoing  trauma. The  drunk driver  was  released on  third-party                                                               
monitoring and  he said he  feels that it  would be a  tragedy if                                                               
this  man was  able to  apply his  EM time  against his  ultimate                                                               
sentence. "He gets  to spend all his time with  his wife and kids                                                               
and his family, but my son and I,  we have nothing. We go to PTSD                                                               
counseling  every  week."  He  said  the focus  seems  to  be  on                                                               
rejuvenating criminals  but they're not held  accountable and the                                                               
victims  are  forgotten.  He  stressed   the  unfairness  of  the                                                               
process. He urged the committee  to send a message that criminals                                                               
don't get out of jail free.                                                                                                     
CHAIR SHOWER expressed  condolences for his loss  and assured him                                                               
the committee is considering that perspective.                                                                                  
6:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked Mr. Reed  for his testimony and asked if                                                               
he supports SB 33.                                                                                                              
MR.  REED   replied  he  supports  anything   that  makes  people                                                               
accountable  for the  crimes they  are guilty  of. He  emphasized                                                               
that  he  doesn't  support  anything  that  doesn't  hold  people                                                               
accountable for their crimes.                                                                                                   
CHAIR SHOWER  asked if he  supports SB  33, "which takes  it back                                                               
to,  in   many  cases,  pre-Senate   Bill  91   arrest,  release,                                                               
sentencing etc. Do you concur with that?"                                                                                       
MR. REED said yes.                                                                                                              
6:26:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SAMANTHA LIGHT, representing  self, MatSu, stated that  SB 33 has                                                               
good parts and she agrees that  the court needs to be more active                                                               
in  timely case  management.  She voiced  support for  electronic                                                               
monitoring  and  related  her  son's  story  to  demonstrate  its                                                               
benefit.  Parts of  SB 33  that she  doesn't support  include the                                                               
rebuttable  presumption. She  worries  that  her 20-year-old  son                                                               
won't be  able to resume his  life until age 35.  She understands                                                               
that  crime is  rampant and  she  appreciates what  the state  is                                                               
doing to protect its citizens.                                                                                                  
6:29:39 PM                                                                                                                    
KARA  NELSON,  representing self,  Juneau,  stated  that she  was                                                               
testifying in  opposition to SB  33. Some of the  reasons include                                                               
eliminating  the  credit  while on  electronic  monitoring  (EM).                                                               
There is no evidence that this  will further public safety but it                                                               
will  deter people  from getting  help. [technical  difficulties]                                                               
She  voiced  support  for  the  use  of  video  conferencing  for                                                               
pretrial hearings. However,  SB 33 generally returns  to a system                                                               
that does not  work. She said she appreciates  that the committee                                                               
is committed to  avoid things that create harm such  as bail that                                                               
people can't pay and long times  in jail pretrial. She said there                                                               
is ample evidence showing this creates less public safety.                                                                      
6:32:03 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT DORTON, representing self,  Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that                                                               
he  opposes SB  33  primarily because  it  eliminates credit  for                                                               
receiving rehabilitative services  while on electronic monitoring                                                               
(EM). He  shared that he was  sent to prison on  drug charges and                                                               
was  released  on electronic  monitoring  after  three years.  He                                                               
takes responsibility for what he's  done and since he was granted                                                               
EM, he has  done things to turn his life  around. He acknowledged                                                               
that it  is rare, but  people do  change their behavior  and make                                                               
amends with  their community.  He listed the  things he  is doing                                                               
personally to live  a better life. He has been  drug-free for six                                                               
years and he  credits Senate Bill 91 for his  current success. He                                                               
urged the committee to give Senate Bill 91 another cycle.                                                                       
6:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SCOTT OGAN,  representing self, Seldovia,  stated support  for SB                                                               
33.  He said  he  does not  like  the Alaska  he  lives in  today                                                               
because  of crime  issues. He  recounted  the crimes  he and  his                                                               
family have suffered the last three years.                                                                                      
CHAIR SHOWER  noted that his son  in law's truck was  broken into                                                               
last week while he was taking testimony on a crime bill.                                                                        
6:36:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER closed  public testimony on SB 33 and  held the bill                                                               
in committee.                                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB0023A.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB0024A.PDF SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB24 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB23 Follow up to SSA.3.6.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
LEG.PFD.Supplemental.SB23.SB24.2.8.19.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
Letter re SB 23 and SB 24 permanent fund dividend payments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB23-24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 23 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
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
SB0033A.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
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
SB33-DOL-FN#1.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
SB 33
SB33-DPS-FN#2.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
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#3.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
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#4.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
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#5.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
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#6.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
SB 33
SB33-Court System-FN.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
SB 33
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (In Favor) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Organizations Opposed).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Opposed) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Various) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24