Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

03/14/2019 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
Heard & Held
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Heard & Held
+ Consideration of Governor's Appointees: TELECONFERENCED
Boards TBA
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
            SB  33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                      
3:56:59 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 said the  bill was heard last on 3/12/19  and public testimony                                                               
was held and  closed. He advised that written  testimony could be                                                               
submitted to  senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov up until 6:00  pm on                                                               
the day that  the bill moves from committee. The  intent today is                                                               
to adopt the  proposed committee substitute (CS)  that makes only                                                               
technical and conforming changes.                                                                                               
3:57:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved  to adopt the CS for SB  33, work order 31-                                                               
GS1030\M, as the working document.                                                                                              
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and version M was adopted.                                                                      
3:58:32 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT  HENDERSON, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department of Law, Anchorage, introduced himself.                                                                               
SENATOR COGHILL referenced Section 5  and asked for the rationale                                                               
for not including the inability to  post bail. He also asked what                                                               
the parameters are for posting bail outside of inability to pay.                                                                
MR. HENDERSON explained that this  returns to the pre-Senate Bill                                                               
91  version of  the  bail  statute, which  is  that the  person's                                                               
inability to post bail standing  alone, is not new information in                                                               
a subsequent  hearing. The  distinction that  Section 7  draws is                                                               
that  is a  valid  factor  to consider  when  a person  initially                                                               
appears before the court. If  there is a subsequent bail hearing,                                                               
Section 5 eliminates  a person's inability to pay  to stand alone                                                               
as the only factor to consider.                                                                                                 
SENATOR COGHILL  asked where the new  information generally comes                                                               
MR. HENDERSON replied  that Section 5 talks  about the subsequent                                                               
bail hearing and the new  information referred to in that section                                                               
relates to  Section 4. He explained  that when a person  comes in                                                               
and is initially  arraigned, bail is set by  the judicial officer                                                               
(or it could  also have been previously set by  warrant). At that                                                               
time the person  is advised of their rights,  including the right                                                               
to counsel.                                                                                                                     
4:03:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL  asked  if the  clear  and  convincing  evidence                                                               
standard  still  applies  for the  other  factors  considered  in                                                               
Section 7.                                                                                                                      
MR. HENDERSON said returning to  the pre-2016 law means returning                                                               
to the  court reaching  its decision as  to the  appropriate bail                                                               
based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.                                                                            
SENATOR  COGHILL   asked  if   the  goal   is  still   the  least                                                               
restrictive. It's the evidence level that is different.                                                                         
MR.  HENDERSON agreed;  the court  still shall  impose the  least                                                               
restrictive available means, which means not excessive bail.                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL  asked  for  a  reminder  about  the  difference                                                               
between   the  standards   for   clear  and   convincing  and   a                                                               
preponderance of the evidence.                                                                                                  
MR.  HENDERSON  explained  that  the lowest  level  of  proof  is                                                               
reasonable suspicion,  meaning that  the person can  articulate a                                                               
reasonable  basis for  their decision.  The next  level, probable                                                               
cause, is  that it is  more likely  than not. A  preponderance of                                                               
the evidence is the standard  proposed in most civil cases. Clear                                                               
and convincing is a higher  standard that is generally imposed in                                                               
family  and  child  and child-in-need-of-aid  (CINA)  cases.  The                                                               
court has to  be confident in the evidence presented  to make the                                                               
decision.  Finally,  proof  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  is  the                                                               
highest  standard  in  the  law. Before  the  state  can  convict                                                               
somebody of a  criminal act in front  of a jury, it  has to prove                                                               
that  the  evidence leads  to  only  one reasonable  and  logical                                                               
SENATOR  COGHILL  offered the  conclusion  that  if a  person  is                                                               
unable to  make monetary bail,  they must meet a  higher standard                                                               
to get a subsequent bail hearing as a non-monetary issue.                                                                       
MR. HENDERSON clarified that under  the current law, depending on                                                               
a person's risk level, the court  is presumed to release on their                                                               
own recognizance  (OR) unless  it finds  by clear  and convincing                                                               
evidence  that a  monetary bail  is warranted.  The bill  removes                                                               
that presumption  and the bail  decision is instead based  on the                                                               
totality of  the circumstances  based on  a preponderance  of the                                                               
SENATOR COGHILL related that that was where he was heading.                                                                     
4:07:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD said  she believes that bail  is excessively low                                                               
in  most  circumstances  and  she would  like  a  provision  that                                                               
prohibits  that.  She  asked  if the  prosecution  looks  into  a                                                               
person's finances if a defendant says they can't pay their bail.                                                                
MR. HENDERSON clarified that looking  into a person's finances is                                                               
not the  purpose of a  bail hearing. He  said that when  there is                                                               
discussion about a  review of bail regarding ability  to pay, the                                                               
person's finances  have usually  been reviewed  by the  court. If                                                               
the person  is represented  by defense  counsel, that  officer of                                                               
the  court is  operating in  good faith  on information  received                                                               
from  their client.  The prosecution  relies on  that information                                                               
unless there is reason to dispute it.                                                                                           
SENATOR  REINBOLD responded  that she  doesn't know  of a  single                                                               
case of  a defendant saying they  had money for bail.  She opined                                                               
that  some  effort  should  go  into  looking  at  a  defendant's                                                               
finances, there  should be a  penalty for lying about  ability to                                                               
pay, and  the bail  hearing should look  carefully at  the danger                                                               
the person poses  to the public. Victim and  public safety should                                                               
be  paramount and  trials  and punishment  should  be swift.  The                                                               
focus should not  be about getting people back out  on the street                                                               
quickly, she said.                                                                                                              
4:10:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  he  heard that  someone  with a  criminal                                                               
history  acknowledged that  it wasn't  until  their third  arrest                                                               
when family  and friends gave  up and  no longer bailed  them out                                                               
that  they  decided to  turn  their  life  around. He  asked  Mr.                                                               
Henderson if he recognizes that  that monetary bail has value and                                                               
if providing some  other method of release  doesn't eliminate the                                                               
potential that  loved ones or  friends will get tougher  and help                                                               
the offender realize the seriousness of their behavior.                                                                         
MR.  HENDERSON  said  his  personal   experience  is  that  every                                                               
defendant is  different and some do  and some do not  have family                                                               
and friends that will help. The  DOL does not consider the source                                                               
of funds for bail; it's the  prerogative of the family or friends                                                               
whether  or not  to  post bail.  He asked  if  that answered  the                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified  that the point he was  making is that                                                               
the reason for  bail is to put something at  risk and have people                                                               
realize that  continuing their behavior  will come at a  cost. He                                                               
noted that  he wanted  to talk  to the  court about  whether they                                                               
were considering  revising the bail  schedules in light  of these                                                               
[crime] bills.                                                                                                                  
MR. HENDERSON responded  that the purpose of bail  is twofold: 1)                                                               
to ensure the defendant shows up  for court and 2) to ensure that                                                               
the community is  safe. Under the current  system, reformation of                                                               
the criminal  behavior is a post-conviction/sentencing  issue. He                                                               
added, "We should  and we have tried to take  steps in a pretrial                                                               
status to make sure the person  gets help, the correction of that                                                               
behavior is a post-correction issue."                                                                                           
4:15:15 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  said he understands  the explanation  on formal                                                               
community condemnation  but he believes there's  value in keeping                                                               
repeat  offenders  in  jail pretrial.  He  highlighted  that  the                                                               
victims in his  district would say they are victims  of people on                                                               
pretrial  release  who  repeat   their  criminal  behavior  while                                                               
awaiting trial.                                                                                                                 
SENATOR  KAWASAKI listed  the factors  the  court considers  when                                                               
setting bail  conditions and  asked if  this discussion  is about                                                               
just the one.                                                                                                                   
MR. HENDERSON agreed  that the ability to pay is  just one factor                                                               
the court  considers in  setting bail.  What SB  33 does  is make                                                               
sure the  judge has  the tools necessary  to set  the appropriate                                                               
bail. Holding someone without bail would be unconstitutional.                                                                   
4:17:17 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked  for clarification that the  judge has the                                                               
discretion  to  deny bail  on  the  pretext  that the  crime  was                                                               
extremely violent.                                                                                                              
MR.  HENDERSON  said  that's  correct.   He  explained  that  the                                                               
prosecution  has identified  to  the court  that an  unclassified                                                               
felony, a  class A felony,  a sexual felony,  a felony DUI,  or a                                                               
crime  against a  person with  previous convictions  of a  person                                                               
crime are the  types of highly dangerous,  criminal behavior that                                                               
need special  focus. He directed  attention to subsection  (d) on                                                               
page  6, line  13, that  provides a  rebuttable presumption  that                                                               
there is a  substantial risk that the person will  not appear and                                                               
that they  pose a  danger to  the victim,  other persons,  or the                                                               
CHAIR SHOWER highlighted  the growing anger from  citizens in his                                                               
district  and  others  throughout   the  state  that  people  are                                                               
released  from jail  and continue  to  commit the  same types  of                                                               
crimes.  He  asked if  the  risk  assessment tool  is  completely                                                               
broken  or if  the Department  of Law  has identified  areas that                                                               
could be fixed.                                                                                                                 
MR. HENDERSON responded that he  would discuss the inherent flaws                                                               
in the tool  and DOC could talk  about how the tool is  used on a                                                               
day-to-day  basis.  He  described  the risk  assessment  tool  as                                                               
theoretically  a good  idea because  most prosecutors  and judges                                                               
would  say that  more  information is  better, particularly  when                                                               
talking about bail. However, only assesses a person's criminal                                                                  
doesn't account for the surrounding  circumstances of the offense                                                               
such  as  whether the  person  was  in  possession of  a  weapon,                                                               
associating with  other felons, or  if they  were on bail  at the                                                               
time of arrest. He noted that  the tool also didn't consider out-                                                               
of-state convictions,  but that  has been partially  addressed in                                                               
House Bill 312 and it will be addressed going forward.                                                                          
The  risk  assessment,  which is  based  on  static  information,                                                               
generates two risk  assessment scores: 1) the risk  of failure to                                                               
appear and  2) the  risk of  new criminal  activity. The  flaw is                                                               
that the  current criminal  law anticipated  just one  risk level                                                               
and this  forced bail  decisions because  of the  presumptions in                                                               
the law.  Practitioners have addressed  this by agreeing  to rely                                                               
on just  the highest of the  two scores. SB 33  fixes the problem                                                               
by  directing   the  court  to   address  the  totality   of  the                                                               
4:24:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  asked, 1) if SB  33 addresses the concerns  the DOL                                                               
has identified and 2) if the  bill returns too much discretion to                                                               
the judges.                                                                                                                     
MR. HENDERSON  replied the  answer to the  first question  is yes                                                               
and the  answer to the second  question is no. He  added that the                                                               
pre-2016  law has  sideboards for  how the  court can  frame bail                                                               
decisions. The law lists specific  factors the court can consider                                                               
and the rebuttable  presumption talks about how  the court should                                                               
look  at certain  types of  cases differently  than less  serious                                                               
cases. SB 33 drives that point home, he said.                                                                                   
SENATOR  REINBOLD  recalled being  "scared  to  death" about  the                                                               
phase  3,  pretrial risk  assessment  tool  when Senate  Bill  91                                                               
passed. She described  it as a faulty tool that  was developed in                                                               
a back  room. The  result is  that "it allowed  some of  the most                                                               
dangerous  people I've  ever  seen  back out  on  the streets  in                                                               
Alaska   creating  an   epidemic   in  Alaska   of  crime."   She                                                               
acknowledged that  House Bill 312  fixed the issues to  a certain                                                               
extent. She said her "bottom  line" concern is whether judges are                                                               
held accountable. "What's the penalty for  the judge if he or she                                                               
continues to release dangerous people?  They're an important part                                                               
of keeping the people safe," she said.                                                                                          
4:28:15 PM                                                                                                                    
JENNIFER WINKELMAN,  Director, Division of Probation  and Parole,                                                               
Department of  Corrections, Juneau,  stated that  it is  a policy                                                               
decision of this administration  to eliminate the risk assessment                                                               
tool. She agreed  with earlier testimony that  the tool considers                                                               
just  static factors  and  it  only looks  at  the previous  five                                                               
years. She explained  that DOC contracted with  an outside agency                                                               
to work with the Department of  Law to develop the tool. She said                                                               
she believes  that the tool is  similar to what other  states use                                                               
but she  can see the  flaw in using  static factors to  drive the                                                               
release decisions.                                                                                                              
CHAIR  SHOWER asked  if  DOC  believes that  SB  33 corrects  the                                                               
"catch and release" loophole or flaw.                                                                                           
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.                                                                                                     
CHAIR  SHOWER, noting  that DOC  earlier reported  that about  45                                                               
percent of  inmates in custody  are unsentenced, he asked  if DOC                                                               
believes the bill will cause that number to rise.                                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN deferred the question to the deputy commissioner.                                                                 
4:31:20 PM                                                                                                                    
KELLY  GOODE,  Deputy  Commissioner, Department  of  Corrections,                                                               
Anchorage, confirmed  that the proposed  changes will  change the                                                               
prison population. She added that public  safety is a goal of the                                                               
administration and those challenges  will be addressed as they're                                                               
identified. She noted that the fiscal note will reflect this.                                                                   
CHAIR  SHOWER commented  that the  current  draft of  SB 33  will                                                               
drive a larger fiscal note.                                                                                                     
Ms. GOODE said she agrees in general.                                                                                           
SENATOR  KAWASAKI emphasized  the need  for updated  fiscal notes                                                               
from  all the  relevant  agencies. He  recalled  his and  Senator                                                               
Reinbold's  unsuccessful  efforts  during their  tenures  in  the                                                               
House to amend  the risk assessment tool to at  least include out                                                               
of state criminal  history. They proposed a  budget amendment the                                                               
next year, but  that, too, was unsuccessful. He  noted that House                                                               
Bill  312 provided  a  partial  fix. He  asked,  absent the  risk                                                               
assessment tool, how folks will  identify whether a person should                                                               
or should not be released.                                                                                                      
SENATOR COGHILL observed  that DOC will no longer be  part of the                                                               
decision if the  risk assessment tool is  eliminated, as proposed                                                               
in SB  33. He maintained  that the tool  isn't as static  as some                                                               
people claim  because it did  consider the  current circumstance.                                                               
He noted that  criminal history wasn't collected  before the tool                                                               
was implemented so there wasn't  a lookback. He related that part                                                               
of  the  idea for  the  risk  assessment  was  to keep  low  risk                                                               
individuals out  of jail and  at some  point, he'll ask  how that                                                               
4:36:11 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  agreed with Senator  Coghill that  the pretrial                                                               
risk  assessment  tool  gave  a   numeric  score  on  whether  an                                                               
individual  posed a  risk or  not.  The presumption  was that  if                                                               
their  score was  low, they  would be  released. He  restated his                                                               
earlier question which was, absent  the risk assessment tool, how                                                               
will  folks identify  whether a  person should  or should  not be                                                               
released. He also asked if there will be an added cost.                                                                         
MR. HENDERSON described the bail  hearing process under SB 33 and                                                               
under the pre-2016  law. He explained that bail  is initially set                                                               
at the first court appearance  or by warrant. The court considers                                                               
things  like  the type  of  offense,  the  level of  the  offense                                                               
classification,  and   the  person's   criminal  history.   In  a                                                               
subsequent  bail hearing  the accused  has  generally proposed  a                                                               
particular bail release such  as electronic monitoring, reduction                                                               
in  the bail,  or some  other  condition. The  Department of  Law                                                               
receives notice of that at least  48 hours before the hearing and                                                               
seeks victim input.  At the hearing their goal is  to apprise the                                                               
court of  the relevant factors  to consider when setting  bail or                                                               
considering  bail release.  These factors  could include  ties to                                                               
the  community,   length  of  residency  in   Alaska,  length  of                                                               
residency in  the community  where the  crime was  committed, the                                                               
family  and  support  network or  lack  thereof,  prior  criminal                                                               
history  and its  scope, and  if the  person showed  up for  past                                                               
court hearings.  The court is  apprised of the factors  and makes                                                               
the ultimate bail decision.                                                                                                     
SENATOR REINBOLD  opined that a  primary reason that  Senate Bill                                                               
91 passed was  the notion that it would fix  the pretrial issues.                                                               
Her  perspective is  that  things have  gotten  worse because  of                                                               
pretrial delays.  She emphasized  that delays always  benefit the                                                               
defendant  and  she   believes  that  judges  need   to  be  held                                                               
accountable for  this. She listed  the factors the  pretrial risk                                                               
assessment tool  did not  consider such  as whether  the criminal                                                               
possessed  a  weapon,  felon  to  felon  contact,  out  of  state                                                               
convictions, and  convictions that occurred more  than five years                                                               
ago.  She emphasized  that it's  not the  fiscal note  that's the                                                               
most  important  consideration.  Rather,  it's the  cost  to  the                                                               
public, she said.                                                                                                               
4:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL   said  he  continues   to  believe   that  risk                                                               
assessment  tools  and  pretrial accountability  have  value.  He                                                               
asked Ms. Goode  if DOC had adopted regulations  to implement the                                                               
pretrial system as mandated by the 2016 law.                                                                                    
MS.  GOODE said  this  administration learned  that  DOC had  not                                                               
developed regulations  to implement Senate  Bill 91 but  work was                                                               
started  on the  regulations for  the risk  assessment tool.  The                                                               
Department of Law is removing that  work but she believe that DOC                                                               
needs to look at the process with fresh eyes.                                                                                   
SENATOR COGHILL  asked if  the Department of  Law will  draft the                                                               
MS. GOODE confirmed  that DOC would be working  the Department of                                                               
Law and reiterated the need to look at things with fresh eyes.                                                                  
SENATOR COGHILL said  he brought it up because  it's important to                                                               
understand that  the 2016 law mandated  developing regulations to                                                               
implement the risk assessment tool and that never happened.                                                                     
MS. GOODE  responded that DOC  is aware  it didn't happen  and is                                                               
looking into it.                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  if  DOC has  been  implementing the  law                                                               
according to statute.                                                                                                           
MS. GOODE answered yes.                                                                                                         
SENATOR REINBOLD stressed  that the law has  been implemented and                                                               
it is  failing many Alaskans.  The crime data supports  this, she                                                               
said. She stated support for SB 33.                                                                                             
CHAIR SHOWER commented  on the need to get  the terminology right                                                               
regarding probation, parole, and pretrial.                                                                                      
4:48:22 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL  asked Ms.  Winkelman to  talk about  the benefit                                                               
and  downside  of  transitioning pretrial  services  officers  to                                                               
probation officers.                                                                                                             
MS.  WINKELMAN   explained  that,  by  statute,   both  probation                                                               
officers  and  pretrial services  officers  are  officers of  the                                                               
court. Pretrial services officer  duties extend to district court                                                               
and  probation officers,  by statute,  cover superior  court. Her                                                               
understanding   is  that   the   bill   extends  district   court                                                               
responsibilities to  probation officers. She  said the  duties of                                                               
these  officers are  interchangeable, their  classification under                                                               
the Department of Administration  has been probation officer, and                                                               
the recruitment for  either position is for  a probation officer.                                                               
They  discharge   their  duties   dependent  on   the  particular                                                               
defendant, which is  similar to police officers.  "Bottom line, I                                                               
think it would be seamless," she said.                                                                                          
SENATOR COGHILL  asked how caseloads  would be  separated between                                                               
pretrial services officers and probation officers.                                                                              
MS. WINKELMAN  explained that in  urban areas  probation officers                                                               
have  the  opportunity for  caseloads  that  are specialized  for                                                               
things  like  sex  offenders  or mental  health.  It  depends  on                                                               
demand, but  there isn't  that opportunity  in rural  areas where                                                               
the officer has to do it  all, which ranges from writing the pre-                                                               
sentence  report   to  supervising   a  pretrial   caseload.  She                                                               
reiterated that the training is the same for all officers.                                                                      
SENATOR  COGHILL  said  he's  more likely  to  support  the  bill                                                               
because it retains pretrial supervision.  He said he continues to                                                               
believe that it benefits public safety.                                                                                         
SENATOR  REINBOLD shared  that she,  too, believes  that pretrial                                                               
supervision is a good idea.                                                                                                     
4:54:10 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  Ms. Meade  to discuss  the revised  bail                                                               
schedule and if the changes in SB  33 might send a message to the                                                               
court  that  the  existing  bail  schedule  is  exacerbating  the                                                               
current situation.                                                                                                              
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel,  Administrative Services, Office of                                                               
the  Administrative  Director,  Alaska Court  System,  Anchorage,                                                               
stated that  the bail schedule  was revised in December  2017 and                                                               
there are  no current  plans to  revise it.  She said  she didn't                                                               
believe  that  SB  33  would  require any  changes  to  the  bail                                                               
schedule, but things may change by the end of the session.                                                                      
SENATOR  MICCICHE recalled  asking about  the bail  schedule that                                                               
seemed to  be weighted  toward release  on own  recognizance (OR)                                                               
and being told that the courts  viewed Senate Bill 91 as a signal                                                               
from the  legislature and the  courts adjusted the  bail schedule                                                               
accordingly.  He  asked  if  she  agrees that  if  the  laws  are                                                               
adjusted  accordingly  in the  other  direction,  the courts  may                                                               
tighten things and reduce OR a bit.                                                                                             
MS. MEADE  confirmed that  is a  possibility. She  explained that                                                               
the recent changes were largely  done to unify the bail schedules                                                               
across all  districts in the  state. She also clarified  that the                                                               
new bail schedules  did not result in  materially more categories                                                               
of OR  releases than before.  It was  driven by the  new criminal                                                               
justice  reform studies  that did  authorize  more releases  than                                                               
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked, 1) if  Senate Bill 64 affected  the bail                                                               
schedule, 2) if there are  several judges on the Criminal Justice                                                               
Working Group, and 3) which  judges would look at and potentially                                                               
adjust the bail schedule.                                                                                                       
MS. MEADE  replied Senate Bill  64 did  not result in  changes to                                                               
the  bail  schedules,   but  it  did  create   the  statute  that                                                               
established the  Criminal Justice  Commission. Membership  of the                                                               
commission  includes a  justice  or retired  justice, a  superior                                                               
court  judge,  and  a district  court  judge.  Those  individuals                                                               
stopped voting  on the  commission after  they determined  it was                                                               
not appropriate  for them to be  part of the policy  calls coming                                                               
out of the  commission. Now those judges attend  the meetings and                                                               
provide  guidance. The  Criminal Justice  Working Group  includes                                                               
Chief Justice  Bolger and Attorney  General Clarkson.  That group                                                               
deals with operational and logistical  issues across the criminal                                                               
justice agencies  to help improve  operations. She  asked Senator                                                               
Reinbold to restate the third question.                                                                                         
SENATOR REINBOLD responded saying she  is pleased that the judges                                                               
who  serve on  the commission  no longer  vote because  it was  a                                                               
serious separation  of powers issue  when they did. She  said the                                                               
third question  was which  judges would  look at  and potentially                                                               
adjust the bail schedule                                                                                                        
MS. MEADE  clarified that  the statute required  the court  to be                                                               
involved in  the Criminal Justice Commission.  She explained that                                                               
the presiding judges from each  judicial district have passed one                                                               
statewide  bail   schedule  to  ensure  consistency   across  the                                                               
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked for  the names of  the judges  that would                                                               
change the bail schedule.                                                                                                       
MS. MEADE  listed: Trevor Stephens  from Ketchikan,  Paul Roetman                                                               
from  Kotzebue,   William  Morse  from  Anchorage,   and  Michael                                                               
MacDonald from Fairbanks.                                                                                                       
5:00:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  asked where the  risk assessment tool  was codified                                                               
in law.                                                                                                                         
MR. HENDERSON said he'll check but he believes it's in AS 33.05.                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER suggested he send the answer by email.                                                                             
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he  means the existence of the pretrial                                                               
assessment tool or the content of the tool.                                                                                     
CHAIR SHOWER  replied both. "Bottom line,  I want to go  over the                                                               
whole thing," he said.                                                                                                          
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 33 in committee.                                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 73 Sponsor Statement.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
SB 73.PDF SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
SB 73 Sectional Analysis.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
SB 73 1959 Law for Succession.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
SB 73 All State Succession Lists.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
SB 73 Fiscal Note - Gov. Office.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 73
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
M.pdf SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
CS for SB 33 Ver. M
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
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