Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

04/16/2019 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

Audio Topic
03:35:06 PM Start
03:35:41 PM Confirmation Hearing(s)
04:00:22 PM SB32
05:04:19 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Consideration of Governor's Appointees: TELECONFERENCED
Alaska Human Rights Commission -
Debbie Fullenwider, Cynthia Erickson
-- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be Set> --
+= SB 32 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        SB  32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:00:22 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   SHOWER  reconvened   the   meeting   and  announced   the                                                               
consideration of SENATE BILL NO.  32 "An Act relating to criminal                                                               
law and  procedure; relating  to controlled  substances; relating                                                               
to  probation; relating  to sentencing;  relating  to reports  of                                                               
involuntary  commitment;   amending  Rule  6,  Alaska   Rules  of                                                               
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
He  recapped that  the bill  was  last heard  4/15/19 and  public                                                               
testimony was heard  and closed. He noted  the proposed committee                                                               
substitute (CS) that makes technical and conforming changes.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:00:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved  to adopt the CS for SB  32, work order 31-                                                               
GS1029\U, as the working document.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER asked  Mr.  Ogan to  review  the Legislative  Legal                                                               
Services  memo that  highlights  the changes  from  version A  to                                                               
version U of SB 32.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:01:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SCOTT   OGAN,   Staff,   Senator  Mike   Shower,   Alaska   State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau, explained that the  memo first talks about a                                                               
drafting error  [in AS  12.55.125(d)]. Second,  [AS 11.56.760(c)]                                                               
was added to  the applicability section. The  memo also discusses                                                               
a number  of drafting considerations  the first of  which relates                                                               
to  electronic   monitoring.  If  a  prisoner   tampers  with  an                                                               
electronic  monitoring  device,  the  punishment  is  a  class  C                                                               
felony. If the  same prisoner charged with  a misdemeanor escapes                                                               
from official  detention other than a  correctional facility, the                                                               
penalty   is  a   class  A   misdemeanor.  He   deferred  further                                                               
explanation to Mr. Henderson.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:03:28 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT  HENDERSON, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department of Law,  Juneau, said the CS steps up  the penalty for                                                               
escaping from official detention on  a class A misdemeanor charge                                                               
to a class C felony if  an electronic monitoring device is either                                                               
disabled or  tampered with or  if the person  removes him/herself                                                               
from custody during lawful movement  or activity. He also pointed                                                               
out  that escape  in  the second  degree, which  is  the class  B                                                               
felony,  is  removing  oneself from  official  detention  from  a                                                               
secure detention facility.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE commented  that the  memorandum is  a confusing                                                               
way  to explain  the  CS because  it doesn't  refer  to the  bill                                                               
sections. He asked if this was the only document available.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN answered yes.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:05:14 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:12:20 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  reconvened  the  meeting and  asked  Mr.  Ogan  to                                                               
address the question raised during  the at ease about the deleted                                                               
section.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN explained  that it was a technical  change. The original                                                               
version  unnecessarily  included  a  lot of  criminal  rule  6(r)                                                               
regarding admissibility of  evidence to the grand  jury when just                                                               
the amendment in paragraph 6(r)(6) was needed.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Reinbold  if anything else was covered                                                               
during the at ease.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said   she  wanted  to  make   sure  that  the                                                               
Department  of  Law  agreed  that  the  changes  in  the  CS  are                                                               
technical and conforming.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  stated for  the record that  the Department  of Law                                                               
agreed that the CS makes technical and conforming changes.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN  added that the  Department of  Law agreed to  provide a                                                               
more detailed analysis by the next hearing.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to continue to review the memo.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:14:31 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. OGAN directed  attention Section 26 of the CS  that amends AS                                                               
11.56.810(a)  regarding terroristic  threatening by  removing the                                                               
phrase, "dangerous to  human life exists or is  about to exist,".                                                               
He said  the issue  is that if  person A says  they are  going to                                                               
blow up  a building  and person  B hears  and reports  the threat                                                               
person B  could be  charged with the  offense of  communicating a                                                               
threat.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN said Legislative Legal  Services has agreed that joining                                                               
subparagraph (A)  with (B)  on page  14, line 1  with "and"  is a                                                               
possible  solution.  He  deferred   further  explanation  to  the                                                               
Department of Law.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:16:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON expressed  concern with  the proposal  to tie  the                                                               
phrases  with an  "and" at  the end  of subparagraph  (A) because                                                               
that would  require the state to  prove (A), through (D)  for the                                                               
crime  of  terroristic  threatening  as opposed  to  the  current                                                               
drafting  that has  an "or."  He said  he'd be  happy to  discuss                                                               
another solution  to change from  the passive to active  voice in                                                               
subsection (a) on page 13, line 25.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to  provide additional explanation because                                                               
one  of  the concerns  is  that  this  might be  interpreted  too                                                               
broadly. He used  the example of young men in  a bar getting into                                                               
a disagreement and one threatening to  kill the other when it was                                                               
a heat of the moment statement and not the real intent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said there  are  two  issues.  The point  in  the                                                               
legislative  legal memo  is  what  happens if  person  A makes  a                                                               
threat and person  B reports it to law  enforcement. He described                                                               
that as an extraordinary stretch of  the law that would not occur                                                               
for three  reasons. First, "communicates  a threat" must  be read                                                               
together with "to commit a crime  against a person." You commit a                                                               
crime  when you  tie  that  to the  communication  which is  what                                                               
prevents  person   B  from  being  held   criminally  liable  for                                                               
reporting  that  offense.  Second,  a  person  has  to  act  with                                                               
reckless  disregard,   which  means  they  have   to  consciously                                                               
disregard  a substantial  and unjustifiable  risk  that they  are                                                               
causing  that fear.  The person  who reports  that threat  is not                                                               
acting recklessly  under the law.  Third, if the  appellate court                                                               
were faced  with that  factual scenario,  it would  recognize the                                                               
absurdness of that  result and revert to  the legislative intent,                                                               
which is capturing the threat  surrounding school shootings, bomb                                                               
threats, or  shooting at  a public facility.  Under the  rules of                                                               
statutory construction,  it is unlikely  that a court  of appeals                                                               
would hold  somebody criminally liable for  reporting that threat                                                               
because  it  would  go  against the  legislative  intent  of  the                                                               
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said the factual  scenario where somebody  makes a                                                               
threat to  kill when they're in  a bar is more  realistic and the                                                               
question is  how to put  bumpers on  that scenario. He  said this                                                               
section needs to  be clear as to what the  legislature intends to                                                               
protect  against and  making sure  that law  enforcement has  the                                                               
ability  to intervene  in scenarios  like  school shootings.  The                                                               
person also has  to recklessly disregard that they  are placing a                                                               
person  in reasonable  fear. The  threat must  be more  realistic                                                               
than hubristic talk.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:22:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked Mr. Ogan  where he suggested  placing the                                                               
"and."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN replied it would be  after "serious physical injury to a                                                               
person;" on page 14, line 1.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  warned that  he  was  considering Mr.  Henderson's                                                               
concern about  joining the phrases  with "and" and he  may decide                                                               
against it.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:22:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. OGAN  continued to discuss  the memo.  He said the  change in                                                               
Section 31  [sec. 11.71.040]  talks about  marijuana but  it does                                                               
not   envision  industrial   hemp  or   licensed  establishments.                                                               
Amendments to address this oversight are forthcoming, he said.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Section 41,  [sec. 12.55.135(q)] is  a new subsection  that talks                                                               
about personal  use marijuana. It  clarifies that  the definition                                                               
of  "permanent  and  temporary  residence"  does  not  include  a                                                               
vehicle or tent  which may have an unintended  effect of indigent                                                               
people being charged more frequently  than other demographics. He                                                               
suggested the committee look at that issue.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Section 45 amends  AS 28.35.032(o) by repealing  language about a                                                               
24-hour  community service  requirement.  The memo  asks if  that                                                               
provision should be added to SB 32.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:26:16 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  reiterated that it  is cumbersome to  move back                                                               
and forth  between the memo  and the bill. He  suggested limiting                                                               
the discussion to the memo itself.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:26:51 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:30:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  reconvened  the  meeting and  asked  Mr.  Ogan  to                                                               
continue.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:30:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  OGAN  said  Section  50  talks  about  the  court's  38-year                                                               
lookback for  a person who  has been involuntarily  committed. He                                                               
noted an amendment on this section is forthcoming.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Section 51 addresses whether or  not the legislature needs a two-                                                               
thirds vote to pass a court rule change.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked if there  is any  way to avoid  the court                                                               
rule change and the associated two-thirds vote requirement.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. OGAN deferred the question.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:31:47 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General  Counsel, Administrative  Offices,  Alaska                                                               
Court System,  Anchorage, said  she believes  this type  of court                                                               
rule change would require a  two-thirds vote. The prior draft had                                                               
that vote in it and she didn't believe  it was as big an issue as                                                               
legislative legal indicated.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if that section could be removed.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE said the  court rule change is the only  part of a bill                                                               
that needs  a two-thirds vote. If  a bill passes with  that level                                                               
of support, a  motion on the floor  is to accept the  vote on the                                                               
bill as  the vote on  the court rule  change. If the  bill passes                                                               
with less than two-thirds support,  a separate vote is needed for                                                               
the court rule change.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that she  was saying the same thing in                                                               
a different way.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  Senator  Reinbold  if  she  maintained  her                                                               
objection.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:34:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  found  no  further objection  and  version  U  was                                                               
adopted. He asked if there were questions.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:35:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked Mr. Henderson  if there was a  way, other                                                               
than administratively, to  compel someone to submit  their DNA at                                                               
the time of arrest.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered yes; if  officers have probable cause that                                                               
somebody's DNA would be evidence of  a crime, they can seize that                                                               
person's  DNA through  a buccal  swab once  they have  obtained a                                                               
warrant from the court.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:36:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked how  long it  takes to  get a  warrant in                                                               
that circumstance and  if the person usually stays  in jail until                                                               
it's issued.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  replied  it  depends on  the  availability  of  a                                                               
magistrate or judge,  but his experience is that each  of the two                                                               
ways to  obtain a warrant can  take several hours. One  way is to                                                               
draft  an  affidavit  for  the court  to  sign  that  establishes                                                               
probable  cause for  needing the  evidence. The  other way  is to                                                               
obtain  a warrant  through  oral testimony.  Whether  or not  the                                                               
person  remains  in  custody  is  a  factual  determination  that                                                               
depends on the charge.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked if it  would be more efficient  to obtain                                                               
the  evidence on  the spot  instead of  going to  court to  get a                                                               
warrant.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  answered yes. He  added that since the  DNA arrest                                                               
provisions  for specific  types  of crimes  went  into effect  in                                                               
December 2008, there have been  357 arrestee hits under CODIS. He                                                               
said this speaks to its power as a law enforcement tool.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked  if  he  agrees that  this  could  be  a                                                               
powerful  tool to  prevent wrongful  convictions and  ensure that                                                               
the right person is convicted.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said yes. He noted  that DOL is preparing a memo to                                                               
explain  the DNA  process. It  cites two  examples where  the DNA                                                               
seized after arrest exonerated two individuals.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD voiced full support  for this important tool and                                                               
thanked the administration for putting it in the bill.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:41:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  said his concerns  about the  use of DNA  are about                                                               
protecting  people's  rights.  Thus  he  is  very  interested  in                                                               
safeguards to  ensure this isn't abused  or raises constitutional                                                               
challenges.  Another  concern is  that  someone  who hasn't  done                                                               
anything  wrong but  refuses  to submit  their  DNA when  they're                                                               
pulled over  could potentially be  charged for not  complying. He                                                               
noted that  his staff is a  former trooper and he,  too, has some                                                               
concerns.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if DNA is collected in rape kits.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON confirmed that sexual  assault kits collect DNA. He                                                               
added  that  under  AS  11.56.762  it is  a  class  C  felony  to                                                               
unlawfully collect  or use DNA samples  and it's also a  crime to                                                               
misuse information in CODIS.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD asked  if there is also a $250,000  fine for the                                                               
misuse of this data.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said   yes,  and  both  state   and  federal  law                                                               
criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of DNA evidence.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:45:22 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if it is  common for somebody to refuse to                                                               
submit  to a  buccal  swab  upon arrest.  He  noted  there is  no                                                               
sanction for refusing.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON replied it's not frequent... [communication lost].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:46:31 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:49:16 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  reconvened the meeting  and asked  Senator Micciche                                                               
to restate the question.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:49:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE noted  there  is no  sanction  for refusing  to                                                               
submit to a buccal swab upon  arrest and asked how this next step                                                               
would benefit law enforcement.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON replied the benefit  to law enforcement is that the                                                               
enforcement mechanism will incentivize  people to follow the law.                                                               
He acknowledged that the majority  of individuals comply with the                                                               
law.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what percentage do not comply.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said  he would try to get the  information from the                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS) but  he wasn't sure if it could                                                               
be quantified.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to also  provide a list of the crimes that                                                               
that are subject to a buccal swab upon arrest.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON agreed to try to provide that information.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE commented  that it looks like  all arrestees are                                                               
subject to the  collection of DNA. He said he'd  like that on the                                                               
record, now if possible.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:52:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON clarified  that DNA  is only  required from  those                                                               
individuals arrested for qualifying  offenses. That is all crimes                                                               
against  a   person  under  Title  11,   which  includes  violent                                                               
misdemeanors  and violent  felonies; felony  arrests under  Title                                                               
11; and  arrest for a  felony DUI.  Somebody who is  arrested for                                                               
such  things  as  disorderly conduct,  shoplifting,  or  reckless                                                               
driving is not required to submit their DNA upon arrest.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to describe felony DUI.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON explained  that felony DUI applies  to somebody who                                                               
has been convicted of DUI twice before within the last 10 years.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked if that information  is immediately available                                                               
to the arresting officer.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  replied if  the prior  convictions were  in Alaska                                                               
that  information   is  part  of  APSIN   (Alaska  Public  Safety                                                               
Information Network) and  is available on the spot.  If the prior                                                               
convictions  are out  of state,  the officer  may have  immediate                                                               
access  to  that  information  under  the  national  database  on                                                               
criminal history,  NCIC. But  if the information  is not  in NCIC                                                               
the prosecutor's office would file the felony DUI charges later.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  said he  struggles  with  the idea  that  this                                                               
creates a crime for a person who  may not be a criminal. He asked                                                               
what  he thinks  about an  amendment that  says a  person who  is                                                               
found not  guilty of  the original qualifying  crime is  also not                                                               
guilty of refusing to submit to the buccal swab.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON said  he'd like  to give  it some  thought because                                                               
gives  law  enforcement  an enforcement  mechanism  to  encourage                                                               
people who are arrested for  a qualifying offense to submit their                                                               
DNA without  a more  involved process.  An existing  safeguard is                                                               
that the  DNA can be expunged  from the system if  the person who                                                               
is  ultimately   acquitted  of  the  underlying   charge  or  the                                                               
prosecution decides,  for whatever  reason, not to  file criminal                                                               
charges.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked  if he would consider an  amendment that drops                                                               
the secondary charge  if the person is not guilty  of the initial                                                               
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said at first blush  it makes sense, but  he wants                                                               
time to consider unintended collateral consequences.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked him to get  back to his office  once he's had                                                               
time to give it consideration.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:57:11 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD questioned  the provision in Section  12 on page                                                               
7, line  29 that says it's  vehicle theft in the  first degree if                                                               
the owner  does not have  their vehicle  for seven days  or more.                                                               
She stressed that  it's theft if the vehicle is  gone for just an                                                               
hour.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said  he'd  look  at  it  more  closely  but  the                                                               
intention  is to  ensure that  somebody who  is joyriding  is not                                                               
charged with vehicle theft.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD stated  her intention to have  a follow-up, off-                                                               
line  discussion  with him  or  Ms.  Schroeder before  she  asked                                                               
Legislative  Legal Services  to  prepare an  amendment. She  also                                                               
asked why the  term "propelled vehicle" is used in  Section 15 on                                                               
page  9, line  26.  She said  she is  focusing  on vehicle  theft                                                               
because it  is such a  problem and  she's trying to  identify all                                                               
loopholes.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON read the definition  for "propelled vehicle," which                                                               
includes  automobiles,  vessels,   airplanes,  motorcycles,  snow                                                               
machines, and all-terrain vehicles.  He explained that other than                                                               
cars,  trucks, and  motorcycles,  the most  typical vehicles  are                                                               
ATVs and snow machines.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  restated her intention  to close  all loopholes                                                               
and get to the bottom of vehicle theft.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:00:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced the  direct court rule change dealing                                                               
with a prior conviction as an  element of an offense and asked if                                                               
information  about somebody's  Title  11 crime  against a  person                                                               
conviction would be admissible to a grand jury.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON said  the change  to  Rule 6(r),  Alaska Rules  of                                                               
Criminal  Procedure, is  to  expand an  existing  rule such  that                                                               
anytime somebody is  accused of a felony and  a predicate offense                                                               
exists,  the  state  would  be   entitled  to  use  the  person's                                                               
electronic rap  sheet to  prove that  predicate offense  at grand                                                               
jury.  Those  crimes  include  felon  in  possession,  recidivist                                                               
felony theft, and recidivist felony assault.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER stated he would hold SB 32 in committee.                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
agenda
SSTA Gov. Appointee Human Rights - Fullenwider Resume.pdf SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
Debbie Fullenwider - Resume
SSTA Gov. Appointee Human Rights - Erickson Resume.pdf SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
Cynthia Erickson - Resume
SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
CS for SB 32 - Ver. U.pdf SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Leg. Legal Memo.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Committee Questions.pdf SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#1 - DPS.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#2 - DOL.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#5 - DHSS.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#6 - DOC.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Advocacy.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - Court System.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Defender Agency.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32