Legislature(2015 - 2016)
04/26/2016 05:08 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Recessed to the Call of the Chair | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2016
5:08 p.m.
5:08:49 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 5:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Senator
John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff, Senator John
Coghill; Representative Matt Claman: Representative Lora
Reinbold; Representative Liz Vasquez; Gabrielle LeDoux; Dan
Ortiz.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Skidmore Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the meeting. He
indicated that the committee would review the committee
substitute (CS) and sectional analysis for the bill being
considered.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
5:09:47 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SSSB 91 (FIN), Work Draft 29-LS0541\T
(Martin/Gardner, 4/26/16). There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
5:10:18 PM
AT EASE
5:12:34 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson pointed out that there had been prior
legislation that established the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission; which included legislators, judges, law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, defenders, corrections
officials, as well as members representing crime victims
and Alaska Natives. He relayed that the commission had
spent over a year conducting an exhaustive review of the
state's pretrial sentencing, corrections, and community
supervision data in the systems.
Co-Chair Thompson shared that the bill was put together
with the 21 recommendations from the commission; and would
implement proven practices to reduce recidivism, keep
Alaskans safe, hold offenders accountable, and control
corrections spending. The bill had no intention of trying
to "fix crime." The bill was 114 pages long and had 177
sections. He wanted to convey that there had been a lot of
work over a long period of time to get the bill to where it
was trying to achieve reduced spending in the state's
prisons. He thanked Senator Coghill for bringing the bill
forward. He commented on the positive changes that happened
to the bill through work in the House Judiciary Committee.
5:14:14 PM
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
reviewed the changes by reading from a document titled
"Senate Bill 91 - Summary of Changes - Version V to T"
(copy on file):
Title Changes
Page 1
Deletes:
- Relating to off road system restricted
noncommercial driver's licenses; relating to off
road system eligible areas; relating to motor
vehicle liability insurance.
- Relating to background checks for persons
applying to operate marijuana establishments.
- Relating to major medical insurance coverage
under the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska.
- Amending Rules of Criminal Procedure and
repealing Rules 41(d) and (e).
Intent Language
Page 2, lines 4-7
Adds legislative intent that if marijuana taxes
are lower than projected in FY17, alcohol and
other drug abuse treatment and prevention fund
monies may be used to cover the shortfall.
Theft Threshold
Pages 4-10; Deletes sections 20-21 (ver. V)
Removes automatic inflation-adjustment of the
property crime threshold value.
Failure to Appear
Page 10, lines 29-30; Page 11, lines 1-20
Maintains failure to appear as class C felony if
the person was released in connection with a
felony charge and the person fails to appear for
30 days or more or does not appear in order to
avoid prosecution. Previously this offense was a
Class-A misdemeanor.
Controlled Substances
Page 16, lines 1-10; Page 20, lines 29-31; Page 21,
lines 1-9
Reduces the weight threshold separating Felony B
from Felony C schedule IA commercial drug
offenses from 2.5 grams to 1 gram. Additionally,
added dosage amounts alongside drug weights in
determining commercial drug offenses. Previously
the threshold was 2.5 grams for IA substances and
did not take dosage units into account. Also,
felonies simple possession of GHB, which is
commonly used as a date rape drug.
Arrest
Page 24, lines 4-30
Removes the presumption that a peace officer will
issue a citation rather than making an arrest for
lower-level offenses, and instead permits a peace
officer to issue a citation for class C felonies
in certain circumstances. Removes "danger to
self" from the list of circumstances where an
officer is required to make an arrest.
Pretrial
Page 26, line 31; Page 27, line 1; Page 27, lines 14-
15
Removes misdemeanor sex offenses from the list of
offenses that could require a release on a
person's own recognizance with appropriate
release conditions.
Pretrial Credit
Page 38, lines 4-19
Establishes a 120-day cap on the amount of credit
a defendant facing certain charges can receive
for time spent on electronic monitoring pretrial.
Fines
Section 64 (ver. V)
Maintains the maximum fine for a Class A
misdemeanor at $10,000.
Probation Term Lengths
Page 42, lines 2-17
Increases the maximum probation term lengths to
15 years for felony sex offenses (up from 10
years); 10 years for unclassified felonies (up
from five years); five years for other felonies
(up from three years); and three years for
misdemeanors under AS 11.41, crimes involving
domestic violence, and misdemeanor sex offenses
(up from two).
Technical Violation Caps
Page 46, lines 18-20; Page 84, lines 7-10
Adds exceptions so that the court or board of
parole may impose a period of imprisonment up to
the remainder of the suspended portion of the
sentence for sex offenders who have violated a
specific sex offender condition of
probation/parole.
Murder
Page 47, lines 8-30; Section 86 (ver. V)
Increases the mandatory minimum for first degree
murder to 30 years and eliminates provision
relative to stacking of murder in the second
degree charges.
Presumptive Ranges
Page 50, lines 1-2
Increases the presumptive term for first class C
felonies from eighteen months suspended to up to
120 days of active imprisonment time.
Misdemeanors
Page 50, lines 28-31; Page 51, lines 1-3
Adds additional carve-outs from the class A
misdemeanor sentencing policy for all assault-F's
(rather than just DV-assault 4's) and all
misdemeanor sexual offenses.
Background Checks
Section 91; Section 93 (ver. V)
Removes provision mandating a national criminal
history check and fingerprinting for marijuana
establishments under AS 17.38.
Off Road Licenses
Sections 95, 96, 98, 102, 107, 109, & 110
Removes exception to vehicle registration
requirements for vehicles driven by an operator
with an off-highway commercial driver's license
or a noncommercial off-road driver's license.
Duties of Pretrial Services Officers
Page 65, lines 5-9; Page 65, lines 14-18; Page 67,
lines 17-20
Adds requirement that pretrial service officers
make recommendations concerning a defendant's
dependency on, abuse of, or addiction to alcohol
or controlled substances to the court.
Administrative Parole
Page 69, line 6
Removes crimes against a person (under AS 11.41)
from eligibility for administrative parole.
Geriatric Parole
Page 70, lines 17-19
Increases the age of eligibility for geriatric
parole to 60 years of age and removes
unclassified and sexual offenders from
eligibility.
Early Discharge
Page 83, line 9
Includes misdemeanants in the early discharge
policy.
Electronic Monitoring Good Time
Page 87, lines 2-4
Clarifies that an individual receives good time
while serving on electronic monitoring or in a
residential treatment program for alcohol or drug
abuse under prerelease furlough.
Electronic Monitoring
Page 89, lines 18-23
Requires the Department of Corrections to
establish minimum standards for electronic
monitoring, which may include the requirement for
real-time GPS monitoring and permits the
department to enter into contracts with private
contractors for the provision of electronic
monitoring services.
Identification Cards
Page 89, lines 24-26
Eliminates the requirement that the Department of
Corrections provide driver's licenses before a
prisoner's release, but retains the requirement
to provide identification cards.
Sex Offender Treatment Credit
Section 155 (ver. V)
Eliminates the policy allowing sexual offenders
to earn good time credit after completing
treatment.
PERS
Sections 161-172 (ver. V)
Removes language permitting reimbursement of
medical benefits to an eligible member's
dependent children and spouse if the member dies.
Food Stamps
Page 99, lines 11-12
Creates an additional requirement for eligibility
for food stamps, including successful compliance
with the person's reentry plan.
Bail Schedules
Section 190 (ver. V)
Eliminates the requirement that the courts
eliminate bail schedules.
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Section 170 (ver. V)
Eliminates the requirement that the ACJC study
social impact bonds.
Ms. Pierson commented that aside from conforming
amendments, the aforementioned items were the changes to
the bill.
5:26:33 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the intent language on
page 2, lines 4 through 7:
Adds legislative intent that if marijuana taxes are
lower than projected in FY17, alcohol and other drug
abuse treatment and prevention fund monies may be used
to cover the shortfall.
Representative Wilson asked if the committee was aware of
how much money was in question and where it had gone. She
thought most of the funds were given out already.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, thought the letter of intent
had come from Co-chair Neuman, and thought there had been
some money available in the alcohol treatment programs that
the committee had looked at.
Co-Chair Neuman made a suggestion for the sponsor to
address concerns of committee members. He wondered about
the eventuality of if the marijuana funds did not provide
sufficient funds for the needs that were called for.
Currently the state collected close to $40 million per year
from the alcohol tax. According to statute, 50 percent of
the funds went towards treatment and the other 50 percent
went to the General Fund (GF). His staff had found that the
alcohol fund currently had about $20 million sequestered
for treatment programs, and about 5.7 million was back-up.
He thought it was good to have funds available that were
collected for treatment rather than spending GF dollars.
Senator Coghill commented that he thought treatment would
be a key component of changing the way things happened in
the state. He stated that the intent language was one way
of communicating the intent of the bill.
Representative Wilson wanted to make sure that the money
was not being taken from somewhere else where it was
needed. She spoke to page 2 of the bill which referred to
"simple possession" and date rape drugs. She asked for a
definition of simple possession.
Senator Coghill responded that if a person had the specific
drug in possession it would be presumed that the drug would
be intended for use in date rape. He restated that simple
possession of the drug would imply intended use (of date
rape) and constitute a felony.
Representative Wilson remarked on probation term lengths on
page 42, lines 2 through 17. She wanted to better
understand why the state would give more time when studies
had shown that issues happened closer to the beginning of a
probation sentence.
Senator Coghill understood that the state would still be
using the risk assessment tool, but the probation length
could be up to the maximum length of time.
5:31:01 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, stated that
the CS had an increase of maximum probation term lengths
across the board. He furthered that research showed that if
an individual was going to violate probation; they would
violate within the first year, and mostly within the first
three months. If an individual successfully completed a
year of probation, the individual was unlikely to fail in
subsequent years. He commented that while the increases
might be somewhat contrary to the research and committee
recommendations, the bill was trying to find a balance
between the research and community condemnation and
retribution.
Representative Wilson assumed new fiscal notes would show
what kind of impact the changes would have.
Representative Gara indicated that he had several questions
referring to bill changes he did not understand, and two of
his questions pertained to policy.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that department staff would be
available at the meeting the following morning after
members had a chance to review the bill changes.
Representative Gara asked if the committee would be
addressing amendments in the following day's meeting.
Co-Chair Thompson specified that the committee would
address the bill the following day before taking
amendments. He suggested that Representative Gara speak
with Mr. Shilling after the meeting for specific
information.
Representative Gara asked about probation term limits, and
surmised that although the maximums changed, the minimum
probation term limits remained the same.
Mr. Shilling responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara referred to page 1 of the bill, and
asked about the theft threshold as related to the worth of
the item that was stolen. He referred to the discussion of
inflation in the bill, as it pertained to the theft
threshold. He wondered if there was a possible separation
of powers question relating to the matter. He noted that
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was used frequently in the
statutes.
Senator Coghill was not in favor of indexing to the CPI in
most cases. He agreed with the change to page 1 of the
bill, and thought felony policy needed to be debated along
the way.
Mr. Shilling referred to a memo from the Legislative Legal
Department (copy not on file) and affirmed that there had
been discussion of a separation of powers issue, although
he could not recall the details.
Representative Gara stated he would discuss the issue with
the bill sponsors, and stated he did not want inflation to
turn a misdemeanor in to a felony.
Representative Gara referred to page 24, line 4, which
pertained to issuing citations for C felonies. He wondered
if anything had changed in terms of misdemeanors.
Mr. Shilling stated that currently in statute, law
enforcement officers had the discretion to issue a citation
rather than arrest. The discretion was limited to only
misdemeanors. The CS entirely removed the presumption of
citation that the commission recommended. In an effort to
give officers more discretion in issuing citations
(considering that the policy was removed) the CS expanded
it to C felonies where officers currently did not have the
discretion to cite.
5:35:07 PM
Representative Gara referred to the third page of the
summary document, to the change associated with presumptive
ranges (page 30, lines 1 to 2 of the bill). One of the
changes would increase the presumptive term on class C
felonies from 18 months suspended to up to 120 days of
imprisonment. He wondered if the proposed change was
somewhere between 0 and 120 days.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission recommended for
a first class C felony, the presumptive range be 0 to 18
months of active supervision on probation. The CS would
make active imprisonment an option, and allowed the courts
to impose from 0 up to 120 days of active imprisonment.
Representative Gara asked about the sponsor's opinion on
the change.
Senator Coghill was still considering the change.
Representative Gara referred to the section on
misdemeanors, on page 50 of the bill. He asked for the
sponsor to elaborate on the proposed change.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission had recommended
a 0 to 30 day presumptive range for class A misdemeanors
with aggravators to get outside of the range, up to a full
year. He continued that the version of the bill that came
to the committee exempted domestic violence (DV) related
assault in the fourth degree (4) from the presumption. He
gave an example that a DV assault 4 could be sentence able
for up to a full year. The proposed change would allow not
only DV assault 4 to be sentenced up to a full year, but
any assault 4, whether it was DV related or not.
Additionally, the change would allow all class A
misdemeanor sexual offences able to be sentence up to a
full year.
Representative Gara referred to a conversation he had
previously with the sponsor, concerning a B misdemeanor
offense under which a minor shared a nude picture of a
minor under 16. He asked if the act would be considered a
misdemeanor sexual offence.
Mr. Shilling was unsure, but thought the act would be
included in the bill language. He offered to address the
subject at a later date with Representative Gara.
Representative Gara addressed administrative parole. He
asked for an explanation regarding the proposed change.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission had recommended
a new type of parole called administrative parole, that
would presumptively grant parole to individuals who had
committed a first low-level felony offense (a first class B
felony or a first class C felony), to be granted parole at
the one-fourth point in the sentence if they followed the
rules of institution and completed any required
programming. The proposed change would exclude all crimes
against a persons from the policy entirely. Such
individuals would not be granted presumptive parole at the
one-fourth point in the sentence.
5:39:00 PM
Representative Gara referred to the section on food stamps
on page 99, lines 11 - 12. He thought initially the bill
suggested individuals leaving jail should not have food
stamps, and the proposed change would allow offenders to be
eligible for food stamps after successful compliance with a
reentry plan. He asked about how long it would take for an
individual to get food stamps once they left jail.
Mr. Shilling stated that the language in question included
all "or" statements, so any one of the four requirements
(if complied with) would make individuals eligible for food
stamps. He thought every inmate's reentry plan would be
different, and could not speak to the duration of time it
would take to qualify for food stamps. He thought the
question might be better addressed to the Department of
Corrections (DOC).
Senator Coghill stated that the language specified an
inmate "is complying" rather than "has complied."
Representative Gara asked if an individual would qualify
for food stamps if she or he met one of the other three
conditions, or if all four were required.
Mr. Shilling read the language as requiring an individual
to only meet one of the four requirements.
Representative Gara inquired about bail schedules as
addressed in Section 190 of the bill. He asked about the
difference between what the prior version of the bill
intended to do and the new version, which would re-
establish bail schedules.
Mr. Shilling detailed that the commission had wanted each
defendant to receive a pretrial risk assessment prior to a
release decision being made, and bail schedules were
contrary to the principle. He continued that a bail
schedule allowed an individual to be released upon booking
into a DOC facility prior to any risk assessment being
completed. The commission had recommended eliminating bail
schedules; however, since the new version of the bill
removed the presumption of citation for law enforcement
officers, it had seemed prudent to allow the courts to keep
bail schedules in place. He stated that for further details
on bail schedules, he would defer to Nancy Meade, General
Counsel, Alaska Court System.
Representative Gara thought a large part of the bill would
be risk-assessed bail, and a system for implementation. He
asked how the proposed bail schedule change would impact
risk-assessed bail, and wondered if bail schedules would be
used in place the risk-assessed bail.
Mr. Shilling stated that while a release decision being
made prior to a risk assessment was contrary to research,
individuals that would be released on a bail schedule would
still receive a pretrial risk assessment prior to their
out-of-custody arraignment. He emphasized that the
individuals in question would be assessed at some point,
just not prior to release. He added that bail schedules
were for misdemeanor offenses only.
5:43:12 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the theft threshold listed on
the first page of the explanation of changes. He asked if
it was possible to measure the economic impacts of varying
felony threshold amounts.
Senator Coghill responded that there had been some research
done in other places in the United States, but he did not
believe Alaska had been able to quantify the differences
based on a dollar amount. He questioned as to what point a
person would be charged with a misdemeanor (with greater
capacity for accountability such as restitution); as
opposed to a felony, for which any fines were paid to the
state. He thought the $500 threshold had been put into law
in 1978. He was not generally in favor of indexing in law,
but thought if the state examined the cost of the CPI, the
amount would be around $1800. He thought it was a worthy
debate. He thought that theft of drugs was a much more
significant issue in the present than it was at the time
the threshold was established. He expressed that he was
open to discussing the matter further.
Mr. Shilling stated that the research showed that raising
property crime threshold values did not have any
correlation to an increase or decrease in property crime.
He would be happy to provide more detail if needed.
5:46:10 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to duties of the pretrial services
officers as listed on page 3 of the summary of changes. He
referred to previous discussion with the sponsor on the
issue, and wanted the committee to understand the intent of
the changes. He discussed the ability to provide more
opportunity for treatment after arrest. He stated he had
worked with Nancy Meade from the Alaska Court System to try
and find solutions, and she had come up with the bill
language. The bill proposed that a screening for drug and
alcohol dependence be required when pretrial assessments
were being done. If it was found that the individuals had
dependency on drugs and/or alcohol, treatment would be
available on a voluntary basis.
Senator Coghill agreed that that increased treatment
opportunities was the goal all along. He thought the
language was appropriate. He wanted to make sure that
prejudicial statements were filtered properly in the risk
assessment tool. He thought it would be important to
consider when developing the tool. He thought perhaps
treatment could be offered as a diversionary program.
Representative Munoz asked about current sentencing for DV
assault 4. She wondered if the bill changed the sentencing.
Mr. Shilling believed that current statute stipulated that
a DV assault 4 crime could be sentenced up to a year. The
bill did not change the sentence length. He thought that
there were some mandatory minimum sentence lengths built
into the DV offense section of the bill.
5:49:19 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), responded that an
assault in the fourth degree (whether a DV offense or not)
was a class A misdemeanor, which was punishable from zero
up to 365 days. There was a maximum sentence of a year and
an Alaska statute that set a mandatory minimums for certain
assaults in the fourth degree based on whether there was a
previous conviction or whether or not the assault had
occurred after there was a restraining order in place.
Representative Munoz referred to the section on
misdemeanors on page 3 of the bill changes summary and
asked Mr. Skidmore to explain what an assault in the fourth
degree. .
Mr. Skidmore responded that an assault 4 was defined by
Alaska statute 1141, which was the misdemeanor level of
assault. He continued that there were different elements to
any crime that helped to classify the category of the
assault. He discussed factors such as the level of the
injury, the mental element (intentional, knowing, reckless,
or negligent), and whether or not a dangerous instrument
was used in the crime. The combination of the different
elements informed as to the exact level of assault.
Mr. Skidmore specified that the misdemeanor assault statute
had three subsections, the first of which talked about
recklessly causing physical injury to another person. The
second subsection pertained to when an individual
criminally negligently caused physical injury to another
person by means of dangerous instrument. The third
subsection dealt with an individual who by words or other
conduct, the person recklessly places another person in
fear of imminent physical injury. He explained that the
various terms (e.g. dangerous instrument, physical injury,
and serious physical injury) were all defined within the
statutes.
5:52:24 PM
Representative Munoz asked if the proposed change would add
assault in the fourth degree to the same level of
sentencing as a DV assault in the fourth degree.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the proposed change was that DV
offenses by law would have to be labelled a DV offense on
any charging documents. The way the bill previously read, a
DV assault 4 could be sentenced outside of the 30-day
presumptive sentencing. The change that occurred in the
bill stated that an assault 4 that was not a DV could be
sentenced in the same way that a DV assault could
potentially be sentenced. The elements of the crime did not
change, the difference was whether or not there was a crime
involving domestic violence or not.
Representative Munoz thanked Mr. Skidmore for the
clarification.
Representative Guttenberg asked about electronic monitoring
as mentioned on page 4 of the summary and on page 89 of the
bill. He asked if the language was in the previous version
of the bill, if it had changed, and why it was highlighted
on the summary document.
Mr. Shilling stated that the provision was in the bill that
the other body had passed, and thought it had been removed
in the first committee of referral in the House, and was
being placed back into the bill the CS.
Representative Guttenberg responded that he had questions
about electronic monitoring in the previous version. He
referred to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission at the
bottom of page 4 of the summary, asked about the effect of
eliminating the requirement that the commission study
social impact bonds.
Mr. Shilling responded that the commission had broad
authority to examine, analyze, and make recommendations on
all parts of the criminal justice system; presumably the
authority would include social impact bonds that were meant
to reduce recidivism. He believed that the commission
already had the capability to look into the issues.
Co-Chair Thompson referred back to a question from
Representative Gara.
Representative Gara responded that there were a couple of
issues he might want to take up with one or two amendments
the following day, but would talk with the sponsor on the
matters.
5:55:50 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the duties of pretrial
services officers listed on page 3 of the summary. She
understood that the CS would require pretrial service
officers to make recommendations. She asked what kind of
qualifications would be required for pretrial services
officers. She thought the proposed language would require
the positions to have more knowledge on recommendations to
the courts.
Mr. Shilling understood that the pretrial services officer
role would be very similar to that of a probation officer.
Currently probation officers at DOC were trained and
skilled in assessing individuals for their risks and needs,
as well as making recommendations. He opined that the
probation officer role could very easily transfer over to
the pretrial services role.
Senator Coghill stated that the bill was trying to help
define a new concept of law. He furthered that under
pretrial, risk assessments would determine if an offender
needed to be in jail or needed a treatment program. He
specified that the language was just adding to the list of
the risk assessments.
Co-Chair Thompson assumed that much of the risk assessment
would be examining background, court records, and prior
offenses.
Senator Coghill thought the risks being assessed was based
on if there was a threat to themselves or the public, and
the ability to show up to court. He furthered that if there
was a drug abuse or alcohol problem, it would fall into
both risk categories. The pretrial services officers would
be making the risk assessments based on the individual's
history.
Representative Wilson referred to her background with
special education and stated that she had given assessments
to children. She was concerned that the state was going to
require raising the necessary level of qualifications for
those doing assessments as part of pretrial services.
Senator Coghill indicated that the recommendation had come
from the committee rather than the commission or the
sponsor. The language would add an additional duty to
pretrial services officers, and the implementation would
reveal the effectiveness or not.
Representative Wilson did not want the state to be sued
over recommendations made by an individual in a job class
that had no valid way of accomplishing, which had happened
in other areas.
Mr. Shilling responded that it was important to note that
the recommendations were simply considered by the court.
The court had the final say on what conditions were imposed
on an individual and whether a release decision was made.
Representative Wilson stated that the same thing happened
at the Office of Children's Services, and the court took
almost all of the recommendations. She thought if it was
not the right person making the recommendations, then the
wrong therapy, treatment, or direction could result.
6:00:31 PM
Representative Edgmon referred to the bottom of page 3 of
the summary, and the reference to a geriatric parole, which
would increase the age of eligibility from 55 to 60. He
asked for a comment from the bill sponsor as to what the
language might do to the overall savings assessment. He
recalled from the criminal justice report that there would
be a savings of $424 million over 10 years. He acknowledged
that changing the age of eligibility would likely not
result in huge savings; but knew that prisoners were more
expensive as they aged. He thought there might be cost
impacts associated with the change.
Senator Coghill concurred with Representative Edgmon that
the change would be a little more impactful, but was also
within the range of what the commission recommended. It was
also true that the issue of the unclassified sex felonies
had previously not been addressed, but was addressed in the
CS.
Representative Edgmon referred to background checks listed
on page 3 of the summary. He asked for the sponsor to
comment on removing the provision pertaining to a criminal
history check and fingerprinting for marijuana
establishments, which he thought was a national
requirement.
Senator Coghill explained that the issue had been requested
by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board (now the Alcohol
Beverage and Marijuana Control Board). The board was
looking for the ability to get background checks. The
language had passed in a previous bill and was no longer
needed in the bill being considered.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day. He stated that the committee would consider amendments
for CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM.
^RECESSED to the call of the Chair
6:02:59 PM
ADJOURNMENT
6:03:03 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|