Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/24/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 69: "An Act relating to registration of and
information about sex offenders and amending
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c) and
32(b)."
HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
HB 97: "An Act clarifying the responsibilities of the
Department of Health and Social Services and
parents for children who are committed to the
custody of the department and are placed by the
department with the parents; and providing for an
effective date."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
DEBRA GERRISH
9202 Emily Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-3236
Position Statement: Supported HB 69
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4990
Position Statement: Discussed HB 69
C E. SWACKHAMMER
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Phone: 465-4322
Position Statement: Discussed HB 69
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Discussed HB 69
DOUG WOOLIVER
Staff for the House Majority
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6846
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 69
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 69
SHORT TITLE: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Ulmer,Phillips,
Nordlund,Porter,Olberg,James,B.Davis,Green,Sanders,
Toohey,Mackie
TITLE: "An Act relating to registration of and information
about sex offenders and amending Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure 11(c) and 32(b)."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 89 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 90 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/27/93 169 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NORDLUND
01/29/93 183 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
02/01/93 202 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG, JAMES,
B.DAVIS
02/02/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/02/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/93 223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, SANDERS,
TOOHEY
02/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/93 250 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP
02/08/93 251 (H) DP: VEZEY,SANDERS,ULMER,G.DAVIS
02/08/93 251 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (LAW, CORR) 2/8/93
02/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/93 383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE
02/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 97
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
TITLE: "An Act clarifying the responsibilities of the
Department of Health and Social Services and parents for
children who are committed to the custody of the department
and are placed by the department with the parents; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 177 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 288 (H) HES RPT 7DP 2NR
02/10/93 288 (H) DP: BUNDE,G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,OLBERG
02/10/93 288 (H) DP: NICHOLIA,B.DAVIS,BRICE
02/10/93 288 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY
02/10/93 289 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 2/10/93
02/17/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-20, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Committee meeting was called to order at
2:08 p.m. on February 24, 1993. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that although two bills were
scheduled to be heard, the committee would likely not have
time to hear HB 97, Parental Care of Child in State Custody.
The chairman announced that the committee would first take
up HB 69, Sex Offender Registration.
HB 69 - SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
Number 031
DEBRA GERRISH, from Juneau, testified that she had been
raped 19 years earlier. She stated that for many years she
feared what would happen when her attacker was released from
prison. She said she supported HB 69 because she believed
that victims of sex offenses should not have to live with
the fear of their attackers reappearing.
Number 070
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that HB 69 would require that
convicted sex offenders register with the Department of
Public Safety or a local police department. He added that
the registration information would be available to the
public and to victims.
Number 103
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, described amendments made to a proposed Judiciary
committee substitute (CS). She called members' attention to
a work draft dated February 24, 1993. She stated that the
first change was located on page 1, section 2, of the work
draft. She noted that in the work draft the specific
registration requirements were set out, whereas the previous
version of the bill merely stated that an offender needed to
register.
MS. HORETSKI added that failure to register was made a class
A misdemeanor in the current work draft. She noted that in
an earlier version of HB 69, failure to register was
sometimes a class A misdemeanor, and other times a class B
misdemeanor.
Number 157
MS. HORETSKI noted a technical, cross-referencing change
located in section 3, line 6. She mentioned that major
changes had been made to section 4 of the work draft. She
said that an earlier draft of the bill was thought to
provide impediments to registration by requiring an offender
to register with the state troopers. If the offender was
not able to reach the state troopers, then he could register
at a local police department. The current work draft, on
page 2, line 19, required an offender to register with
either the state troopers or a local police department.
This new language was proposed by the Department of Public
Safety, she added, and was supported by the chiefs of
police.
Number 190
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 2, line
23. She said the words "at a minimum" had been added prior
to the list of registration requirements. She noted that
the change would give the Department of Public Safety
latitude to expand the registration requirements. She
indicated that on page 2, line 27, the word "Alaska" was
removed from in front of "driver's license number."
MS. HORETSKI commented that the phrase "local police
department" appeared throughout the current work draft.
However, the drafters preferred to use the phrase "municipal
police department" because it was felt that the latter
phrase was more clearly defined in statute.
Number 219
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Horetski if "municipal police
department" would, in any instance, not apply to a local
police department in Alaska.
Number 223
MS. HORETSKI replied that according to the drafters,
"municipal police department" would apply to all local
police departments in the state.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if the phrase would apply to village
public safety officers (VPSOs) as well.
MS. HORETSKI indicated that village public safety officers
would not be included in the definition of "municipal police
department." She said that she recalled Deputy Commissioner
Swackhammer of the Department of Public Safety saying that
the department did not favor including VPSOs because they
were not equipped with cameras and fingerprinting equipment.
Number 237
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if using "municipal police department"
would exclude the North Slope Borough police department.
Number 245
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER, of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, responded that the North Slope Borough was
considered a municipality under Title 29 of the Alaska
Statutes. He commented that in a few instances, villages
had what were called village police officers. In those
cases, he said, the officer's authority was conferred by the
village. He said he preferred that HB 69 use the term
"local police department."
REP. GREEN questioned whether either "local" or "municipal"
could be used.
MS. HORETSKI replied that the drafter's objection was that
the term "local" was not defined in statute, whereas the
term "municipal" was. She said that she did not mind using
the term "municipal" as long as it was broad enough to
include police departments located in smaller communities
that perhaps had not yet incorporated. She added that the
drafters believed that the "municipal" terminology would
cover those smaller departments.
Number 279
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the test of the language was
whether or not it created more questions than it answered.
He noted that the statute would be interpreted by those
individuals who were required to register. He said he would
be more comfortable with the term "local police department"
as a common knowledge term.
Number 295
REP. NORDLUND said that he believed that any local,
organized political subdivision was considered a
municipality under state law. He commented that the term
"local police department" was less precise in that it was
unclear whether or not that term covered VPSOs. He said the
proper terminology should be researched.
Number 308
REP. PHILLIPS noted that a definition of "local police
department" could be added to HB 69.
Number 312
MS. HORETSKI stated that new language appeared on page 3,
lines 8-11. She said subsection (e) required that an
offender required to register on or after January 1, 1997,
provide two specimens of blood and a saliva sample. The
specimens and the sample would be sent to the Department of
Public Safety for genetic typing analysis. She noted that
the department wished to make some comments about this
addition to the bill.
Number 340
REP. PHILLIPS asked what the rationale had been behind
waiting until 1997.
Number 341
MS. HORETSKI replied that the state crime laboratory did not
currently have the expertise to perform genetic typing
analysis.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if it would take three years for the
department to gain that expertise.
MS. HORETSKI responded that representatives of the
Department of Public Safety could best address Rep.
Phillips' question.
Number 352
REP. GREEN asked about how an offender would go about
"providing" samples and specimens.
MS. HORETSKI stated that the department felt it was not
capable of undertaking the genetic typing analysis at the
present time. However, the bill would give the department
the authority to perform the analysis in the future. She
noted that in other states, offenders provided samples prior
to their release from prison. She added that the
Departments of Public Safety and Corrections would be able
to work out cooperative procedures. She said that strict
procedures for providing samples would have to be employed.
She commented that HB 69 would give the Department of Public
Safety the authority to adopt regulations to implement the
specimen program.
MS. HORETSKI indicated that the registration period had been
changed in the current work draft on page 3, lines 15 and
17. She stated that for unclassified, class A, and class B
felony sex offenses, an offender would have to register for
20 years, as opposed to 10 years in an earlier version of HB
69. In addition, an offender convicted of a class C felony
or a class A misdemeanor sex offense would have to register
for 10 years (as compared to five years in earlier versions
of HB 69).
Number 391
REP. PHILLIPS said that during the last committee meeting,
members had requested a lifetime registration requirement.
Number 394
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Phillips was correct.
However, he noted that the Department of Law was concerned
that a lifetime registration would be difficult to defend.
He said that if the committee still wanted to create a
lifetime registration requirement, Margot Knuth from the
Department of Law should address the issue.
Number 406
REP. PHILLIPS stated that she would also like to hear from
the Department of Public Safety on the subject.
Number 425
MS. HORETSKI noted that the definition of "sex offense" had
been expanded to include the distribution of child
pornography and first-degree promotion of prostitution. She
added that the definition now also included references to
former laws.
MS. HORETSKI said that minor, technical changes had been
made to section 5 on pages 3 and 4. She stated that a
photograph of the offender was added to the list of
information that could be released to the public. Ms.
Horetski said technical changes had been made to section (c)
on page 4.
MS. HORETSKI stated that changes had been made to the
Department of Public Safety's regulatory authority.
Subsections (B) and (C) were additions to the current work
draft, she said. Those two subsections specified that the
department would adopt regulations to ensure the appropriate
circulation to law enforcement agencies of information
contained in the central registry, and to provide to local
police departments the forms and directions necessary to
allow offenders to comply with registration requirements.
MS. HORETSKI noted that the next change was in HB 69's
applicability section. She said the work draft held that an
offender was required to register on the date that his or
her duty arose, or on January 1, 1994, whichever date
occurred later.
Number 527
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer if
January 1, 1997, was a good date for implementation of the
genetic typing analysis program.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER replied that it was
difficult to determine what an appropriate date was due to
changes in technology. He commented that the department
would not need a saliva sample because a single blood sample
would be sufficient for the department's purposes. He noted
that with current technology, genetic typing analysis would
be cost-prohibitive for the department. He said he saw the
advantage of having the ability to do that testing allowed
in statute, with the program implemented as technology
allowed. He noted that the department projected that it
would not be able to implement the program for at least two
years.
Number 557
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if HB 69 could provide that the
department was authorized to conduct genetic typing analysis
when technology was available.
Number 561
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER responded that he did not
think that was possible. He said he agreed with Ms.
Horetski on her approach of including a date certain for
implementing the program. He expressed his belief that it
would be easier to include a date in the bill at the time,
rather than amending the law later. He recommended that the
committee strike language relating to saliva samples. He
also recommended that HB 69 mention that the department
would adopt regulations for how samples would be provided.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the regulations section of the bill
did not already provide for that.
Number 580
MS. HORETSKI said she believed that the regulations section
already provided for implementing the specimen program. She
called the members' attention to page 4, line 18, of the
work draft.
Number 590
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER stated that the department
would implement the program so as to ensure that samples
came from a particular offender.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the safe thing to do would be
to include the January 1, 1997, date in the bill. She said
the department could ask for an amendment to the law if it
was apparent that the program could not be implemented by
that date.
REP. GREEN asked if the language pertaining to genetic
typing analysis should be dropped from the bill. A
discussion ensued among committee members, Ms. Horetski, and
Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer over what to do about the
genetic typing analysis language.
Number 612
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that striking the language would not
preclude the department from conducting genetic typing
analyses, but would allow the department to adopt
regulations that included that type of analysis.
Number 632
MS. HORETSKI suggested a language change that required a sex
offender to "provide a specimen of blood adequate for
genetic typing analysis, including analysis of DNA."
Number 644
REP. GREEN commented that he did not want to require the
Department of Public Safety to do something that they might
not want to do.
Number 648
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the suggested language required
that a specimen be adequate for doing a certain type of
analysis, but did not require that this type of analysis be
performed. He asked Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer to
comment on the duration of the registration requirements.
Number 659
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER said that he was in favor of
a lifetime registration requirement. However, he said he
understood that there were legal complications surrounding
lifetime registration requirements.
Number 671
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MARGOT KNUTH, of the DEPARTMENT
OF LAW'S CRIMINAL DIVISION, stated that it would be helpful
to know about the experiences of other states which had
lifetime registration requirements. She added that she did
not know whether or not Alaska could enact a lifetime
registration requirement. She said that most individuals
would find it reasonable to require lifetime registration
for predatory sex offenders. She stated that the problem
that she foresaw was that the definition of "sex offenders"
included some fairly "minor" sex offenses, including
statutory rape.
MS. KNUTH commented that due process laws required a
relationship between legitimate goals of government and
requirements such as registration of sex offenders. She
noted that the Alaska constitution had the goals of
reaffirming societal norms and rehabilitating offenders.
She expressed her concern that the court system could view a
lifetime registration requirement as inconsistent with
rehabilitation of "non-classic" sex offenders.
MS. KNUTH said that she was also concerned about what would
happen if the courts determined that lifetime registration
of certain sex offenders was a problem. She commented that
the courts could throw out the entire registration law, or
could tinker with the law to come up with acceptable
registration periods for certain offenders.
Number 717
REP. PHILLIPS noted that it would be a good idea for the
committee to hear about the experiences of other states.
She indicated that she would prefer lifetime registration
for offenders if the precedent of lifetime registration had
held up to challenges in other states.
Number 729
REP. GREEN asked why registration periods of 10 and 20 years
had been placed in HB 69.
Number 729
MS. KNUTH said that the numbers were probably a result of
simply wanting higher numbers than had been in earlier
versions of HB 69.
Number 732
DOUG WOOLIVER, STAFF TO THE HOUSE MAJORITY, said there are
currently at least eight states that have lifetime
registration requirements for sex offenders. He stated that
the state of Washington had a lifetime registration
requirement for class A felonies, 15 years for class B
felonies, and 10 years for class C felonies. He noted that
if the committee was concerned that lifetime registration
for lesser sex crimes might be excessively severe, the
Washington model might be a good one to follow.
MR. WOOLIVER commented that the Washington law was currently
being challenged. He said the law had been upheld at the
appellate level last summer. He added that the law had been
argued before the Washington Supreme Court, but a decision
had not yet been issued. He indicated that numerous states
had lifetime registration requirements.
Number 759
REP. GREEN commented that he liked the approach taken by
Washington state, as it would likely protect against the
courts throwing out the registration requirements entirely.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Wooliver if the Alaska Statutes
lent themselves to the division of registration periods, as
the state of Washington had done.
MR. WOOLIVER said that Alaska could break down its
registration requirements in a manner similar to the state
of Washington.
Number 775
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee wished for staff to
develop language creating such a breakdown of registration
periods.
REP. PHILLIPS indicated that this was her desire, and
commented that the minimum registration period should be 10
years.
MS. HORETSKI asked if the committee approved of a lifetime
registration requirement for offenders convicted of
unclassified, class A, or class B felony sex offenses, and a
10 year registration requirement for offenders convicted of
class C felony sex offenses or class A misdemeanor sex
offenses.
Number 789
MS. KNUTH suggested a lifetime registration for unclassified
and class A felonies, because both crimes carried
presumptive sentences. She said the presumptive sentences
were an indication of the seriousness of the crimes
involved. She suggested that class B and class C felonies,
and misdemeanors, be given registration periods of less than
lifetime.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be logical to have one
registration period for class B and class C felonies, and a
shorter period for misdemeanors.
MS. KNUTH said that the chairman's suggestion was logical.
TAPE 93-20, SIDE B
Number 005
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested a 25 year registration period for
class B and C felonies, and a 10 year registration period
for misdemeanors.
Number 010
MS. KNUTH commented that the 25 year period for class B and
class C felonies exceeded the Washington state law by far.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that Washington state had a 15 year
registration requirement for class B felonies and a 10 year
registration period for class C felonies.
Number 023
REP. PHILLIPS stated that since the current work draft of
HB 69 required a 20 year registration period for class B
felonies, they could leave that requirement as it was,
adding class C felonies to that requirement. A 10 year
requirement could be placed on misdemeanor offenders, she
said.
MS. KNUTH commented that if the courts had a problem with
registration periods in the bill, they would likely just
lower one level down to the next level, instead of striking
down the entire law.
Number 040
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Alaska had a constitutional right
to privacy, and that right needed to be kept in mind. He
asked the committee members if any other issues required
discussion.
REP. PHILLIPS replied that the issue of local police
departments versus municipal police departments needed to be
researched.
Number 074
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Horetski if she were aware of a
police department that the committee considered local and
capable of receiving registration information, but which was
not located within a municipality.
Number 080
MS. HORETSKI responded that she did not know the answer to
the chairman's question.
Number 084
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SWACKHAMMER stated that he had asked
department officials to identify villages that had police
officers. He noted that there was a difference between
village public safety officers and village police officers.
He said the department would provide that information to the
committee later.
Number 095
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 69 would be back before
the committee on the following Friday.
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated there was not time to hear HB 97.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked the committee to consider introducing
as a committee bill a House bill which had died the previous
year in the Senate Rules Committee. The bill dealt with the
state's right to appeal in criminal cases, he said. Hearing
no objection, he announced that the bill would be introduced
as a Judiciary Committee bill.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|