02/13/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Select Committee on Legislative Ethics | |
| HB353 | |
| HB400 | |
| HB384 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 384 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2006
1:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Lindsey S. Holmes - Anchorage
Herman G. Walker, Jr. - Anchorage
Dennis E. "Skip" Cook - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to sentences for sexual offenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to disasters and confiscation of firearms."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 384
"An Act relating to fines and offenses; amending Rule 8(b),
Alaska District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN, LYNN
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) JUD, FIN
02/03/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/03/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/08/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
01/27/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/06 (H) JUD, FIN
02/13/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 384
SHORT TITLE: FINES AND OFFENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ANDERSON
01/20/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/06 (H) JUD, FIN
02/13/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDSEY S. HOLMES, Appointee
to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of the appointment of
Lindsey S. Holmes to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics;
spoke as one of the prime sponsors of HB 353.
HERMAN G. WALKER, JR., Appointee
to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee
to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the
confirmation hearings pertaining to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 353, provided a
presentation regarding sex offender containment.
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Training, Policy and Research Project
Coordinator
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered to provide information when HB 353
is next heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 400 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
ALLEN STOREY, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 400; responded to questions during discussion of HB 384.
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison
National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 400, provided
comments, responded to questions, and urged support of the bill.
TODD SHARP, Lieutenant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 384.
CLIFF STONE, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 384.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:21:56 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Wilson, Kott, Anderson, and Gruenberg were present at
the call to order. Representatives Gara and Coghill arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Select Committee On Legislative Ethics
1:24:09 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would first consider
the appointment of Lindsey S. Holmes to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
1:24:17 PM
LINDSEY S. HOLMES, Appointee to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, in response to the question of why she
wished to serve on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
relayed that she grew up in a household that believed it was
important to be involved in the community, and so when she was
asked to serve, it seemed like doing so would be a very good way
to be involved in government and her community. She offered her
belief that it is very important for people to trust that there
is a fair process and that the rules will be clear.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the House Judiciary Standing Committee
has spent a lot of time working on the structure and procedures
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and has had oral
input into how the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
functions. She emphasized that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is important and provides a venue to vet
concerns that the public may have. In order to preserve the
functioning of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, the
procedures must emphasize due process, fairness, and
transparency. Noting that a Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics hearing that took place in 2002 raised issues that were
of concern to the legislature, she offered her hope that as a
public member Ms. Holmes will keep in mind that those who come
before the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics must be
treated fairly because even if wrongly accused, ethics
complaints can be harmful to one's political career and
financial wellbeing.
1:29:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON thanked Ms. Holmes for [being willing
to] serve, and remarked on her resume and the broad experience
listed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL thanked Ms. Holmes for being willing to
serve. He remarked that it is important for the public to know
that people will be held accountable in cases of ethics
wrongdoing, but cautioned against allowing the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics to be used inappropriately.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that one of the issues the House Judiciary
Standing Committee had asked the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics to research was the issue of whether the person serving
as counsel to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics should
then be allowed to also serve as the prosecutor in an ethics
complaint hearing. She suggested that such a situation would
result in a conflict of interest at least in appearance if not
in fact. She said she hopes that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics will be proactive when it sees similar
potential problems with its procedures.
1:34:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, relayed
that he'd had an opportunity to work with Ms. Holmes on the
Conference of Alaskans and has found her to be an exemplary [co-
worker], and he recommended that the committee approve her
confirmation.
1:35:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Lindsey S. Holmes as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. There being no objection, the
confirmation was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
1:35:37 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would next consider
the appointment of Herman G. Walker, Jr., to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
1:35:53 PM
HERMAN G. WALKER, JR., Appointee to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, in response to the question why he wishes to
continue serving on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
said he enjoys doing so, considers it to be very beneficial and
enlightening, and feels it is a commitment to be able to give
back to the community in this manner. He said he would echo the
comments of both Ms. Holmes and Chair McGuire regarding the
importance of the role that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics plays, particularly in providing a venue for public
input.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as a member of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, said he has found Mr. Walker to
be a fair chair who has an open mind.
1:37:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Herman G. Walker, Jr., as appointee to the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. There being no
objection, the confirmation was advanced from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:38:03 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would next consider
the appointment of Dennis E. "Skip" Cook to the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics.
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, in response to the question of why he wishes
to continue serving on the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, remarked on the turnover the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics has experienced and the fact that he is one
of the longest tenured person currently serving, and relayed
that some of the other members, believing continuity to be
important, encouraged him to continue serving. He said he feels
that the work of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is
important, and noted that fascinating and complex questions come
before them.
MR. COOK mentioned that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics essentially does three things: provides informal advice
to legislators and legislative staff seeking it; provides formal
advisory opinions; and adjudicates complaints. He opined that
the first two functions, along with the training the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics provides to the legislature at
the beginning of each session, are very important and are
designed to avoid complaints. He said that he feels strongly
about ethics and ethics matters, enjoys serving on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics and being part of the process,
and is willing to continue serving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA thanked all the appointees to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and remarked on its importance
and the level of commitment needed to serve on it. He asked
whether appointees serve a three-year term.
CHAIR McGUIRE said they do.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as a member of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, noted that he has also served
with Mr. Cook and has found him to be of exemplary character and
a very valuable member who acts judicially and fairly, and he
highly recommends him.
1:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to advance from committee the
nomination of Dennis E. "Skip" Cook as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. There being no objection, the
confirmation was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that until the aforementioned
appointees are confirmed, the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics lacks a quorum and so can't conduct business, and
requested that the confirmations be scheduled for consideration
on the House floor soon. He asked when the next meeting of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is scheduled to be held.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, said a meeting
will be scheduled once it is possible to establish a quorum.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that it would help if
the appointees could be confirmed as soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reminded members that signing the reports
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether it is necessary for
members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to be
attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that one of the public members is
not an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics remember to view complaints from a common
sense viewpoint rather than from a legal or criminal viewpoint.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that's a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he would be interested in
adjusting the terms so that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics would always be able to assemble a quorum. At the point
at which that issue is addressed, he added, he would also be
interested in considering the question of whether the public
seats should be filled with attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on that first point, noted that the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has discussed possibly
revising its procedures in order to address the issue of
maintaining a quorum.
MS. ANDERSON confirmed that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics has discussed changing the members' terms, staggering
them, so as to be able to maintain a quorum; having three seats
up for appointment at once puts the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics at a disadvantage.
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked the appointees to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics for their willingness to serve.
HB 353 - SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES
1:46:24 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to sentences for sexual
offenses." [Before the committee was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 353, Version 24-LS1449\G, Luckhaupt,
2/2/06, which had been adopted as the work draft on 2/8/06.]
1:46:45 PM
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner -
Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC), referred to the
PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Sex Offender Containment"
included in committee packets. She highlighted that 45 percent
of state prisoners participating in the 1991 Bureau of Justice
Statistics Survey committed a [sexual assault] while on
probation or parole.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to whether there is any
information regarding how Alaska fares with its probation system
[for sex offenders].
MS. PARKER informed the committee that such data for Alaska
isn't collected in a central location. However, she offered to
provide the committee with data regarding how many times
Alaska's prisoners or even just Alaska's sex offenders have been
booked, convicted, or issued a Petition to Revoke Probation
(PTRP).
MS. PARKER continued with her presentation by relaying that the
goal of the containment model is to [provide] information and
ensure public safety. She then informed the committee that
Alaska has twice the national average of rape per capita. In
response to Representative Coghill, Ms. Parker specified that
the aforementioned data relates to forcible rape.
1:50:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to the percentage of rapes that
are uninvestigated at the Anchorage Police Department (APD).
MS. PARKER said she didn't have statistics for APD. However,
she relayed that both in Alaska and in other jurisdictions, the
general rule is that a small percent of rapes are reported, of
those a small percent are investigated, and of those an even
smaller percent of the perpetrators are convicted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed the need for improvement in that
regard.
MS. PARKER continued by relaying that reported forcible rapes in
Alaska increased 21.7 percent from 2000 to 2003. Reiterating
that forcible rapes are greatly underreported, she noted that
there were 521 forcible rapes and 54 attempted rapes reported in
2003.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether something happened in
Alaska to cause that increase.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether more people are beginning to report
rape.
MS. PARKER said that there are several possibilities. She
opined that education and advocacy group interventions are
probably leading to an increase in reporting. Furthermore, the
increase may be due to increased law enforcement efforts in an
area.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that a large part of the solution has
to be more law enforcement officers and prosecutorial resources
in this area, both of which cost money. He further opined that
if the number of cases being investigated [doesn't increase],
then "we're missing the boat."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred, recalling discussions with
his father who believes that since his retirement from the
Alaska State Troopers in 1983, the number of troopers has
decreased by half.
1:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that although there was an
appropriation last year for trooper positions, it could not be
filled this year.
MS. PARKER interjected that use of polygraphs, treatment, and
supervision in the [community] would really help. Furthermore,
sharing information regarding the number of crimes committed,
the relapse patterns, and the number of victims with law
enforcement agencies will help prevent assaults. This sharing
of information in Oregon has prevented a number of assaults and
assisted law enforcement in its efforts to address the assaults
that have occurred.
MS. PARKER informed the committee that more than half of the
victims of sexual assault have been raped more than once.
Furthermore, the victims are six times more likely to develop
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), three times more likely to
develop major depression, and thirteen times more likely to
attempt suicide. She noted that the aforementioned doesn't
address the drug and alcohol abuse [that can result as well].
Alaska's cost of victimization, in relation to the known 521
victims, totals about $45 million a year. She noted that the
"Making Sense of Rape in America: Where Do the Numbers Come
From and What Do They Mean?" report indicated that only 16
percent of victims reported being raped.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that rape victims are probably a
large portion of the suicide population. He asked whether Ms.
Parker has worked with [the groups studying suicide and rape] in
compiling statistics.
MS. PARKER replied no, adding that most of the studies [she has
referenced] are national, but they produce similar findings to
those in Alaska. In further response to Representative Coghill,
Ms. Parker said that the groups studying suicide and rape
nationally haven't spoken with her directly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested, then, that the nexus [between
those groups and Alaskan groups] should be made.
MS. PARKER clarified that although those groups don't work with
her directly, they do work with the providers in DOC and others
who provide health services for victims as well as offenders.
Ms. Parker then turned to the question of who reports, and
relayed that victims of a younger age and who know the
perpetrator delay reporting the crime. However, those victims
who have their life threatened, receive physical injury, and the
perpetrator is a stranger are more likely to report the crime.
She then informed the committee that of the 16 percent of
reported sexual crimes, only 27 percent of those result in an
arrest. The aforementioned is one of the reasons why the sex
offender recidivism rate is so low; it is actually artificially
low. In fact, with regard to sexual abuse of a minor, a minor
victim is less likely to report again when the perpetrator is
from a position of trust, such as a relative.
[Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative
Anderson.]
1:59:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether anyone has ever asked
what can be done to make it more comfortable for [underage rape
victims] to report an incident.
MS. PARKER opined that [underage rape victims not reporting a
repeated sexual abuse] is related more to concerns regarding
what society as a whole and the their family will think. She
said she wasn't sure how that could be remedied.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed his belief that generally, with
regard to crime, things are made tougher by increasing sentences
or creating new crimes. However, it seems that less often
encouragement is given to people to do the right thing and
report the crime.
MS. PARKER, in response to a question, said that the DOC doesn't
specifically work with victims, save obtaining information and
helping them through the process.
[Representative Anderson returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.]
2:04:01 PM
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Training, Policy and Research Project
Coordinator, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual
Assault (ANDVSA), began by informing the committee that the
ANDVSA is a nonprofit organization that consists of 20 member
programs that address domestic violence and sexual assault.
Therefore, the ANDVSA works directly with many victims. In
response to an earlier question, Ms. Ashenbrenner offered to
provide information to the committee when the bill is heard
next.
MS. PARKER continued with the PowerPoint presentation and
returned to the matter of delayed disclosure with regard to
victims who are children. She informed the committee that often
50-70 percent of the victims are children 17 years of the age or
younger. With regard to adult victims, 71 percent are concerned
about the family knowing, 68 percent about others knowing, and
69 percent about being blamed by others. Therefore, the goal of
the containment approach is to obtain and share information.
She highlighted the slide that detailed the policies of the
containment approach, which are modeled after the containment
programs of Oregon and Colorado. The most important part of
ensuring that things "stay in check" are the consequences
provide by the criminal justice system. Therefore, the
consequences for a failed polygraph must be immediate, linked to
the risk, include increased surveillance, involve obtaining
corroborative information, [and include informing others of the
polygraph results]. She assured the committee that [the DOC]
won't revoke [probation] based solely on a deceptive polygraph.
Currently, the treatment provider, the probation officers, and
the polygraph examiner all work together to ensure that the
information is accurate, and so the question of whether to
revoke [probation] is addressed as a team decision.
2:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the results of a polygraph
would be used in a probation revocation hearing.
MS. PARKER stated that it wouldn't be cited as the reason for
revocation. She explained that [the DOC] obtains independent
verification or evidence that something occurred, although "we
may have been tipped off to it." She confirmed that at the
[probation revocation] hearing, the polygraph isn't used and
would remain so under the terms of HB 353.
MS. PARKER pointed out that the next few slides of the
PowerPoint presentation, specifically the one entitled, "Secrets
Revealed", relate shocking information with regard to the
information discovered through treatment and the polygraph
versus what is available in criminal justice records. She
relayed that the polygraph is used [with sexual offenders] in 38
other jurisdictions. She emphasized that the DOC is only
proposing use of the polygraph with sex offenders because it has
been the most valuable tool with such offenders. Through the
use of the polygraph in other jurisdictions, it has been learned
that the traditional rapist doesn't really exist and
perpetrators are very willing to cross over into various
populations of victims. The most startling finding for
treatment providers is that according to court records, only 7
percent of [sex offenders] have both adult and child victims,
whereas according to polygraph reports, 70 percent [of sex
offenders] have both adult and child victims. The
aforementioned information is of particular importance to the
criminal justice system, especially in relation to probation and
parole [of a sex offender] and reuniting the offender with
his/her family, including children, when one doesn't know
whether the offender has assaulted children.
2:12:57 PM
MS. PARKER relayed that although the crime of incest supposedly
has the lowest recidivism rate, children who are victims of
incest are most likely to say they would never report it again.
She then turned attention to the PowerPoint slide that specifies
that 35 percent [of the sex offenders in Texas, Wisconsin, and
Oregon] assaulted strangers; while 57 percent assaulted from a
position of trust and 36 percent also assaulted adults. She
then relayed that the average age at which a sex offender begins
to [sexually offend] is between 12 and 16 years of age. The lag
time in detection, from the first sexual offense to the time the
offender is caught, is fairly high.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether the question of why people commit
sexual offenses is being addressed at all.
MS. PARKER opined that the risk assessment and treatment
processes provide much of the background data on offenders.
However, there is a broad range of offenders.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her understanding that the DOC attempts to
look at more than just the punishment of an offender by trying
to rehabilitate when possible. She expressed hope that the
[polygraph] can be used in Alaska to discover what leads to a
12-year-old committing a sexual offense and what "we" might be
able to do better.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his recollection that during the
first year of the current administration, it ended in-prison sex
offender treatment programs. He inquired as to what programs
were ended and what programs were put in place for felony
convictions.
MS. PARKER clarified that only the one program at Hiland
Mountain Correctional Center was stopped. The aforementioned
was a small program that was only able to take minimum and "low-
medium" custody offenders, most of which were motivated and
amenable to treatment. The program treated about 10 percent of
sex offenders and thus 90 percent of the sex offenders weren't
receiving treatment at all. In the four years that that sex
offender treatment program was in operation, only 38 offenders
completed the program. The overall cost of the program, about
$500,000 a year, was being spent on low risk offenders.
Therefore, those resources were put into community treatment
where there were more providers. Ms. Parker explained that
through that change the department was able to provide more
treatment in the community as well as better services to more
offenders. In response to Representative Gara, Ms. Parker
confirmed that [under that program], sex offenders weren't
receiving treatment until they were released into the community,
and that's the case now as well.
2:19:09 PM
MS. PARKER informed the committee that most sex offenders were
not sexually assaulted as children, although they may have been
beaten, abused, or [otherwise] assaulted during their childhood.
Most people who are sexually assaulted do not become sex
offenders themselves.
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to what it would take to anonymously
assess and identify patterns of sexual offenders.
MS. PARKER relayed that the DOC has started a risk assessment
program such that every sex offender receives an in-depth risk
assessment prior to release from prison. Currently, two sex
offender treatment providers are on contract and travel to the
facilities where most sex offenders are housed, and are
performing the aforementioned assessments prior to the
offender's release.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that much of the
behavior of sexual offenders is a result of Internet
pornography.
MS. PARKER said that the Internet makes it easier for sex
offenders to access victims and materials, and engage in
behavior toward which they already have a tendency.
2:22:33 PM
MS. PARKER, in further response to Representative Coghill, said
that the department has statistics regarding whether a sex
offender was convicted of a crime involving the Internet.
However, what to attribute increased rates of [sexual offenses]
is more difficult to ascertain.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated the need for part of the
questioning to include what behaviors lead up to the sexual
offense.
MS. PARKER said that is addressed in the questionnaire that each
offender must complete. She explained that the next step is to
catalogue all the information for each offender and, as is done
in other states, enter the information into the criminal justice
database.
MS. PARKER relayed that the post-conviction polygraph with sex
offenders is one of the most accurate polygraphs because it is
controlled, specific, and limited. Furthermore, most of the
information is obtained during the pre- and post-interview
rather than from the polygraph. She then reviewed the various
types of exams, which include the sex history exam, the specific
issue exam, and the maintenance exam. She then reviewed the
purpose of maintenance polygraph. She relayed that in Colorado,
69 percent of those sex offenders under supervision with the
polygraph were in compliance with probation. However, only 26
percent of those sex offenders who had supervision without the
polygraph were compliant with probation conditions.
MS. PARKER reminded the committee that [HB 353] proposes to
adopt standards similar to those of Colorado such that the
examiner would have graduated from an Alaska Psychological
Association (APA) accredited polygraph school, had a minimum of
150 criminal issue exams and a minimum of 50 clinical exams in a
12-month period, and 40 hours of specialized training every
three years. The department is in the process of developing
procedures; in fact, most of the treatment providers are excited
about the prospect of using the polygraph as a tool in
treatment. She informed the committee that all [polygraph]
exams will be videotaped in order to ensure that all procedures
are followed. She then relayed that polygraph testing should
never be used in isolation, and that multiple methods should
always be used. She also relayed that the use of the polygraph
and treatment provides more information than use of the
polygraph or treatment alone.
MS. PARKER concluded by emphasizing that the goal of combining
treatment with the use of the polygraph is to provide more
information such that offenders become more successful in
completing probation and parole as well as not re-offending for
the rest of their lives. The ultimate goal, she stated, is
public safety. She then reviewed the PowerPoint slide entitled,
"The Containment Approach: Quality Control", and said that after
the program has been in place, the DOC will report back its
findings to the legislature.
2:29:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, one of the
prime sponsors of HB 353, offered to obtain answers to any
questions the committee may have. Representative Neuman relayed
his belief that there is a thought process [on behalf of the sex
offender] that he/she can get away with these assaults, and so
he wanted to send a strong message that "Alaska will not put up
with this."
[HB 353, Version G, was held over.]
HB 400 - CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS
2:30:29 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to disasters and
confiscation of firearms."
2:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 400, Version 24-LS1543\F, Luckhaupt,
2/9/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version F
was before the committee.
2:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HB 400,
relayed that his staff will present the bill, which was
engendered by the news from Louisiana that during the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, law enforcement officials were
confiscating firearms. [House Bill 400] proposes to prohibit
the taking of firearms from law-abiding citizens, though such
action would be acceptable to him, he relayed, if [enough]
probable cause for doing so could be demonstrated. He suggested
that the policy question is whether to make a violation of this
proposed statute a class A felony, as is currently provided for
in HB 400, particularly given that a violation would involve
disregarding a citizen's constitutional right; in other words,
the question is, should such behavior result in a high penalty.
Keeping order in times of [emergency] is important, he opined,
but during times when the government can't protect everyone, it
shouldn't take away a citizen's ability to protect
himself/herself. Under HB 400, he suggested, citizens will have
the right [to keep and bear arms] unless they have somehow done
something to forfeit that right.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked that the use of the term, "law-abiding
citizen" be addressed by staff, since she not seen that term
used in statute before and isn't aware that its even been
defined. Might it be better, she queried, to instead use the
phrase, "from a citizen who is not in the process of committing
a crime".
2:34:31 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative
Coghill that according to a conversation she'd had with
Representative Gruenberg, he was concerned that the original
bill was a little too broad; therefore, Version F proposes a
narrower focus in that firearms could still be confiscated from
those who are committing illegal or unlawful acts. To address
that concern, Legislative Legal and Research Services offered
the term, "law-abiding citizens".
MS. LIDSTER pointed out that Section 1 of Version F proposes to
add language to AS 26.23.200, which limits the authority given
to the governor and his assigns during disaster situations,
thereby precluding authorizing the confiscation of lawfully
owned, possessed, or carried firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Section 2 of Version F proposes to add a new section of law to
AS 26.23 such that the knowing confiscation, attempt at
confiscation, or the ordering of confiscation of a firearm
during a disaster emergency would result in a person being
guilty of a class A felony.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that they also provide a defense
to the proposed crime such that a firearm could be confiscated
if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is about to
commit a crime with the firearm. However, he is not sure what
level of proof would be required for the term, "reasonable
suspicion", nor what language should be used to ensure that law
enforcement can protect the public without fear of committing
the proposed crime.
MS. LIDSTER acknowledged that point, and offered to raise this
issue with the Department of Law (DOL), which, when initially
contacted, was neutral about HB 400.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that if there is a reasonable
suspicion of foul play, law enforcement will have some authority
anyway. He remarked that they may not be able to envision every
circumstance that could arise in a disaster emergency, and so
warned against attempting to list specific situations in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that in a criminal
context, in emergency situations, there is a specific threshold
that must be met [before action is taken]. He said he'd like to
find out [from the DOL] what that threshold is, as it may be
appropriate to put [a similar threshold] in the bill.
2:41:25 PM
ALLEN STOREY, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that from law
enforcement's point of view, in large-scale disasters there will
be property owners who want to defend their property and they
should have the right to do that, but there may also be people
who want to take that property away from its rightful owner or
who may otherwise seek to take advantage of the situation or who
may have emotional issues because of the stress placed upon
them, and such people may harm themselves or others. In such
disaster situations, where there is a breakdown in public
process, law enforcement agencies should have the ability to
referee such situations. In order to prevent looting or
bullying, law enforcement must take control of the situation,
and this might include taking away someone's firearm. He said
he certainly agrees with the spirit of the bill as long as it
includes sideboards that could address as yet unforeseen
circumstances in which law enforcement personnel need to have
some discretion regarding this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is amenable to looking at that
issue, but pointed out that occasionally the government can also
be as much of a bad actor as those seeking to take advantage of
emergency situations, and offered examples. Therefore, he said
he doesn't know that confiscating firearms as part of a blanket
approach is really the right answer in emergency situations.
The right to keep and bear arms has to stand strong in
situations wherein there is a breakdown in public safety
mechanisms and law enforcement can't protect everybody; one must
be able to protect oneself. He indicated that he is not willing
to entertain the concept of establishing martial law and
confiscating everyone's firearms simply to create order in
emergency situations, though he is sensitive to the balance that
must be maintained. He opined that there are enough laws
currently on the books to provide law enforcement with the
ability to confiscate someone's firearms in situations where it
is truly called for.
2:46:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that a law enforcement officer may
have a legitimate fear that someone who is a law-abiding citizen
at that point in time will soon perpetrate a crime, and
according to the language currently in the bill, the law
enforcement officer would be precluded from confiscating that
person's firearm. Therefore, the committee should come up with
language that says a law enforcement officer is not liable for
confiscating a firearm from a person who is about to use it to
shoot someone, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that such a situation could occur
now; a law enforcement officer could fear that someone is about
to use a firearm to commit a crime. However, even now, unless
the officer has probable cause, he/she can't act. In a disaster
emergency, a law enforcement officer will have to make a
judgment call as to whether to violate someone's constitutional
right in the interest of possibly preventing a crime. He
characterized this as dangerous ground.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the original bill had no exceptions,
whereas Version F at least specifies that the person must be a
law-abiding citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he has some of the same
concerns as were expressed by Representative Gara. He noted
that according to the briefing provided to the House State
Affairs Standing Committee by the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) regarding emergency services and
disaster preparedness, most such services and preparedness will
pertain to villages and to flooding. However, he added, most
villages have no law enforcement personnel because the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) [program] has been "defunded." He
suggested that in such a situation in such locations, it will be
total chaos, and under HB 400, any law enforcement officials who
come onto the scene will face the possibility of being charged
with a class A felony if they confiscate a firearm from someone
about whom they have no way of knowing whether he/she is a law-
abiding citizen.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she would be willing to hold the
bill over so that perhaps the issues raised could be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that [in emergency disaster
situations] the police - the militia - must have the authority
to keep order.
2:52:34 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison, National Rifle Association -
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), urged support of HB
400. He went on to say:
As has been discussed, the recent events in New
Orleans, during the aftermath of the hurricane,
demonstrate quite clearly that the right to keep our
arms is very important during a state of emergency.
... The very basis of the Second Amendment is the
empowerment of individuals with the right to provide
self-protection, and when is self-protection more
critical than during a time of disaster when law
enforcement resources are stretched beyond their
limits? This bill would protect law-abiding [Alaskan]
citizens from experiencing the blatant violation of
their rights that occurred in New Orleans. ...
In fact, in that situation, there was none of this
lack of clarity; it was a clear case of government
officials inappropriately taking people's property -
their firearms - and the NRA was forced to file a
lawsuit to stop the egregious violation of the rights
of people who were only trying to protect their
families and property. ... This bill would clarify
that lawfully owned, possessed, or carried firearms
cannot be seized, and then it would make accountable
for their actions persons who knowingly confiscate a
lawfully possessed firearm from [a] law-abiding
citizen.
Now, with respect to the questions that have come up
with regard to what's a law-abiding citizen, in my
mind, that amendment is really unnecessary because the
language of the bill as introduced refers to lawfully
owned, possessed, or carried firearms. So if they're
lawfully owned, possessed, or carried, then the person
is obviously a law-abiding citizen.
And with respect to the question of the person who may
become a person who's not lawfully owning, possessing,
or carrying, off the top of my head I'm not sure how
to answer that question, but ... what I do know is
that that's not what this bill is trying to get at,
and that's not what happened in New Orleans - what
happened in New Orleans was just an egregious
violation of a constitutional right, and I know that
that's what this bill is attempting to address. And
with that, I urge your support for the bill.
2:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake and fire, the New Orleans situation, and the volcanic
eruption involving Pompeii, and asked how a law enforcement
official is going to know, in a situation like one of those, who
exactly is law-abiding and who isn't. He added:
The power is out, their lives are in danger, and my
question is, whom should the law protect in that
situation? Would you want to be a law enforcement
official going into that situation if you couldn't
protect yourself and disarm somebody if you thought
there might be a danger you? Would you want to
volunteer and go in [in] that circumstance, without
the right to do that?
MR. JUDY suggested that the vast majority of government
officials are responsible and are not going to commit the type
of violations that were committed in New Orleans by a small,
tiny percentage [of government officials], and that what this
bill is targeting is that small percentage that were overzealous
and took improper calculation of the risk. He reiterated his
belief that what occurred in New Orleans was simply an egregious
violation of citizens' rights; people who were just trying to
protect their families and their property had their guns taken
because they possessed guns - there was no threat of risk.
2:57:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the problem is that
the person being criminalized via the bill and being subject to
a class A felony will be a law enforcement official. How can
such a person make that split second decision that may be
essential to protect the lives and property of everybody in the
neighborhood if he/she is faced with being charged with a class
A felony?
MR. JUDY acknowledged that perhaps a class A felony is not the
appropriate level of crime, but opined that the person who
knowingly confiscates a lawfully owned, possessed, or carried
firearm should be held accountable. He offered his
understanding that under existing law, law enforcement has a
certain level of authority, as long as there is probable cause,
to take certain actions. He posited that if someone were to be
charged with this proposed crime, the case would have to go to
court, and so the whole fact pattern of the case would be
reviewed; as long as probable cause can be shown, there won't be
a problem, but if there is no probable cause and the law
enforcement official knowingly confiscated a firearm, he/she
will be held accountable. He again acknowledged that perhaps a
class A felony is too steep.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I sympathize with the person
who's rights are violated, [but] I sympathize, frankly, more
with the person who's got to go in and clean up the mess; I'm
not sure how you balance that, and tough cases make tough law."
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that HB 400 [Version F] would be held
over.
HB 384 - FINES AND OFFENSES
2:59:53 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 384, "An Act relating to fines and offenses;
amending Rule 8(b), Alaska District Court Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [In committee
packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 384,
Version 24-LS0985\Y, Luckhaupt, 1/30/06.]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 384,
relayed that the bill in part proposes to raise - to $750 - the
maximum amount a person may be fined when found guilty of an
infraction or a violation as currently provided for in statute.
However, Section 2 sets $750 as the new minimum fine for a
violation of AS 02.40.020. Additionally, HB 384 will bring
language regarding penalties pertaining to fish and game
statutes - Title 16 - into alignment with the current statutory
definition of a class A misdemeanor. Regarding this latter
proposed change, he explained that in 2002 the legislature
doubled the fines for class A misdemeanors - from $5,000 to
$10,000 - but several important Title 16 penalties still list a
maximum fine of $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON characterized HB 384 as a housekeeping
bill, and opined that the proposed increase in fine amounts is
consistent with "today's values," begins to allow for inflation,
and will serve as a further deterrent to those contemplating an
action that might lead to an infraction or violation. He
concluded by saying that in today's society, the most serious
infractions and violations are the types of offenses that the
public observes daily and expects that enforcement action will
be taken to ensure its safety, and so by increasing the fines
levied against those that are found guilty, the [greater] good
will be served.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that two changes to the bill have
been recommended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 384, Version 24-LS0985\Y, Luckhaupt,
1/30/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version Y
was before the committee.
3:02:32 PM
TODD SHARP, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), said simply that the DPS
supports HB 384, and has been attempting to get infractions and
violations in line and consistent for a couple of years; it was
simply an oversight that some of the fines pertaining to
violations of Title 28 were left out during the last major
change to those violations.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said it appears that Sections 1 and 2 of
Version Y reduce what are now crimes to mere violations.
CLIFF STONE, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that although the
DPS was particularly interested in Title 28, as the drafter in
Legislative Legal and Research Services went through the bill,
he found other inconsistencies in the statutes and the language
that Sections 1 and 2 propose to change struck the drafter as
being inconsistent within Title 2.
3:05:01 PM
ALLEN STOREY, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), added that Sections 1 and 2
affect statutes that are not specifically tied to the DPS, but
according to his discussions with the drafter, putting a
monetary cap on a misdemeanor makes it a mere violation.
[Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative
Anderson.]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, though, that if the legislature
decided that particular conduct is worthy of being a crime and
engendering jail time, then reducing it to a violation
eliminates the possibility of jail time.
MR. STOREY offered his understanding that in the statutes that
Sections 1 and 2 propose to alter, the legislature didn't intend
for there to be jail time - simply a fine; so the drafters were
merely trying to correct that by calling the behaviors involved
violations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Section 1 alters the Uniform
Air Licensing Act, which in part contains provisions regarding
emergency rations and equipment; therefore, he doesn't want to
make a violation of that Act a mere violation, and would instead
prefer to strengthen it. He opined that there should either be
substantial testimony and discussion on the different sections
of the bill so that members understand what statutes are being
altered, or those sections should be deleted from the bill. He
asked that members be given copies of the different statutes
that the bill is proposing to alter.
[Representative Anderson returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that each part of HB 384
should be reviewed carefully, and that perhaps the bill might be
a good vehicle via which to create a class C misdemeanor, a
violation of which would engender 30 days in jail.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that the bill would be held over, and
remarked that having a sectional analysis would be helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that he would obtain that for
members.
[HB 384, Version Y, was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
3:13:06 PM
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|