02/13/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2012
2:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to deadlines in bills directing the adoption of
regulations and to the informative summary required for the
proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation."
- MOVED CSHB 216(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(2d JUD)
"An Act providing for the release of certain property in the
custody of a law enforcement agency to a crime victim under
certain conditions and relating to requests for that release by
the office of victims' rights."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act relating to service of process on prisoners; relating to
the crime of escape; relating to the definition of 'correctional
facility'; amending Rule 4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 216
SHORT TITLE: REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) P.WILSON
03/30/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/30/11 (H) STA, JUD
04/12/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/19/12 (H) Moved CSHB 216(STA) Out of Committee
01/19/12 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/20/12 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 4AM
01/20/12 (H) DP: P.WILSON, LYNN
01/20/12 (H) AM: KELLER, GRUENBERG, SEATON, PETERSEN
01/23/12 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
01/30/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/12 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/03/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 30
SHORT TITLE: RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DYSON
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, JUD
02/03/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/03/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/03/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/17/11 (S) Moved CSSB 30(STA) Out of Committee
02/17/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/11 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/21/11 (S) DP: KOOKESH, PASKVAN, MEYER, GIESSEL
02/21/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI
02/28/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/18/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/11 (S) Moved CSSB 30(JUD) Out of Committee
03/21/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/11 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/22/11 (S) DP: FRENCH, COGHILL
03/22/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, PASKVAN
03/22/11 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/25/11 (S) RETURNED TO JUD COMMITTEE
04/04/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/11 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/06/11 (S) Moved CSSB 30(2d JUD) Out of Committee
04/06/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/11 (S) JUD RPT CS (2d JUD) 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
04/07/11 (S) DP: FRENCH, PASKVAN, MCGUIRE
04/07/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI
01/20/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
01/20/12 (S) Heard & Held
01/20/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
01/27/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
01/27/12 (S) Moved CSSB 30(2d JUD) Out of Committee
01/27/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
01/27/12 (S) FIN RPT CS (2d JUD) 6DP
01/27/12 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, STEDMAN, THOMAS, EGAN,
OLSON, ELLIS
02/01/12 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/01/12 (S) VERSION: CSSB 30(2d JUD)
02/03/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/12 (H) JUD, FIN
02/13/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor of HB 216, responded to a
question.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 30 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Fred Dyson.
CHARLES KOPP, Staff
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responding to questions, assisted with the
presentation of SB 30 on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Dyson.
ANDREW WALKER, Owner
Computer Renaissance
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 30.
D. VICTOR KESTER, Director
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR)
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 30.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 30.
SENATOR FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:05:56 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Keller,
Thompson, Gruenberg, and Holmes were present at the call to
order. Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 216 - REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
2:06:26 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to deadlines in bills
directing the adoption of regulations and to the informative
summary required for the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal
of a regulation." [Before the committee was CSHB 216(STA);
adopted as the work draft on 2/10/12 was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 216, Version 27-LS0701\R, Bannister,
2/9/12.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Version R's [Section 4,]
and mentioned that the bill's sponsor has said that its proposed
effective date of July 1, 2012, is appropriate. He then drew
members' attention to Section 1's proposed new AS 24.08.035(g),
which lists certain entities that would be considered an agency
of the executive branch of state government for purposes of
complying with Section 1's proposed new AS 24.08.035(f).
2:08:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to add the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to
Section 1's proposed new AS 24.08.035(g).
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 216, in response to a query, indicated that she was
amenable to the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no objections,
announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:09:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 216, Version 27-LS0701\R, Bannister, 2/9/12, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 216(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
SB 30 - RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
2:10:43 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(2d JUD), "An Act providing for the
release of certain property in the custody of a law enforcement
agency to a crime victim under certain conditions and relating
to requests for that release by the office of victims' rights."
2:11:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, on
behalf of the sponsor, Senator Fred Dyson, explained that SB 30
would establish a statutory process by which crime victims may
request that property being retained by law enforcement agencies
for evidentiary purposes be returned to them. When crime
victims have their property held by a law enforcement agency as
evidence, it can sometimes be months or even years before the
property is returned. Such delay places additional burdens on
crime victims, including, in some instances, having to replace
the property, and the consequences can be even higher for crime
victims who are small business owners if the property being held
is a crucial component of their business. Under SB 30, a crime
victim could ask [the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) to request
of the law enforcement agency holding his/her property that the
agency return the property to him/her].
CHAIR GATTO noted that members' packets contain a letter from
one such crime victim, a small business that's had one of its
vehicles and trailers held as evidence for over a year. He
mentioned that [the legislature] wants to ensure that businesses
which are the victims of crimes are not hampered by such delays.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her understanding that there
hasn't been any opposition to SB 30 thus far.
2:14:59 PM
CHARLES KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State
Legislature, in response to questions and comments - after
mentioning that he is a retired law enforcement officer, and
that the purpose of SB 30 is to restore crime victims to "pre-
offense status" with regard to their property - explained on
behalf of the sponsor, Senator Dyson, that currently crime
victims may ask a law enforcement agency to return their
property, and nothing precludes the agency from doing so, but
there is no specific statutory process in place to address
situations in which the agency doesn't return the property when
so asked, and SB 30 would remedy this lack without impinging on
the ability of crime victims and law enforcement agencies to
reach agreement about returning property without help from the
OVR.
MR. KOPP, in response to further comments and questions, pointed
out that the court can already use existing law to address any
ownership issues that arise, and that nothing in the bill would
preclude the court from continuing to do so. Under SB 30, he
went on to explain, a crime victim who has not had his/her
property returned after requesting it of a law enforcement
agency, may ask the OVR to also request of the agency that it
return the property. The OVR may then do so after first
investigating whether the crime victim is entitled to the return
of the property. Once the OVR has made such a determination and
subsequent request of the agency, the agency shall - within 10
days - then request a hearing before the court to determine if
the property shall be released to the crime victim. Nothing in
the bill would prevent an agency from returning the property in
question prior to the conclusion of such a hearing, and nothing
in the bill stipulates when such a hearing shall occur -
calendaring the hearing would still be at the discretion of the
court.
MR. KOPP added that under SB 30, if the property is being held
in connection with a criminal case, the hearing shall be before
the court with jurisdiction over the case, and otherwise shall
be before a district court or superior court where the property
is located.
2:25:10 PM
ANDREW WALKER, Owner, Computer Renaissance, explained that
through the use of a fraudulent check, merchandise from his
company was stolen on September 9, 2010, but because three
defendants were involved in the crime, the merchandise, which is
still being held as evidence, won't be returned until all three
defendants have been prosecuted, which has yet to occur. He has
spent a considerable amount of time, he relayed, attempting to
recover the merchandise, but to no avail, and now it's probably
worth merely a fraction of its original value.
2:27:10 PM
D. VICTOR KESTER, Director, Office of Victims' Rights (OVR),
Alaska State Legislature, explained that SB 30 would provide
crime victims with a mechanism by which to recover property held
by a law enforcement agency, and would provide the OVR with the
authority to request of a law enforcement agency that it return
property to its owner. Under SB 30, a crime victim could ask
the OVR to request of a law enforcement agency that it return
the crime victim's property, and the bill contains provision for
ensuring that the evidentiary value of the property is retained.
Indicating that the OVR is aptly suited to help such crime
victims because of its expertise and familiarity with Alaska's
criminal justice system, he also offered his beliefs that SB 30
is aligned with Article I, Section 24, of the Alaska State
Constitution - which provides, among other things, that crime
victims shall be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness
during all phases of the criminal and juvenile justice process -
and that in terms of property, the bill could help restore crime
victims to the position they were in prior to having been
victimized.
MR. KESTER, in response to earlier questions, indicated that the
court could use existing law to address ownership issues;
surmised that the OVR could arrange for an expedited hearing in
situations where such is warranted; and pointed out that the
language of the bill stipulates that a hearing for property held
in connection with a criminal case shall be before the court
with jurisdiction over the case, and otherwise shall be before a
district court or superior court where the property is located.
Hearing venue, he assured the committee, is not going to be a
problem because of the flexibility the court has with regard to
ensuring that proceedings are fair to all parties. Referring to
Mr. Walker's testimony, Mr. Kester ventured that SB 30 could
provide a means by which such business owners could obtain
assistance. In conclusion, he indicated that his testimony was
in support of SB 30.
MR. KESTER and MR. KOPP, in response to further questions, both
referred to Section 1's proposed AS 12.36.070(d) - which
stipulates that if the court orders the return of the property,
the court may impose any reasonable condition necessary to
maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property - and
surmised that whether to order the return of the property, and,
if so, whether to impose certain conditions on that return, and,
if so, what those conditions shall entail, would be decided by
the court on a case-by-case basis.
2:41:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON pointed out that SB 30 merely
establishes a process that's not currently available to crime
victims, and surmised that a law enforcement agency would not
return property if doing so might jeopardize a criminal case.
MR. KESTER, in response to a question and request, indicated
that SB 30 won't have any fiscal impact on the OVR, and agreed
to submit a fiscal note to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he likes the bill, generally.
MR. KESTER, in response to further comments and questions,
pointed out that if there really are unanswered questions about
who the rightful owner of the property is, the process
established via the bill would not be undertaken, because under
Section 1's proposed AS 12.36.070(a), the OVR would only be
requesting of a law enforcement agency that it return property
if, after investigating the matter, the OVR concludes that the
crime victim is entitled to the return of the property under the
factors listed in Section 1's proposed 12.36.070(c), which in
turn stipulates that in order for the court to order the return
of the property, the crime victim must, by a preponderance of
the evidence, provide to the court satisfactory proof of
ownership, and any party objecting to the return of the property
must fail to prove to the court, also by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the property must be retained for evidentiary
purposes. Furthermore, the process provided for via the bill
would only be undertaken in those situations where the crime
victim has not had his/her property returned after initially
requesting it of the law enforcement agency himself/herself,
and, again, Section 1's proposed AS 12.36.070(d) stipulates that
the court may impose any reasonable condition necessary to
maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property.
2:54:58 PM
MR. KESTER, in conclusion, reiterated his beliefs that SB 30 is
in alignment with the Alaska State Constitution and is not
anticipated to have a fiscal impact on the OVR, and indicated
that in the past, whenever the OVR has assisted a crime victim
with getting property returned, it has been relatively clear
that he/she owned the property and why he/she wanted it back,
and that a means of retaining the evidentiary value of the
property was available.
MR. KOPP, indicating that SB 30 was carefully crafted with input
from the administration, added his understanding that the court
wouldn't even calendar a hearing requested by a law enforcement
agency under the bill until all [ownership] issues have been
satisfactorily resolved - again, via existing law.
CHAIR GATTO surmised that once the property is returned, the
owner could choose to dispose of it.
MR. KOPP agreed, but again pointed out that the bill stipulates
that the court may impose any reasonable condition necessary to
maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property, which could
include requiring that the owner retain the property.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized SB 30 as a good bill.
2:59:45 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response
to a question - noting that SB 30 applies to all crime victims,
not just victims of property crimes, remarking on the importance
of retaining certain property's evidentiary value in compliance
with existing law, and surmising that there will be instances
when one of the parties will want the law enforcement agency to
retain the property because of its evidentiary value - offered
her belief that the DOL has submitted an indeterminate fiscal
note for SB 30 because each request made under the bill for the
return of property will have to be addressed by the DOL on a
case-by-case basis and thus the bill's fiscal impact on the DOL
is not yet known. In response to a further question, she
indicated her belief that as currently written, the bill doesn't
require modification.
3:04:40 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, opined
that SB 30 is necessary to ensure that a crime victim has
his/her property returned as soon as possible; explained that
the bill merely establishes a process by which to address
situations in which a law enforcement agency hasn't returned a
crime victim's property when asked to do so by the crime victim;
concurred that issues of questionable ownership can be addressed
via existing law; and offered his understanding that SB 30 has
been thoroughly vetted by all interested parties.
CHAIR GATTO announced that CSSB 30(2d JUD) would be held over.
3:07:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 30 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 - Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SFIN 1/20/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 - Letter of Support Alaska Homebuilers.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SFIN 1/20/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 - Letter of Support Nat'l Federation of Indep. Business.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SFIN 1/20/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| CSSB_30_(2dJUD)_Fiscal_Note_LAW.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| HB 216 CS -R.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB 296 Amendment D.4.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |