02/22/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB221 | |
| HB293 | |
| HB262 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2012
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 221
"An Act relating to the appointment of counsel for persons
accused of crimes; and amending Rule 39.1, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to the
duties of prosecuting attorneys; and amending Rule 45, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- MOVED CSHB 293(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to the offense of interference with access to
public buildings or transportation facilities, when a person
conditions access to a public building or transportation
facility on consent to certain physical contact or to an
electronic process that produces a picture of the private
exposure of the person."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 221
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
04/01/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/11 (H) JUD, FIN
02/22/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 293
SHORT TITLE: RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS/CONTINUANCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TUCK
01/25/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/12 (H) JUD, FIN
02/15/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/15/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 262
SHORT TITLE: PASSENGER SECURITY: TRANSPORT. FACILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CISSNA
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) JUD, FIN
02/15/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/15/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/12 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 221.
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Chenault, assisted with the presentation of HB 221.
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director
Legal Services
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 221.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 221, provided
comments and responded to questions.
RICHARD ALLEN, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 221.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 221, provided
comments and responded to questions.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 293.
KAREN FOSTER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: As the mother of a murder victim, provided
comments during discussion of HB 293.
SUSAN SULLIVAN, Executive Director
Victims for Justice (VFJ)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 293.
D. VICTOR KESTER, Director
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR)
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 293.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 293.
MARK SABEL, Staff
Representative Sharon Cissna
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 262, responded to
questions on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Cissna.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
comments during discussion of HB 262.
DIANE SCHENKER, Co-director
Alaskans' Freedom to Travel USA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 262.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:00 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Keller, Thompson, Gruenberg, and Holmes were present at the call
to order. Representative Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 221 - PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES
1:05:38 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 221, "An Act relating to the appointment of
counsel for persons accused of crimes; and amending Rule 39.1,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
1:06:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 221 addresses the issue of court-appointed
legal representation for those who cannot afford an attorney,
and noted that it's the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) and the
Public Defender Agency (PDA) that provide such representation
and bear the cost. He offered his understanding that some
who've claimed to be eligible for such representation and
subsequently received it did not truly qualify, and so HB 221 is
intended to reduce the cost of such fraud to the state.
1:09:01 PM
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, on behalf
of the sponsor, Representative Chenault, noting that members'
packets contain a sectional analysis of HB 221, offered her
understanding that the bill would allow the court, when
determining whether to provide a defendant with a court-
appointed attorney, to also consider the defendant's financial
resources, and would require the defendant to complete a signed
sworn financial statement subject to the penalties for perjury.
These proposed changes, she posited, would allow the court to
ensure that funds expended for court-appointed counsel are being
spent in a responsible manner. In conclusion, she indicated
that a fiscal note from the Alaska Court System (ACS) would be
forthcoming, and that it would address estimated additional-
personnel costs.
MS. WRIGHT, in response to comments and questions, indicated
that the sponsor is not interested in having HB 221 amend the
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; offered her belief that any
fiscal impacts associated with the bill would be dependent on
the management and resource-allocation skills of the departments
involved; and reiterated that the ACS has not yet submitted a
fiscal note for HB 221.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT offered his belief that by ensuring that
court-appointed legal representation is only provided to those
who truly cannot otherwise afford it, HB 221 would reduce costs
to the state.
CHAIR GATTO, in response to comments and a question, observed
that the bill specifies that the defendant shall be under oath
and subject to the penalties for perjury.
1:16:14 PM
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), also in
response, confirmed that knowingly testifying under oath to a
false statement constitutes the crime of perjury.
1:16:58 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), after
mentioning that HB 221 would directly impact appointments to the
PDA, said the bill's proposed changes are consistent with some
of the recommendations the PDA has made in previous years with
regard to requiring a signed sworn financial statement in all
cases so as to ease the audit process that ensures only those
who truly qualify are appointed an attorney. In response to
questions, he characterized the bill's proposed changes as
important; offered his understanding that interpreters are
provided by the court to clients not fluent in English;
acknowledged that the term "financial statement" as used in
existing Rule 39.1(e) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure
is a very broad term, but surmised that such broadness
facilitates compliance with statute, court rule, and
administrative rule; explained that Alaska's court rules do
provide guidelines regarding financial resources and estimated
legal-representation costs for purposes of determining a
person's inability to pay; noted that currently, the client's
pertinent information is sometimes provided in writing and
sometimes it's just entered into the record verbally; and
posited that HB 221's proposed changes would bring some
consistency to the appointment process which could, in turn,
result in fewer appointments.
MR. STEINER, in response to further questions, said he assumes
that the court already has a process in place for assisting
illiterate clients, and acknowledged that the bill could
potentially, but not necessarily, slow down the appointment
process undertaken by the court. However, if the bill slowed
that process down significantly, then that could be of concern.
1:23:50 PM
RICHARD ALLEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), [with regard
to the aforementioned court-rule guidelines pertaining to
estimated legal-representation costs,] pointed out that the
amount varies depending upon the type of case; for example, the
estimated legal-representation cost for a misdemeanor is a lot
less than it is for a class A or unclassified felony.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 221.
1:25:37 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), said
that the ACS has some concerns with HB 221, but would be working
with the sponsor to address those concerns. As the bill is
currently written, implementation could be problematic for the
ACS because at some initial appearances, there can be between 30
and 60 different parties coming before the court, with a great
majority of those parties qualifying for court-appointed
representation, and with much of the information used in making
those determinations being provided verbally. Currently there
are three instances in which a person can presumptively qualify
for court-appointed legal representation without any further
investigation by the court into the person's inability to pay:
if the person is already receiving state or federal public
assistance benefits; if the person's gross annual income is
below federal poverty-level amounts; or if the person had
applied for and received court-appointed representation within
the previous [12 months]. Presumptively qualifying for court-
appointed legal representation under one of those criteria
happens in a great majority of cases, with, again, the necessary
information having been provided verbally.
MS. MEADE relayed that if those people who currently only needed
to provide the necessary information verbally had instead had to
provide it in writing - and the existing financial statement
form provided by the ACS is four pages long - the ACS estimates
that it would have taken each person an additional 20 minutes,
or longer, to fill out the form, and he/she might have also
required assistance from ACS personnel. Although changes to the
bill could change its fiscal impact on the ACS, under the bill
as currently written, the ACS would require additional personnel
to help people fill out the necessary forms, since currently
only the courts in Anchorage and Fairbanks have the personnel to
assist such people. The ACS understands the problem the bill is
meant to address, she relayed, and so will be working with the
sponsor and the PDA to come up with [legislation] that assists
the audit process, thereby increasing accountability - the ACS
doesn't want to be appointing legal representation to those who
don't deserve it.
MS. MEADE mentioned that the bill's proposed changes could
result in additional expenses and additional delays associated
with providing translator services and assistance to illiterate
clients. In response to a question, she clarified that the ACS
is not opposed to the concept of having the required information
be submitted in writing, and is instead merely concerned with
the bill's potential fiscal impact on the ACS; again, the ACS
would need to hire additional personnel in order to accommodate
the needs of those who would be required to submit information
in writing, and to verify the accuracy of that written
information. Such accommodation and verification is going to
take time, and the ACS would be bearing the cost of any
resultant delays in the process, and thus a fiscal note from the
ACS regarding HB 221 would be forthcoming.
1:35:07 PM
MS. MEADE, in response to a question, explained that the PDA has
a statutory responsibility, with which it does comply, to report
to the ACS when it's been appointed to represent someone whom it
later learns should not have been provided with a PDA attorney.
MR. STEINER concurred, and, in response to further comments and
questions, provided information about the process the PDA
currently undertakes in such situations.
MS. MEADE added that the ACS does notify those seeking court-
appointed counsel that if they provide false information, it
would be considered perjury and they would then be subject to
the penalties for that crime. She acknowledged, though, that
she isn't sure how that crime would then be prosecuted. In
response to a question, she clarified that the ACS would not be
impacted by Section 1's proposal to add the words, "financial
resources and" to AS 18.85.120(b), because the ACS already
considers such information when determining whether to appoint
counsel. The bill's anticipated fiscal impact on the ACS would
result from Section 2's proposed direct court rule change to
Rule 39.1(e) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure,
specifically that of requiring all those seeking court-appointed
counsel to complete a signed sworn financial statement subject
to the penalties for perjury. Again, currently, when a person
is found to be presumptively eligible for court-appointed legal
representation, there is no further investigation by the court
into the person's inability to pay. She, too, noted that for
purposes of determining a person's inability to pay for his/her
legal representation, Alaska's court rules provide guidelines
regarding financial resources and estimated legal-representation
costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, having characterized HB 221 as a really
good bill, indicated that the need for it has been clarified for
him by Ms. Meade's remarks.
1:46:08 PM
MS. MEADE, in response to comments, reiterated that a fiscal
note from the ACS would be forthcoming shortly, and mentioned
that the ACS is hopeful that the bill could be changed at some
point so that something other than the aforementioned four-page
document could be used.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the concept of the
bill, and expressed interest in receiving a report from the ACS
[if/when] the bill's proposed changes are implemented.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 221 would be held over.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
HB 293 - RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS/CONTINUANCES
1:56:21 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 293, "An Act relating to the rights of crime
victims; relating to the duties of prosecuting attorneys; and
amending Rule 45, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 293, Version 27-LS1238\M, Gardner, 2/13/12, which had been
adopted as the work draft on 2/15/12.]
1:57:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that under Version M, Section 1 of HB 293 would alter
existing AS 12.61.010(a)(2) - which pertains to the right of
crime victims to be notified of court proceedings involving the
perpetrator - such that it would then in part read, "the right
to be notified by the appropriate law enforcement agency or the
prosecuting attorney of any request for a continuance that may
substantially delay the prosecution". Section 2 would add a new
paragraph (5) to AS 12.61.015(a) - which pertains to the duties
of a prosecuting attorney - stipulating that he/she shall inform
the victim of a pending motion that may substantially delay
prosecution and inform the court of the victim's position on the
motion, with proposed paragraph (5)'s subparagraphs (A)-(C)
defining what would constitute a substantial delay for
misdemeanors, felonies, and appeals, respectively. Section 3 -
providing for a direct court rule amendment to Rule 45(d)(2) of
the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure - now specifies that the
court, when granting a continuance, shall have also considered
the interests of the victim if they are known. Section 4 -
proposing to add a new subsection (h) to Rule 45 of the Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure - now also specifies that the court,
before ruling on a motion for continuance, shall consider the
victim's position if known. The inclusion of the words, ",if
known," in Sections 3 and 4 is intended to address instances in
which the victim cannot be contacted or doesn't wish to
participate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that in 1994, Section 24 was added to
Article I of the Alaska State Constitution, thereby establishing
the rights of crime victims, with one of those rights being that
of the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness
during all phases of the criminal and juvenile justice process,
and another of those rights being that of the right to timely
disposition of the case following the arrest of the accused.
House Bill 293 would codify those two constitutional rights in
statute, thereby providing a means by which to uphold them.
Repeated delays in the disposition of a case can prevent a crime
victim from reaching emotional, physical, and financial closure;
can impact the availability of witnesses, and their ability to
recall important details of the crime; and can create other
impediments to a successful trial. Passage of HB 293 would
ensure that victims are notified of any request for a
continuance that might substantially delay prosecution; would
provide victims with an opportunity to voice their positions on
such motions; and would ensure that judges consider those
positions and how the victims could be affected before ruling on
such motions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in conclusion, proffered that HB 293
addresses the constitutional right of victims to be treated with
dignity, respect, and fairness during all phases of the criminal
and juvenile justice process, while also ensuring the timely
disposition of their cases.
CHAIR GATTO noted that members' packets contain a letter from
Karen Foster, whose daughter - Bonnie Craig - was murdered [in
1994]. He then disclosed that he is acquainted with Ms. Foster
and her husband, and that he has told Ms. Foster that her
comments while advocating for victims' rights made good sense.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that Victims for Justice (VFJ),
the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR), Standing Together Against
Rape (STAR), and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) have expressed support for HB 221.
2:06:46 PM
KAREN FOSTER said she doesn't want any other Alaskan family to
suffer as her family did after the murder of her daughter,
characterizing what they had to endure, while the State of
Alaska delayed convicting the perpetrator for five years, as a
hell beyond comprehension. She then recounted details of how
the case proceeded, and opined that as victims, her family's
constitutional rights - to be treated with dignity, respect, and
fairness during all phases of the criminal justice process, and
to timely disposition of the case - were violated again and
again during that five years. Many victims suffer unbearable
pain, just as her family did, when those rights are tossed
aside. She offered her belief that each delay in prosecution
weakens and threatens a case, and that delays are used to
tactical advantage by defense attorneys to accommodate
themselves, rarely to accommodate those they defend, and allow
ineffectual defense attorneys to waste time. Refusing to uphold
the victim's right to timely disposition of the case is a
refusal to address inefficiencies in the justice system, thereby
allowing that system to re-victimize victims. Please support HB
293, she asked of the committee, in order to honor Alaska's
victims' constitutional right to timely disposition of their
case - show them the respect they deserve and stop the re-
victimization.
2:17:03 PM
SUSAN SULLIVAN, Executive Director, Victims for Justice (VFJ),
said the VFJ supports HB 293, which, she opined, would improve
the standards regarding notification to crime victims about
requests for continuances, and would reinforce the
constitutional rights of crime victims. By requiring the court
to consider, at a minimum, the victim's position, HB 293 creates
a mechanism by which those constitutional rights can more-
consistently be realized. She noted that her organization sees
continuances being granted time and time again for reasons that
seem insufficient and sometimes disingenuous, without there
being any consideration given to the challenges then faced by
the victims. In some cases, so many continuances were granted
that it delayed trial for over a decade. Such delays unjustly
work to the advantage of defendants because when witnesses die
or leave the state or can no longer be found, when memories
fade, when evidence is lost, or when prosecutors change as a
result, it can become difficult, if not impossible, to win a
conviction, and thus cases end up being "plead out." Such
delays unjustly work to the serious disadvantage of victims, who
only want to see justice done, and to society.
MS. SULLIVAN said victims have been known to travel hundreds,
and even thousands, of miles, incur great expense, and be
greatly inconvenienced, only to have the proceeding delayed
without advance notice and with no consideration given to how
that delay impacts them; again, sometimes this occurs multiple
times in a single case. For many victims, the end of the trial
marks the beginning of an important part of the recovery
process, and unnecessary continuances painfully delay that
process. The VFJ understands that courts, appropriately, want
to extend the benefit of the doubt to defendants - who, after
all, are the ones whose liberty is at stake - but feel that the
courts are often failing to consider the constitutional rights
of the victims. House Bill 293 would put victims "in the
picture," and, very importantly, would support judges who give
consideration to the victims when deciding whether to grant
continuances. Paraphrasing some of the rights established in
Article I, Section 24, of the Alaska State Constitution, she
opined that HB 293 would improve the possibility that those
rights will be upheld, and would bring balance to Alaska's
justice system. In conclusion, she said that the VFR's board of
directors strongly supports HB 293.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether it would be
constitutional for the court to order a defendant to pay costs
incurred by the victim due to a continuance having been granted.
MS. SULLIVAN, declining to address the issue of
constitutionality, said it seems as if it would be appropriate
for the court to order a defendant who's been found guilty to
make such restitution, particularly in instances where the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB) has compensated the
victim for those costs. She noted that victims also incur
unnecessary expenses associated with continuances that result
simply from defendants refusing transportation to court
proceedings.
2:24:26 PM
D. VICTOR KESTER, Director, Office of Victims' Rights (OVR),
Alaska State Legislature, indicated that he strongly supports
HB 293, which, he opined, would strengthen Alaska's statutory
victim-notification standards with regard to requests for
continuances that delay prosecution in criminal trials, and
would fortify the rights of crime victims, as outlined in the
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, to address the court, and
the court's ability to consider the victim's perspective before
granting a continuance. The bill's proposed changes advance and
protect the vital interests of crime victims; are in alignment
with their constitutional rights to be treated with dignity,
respect, and fairness, and to timely disposition of their case;
and would amplify their voice before the court with regard to
delays in the criminal justice process. The administration of
justice in Alaska is improved when crime victims' positions are
given consideration by the court, he opined, and thus he
believes that HB 293 would help crime victims, providing a
mechanism by which their constitutional rights could be upheld;
the bill stands to eliminate the unnecessary, unwarranted, or
inappropriate delays in the criminal justice process that often
result in undue hardship on, and emotional and psychological
injury to, crime victims as they attempt to cope with the
lengthy prosecution of their case. In conclusion, he reiterated
his support of HB 293.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
speak, closed public testimony on HB 293.
CHAIR GATTO offered his belief that passing HB 293 would be the
right thing to do for Alaska's crime victims.
2:29:34 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), in
response to a request, explained that the ACS has no position on
HB 293, and that she doesn't anticipate the bill causing any
problems.
2:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS1238\M.1, Gardner, 2/15/12, which read:
Page 5, line 4, following "shall":
Insert "determine if the victim has been informed
of the pending motion, as provided in AS 12.61.015(a),
and"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that if Amendment 1 is adopted,
the language of Section 4's proposed subsection (h) to Rule 45
of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure would then in part
read, "the court shall determine if the victim has been informed
of the pending motion, as provided in AS 12.61.015(a), and
consider the victim's position ...". He then characterized
Amendment 1's proposed change as putting teeth in the bill -
specifying that the court shall determine whether the victim-
notification statutes have been complied with.
MS. MEADE, in response to a comment, said that the ACS has no
objections to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS1238\M.2, Gardner, 2/15/12, which read:
Page 4, line 13, following "misdemeanor, a":
Insert "cumulative"
Page 4, line 14, following "felony, a":
Insert "cumulative"
Page 4, line 15, following "a":
Insert "cumulative"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON ventured that Amendment 2 would address
any potential loophole in Section 2's proposed definitions of
what would constitute a substantial delay for a misdemeanor, for
a felony, or for an appeal, by specifying that such substantial
delays could be arrived at cumulatively.
MS. MEADE relayed that the ACS doesn't have an objection to
Amendment 2, and acknowledged that it could be helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 293, Version 27-LS1238\M, Gardner,
2/13/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying indeterminate fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 293(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:35 p.m. to 2:39 p.m.
HB 262 - PASSENGER SECURITY: TRANSPORT. FACILITY
2:39:58 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 262, "An Act relating to the offense of
interference with access to public buildings or transportation
facilities, when a person conditions access to a public building
or transportation facility on consent to certain physical
contact or to an electronic process that produces a picture of
the private exposure of the person."
2:40:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 262, Version 27-LS1016\I, Gardner,
2/17/12, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:40:30 PM
MARK SABEL, Staff, Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor of HB 262, Representative
Cissna, in response to a request, indicated that Version I of
HB 262 addresses airports, and offered his understanding that an
amendment to Version I in members' packets could not be offered
at this time because the legislation it mirrors is not yet
properly before the House Judiciary Standing Committee; that
amendment, labeled 27-LS1016\I.1, Gardner, 2/18/12, read:
Page 1, line 4, following "person":
Insert "; requiring certain airports in the state
to apply for the federal security screening opt-out
program; providing reimbursement to a municipality
that applies for the federal security screening opt-
out program; and providing for an effective date"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SECURITY SCREENING OPT-
OUT PROGRAM. (a) The Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities shall, by December 31, 2013, apply
for the federal security screening opt-out program
under 49 U.S.C. 44920 for those airports under the
control of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities that are subject to federal security
screening requirements.
(b) A municipality that operates an airport in
the state that is subject to federal security
screening requirements shall, by December 31, 2013,
apply for the federal security screening opt-out
program under 49 U.S.C. 44920.
* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
REIMBURSEMENT. Subject to appropriation, the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
shall reimburse a municipality that is required to
submit an application under sec. 2(b) of this Act for
the reasonable costs, as determined by the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, of applying
for the federal security screening opt-out program
under 49 U.S.C. 44920. If appropriations are not
sufficient fully to fund reimbursements under this
section, the amount available shall be distributed pro
rata among eligible municipalities.
* Sec. 4. Sections 2 and 3 of this Act take effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)."
CHAIR GATTO observed that under Version I, the references to
public buildings have been removed, and thus HB 262 no longer
addresses behavior occurring in public buildings, but rather
only behavior occurring in transportation facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [removed his] objection.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Version I was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the bill should define the
term, "transportation facilities". He then noted that
Version I's proposed AS 11.76.118(a)(2) no longer contains the
phrase, "the genitals, anus, or female breast or otherwise
creates an electronic image of", and asked why that language was
removed.
2:47:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, offered his
understanding that that language was removed as being redundant,
and acknowledged that the term, "transportation facilities",
still needs to be defined in the bill.
CHAIR GATTO observed that a violation under Version I would
still be a class A misdemeanor.
MR. SABEL, in response to comments, proffered that a possible
solution to the problem of inappropriately-invasive searches by
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel lies
within the aforementioned amendment, which, he reiterated, could
not be offered at this time.
[Chair Gatto turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Thompson.]
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out, though, that the
aforementioned amendment would not provide a solution to the
problem because the same security screening techniques would
still have to be employed, just not by TSA employees.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that when
Texas attempted to institute legislation similar to HB 262, the
federal government threatened to close down the airport in
Dallas, and said he didn't want something similar to occur in
Alaska.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON said he, too, had heard about Texas's
experience.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed concern that if legislation such
as HB 262 passes, the unintended consequence could be that
planes originating in Alaska would not be allowed to land at
other U.S. airports.
2:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK relayed that his research regarding what
other countries are doing indicates that using dogs and
interviewing travelers has proven to be the most effective way
of securing everyone's safety at airports. Characterizing the
TSA's current screening procedures as questionable with regard
to actually securing the safety of air travelers, he ventured
that the goal with HB 262 is to come up with a more effective
but less invasive way of screening such travelers. In
conclusion, he pointed out that air travelers flying into the
United States from other countries are not subjected to current
TSA screening procedures - only air travelers boarding a plane
in the U.S. are.
[Vice Chair Thompson returned the gavel to Chair Gatto.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that perhaps a task force
could be formed to research the issues raised as a result of
current TSA screening procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed, venturing that perhaps any such
task force could work with other states to address those issues
at the federal level.
3:01:23 PM
DIANE SCHENKER, Co-director, Alaskans' Freedom to Travel USA,
offered her understanding that HB 262 is more limited than the
aforementioned Texas legislation - and thus might not elicit the
same type of response - and that there are plenty of alternative
ways to screen air travelers without resorting to touching their
genitals or relying on untested whole-body scanners, as the TSA
currently does. Current TSA security-screening procedures fit
the definition of sexual assault under Alaskan's statutes, she
noted, and are causing Alaskans great fear. In conclusion, she
opined that prohibiting TSA personnel from touching air
travelers' genitals - as HB 262 is proposing - shouldn't
preclude the TSA from conducting reasonable searches.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again suggested that a task force be
formed.
MR. SABEL mentioned that the sponsor is pursuing that approach;
has formed a group called, "United States for Travel Freedom";
and feels that passage of HB 262 would be a good step towards
fulfilling Alaska's constitutional responsibility [to protect
its citizens]. Remarking on the non-responsiveness of the
federal government thus far to pleas for help, he opined that
more needs to be done to correct the problem, particularly in
Alaska because, according to statistics, Alaskans travel by air,
and suffer trauma and abuse, more often than the residents of
other states.
CHAIR GATTO expressed interest in coming up with an alternative
to current TSA security-screening procedures that could work for
everyone, surmising that [so-called] "trusted traveler" programs
don't constitute such an alternative.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 262 [Version I] would therefore be
held over.
3:08:41 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0221A.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB 221 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB 221 Court Rule 39 1.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB221-DOA-PDA-1-27-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB221-LAW-CRIM-02-17-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB 293 Amendment Keller.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB 293 Amendment Thompson.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB 293 CS Version M.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB 262 CS ( ) I.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 262 |
| HB 262 Amendment Cissna I.1.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 262 |
| HB 221 Amendment Chenault.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB 221 Memorandum Legislative Legal.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 221 |