03/18/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2015
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Charisse Millett
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment
and to good time deductions."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE: CREDITS FOR TIME SERVED/GOOD TIME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
01/21/15 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) STA, FIN
01/23/15 (H) STA REFERRAL REMOVED
01/23/15 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FIN
02/18/15 (H) BILL REPRINTED 2/16/15
02/20/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/15 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/15 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented changes in CSHB 15, as prime
sponsor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Central Office
Office of the Administrative Director
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 15, offered
testimony and answered questions.
CARRIE BELDEN, Director
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 15, offered
testimony and answered questions.
QUINLIAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 15, offered
testimony and answered questions.
SHERRIE DAGEL, Criminal Justice Planner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 15, offered
testimony.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:32 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Keller,
Foster, Lynn, Claman, Gruenberg, and LeDoux were present at the
call to order. Representative Millett arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 15-CREDITS FOR TIME SERVED/GOOD TIME
1:06:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to credits toward a sentence
of imprisonment and to good time deductions."
1:07:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CSHB 15, Version 29-
LS0102\P, Gardner/Martin, 3/2/15, as the working document.
There being no objection, the committee substitute was before
the committee.
1:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that the last version related to electronic monitoring and good
time, but that current version refers solely to electronic
monitoring. She noted that if a defendant commits another
criminal offense, the offender cannot count the days they are on
electronic monitoring as currently, when a person is waiting in
pre-trial the days count. She stated the goal with electronic
monitoring is for defendants to keep their jobs, and receive
treatment while awaiting trial to help them get back on track.
This would be, she remarked, opposed to incentivizing a pretrial
defendant where treatment is not available until the defendant
has been convicted. She pointed to the discussion during the
last hearing regarding specific parameters in that the offender
[on electronic monitoring] cannot just sit home [playing] video
games. She advised that she subsequently worked with Richard
Svobodny, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL) and
referred to [Sec. 2, AS 12.55.027(d)] page 3, lines 1-6, which
read:
(1) court appearances;
(2) meeting with counsel;
(3) period during which the person is at a
location by the court for purposes of employment,
attending an educational or vocational training,
performing community volunteer work, or attending a
counseling or medical appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON continued that not everyone is not
necessarily eligible for electronic monitoring and bail
conditions are decided by the judge. She related that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) contacted her with regard to
ascertaining that the electronic monitoring would be [solely] in
the State of Alaska, and whether the bill should list any type
of monitoring vendor. She reiterated that the courts determine
the type of electronic monitoring a defendant must have
depending upon why the defendant is awaiting trial in the first
place. The bill is one concept in that it refers solely to
pretrial. She offered that DOC has authority in statute that
they may do it but does not want to compete, however, there are
areas in the state where private electronic monitoring vendors
do not exist.
1:11:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked for confirmation that electronic monitoring
is just for pre-trial, and not subsequent to conviction and
sentencing.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded "Correct."
1:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, line 3, "... at a
location ordered by the court ..." and wondered if every time
the person goes to the doctor and a different medical entity
whether he must go back to the court each time.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered there is a process and the person
does need permission when in the electronic monitoring program.
1:12:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Central
Office, Office of the Administrative Director, said from the
court's point of view, electronic monitoring pretrial, is that
the court sets bail conditions. She explained that the
defendant both meets bail conditions and gets out of jail, or
they can't meet the bail condition and can't find a third party
custodian. In the event the person does not meet the bail
conditions they stay in jail and the court has no authority over
the person in jail pretrial.
She noted that DOC has the discretion to put people on
electronic monitoring. Sometimes, she remarked, people cannot
make bail and they hire a private vendor to be there which is
similar to a professional third party custodian. The offender
brings the vendor to court and if ordered by the court the
vendor puts an electronic monitor around the offender's ankle in
order to ascertain that the offender follows her/her bail
conditions. This bill attempts to cover private vendors, she
explained who are hired at the time of sentencing. The
offender says to the court that, as an example, he/she was
sentenced to two years, but spent six months on electronic
monitoring through the vendor and would like six months credit.
Under this bill, the court would presumably give the offender
six months credit. She stated that the court does not order
anyone to electronic monitoring, but may allow it if the
offender proposes it as an option. Unfortunately, she opined,
there are private vendors in certain communities and not in
other communities. She further opined that the vendor charges
in the range of approximately $500 per month. In the event the
judge agrees to the proposed condition, the offender is then
restrained, and the judge fills out a bail order and lists the
conditions the offender must do or not do. She pointed out that
the standard bail order does not allow people to leave the
state.
1:17:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the only difference between this
bill and now, is that currently there is no reduction from the
sentence when the court allows electronic monitoring for an
offender.
MS. MEADE answered in the affirmative and stated that the
offender may have paid six months to the vendor [pre-trial], but
when sentenced to two years the offender still has to serve two
years. She opined that the intent of the sponsor was that due
to the offender being somewhat restrained pre-trial, the
offender should receive credit day-by-day for the time their
freedom was restrained.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there is an equal protection argument that
it is not fair that the people who can afford to pay for the
electronic monitoring don't have to go to jail, but those that
can't afford it do have to go to jail.
MS. MEADE responded that she couldn't say whether there was or
wasn't an equal protection problem, and that it does apply
differently when an offender can afford to hire the vendor as
opposed to an offender who cannot afford to pay bail.
1:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that this bill represents a
substantial departure from the pattern in terms of credit for
pre-trial. Currently, the only place a person can receive pre-
trial credit for time served is by going into a treatment
program under Nygren v. State of Alaska, 658 P.2d 141 (Alaska
App. 1983), and the statute that later tried to pattern after
Nygren. He pointed out that the offender must go to treatment
related to reform and rehabilitation. Under this bill, he
surmised, the offender on electronic monitoring pretrial
receives credit for time spent on electronic monitoring. He
reiterated that it represents a fairly substantial policy change
in terms of what the courts have been doing about pretrial
credit for time served.
MS. MEADE agreed that this is a policy change, but there have
been discussions about "smart justice" reforms, and changing the
way the state does business. The statute read that the court
may not grant credit for time spent on electronic monitoring,
and this bill would change that.
1:21:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that one of the differences is that
it "shall" grant credit for electronic monitoring which actually
takes discretion away from the judge. Under this statute, he
further noted, it is iron clad that if a person is on electronic
monitoring they are getting day-for-day credit before
sentencing.
MS. MEADE agreed that "shall" sounds like there is no discretion
on the part of the judicial officer to determine whether or not
to give the credit. She referred to [Sec. 2, AS 12.55.027(d)],
page 1, line 10-13, which read:
(d) ... if the person has not committed a criminal
offense while under electronic monitoring and the
court finds that the restrictions imposed on the
person's liberty while under the electronic monitoring
program are equivalent to incarceration, ...
MS. MEADE continued that if the court has to make a finding
before it grants it. The judge would determine whether
electronic monitoring is equivalent to incarceration and if it
is, the court must grant the credit.
1:23:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there were several cases in the
State of Washington regarding the inability to pay a fine and
the courts have found that to be a denial of equal protection
and discriminating against the poor.
He opined that it directly has an analogy here because the only
offenders getting out are the offenders who can pay the vendors.
He questioned whether the poor ever get credit because they
cannot pay the vendor. He noted that if electronic monitoring
is only available in one or two places in the state, and the
offender does not live in those places and cannot take advantage
of this program, they cannot get out for employment, and cannot
receive credit.
MS. MEADE answered that she could not swear to the $500 a month
figure as perhaps some vendors might slide the price. She
pointed out that the bill is for private or DOC electronic
monitoring, so if DOC performs electronic monitoring in Barrow,
or Sitka, then the person could get credit for time spent, but
it is up to DOC what to do with anyone in its jurisdiction. She
remarked that DOC can put people on electronic monitoring
pretrial and those offenders would receive credit under this
bill.
1:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered as to whether the sponsor would
accept an amendment to require the state to pay the cost for
people who cannot afford to pay. He then reiterated a prior
question on page 2, lines 3-4, "at a location ordered by the
court," and assumed it could be read as requiring the court to
entertain an application each time the person needed to see a
different medical entity, or changed employment. He asked
whether that phrase would take too much time at the court, and
if so, would there likely be a fiscal note.
MS. MEADE opined that the judge could release a person on bail
with standard conditions and presumably say the person is
released into the custody of the electronic monitoring vendor.
The judge may allow certain places the offender may go, such as
everything listed in the bill, and the vendor ensures that those
are the only places the person may go in complying with the
court order.
1:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said the comparison between a person who
can pay bail, and a person who cannot, brings to mind the person
who can provide a third party custodian versus the person that
cannot. He stated he assumed that in the event this bill
passes, the court will make a determination based on whether or
not a private or commercial vendor is trustworthy, valid, and
appropriate for conditions of bail. He questioned the
difference between a third party custodian and the person with
the electronic monitor and surmised they are treated the same
and possibly the bill should be expanded. He further questioned
whether there are statutory guidelines for conditions of bail,
or is it purely at the discretion of the judge.
MS. MEADE advised that there are a number of statutes that set
out bail conditions a judge may order. AS 12.55.011 has 18
possible conditions that is followed by a specific statute about
bail conditions in domestic violence cases in addition to the
18. She also noted additional conditions can be ordered in
alcohol related cases. The judge can only order a condition
listed in the statutes, and one of the conditions is a catch all
or anything else the judge deems to be necessary to protect
public safety. She pointed out that judges do have standard
conditions and other conditions they can order. She explained
that a third party custodian versus giving credit for time
served with a third party custodian versus giving credit for
time spent on electronic monitoring would be a policy call of
the legislature.
1:31:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that the bill before the
committee is a trigger for whether or not an offender receives
[credit] is purely the electronic monitor and not any criteria
the court may use.
MS. MEADE answered "that is how I read the bill," and that
offenders receive credit for time served in treatment programs
if the treatment programs are residential and have certain
constraints that resemble the functional equivalent of jail.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification in that the bill
proposes day-for-day, hour-for-hour as it is the same as time in
jail.
MS. MEADE replied that as she reads the bill it would be time-
for-time, equal-equal.
1:33:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether currently the court can release
an offender to a third party custodian.
MS. MEADE agreed, but stipulated that only when a third party
custodian is a bail condition as sometimes the judge does not
allow third party custodians.
CHAIR LEDOUX further questioned whether electronic monitoring is
sometimes used instead of a third party custodian.
MS. MEADE agreed, and offered that most people would appreciate
the judge ruling that the offender must have a third party
custodian. Unfortunately, she said, the offender cannot find
anyone in their lives with the appropriate background or lack of
background that the judge will approve.
1:34:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the sponsor would not want to give credit
to an offender with a third party custodian.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that a person cannot know where
another person is all of the time unless they are literally
hooked up to the offender. She noted there is a large issue
with drinking while intoxicated (DUI), and with electronic
monitoring when a defendant takes a drink the monitor records
the drink. She remarked that the ankle monitor will record
exactly where the offender has been, whether or not the offender
has taken drugs or drinks, and will show the court that the
offender performed exactly as the court ruled. She advised
Representative Gruenberg that there is funding through the
Department of Health & Social Services for electronic monitoring
for those that cannot pay.
1:36:33 PM7
CHAIR LEDOUX queried where the bill stipulates that the
electronic monitor can record when a person takes a drink.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON relayed that it is at the discretion of
the court to determine the type of electronic monitor an
offender would be on and whether the defender should utilize the
electronic monitor.
She said she did not list the different kinds of monitors as
with the computer age things are changing fast. She noted in
that manner, the courts will have more choices and hopefully
there will be more venders with more high tech to utilize
offenders getting back on track versus going to jail. She
explained that every night the monitor downloads the information
of the day. She opined that the 24/7 program is not a way to
monitor as the offender can tell the courts they have met the
conditions even though they may have taken a drink after the
second blow.
1:38:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that often when a defendant does not
present a flight risk and is not viewed as dangerous, judges
will let people off on their own recognizance (OR).
MS. MEADE responded "Yes."
CHAIR LEDOUX asked where it would come into play that the judge
might require electronic monitoring or a professional third
party custodian.
MS. MEADE advised the bail statute sets as a default that people
should get out on their own OR without conditions. She referred
to subsection (b) that reads if the judge finds that the
interests of public safety cannot be adequately protected
without restrictions, then the judge can impose any of the 18
listed bail conditions. She said that electronic monitoring
would come in because the person doesn't make the bail
conditions, doesn't have bail money, or is left at DOC.
Currently, DOC can put people out on electronic monitoring and
she opined that this bill might encourage them to do it more as
the people out of jail with DOC electronic monitoring pretrial
get credit for that time. She further opined that it would be
at low cost or a sliding scale amount of cost to the person.
1:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how many people post-sentence are
currently on electronic monitoring with DOC.
MS. MEADE advised that she does not have that information.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that she heard it was
approximately 2,000 people, which is down quite a bit from 5
years ago. She advised that she talked with DOC as to why
offenders do not understand that electronic monitoring exists
and one of the issues is where the offenders will live. Once a
person has been in jail for a few months they may lose the rent
on their home, and their job is probably gone, as opposed to
[electronic monitoring].
1:43:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to prior testimony that an
offender can be released on OR, and when judges look at bail
conditions they are looking at the offender, the crime involved,
the offender's criminal history, and a whole range of factors in
determining the appropriate bail. He noted that the less
serious crimes tend to have less bail amounts and restrictive
bail conditions. He pointed out that in more violent crimes,
with longer criminal histories, it raises concerns for the court
in terms of protecting the public while awaiting trial regarding
electronic monitoring or a third party custodian.
MS. MEADE said "I would agree with that."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that in terms of the distinction
between third party custodians and electronic monitoring,
historically, it has not been "either or" as there have been
many occasions when an offender is released to a third party
custodian and an electronic monitor due to concerns the offender
may represent certain dangers to the community.
MS. MEADE answered that she does not know that judges have the
authority to order an offender onto electronic monitoring and in
fact, her information is that offenders are put on electronic
monitoring only when they propose it as an alternative for
something the judge has ordered them to do. She noted that most
typically, it is a third party custodian.
1:45:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that when an offender would like
access to electronic monitoring to do their time out of jail, an
easy solution is that they can plead guilty to the charge, get
sentenced, and if DOC thinks they are appropriate for electronic
monitoring they could be out in the community the day after they
are sentenced. He noted that it is a small circle of people who
can afford to pay for electronic monitoring that have been
charged with more serious crimes and are figuring out a way to
get out of jail while moving forward.
MS. MEADE replied that she does not know whether it is a small
group of people as there are a good number of offenders in jail
pretrial who are not making their bail conditions. She has
heard that 40 percent of those in custody right now are in
custody before they have been sentenced and that population
could possibly ask the judge for electronic monitoring. This
bill encourages offenders to use it because they receive credit
for time served.
1:46:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 2, AS 12.55.027(d)], page 1,
lines 10-14, and page 2, lines 1-6, and asked whether there are
situations where the court might find that electronic monitoring
in a home, is not equivalent to incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that the judge makes the
determination regarding electronic monitoring and bail
conditions. Prior to electronic monitoring being utilized,
everyone must be in agreement as to how the offender must
perform. She opined that when the offender performs all of the
conditions of bail, she could not think of a reason the offender
would not receive electronic monitoring as it was set before the
defendant left the court.
1:49:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that it looks like the court has
discretion, yet the bill also says there is no discretion. She
questioned that just because the offender is meeting their
conditions of bail, court appearances, et cetra, does not
necessarily mean that where they are living is equivalent to
incarceration. She asked "where is the discretion."
1:49:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed that there is discretion in that
the judge does not have to put a defendant on electronic
monitoring.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked in what situation [electronic monitoring]
would be denied.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that on pretrial it is completely
up to the judge, based on what is in statute as to whether or
not the defendant qualifies, and she pointed out that none of
those rules are being changed. The same rules that put a
defendant on electronic monitoring now, through the private
portions of it, will still be allowed. The discretion for the
judge is at the beginning when the judge sets out restrictions.
1:51:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked, for example, why the bill read "a court
shall grant credit against the sentence of imprisonment for time
spent under electronic monitoring if the person has not
committed a criminal offense while under electronic monitoring."
She stated there is a section in the bill which seems to allow
the court a certain amount of discretion and she was trying to
figure out under what circumstances the court could use that
discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that page 2, lines 1-6, are the
portions the judges are talking about in the first place, before
the offender leaves the courtroom [moving forward]. The
discretion for the judge is determining where the offender lives
as it must be worked out with DOC or the private vendor, whether
they have a job, whether they are going through treatment, as
the defendant must show the three portions of the provision.
For example, in the event an offender [with electronic
monitoring] does not meet a court appearance they will be back
in jail because the agreement is broken.
1:53:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the questions of the
chair relate to the idea that an offender is basically confined
to quarters except when performing under 1-3. He said he did
not see how the court had a lot of discretion to make decisions
about whether the offender did or did not comply with 1-3. The
court could very well say the offender missed a court appearance
and will lose whatever credit they may or may not have accrued
for the electronic monitoring. He noted that there is a list of
things the offender can routinely leave the home for so could a
court say the offender is going to so many things that it found
this was not equivalent to incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that conditions would be
determined while [in court] as the judge determines where the
offender can and cannot go. She advised it is up to the
monitoring vendor to immediately report whether the offender
broke the agreement to the court, and offered that the vendor
attends court hearings with the defendant.
1:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether under this bill the
electronic monitor vendor that runs the monitor has a
requirement to report someone that is not where they are
supposed to be right away.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised that she had checked with the
[vendor] in Fairbanks and they immediately report a violation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said his office checked with DOC last week
and the number of post sentence defendants on electronic
monitoring was 4,730, and the number of pretrial on electronic
monitoring through DOC was 447. He pointed out that the number
of people on electronic monitoring is actually quite high.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON argued that the number is post sentence
and not pretrial, and assumed that those post trial are actually
getting credit while being on electronic monitoring where the
others are not. The intent of the bill is that the numbers of
pretrial would increase, the offenders keep their jobs, receive
treatment, and Alaskans have a better society because of it.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reiterated that 447 are pretrial and this
number is not all post trial and that 4,730 is post sentence.
He pointed out that electronic monitoring does not do anything
to address the treatment issue which historically is the focus
of the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON argued that with electronic monitoring the
offender may choose a treatment program that may not necessarily
be residential. She reiterated that DOC advised that
approximately 40 percent of those currently sitting in jail are
waiting to have their cases heard. She said she hopes that DOC
will become a part of that for areas that do not have [vendors].
1:57:57 PM
MS. MEADE advised that the court system is neutral on the bill.
1:58:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that in most situations a
person has a constitutional right to bail that can only be
circumscribed if the offender is a flight risk or danger to the
community. He noted that the bill reads it is presumptive the
offender would not be a flight risk due to being monitored. He
used the example of employment and asked why it would make a
difference if the offender is going to employment because the
offender's right to be out on bail is not dependent upon their
employment. He referred to page 2, line 4, "for the purposes
of" and said it appears to be a language of limitation rather
than exemplary of certain things that could cause the court to
give the offender credit. He offered that the core question is
whether the offender has a right to be out [on bail]. He
questioned that should the offender be denied that right and is
subsequently found guilty, isn't it irrelevant why the offender
is out as long as he/she is neither a flight risk or danger to
the community. He reiterated that the offender is giving up
their constitutional right so shouldn't they receive credit if
subsequently found guilty.
2:01:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the issue is not whether
an offender can make bail or not. She offered that while
shadowing the "head of corrections in Fairbanks" she saw people
sitting in jail day-after-day watching cable television, which
she opined should be changed to public television. She noted
that inmates have their food brought to them and basically the
only thing they are forced to do is change clothes once a week.
She opined that the offender could be thinking that their
friends are in jail, they are being fed, and clothed, and it
might be better than the outside world. She remarked that the
state wants people to get back on their feet as everyone makes a
mistake and this bill is not about the fact that 101 percent of
Alaska jails are filled, it is a bill about stopping the cycle.
During the last hearing the discussion was that offenders could
be out just playing video games, or hanging out at the local
park and, she stated that she prefers certain conditions so that
the offender realizes they have to step up to the plate. She
reiterated that the conditions are up to the judge to determine
how stringent the conditions will be.
2:05:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that during the last hearing public
testimony was left open.
2:06:12 PM
CARRIE BELDEN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), said a topic not yet mentioned
is the Interstate Compact which is an agreement with all of the
states and territories to allow for the transfer of inmates,
probationers, and parolees. She explained that the Interstate
Compact requires the receiving state to authorize and approve
any placements or transfers. As written, she opined this bill
could possibly put the state in violation of that compact, and
she would like to continue working with the sponsor to adjust
the language.
2:07:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how the bill violates the Interstate Compact.
MS. BELDEN offered an example of an offender being on electronic
monitoring in another state wherein the judge sentences that
offender to time served. She said the offender would no longer
be in inmate status and would be placed on probation. According
to the compact, she explained, the offender must go through the
compact and allow the receiving state to grant Alaska permission
to let the probationer resides in that state. She further
explained that the ability of the judge to grant time served
would violate the compact because Alaska did not allow the
receiving state the opportunity to review the case and accept or
deny the transfer.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Belden to put her comments in writing and
to offer legal citations with examples.
2:08:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that regardless of what form
this bill takes, the committee could accomplish conformity with
the compact by referencing the compact to states "except in
certain circumstances governed by the compact where permission
must be sought from the initiating state ..." He advised there
could be an amendment conforming to the compact and suggested
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Ms. Belen, and the
sponsor, determine appropriate language.
MS. BELDEN agreed that it is an excellent idea.
2:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Belden is familiar with
trends and statistics for people on electronic monitoring within
the Department of Corrections.
MS. BELDEN replied that she is not a specialist but does have
some knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned what percentage of people are
on electronic monitoring, both presentence and post sentence,
and asked for a description of recent trends.
MS. BELDEN answered that there are approximately 451 post
sentenced inmates right now. She described it as an increase
and that DOC has worked hard to support the electronic
monitoring program, and further the re-entry portion of DOC.
2:11:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for clarification that DOC has been
working hard to identify eligible inmate that are post sentenced
to attempt to get them onto electronic monitoring and out of the
prisons.
MS. BELDEN stated that DOC has been making an effort at
attempting to identify those people in determining whether they
would like the opportunity for electronic monitoring.
2:12:24 PM
QUINLIAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency, Department of Administration, said that presently there
are opportunities for people to receive credit for time served
when entering a residential treatment program, but nothing for
participation in out-patient programs. He offered that this
bill provides an incentive and opportunity promoting
rehabilitative treatments and other rehabilitative activities.
Ultimately, he stated, it would help reduce recidivism in
Alaska. He noted that he had offered the sponsor a couple of
tweaks to the language and was advised the sponsor will work to
facilitate those concerns. He opined that the bill, as
structured, generally has a positive promotion on reduction of
recidivism.
2:13:37 PM
MR. STEINER responded to Representative Gruenberg that he has
reviewed the bill currently before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this committee substitute
meets the concerns he had expressed [to the sponsor].
MR. STEINER replied "No," as there is a concern regarding
judicial findings and how it is worded that conflicts with a
case, and he recommended changes. He described it as an easy
fix that would not compromise the intent of the bill.
MR. STEINER answered Representative Gruenberg that he would
draft language that would cure his concern and provide it to the
bill sponsor.
MR. STEINER advised Representative Gruenberg that he would be
happy to keep the committee apprised of his progress.
2:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if he had a chance to perform
research on Representative Gruenberg's comments regarding equal
protection.
MR. STEINER replied that he has not performed research on that
issue as with bail it is tricky. He explained there is a
certain reality that people with money can get out [of jail]
more easily than people who do not have money. There are many
times the cash corporate requirement prevents people from
getting out and, he noted, it occurs on all levels of offenses.
He pointed out that conditions can be layered on and people with
money or a broader support networks can find third party
custodians who meet the requirements of a judge. He related
there is an inherent disadvantage for people who do not have
resources, and this bill opens up the possibility of expansion
by DOC into pretrial electronic monitoring to a greater degree,
and DOC is more likely to be able to do a sliding scale. He
extended that under this bill, when pretrial release
opportunities actually promotes work and treatment, there could
be a reduction of the desperate impact that bail can have on a
community.
2:17:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the committee is interested in
drafting language that follows the constitution and drafting
language that will require the people who apply this new law in
a manner that follows the constitution. He described it as a
drafting issue up front rather than as an application issue
after the bill is signed into law.
MR. STEINER stated that an equal protection problem is not being
written in.
2:19:28 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX cautioned Representative Gruenberg that this is the
appropriate time to ask questions. She asked that he please not
couch a policy statement in his questions by reciting a long
policy statement and then simply asking "do you agree."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that his intent is to
determine the person's thought on the issue as Representative
Gruenberg sees it. He opined it is a legitimate question and is
not pontificating.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that currently DOC can decide,
based upon its security evaluation, to send a person out on
electronic monitoring and back into the community without a
court order.
MR. STEINER stated "That is correct," but he does not believe in
a pretrial situation that they are receiving jail credit for
that.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered a scenario of a "Mr. Smith" not
able to make bail and is returned to DOC for holding pretrial.
At that time, DOC determines Mr. Smith is in its custody, not a
flight risk, and that DOC can keep track of him on electronic
monitoring. Mr. Smith is then put on electronic monitoring and
sent home. Representative Claman asked why Mr. Smith doesn't
get credit for that time, as he has not posted bail.
MR. STEINER answered that he does not know the answer to that
question. He opined it is new to him in this hearing that there
are that many people on pretrial electronic monitoring. He said
that has not been his understanding and he would have to look
into it. Electronic monitoring is done at the defendant's
request but doesn't result in jail credit. He said he does not
know what it means to say that 400 people are on electronic
monitoring pretrial ... were those people on bail or in DOC
custody on electronic monitoring. His belief, prior to the
hearing, was that all were on bail electronic monitoring, not in
DOC custody and released at DOC's request.
2:22:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed it was an important distinction and
asked him to assume these people were like Mr. Smith, the Public
Defenders Office wouldn't necessarily know about it because the
court didn't grant them a pretrial release on electronic
monitoring, as DOC is making that decision.
MR. STEINER replied that his office would know about it as the
offenders would be their clients and would know whether they
were released. He said he would find out if this is occurring
to any real degree. He pointed to the earlier discussion
regarding DOC expanding into this area and remarked there is
nothing that prevents DOC from participating in a bail release
program with electronic monitoring even though it is done at the
court's order. He noted that there have been discussions
regarding expanding into the area of electronic monitoring
especially in rural Alaska to promote pretrial release. This
bill, if it grants jail credit, is to promote everyone getting
involved because it has the capacity for promoting treatment and
reducing recidivism, he related. It may provide incentive for
DOC to enter that arena and for clients to push for it instead
of treatment programs, he posited.
2:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether there is anything today
that prevents DOC from getting engaged in a robust electronic
monitoring program of which allows any number of people in the
community onto electronic monitoring and, consequently, would
never have to go to the courts to do so.
MR. STEINER offered that he will specifically look in order to
ascertain there isn't something that prevents that.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN confirmed that bail conditions are when
the court actually makes its own evaluation of the offender, the
crime, and the circumstances, in whether to release the person.
He surmised that Mr. Steiner was raising the topic that DOC
might get in the bail business in working with defense attorneys
to attempt to have defendants released to DOC custody as a bail
release. He suggested this as opposed to people already in its
custody and giving them electronic monitoring based on its
discretion as an executive branch agency.
MR. STEINER answered that he is not aware of anything to prevent
that. He noted the topic has been discussed and DOC's interest
in treatment and reducing recidivism might add to the incentive,
if this bill can provide that. He remarked it would be a less
expensive way to provide monitoring and treatment.
2:25:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario of an offender not making bail
and are remanded to DOC and prior to sentencing, DOC decides the
defendant will be released on electronic monitoring. She
questioned whether in that case the defendant would receive
credit.
MR. STEINER relayed that he does not know the answer because it
had never happened to any client he ever had ... that DOC
released them pretrial on electronic monitoring. He pointed out
that he heard in the discussion that there are approximately 400
people on pretrial electronic monitoring. He said he does not
understand whether that is a [court ordered] bail release, or
someone in DOC custody who was released on electronic
monitoring.
2:27:15 PM
MS. MEADE offered that Ms. Belden previously testified that DOC
has approximately 450 people on electronic monitoring in post
sentence. She suspected that DOC has not been putting people
into electronic monitoring in more than a handful of situation
pretrial. She offered that from the sponsor's point of view, it
would incentivize the beginning of a robust program for DOC to
put people on electronic monitoring pretrial. She offered that
she agrees with Mr. Steiner in that she is not sure there is any
statute that prevents that, and doesn't believe DOC is doing
that in any large number of cases.
2:28:36 PM
MS. BELDEN responded that DOC currently has 450 sentenced on
electronic monitoring, and approximately 2,200 not sentenced on
pretrial. She advised that currently DOC does not put pretrial
people on electronic monitoring.
2:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned Ms. Belden in that he was
confused as he had recently spoken with [Ronald Taylor], DOC's
commissioner and asked him how many offenders were on active
post sentence electronic monitoring. The commissioner offered a
number in the 4,000 range which was interesting because, he
reiterated, his office followed up and in terms of post
sentence, the numbers are 4,730, and 447 pre-trial.
MS. BELDEN said she would double check the numbers and get back
to the committee.
2:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Steiner if his agency has had
experiences where people are in DOC pretrial custody because
they cannot post bail and then DOC transfers them to a half-way
house in a DOC bed.
MR. STEINER offered that he would check but most of the time the
folks are in custody or the court releases them to a community
residential center (CRC). He advised he does not know whether
DOC has now shifted toward putting pretrial folks in CRC's.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to a person released to a DOC
half-way house, and questioned whether the defendant would
receive jail credit for their time in the half-way house.
MR. STEINER said he would expect that to be the case.
2:32:26 PM
SHERRIE DAGEL, Criminal Justice Planner, Office of the
Commissioner, said the daily count for DOC as of today is 451
offenders on electronic monitoring post sentence. She was not
certain of the 4,000 number and offered to have information for
the committee shortly.
2:33:20 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
[HB 15 was held over.]
2:34:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 15 Sponsor Statement 3-14-2015.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| CSHB 15 Sectional Analysis 3-14-2015.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| CSHB 15 Explanation Of Changes Ver W to Ver P 3-14-2015.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| CSHB75 Explanation of Changes, Fversion.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| CSHB75 Sectional Analysis versionF.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB15 Draft Proposed CS ver P.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |