Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/27/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2023
1:00 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative David Eastman
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to the
crime of stalking; relating to consecutive sentencing for
violation of conditions of release; relating to the duty to
register as a sex offender; amending the definition of 'sex
offense'; amending the definition of 'crime involving domestic
violence'; relating to multidisciplinary child protection teams;
amending Rule 6(r), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the crime of
patron of a victim of sex trafficking; relating to the crime of
human trafficking; relating to prostitution; relating to
sentencing for sex trafficking, patron of a victim of sex
trafficking, and human trafficking; establishing the process for
vacating judgments for certain convictions of prostitution and
misconduct involving a controlled substance; relating to the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to
permanent fund dividends for certain individuals whose
convictions are vacated; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: HARASSMENT; SEX OFFENDERS & OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/23 (H) JUD, FIN
03/03/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/27/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of HB 67, on behalf of
the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the
governor.
LISA PURINTON, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
67.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:29 PM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives Carpenter,
Eastman, Gray, Groh, and Vance were present at the call to
order. Representatives Allard and C. Johnson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 67-HARASSMENT; SEX OFFENDERS & OFFENSES
1:01:35 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 67, "An Act relating to criminal law and
procedure; relating to the crime of stalking; relating to
consecutive sentencing for violation of conditions of release;
relating to the duty to register as a sex offender; amending the
definition of 'sex offense'; amending the definition of 'crime
involving domestic violence'; relating to multidisciplinary
child protection teams; amending Rule 6(r), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:48 PM
CHAIR VANCE requested an overview of HB 67.
1:03:00 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Committee,
sponsor by request of the governor, provided a summary of the
bill. He explained that HB 67 would allow for a summary of
information at grand jury; require out-of-state sex offenders to
register in Alaska; require additional elements for sex offender
registry; address stalking in the first degree; provide
authority for child advocacy centers; and address violations and
conditions for release.
1:05:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether anything in Section 2, as drafted,
applied to trafficking victims.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that if a trafficking victim had applied
for a domestic violence protective order, stalking protective
order, or sexual assault protective order, the bill would apply
to that individual.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether a victim of sex trafficking would fall
under the sexual assault provisions.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that none of the protective orders were
explicitly designed for victims of sex trafficking.
CHAIR VANCE invited questions from members of the committee.
1:08:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how a protective order would help a
victim of sex trafficking whose life had been threatened.
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that filing a protective order could
make the victim more of a target. However, he characterized
protective orders as "generally beneficial" in that they give
law enforcement additional tools to protect the victim from
further violence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Skidmore to contrast the
penalty for violating a protective order with the penalty for
sex trafficking. He asked how a protective order was supposed
to deter recruitment for sex trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE contrasted the penalties, explaining that the
penalty for sex trafficking was certainly higher. He reiterated
that this bill was not intended to apply to victims of sex
trafficking.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired expanding the protective orders
to victims of sex trafficking and asked whether the perpetrator
would need to be convicted of sex trafficking before
administering a protective order against him/her.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that victims of sex trafficking would be
protected by a domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault
protective order if they were to apply for one. He emphasized
that there was no requirement of a previous conviction.
CHAIR VANCE asked why age 16 was expressly listed on page 2,
line 15, inquiring about the origin of the age determination.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that the language in question was current
state law. He indicated that the decision was a policy call
made by prior legislatures.
1:16:04 PM
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to paragraph (3) in Section 3 of
the bill and asked Mr. Skidmore to discuss conditions of
release.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the added language in paragraph (3)
provided that "a consecutive term of imprisonment shall be
imposed for some additional term of imprisonment for the
underlying crime and each additional crime when there are two or
more crimes for violating conditions of release."
CHAIR VANCE continued to Section 4 and inquired about subsection
(b).
MR. SKIDMORE said the changes were predominantly found on lines
6-10, 24-35, and 29-30 of page 4, which outlined additional
details required of sex offender registrants.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether a human trafficker could be considered
similar to a child kidnapper. She questioned whether adding
human traffickers to the sex offender registry would be a wise
policy decision.
MR. SKIDMORE said the sex offender registry law applied to
kidnappers and sex offenders. Expanding it to human traffickers
would be a policy call, he said.
CHAIR VANCE sought to confirm that convicted sex traffickers
would be considered sex offenders and therefore, required to
register should HB 68 pass.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
1:22:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether palm printing, as opposed
to fingerprinting, was a new requirement.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to Ms. Purinton.
1:24:15 PM
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Department of Public Safety (DPS), responded that
currently, fingerprints were required of new registered sex
offenders. She explained that palm prints were not being taken
at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested the rationale for adding palm
prints.
MS. PURINTON said the department was continuously working on
various biometric identification methods. As technology
improved, she said, various data collection methods, such as
palm prints, were being considered as the technology becomes
available. She added that the collection of palm prints at the
time of arrest would be a policy call.
1:26:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the biometric data was
collected before or after conviction.
MS. PURINTON said the information in the bill pertained to
individuals who had been convicted of a registerable sex
offense.
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the benefit or advantage of a palm
print versus a fingerprint.
MS. PURINTON did not know the answer. She indicated that some
people have poor quality fingerprints due to injury, for
example.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to subsection (b) in paragraph 4
and asked whether a Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) office
was considered an Alaska state trooper post.
MS. PURINTON explained that for those individuals residing in
rural areas without a municipal police department or local
trooper post, the registrant would mail in the registration
forms, making the registry itself the registering office and the
postmarked date the registration date.
CHAIR VANCE asked how proper notification of out-of-state travel
would work.
MS. PURINTON said registrants were very aware of the
requirements and cognizant of making sure correspondence was
postmarked within the correct timeframe.
1:30:58 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the registry included adult
kidnappers.
MS. PURINTON shared her understanding that the registry only
encompassed child kidnappers. She deferred to Mr. Skidmore for
confirmation.
MR. SKIDMORE said the kidnapping statute applied to adults as
well; however, the sex offender registry statute specified child
kidnappers. He speculated that kidnappers of adult victims need
not register.
CHAIR VANCE discussed the idea of adding human traffickers to
the registry requirements, indicating that it was a deeper
policy consideration.
1:33:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referenced child kidnapping in custody
disputes and asked whether there were other types of child
kidnapping.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that "custodial interference" tended to
be the charges filed in custody disputes, whereas kidnapping
itself involved more onerous requirements. He directed
attention to AS 11.41.300(b), noting that relatives of a child
victim under the age of 18 could claim an affirmative defense.
He emphasized that people involved in custody disputes would not
end up on the registry.
1:35:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to delineate between [custodial
interference and child kidnapping]. He asked whether the
distinctions were clear in the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, the elements to the various crimes
were different and distinct.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how to account for a custodian who
was trafficking a child in his/her care.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that both human trafficking and sex
trafficking in the first degree, as drafted in HB 68, included
provisions to cover parents or legal guardians engaging in that
behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the deadline for
fulfilling the notification requirement outlined on page 6, line
6 of the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to Ms. Purinton.
MS. PURINTON said the registrant would be required to send
notice prior to leaving his/her residency for more than seven
days.
1:41:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the state had ever taken
steps to notify another jurisdiction of a child kidnapper
attempting to enter said jurisdiction.
MS. PURINTON answered yes, the sex registration office utilized
several different means, such as the Sex Offender Registration
Notification Act (SORNA) portal maintained by the U.S.
Department of Justice, to send and receive notifications from
other states.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the penalty for falling
out of compliance.
MS. PUIRINTON said the penalty for failing to register could be
pursued by the state or federal government. She deferred to Mr.
Skidmore.
MR. SKIMODRE said the penalty for a first-time failure to
register was a class A misdemeanor followed by a class C felony
for subsequent violations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there were exceptions in
statute for the 21-day requirement to provide written notice of
any intended travel outside the U.S.
MS. PURINTON said a question of compliance with the
International Megan's Law would be referred to the U.S.
Marshal's Office. She deferred to Mr. Skidmore.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that DOL could charge someone for failing
to provide that information 21 days before traveling; however,
enforcement would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the impetus for the bill.
1:47:49 PM
MR. SKIDMORE listed two primary incentives: firstly, the changes
proposed in the bill were more consistent with other state and
federal government requirements; therefore, it would bring
Alaska's registry into closer compliance with those entities.
Secondly, he emphasized the importance of listing the
individual's full name and physical address to avoid
misidentification and to assist law enforcement.
1:51:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether sex offenders' passports
were marked.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to Ms. Purinton.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether registered sex offenders
were allowed to enter into Canada.
MS. PURINTON answered yes, registered sex offenders' passports
were marked with an indicator. She explained that the sex
offender registration records were entered into state and
federal databases; however, she was unsure whether travel to or
through Canada was allowed.
1:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the length of probation for
sex offenses.
MS. PURINTON said probation was dependent on the statutory
authority within the sentencing range for each offense. She
noted that often times, sex offenses were penalized with a
longer sentencing period due to the severity of the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether an alert was sent out when a
sex offender travels out of state.
MS. PURINTON clarified that TSA was not alerted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reported that per Google, Canada refuses
entry for anyone with a felony conviction period.
1:55:55 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether DPS has considered transitioning to a
tiered approach to the registry.
MS. PURINTON discussed SORNA, which included a tiering process
in which sex offenders were classified into a range of tier one,
two or three to determine the severity of the offense and a
comparable registration time period. Currently, she said,
Alaska did not have an official tiering process; nonetheless,
two "tiers" within the state's current system could be
considered the 15-year registration requirement and the lifetime
requirement in Alaska.
CHAIR VANCE asked how the registry and the tier system
interfaced with state agencies and the public.
MS. PURINTON discussed the sex offender registration website
maintained by DPS, which listed the date of conviction and
duration of registration. She explained that out-of-state
registrants were fit into either the 15-year or lifetime
requirement, as Alaska was not adopting the alternate tiering
system at this time unless the conviction was after 2019.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether cost of implementation was the reason
why Alaska hadn't implemented the multi-tier approach.
MS. PURINTON responded that DPS did not have the statutory
authority to implement the multi-tier approach at present.
CHAIR VANCE requested a description of the three SORNA tiers.
MS. PURINTON offered a description of the SORNA tier
classification from tier I, which encompassed the least
impactful sex offenses, to the most serious sex offenses under
Tier III.
2:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the category, titled
"aliases used," on the DPS website was optional for each
registrant to fill out.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to Ms. Purinton.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that there was no legal
enforcement for someone who failed to provide an alias.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that reporting
the use of an alias was required in the proposed legislation;
however, he deferred to Ms. Purinton to speak to DPS
requirements for registered sex offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DPS could prosecute an
individual who failed to report an alias.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, failing to provide the necessary
information to register as a sex offender could lead to
prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there were instances in
which failure to report an alias had been charged by the
department.
MR. SKIDMORE said he could follow up with the number of charges
for failure to register; however, he said it would be difficult
to quantify how many of those charges were based on aliases.
2:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a minimum age
[for registered sex offenders].
MR. SKIDMORE said Alaska did not require individuals to register
when adjudicated as a juvenile.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the jurisdictional issue
of "illegally trying to remove someone from the state."
MR. SKIDMORE detailed custodial interference in the first and
second degree, indicating that in those scenarios, a governor's
warrant would be pursued and provided to the state to which the
individuals fled. He added that state compacts allowed for
extradition so that the offender could be prosecuted in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the applicability of
subsection (b) on page 13 of the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that for offenses committed even prior to
the date of enactment, that offender would be required to give
notice of leaving the state. He noted that it would not be
considered additional or new punishment and therefore, would not
violate the ex post facto law.
2:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why there were no ex post facto
laws concerns.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that AS 12.63.010(g) and (h) applied to
conduct that had not yet occurred. He expounded, explaining
that ex post facto law applied "after the fact." He said as
long as prior conduct was not being punished, ex post facto
would not be in violation.
2:14:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the changes brought
forward in HB 67 were tied to a change or requirement in federal
law.
MS. PURINTON said the changes were proposed in response to SONA,
adding that the state was penalized on an annual basis for
failing to comply with SONA's requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inquired about the penalty for
noncompliance.
MS. PURINTON explained that federal grants were penalized by 10
percent.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked, "10 percent of what?"
MS. PURINTON responded 10 percent of anywhere from $700,000 to
$1 million each year.
2:17:21 PM
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to page 5, line 9, and asked
whether "any peace officer" included VPSOs.
MS. PURINTON said, to the best of her knowledge, yes.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether it included VPOs.
MS PURINTON shared her understanding that the provision included
any peace officer with the authority to make arrests.
2:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the registry was limited to sex
offenders and child kidnappers, as opposed to murderers, for
example.
MR. SKIDMORE said the registry was originally designed to alert
the public to the presence of individuals deemed dangerous.
Additionally, the registry served to provide leads on missing
children, sexual assault, and other sex crimes for law
enforcement. He was unsure whether that rationale would apply
with equal force to individuals convicted of homicide crimes.
2:20:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the purpose of adding "any
peace officer" on page 5, line 9.
MR. PURINTON explained that the purpose was to be inclusive of
the university and airport police departments, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned whether federal officers
with arrest powers were in need of statutes such as this for the
authority to collect palm prints.
MS. PURINTON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that federal law enforcement officers did
not need authorization under state statute to collect a palm
print.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether all peace officers had the power of
arrest.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
CHAIR VANCE asked Mr. Skidmore to discuss the additional
language in Section 10.
2:23:50 PM
MR. SKIDMORE explained that Section 10 authorized the creation
of Child Advocacy Centers (CACs), which were being granted the
authority to engage in interviews with child victims. He said
lines 17-19 expressly authorized a multidisciplinary team to
contact and evaluate offenders and victims - both under the age
of 13 who had engaged in sexual contact or sexual penetration.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the provision applied to
children who had already been removed from their parent's
custody.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the provision was authorizing those
individuals to be involved regardless of their custody status.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inquired about the parents' role in an
assessment of two 13-year-old children engaged in sexual
behavior.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that the provision was allowing a
multidisciplinary team to make an assessment and provide
recommendations. If the child was still in parental custody,
the parents would have the right to choose which services to
engage in, he said. He emphasized that the purpose of the
provision was not to say that a child should or should not be
taken away from his/her parents.
2:30:15 PM
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Carpenter, reiterated that the child's custodian
would ultimately determine whether the services recommended by
the CAC would be obtained. He explained that when children
under the age of 13 engage in that type of [sexual] behavior,
experts have deemed it worthy of further assessment, as it could
be an indication of issues in other areas of the child's life.
2:34:03 PM
CHAIR VANCE shared a specific instance in which one child was
sexually assaulted by another child in reading circle. She
asked whether the provision in question was seeking to address
such a scenario. Further, she asked whether abuse from one child
to another would qualify as child abuse.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the multidisciplinary team was
designed to intervene in that type of conduct and help provide
guidance and make recommendations. He speculated that the
described behavior may not be considered child abuse; however,
the team could help determine the cause of the child's
aggressive behavior.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the team's recommendations would be
required by the courts.
MR. SKIDMORE did not know the answer; however, he suspected that
if the courts had jurisdiction in a particular case, the team's
recommendations could be utilized.
CHAIR VANCE inquired about current practices under existing
statutes.
MR. SKIDMORE said currently, the multidisciplinary team lacked
statutory authorization to engage, which was why this particular
provision was requested by organizations representing the CACs.
2:38:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether police officers were
conducting the conversations with these children at present.
MR. SKIDMORE said it depended upon the facts of the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how these cases were brought to the
attention of law enforcement.
MR. SKIDMORE did not know the answer.
2:40:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether an additional training
component would be needed for police officers.
MR. SKIDMORE opined that the language, as drafted, would
suffice. He emphasized that the organizations involved with the
CACs were trained and best suited to facilitate the
interactions.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked Mr. Skidmore which organization
he was referring to.
MR. SKIDMORE answered the Children's Justice Act Task Force.
2:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled an instance in which two
teenager boys had captured and murdered a child. He asked how
violent crimes involving children were handled.
MR. SKIDMORE said a CAC would be involved in interviewing the
victims. He added that the age of the perpetrator would
determine whether the Division of Juvenile Justice, [Alaska
Department of Family and Community Services (DFCS)] would handle
the case.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked who would normally be responsible
for interviewing a young suspect of a violent crime.
MR. SKIDMORE said he had never seen a child under the age of 12
or 13 charged as an adult. He reported that the cutoff age for
an automatic waver into adult court was 16 to 18.
2:47:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how a 12-year-old perpetrator of a
violent crime would be investigated.
MR. SKIDMORE said law enforcement could conduct interviews;
however, the ultimate determination would be made by the
Division of Juvenile Justice.
2:49:04 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 67 was held over.
2:49:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|