Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/14/1994 01:15 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 14, 1994                                        
                            1:15 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman                                                  
  Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                             
  Rep. Gail Phillips                                                           
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Joe Green                                                               
  Rep. Cliff Davidson                                                          
  Rep. Jim Nordlund                                                            
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  HB 349:   "An Act providing for the civil commitment of                      
            sexually violent predators."                                       
            CSHB 349 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
  *HB 445:  "An Act relating to operating or driving a motor                   
            vehicle, commercial motor vehicle, aircraft, or                    
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 460:  "An Act relating to bail after conviction for                      
            various felonies if the defendant has certain                      
            previous felony convictions."                                      
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 376:   "An Act relating to services for and protection of                 
            vulnerable adults; and providing for an effective                  
            NOT HEARD                                                          
  HB 340:   "An Act prohibiting the furlough of sex                            
            NOT HEARD                                                          
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  MICHAEL O'CONNOR                                                             
  9801 Grange, No. 1                                                           
  Anchorage, AK  99518                                                         
  Position Statement:  Testified in support of HB 349                          
                       (Spoke via teleconference)                              
  REP. SEAN PARNELL                                                            
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Position Statement:  Prime Sponsor of HB 349                                 
  MARGOT O. KNUTH                                                              
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Criminal Division                                                            
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                        
  Position Statement:  Testified on HB 349                                     
  C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner                                        
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P.O. Box 111200                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811-1200                                                        
  Position Statement:  Testified on HB 445                                     
  JUANITA HENSLEY                                                              
  Chief of Driver Services                                                     
  Division of Motor Vehicles                                                   
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P.O. Box 20020                                                               
  Juneau, AK 99802-0020                                                        
  Position Statement:  Testified on HB 445                                     
  SERGEANT RANDY CRAWFORD                                                      
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P.O. Box 111200                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811-1200                                                        
  Position Statement:  Testified on HB 445                                     
  REP. MIKE NAVARRE                                                            
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Position Statement:  Prime Sponsor of HB 460                                 
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 349                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL,Toohey,Olberg,Sanders,                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/07/94      2019    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/10/94      2019    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/10/94      2019    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/13/94      2056    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  OLBERG                            
  01/26/94      2160    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  SANDERS                           
  02/07/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/07/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/09/94      2310    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES)  5DP 2NR 2AM                    
  02/09/94      2310    (H)   DP:  KOTT, BUNDE, TOOHEY,                        
                              B.DAVIS, BRICE                                   
  02/09/94      2310    (H)   NR:  OLBERG, NICHOLIA                            
  02/09/94      2310    (H)   AM:  VEZEY, G. DAVIS                             
  02/09/94      2311    (H)   -3 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, LAW,                      
                              ADM) 2/9/94                                      
  02/09/94      2311    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/9/94                   
  02/09/94      2328    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  BUNDE                             
  02/14/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  02/16/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/09/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 445                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: DWI LAWS                                                        
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/04/94      2261    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/04/94      2262    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  02/04/94      2262    (H)   -3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (2-ADM,                     
                              LAW) 2/4/94                                      
  02/04/94      2262    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/4/94                        
  02/04/94      2262    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  03/11/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 460                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE                                        
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/11/94      2344    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/11/94      2345    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/11/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 376                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: ASSIST & PROTECT VULNERABLE ADULTS                              
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/14/94      2066    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/14/94      2066    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/14/94      2067    (H)   -4 FNS (3-DHSS, ADM)  1/14/94                    
  01/14/94      2067    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94                  
  01/14/94      2067    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/09/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/09/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/09/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/11/94      2341    (H)   HES RPT  4DP 3NR 1AM                             
  02/11/94      2341    (H)   DP:  BUNDE, TOOHEY, B.DAVIS,                     
  02/11/94      2341    (H)   NR:  KOTT, G.DAVIS, OLBERG                       
  02/11/94      2341    (H)   AM:  VEZEY                                       
  02/11/94      2342    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/11/94                  
  02/11/94      2342    (H)   -4 PREVIOUS FNS (ADM, 3-DHSS)                    
  02/11/94      2342    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (ADM) 1/14/94                                    
  03/11/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 340                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)PARNELL,Phillips,Toohey,                        
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/03/94      2016    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/10/94      2016    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/10/94      2016    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/12/94      2043    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, SANDERS                    
  01/13/94      2055    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  OLBERG                            
  03/02/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/02/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/04/94      2603    (H)   HES RPT  3DP 4NR 1AM                             
  03/04/94      2603    (H)   DP:  BUNDE, TOOHEY, BRICE                        
  03/04/94      2603    (H)   NR:  G.DAVIS, OLBERG, NICHOLIA,                  
  03/04/94      2604    (H)   AM:  VEZEY                                       
  03/04/94      2604    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/4/94                       
  03/04/94      2604    (H)   -3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS,                       
                              2-ADM) 3/4/94                                    
  03/04/94      2604    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                            
  03/09/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-41, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order                   
  at 1:30 p.m. on March 14, 1994.  A quorum was present.                       
  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would be                        
  hearing HB 349, HB 445 and HB 460.  He said HB 376 and HB
  340 would be held over and HB 376 would be heard on                          
  HB 349 - CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUAL PREDATORS                                
  Number 037                                                                   
  MR. MICHAEL O'CONNOR presented testimony via teleconference                  
  in support of HB 349.  He expressed concerns regarding the                   
  need for rehabilitation of dangerous individuals showing                     
  sexual tendencies towards children seeking sexual                            
  gratification.  He felt an urgent need to get this civil                     
  commitment bill passed.                                                      
  Number 133                                                                   
  REP. SEAN PARNELL, Prime Sponsor of HB 349, explained the                    
  bill, stating that the bill in general requires that the                     
  Department of Corrections notify the attorney general's                      
  office upon releasing a potentially violent predator from                    
  prison.  The offender would then be committed to the                         
  Department of Health and Social Services for a period of                     
  time, becoming subject to procedural protections.  Rep.                      
  Parnell stated that the committee substitute (CS) work draft                 
  incorporates the following amendments:                                       
  On page 2, line 1, the phrase "among this group" was added.                  
  Also, line 7 refers to "this group" of violent offenders, in                 
  an attempt to focus in on the "group" of sexually violent                    
  predators, who are not immune to existing mental illness                     
  treatment methods of the 30, 60, 90 day proceeding under                     
  current state law.                                                           
  On page 3, line 29, the clause, "following the judicial                      
  determination of probable cause," was added.  Rep. Parnell                   
  said this was a suggestion from the Department of Law.  It                   
  was assumed that this was going to take place within 45 days                 
  after filing the petition, that there would be a finding of                  
  probable cause, but it was made clear through that language.                 
  On page 4, line 6, the words "the expert or professional"                    
  replaced the word "examiner."                                                
  On page 5, lines 26-28, it was suggested by committee staff                  
  that once they are confined, they would be notified by the                   
  department of their right to annual reviews and                              
  examinations, so they do not have to wait a year and then                    
  find out they have these rights.                                             
  REP. PARNELL said those are all the changes that the                         
  committee adopted last time.                                                 
  CHAIRMAN PORTER drew attention to the page labeled "Proposed                 
  Amendments" and stated that page 4, lines 15-18, would be                    
  Amendment 1; page 8, lines 2 and 3, would be Amendment 2;                    
  page 8, lines 17 and 18, would be Amendment 3; page 8, lines                 
  27-29, would be Amendment 4; and all of the lines on pages                   
  4, 6, and 7 would be Amendment 5.                                            
  Number 225                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 1, explaining that the                      
  Washington Supreme Court case requires a person who is to be                 
  committed, who has not been in prison, to demonstrate a                      
  recent overt act, meaning a crime, such as sexual predatory                  
  offense, in order for the person to be civilly committed.                    
  That overt act requirement has been incorporated into the                    
  bill, as well as having turned the focus onto the conduct                    
  rather than on the presence of sexual motivation.  On page                   
  4, lines 15-18, in the work draft, are the words "sexual                     
  motivation."  He said there had been some discussion from                    
  MARGOT KNUTH, Department of Law, regarding proof of sexual                   
  motivation and instead, throughout these amendments, the                     
  committee will see a focus on the actual conduct of a                        
  person, rather than on the motivation of a person.                           
  Number 264                                                                   
  REP. GAIL PHILLIPS moved Amendment 1.                                        
  CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion.                      
  Number 277                                                                   
  MS. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal                       
  Division, Department of Law, stated her belief that it                       
  should not require more than an attempted act, and that some                 
  specific language is needed to define what types of conduct                  
  would satisfy the legal requirements for "attempt."  She                     
  said it need not be a sexually related act, but any act                      
  showing dangerousness.  It could be a traditional assaultive                 
  type of behavior; something that says, "Not only are we                      
  dealing with somebody who is in need of treatment, but it is                 
  a matter of dangerousness as well."                                          
  Number 294                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER gave the example of the Chico Rodriguez                      
  case, wherein with no establishment of an act, those acts                    
  that he may or may not have been involved in during his time                 
  in prison have not been documented.                                          
  Number 316                                                                   
  REP. JIM NORDLUND agreed with Chairman Porter that for those                 
  persons already in prison, this recent overt act requirement                 
  will not apply to them because they have already been                        
  convicted of that act; but, on the other hand, it does                       
  indeed apply to those persons already out of prison and                      
  those not yet in prison.                                                     
  Number 327                                                                   
  MS. KNUTH said as long as you are in prison, the clock goes                  
  back and encompasses your conduct all the way back.  Once                    
  you are released from prison, then the sense is that                         
  previous acts committed cannot be included in a future civil                 
  commitment determination; a new act would be required.                       
  REP. NORDLUND asked why, if you have proven beyond a                         
  reasonable doubt, which is the high standard, that somebody                  
  has committed an act of dangerousness, would you just                        
  prosecute them under the normal criminal procedures and land                 
  them back in jail?  He also questioned whether you are given                 
  a choice of prosecuting them and putting them into the                       
  prison system or putting them into API.                                      
  Number 360                                                                   
  MS. KNUTH answered that that is another option.  The act of                  
  dangerous could only amount to reckless endangerment or a                    
  car speed misdemeanor offense, or maybe assault where your                   
  options are very limited in "misdemeanor-land."  This would                  
  provide greater control, making this a matter that, in some                  
  cases, will not make sense.  A felony offense would be the                   
  preferred requirement, particularly a Class A or                             
  unclassified, providing more control in most instances.                      
  Number 380                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL thought this was more in line with a civil                      
  commitment philosophy in the sense that these people are                     
  being treated as well as confined.  The fact that they are                   
  in prison, or have not been in prison, may not need be                       
  critical to the felony.  In terms of the differentiation of                  
  the potential outcomes of prosecuting the crime or                           
  proceeding under this avenue, the crime does not have to be                  
  a serious felony in terms of Class A.  It could be a crime                   
  for which the sentence would be minimal and the otherwise                    
  sexual violent predator would be right back in society.  He                  
  assumed it could be a crime that is completely unrelated to                  
  it.  It could be a sexual predator who gets into a barroom                   
  fight with another guy; a completely unrelated act.  The                     
  problem is of more concern to the public.                                    
  Number 413                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion or any                 
  objection on Amendment 1.  Noting that Rep. Phillips had                     
  moved the amendment, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 1                    
  passed without objection.                                                    
  Number 415                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 2, page 8, lines 2 and 3,                   
  the immunity section.  He said there was concern over wide                   
  open immunity from liability for department people for their                 
  actions.  The original language stated that they would be                    
  immune from liability for any good faith conduct. Instead,                   
  it was changed to say this section does not preclude                         
  liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence                  
  or reckless intentional misconduct.                                          
  Number 420                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 2.                                             
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any                          
  objection.  Hearing none, Amendment 2 passed.                                
  Number 421                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 3, page 8, lines 17 and 18.                 
  He said the lines defining "sexually motivated" were                         
  deleted. He explained they would prefer to focus on the                      
  conduct of the individual rather than the motivation because                 
  conduct is easier to prove than sexual motivation.                           
  Number 425                                                                   
  MS. KNUTH commented that this change was in response to the                  
  Chairman's insight to get away from sexually motivated.  She                 
  explained that by taking out .824 (3) they readdressed the                   
  problem in 4 (B), which is Amendment 4, and the two                          
  amendments dovetail together.  She stated that the conduct                   
  they proposed using was that the person engaged in or                        
  intended to engage in sexual penetration, sexual contact, or                 
  sexually gratifying conduct.                                                 
  Number 440                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any                          
  objection to Amendment 3.  Rep. Kott moved Amendment 3.                      
  Hearing no objections, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 3                  
  Number 445                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL noted that Amendment 4, page 8, lines 27-29,                    
  had already been discussed, which described the conduct Ms.                  
  Knuth described.                                                             
  Number 455                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 4.                                             
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for discussion or objection.  Hearing                  
  none, he declared Amendment 4 passed.                                        
  Number 489                                                                   
  REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 5.  He believed the Office                  
  of Public Advocacy or the public defender, rather than the                   
  court, should be representing these people.  He noted one                    
  concern is cost, and the other concern is that this type of                  
  hearing not look like a criminal trial.  At this point, the                  
  Office of Public Advocacy will hear these cases, for that                    
  reason.  It would then, at least in statute, look more like                  
  we are trying to commit these persons, rather than trying to                 
  give them a second sentence.                                                 
  Number 529                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND agreed with the suggestion of delegating this                  
  procedure to the agency most able to handle the task                         
  Number 533                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and noted that                  
  Amendment 5 had been moved.  Without objection, Amendment 5                  
  Number 544                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move CSHB 349, including                           
  amendments, individual recommendations and attached fiscal                   
  notes.  There was an objection for the purpose of                            
  Discussion ensued on whether a person who was incarcerated                   
  could continually request to be reevaluated.                                 
  REP. PARNELL said that language could be found on page 7,                    
  line 17 and line 24, and he basically only gets one shot.                    
  MS. KNUTH clarified that the person actually gets as many                    
  shots as they want, but there is a mechanism whereby the                     
  judge doesn't have to pay  quite so much attention after the                 
  first shot.  They get one considered evaluation and after                    
  that it is hoped to be pro forma unless the person presents                  
  new evidence to suggest that something significant had                       
  Number 580                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that persons committed under such                     
  provisions would be allowed to request periodical re-                        
  evaluations of their condition in order to determine the                     
  appropriateness of a lengthy sentence.                                       
  Number 595                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND said he supported the intent behind HB 349,                    
  yet expressed concern over the fiscal note in that the state                 
  will have to spend $1.2 million for treatment programs for                   
  these people after they have served their time under the                     
  purview of the Department of Corrections.  He would much                     
  rather see that kind of money spent for treatment programs                   
  immediately after the person has offended and while they are                 
  still in the Department of Corrections.  He said he                          
  supported the bill, but he thought it was applying the                       
  treatment services too late in the process and he would                      
  rather see the money spent earlier.                                          
  Number 616                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and any                         
  objections.  Hearing none, he declared CSHB 349 moved out of                 
  Number 628                                                                   
  HB 445 - DWI LAWS                                                            
  Number 635                                                                   
  DEPUTY COMMISSIONER C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Department of Public                   
  Safety, announced that Governor Hickel introduced this bill,                 
  based primarily on the high rate of alcohol and drug related                 
  vehicle accidents that involve injury and death.  Alaska has                 
  one of the highest rates of controlled substance related                     
  accidents.  Implied consent statutes allow testing for                       
  drugs, etc., after a person is involved in an accident                       
  relating to alcohol or drugs, causing death or serious                       
  injury (if a person was not charged with anything).                          
  Number 683                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND questioned the clause inferring that the same                  
  persons who would be tested for drugs and/or alcohol would                   
  be those not charged with anything after the accident.  He                   
  was going on the assumption that such persons would usually                  
  be charged indeed.                                                           
  DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER disagreed.  He said arrests are                       
  usually avoided in these instances, since those involved                     
  usually end up in the hospital.  If they are arrested at                     
  that time, the Department of Public Safety assumes the                       
  liability for that person, which is not financially prudent.                 
  Number 720                                                                   
  JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services, Division of Motor                 
  Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, clarified the issue                   
  by saying that a person who consents to taking a breath test                 
  does not have to be arrested until the results are there.                    
  If they refuse to take the test, then they are placed under                  
  arrest at that time.                                                         
  Number 730                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER added that in the hospital this would allow                  
  the tests to be ordered without their permission because of                  
  this implied consent; and physicians, to avoid legal action                  
  against themselves, will not perform these tests without the                 
  law in place, because they have been sued.                                   
  Number 745                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS questioned why the primary emphasis on the                     
  sponsor statement is motor vehicles, and yet the title of                    
  the bill is "Motor Vehicle, Aircraft and Watercraft."                        
  Number 756                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY explained to Rep. Phillips that the current                      
  statute now includes motor vehicle, aircraft, and                            
  watercraft.  A person loses his or her driver's license at                   
  the time they are convicted of a DWI in a motor vehicle or                   
  aircraft, but watercraft is not included.  The only                          
  provisions that apply to watercraft are jail sentencing and                  
  fines.  Nobody loses their driver's license for operating a                  
  watercraft while intoxicated.                                                
  Number 779                                                                   
  REP. PETE KOTT asked JUANITA HENSLEY if a definition for                     
  "motor vehicle" exists.                                                      
  Number 784                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY answered affirmatively.  She said the statute                    
  also defines "commercial vehicle."  Two sections of Title 28                 
  deal with commercial motor vehicles.  The definitions are                    
  based on size and weight of the vehicle.                                     
  Number 802                                                                   
  SGT. CRAWFORD asked if snow machines fit into that category.                 
  MS. HENSLEY told Sgt. Crawford that they do, if they are                     
  being operated in a vehicular area; then they are considered                 
  Number 812                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked what the grounds are for a person                        
  "operating a vehicle under the influence?"  He questioned,                   
  "What would give you cause, under this bill, to impose a                     
  test on somebody?"                                                           
  SGT. HENSLEY answered that under this bill it has to do                      
  specifically with accidents; the driving, the scene                          
  description, the skid marks, and the type of accident.                       
  Those types of things would indicate whether this was an icy                 
  road accident or someone going through a stop sign.  There                   
  could be any number of things:  pipes in the car, or an                      
  empty pill bottle could indicate drug use.                                   
  Number 831                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked how this type of accident would be                       
  handled if the evidence in the car did not seem to have                      
  anything to with the accident.                                               
  Number 835                                                                   
  SGT. HENSLEY answered that that would not necessarily apply,                 
  unless some further indication of drugs existed, such as                     
  whether or not the driver was able to talk.  There would                     
  have to be some contributing factor in order to explore the                  
  possibility of drug involvement.                                             
  Number 845                                                                   
  REP. JOE GREEN asked if there was a similar method of                        
  indicating the presence of drugs, in a single step, in the                   
  same manner that a Breathalyzer indicates the presence of                    
  Number 851                                                                   
  SGT. HENSLEY said there are indications in the person's                      
  behavior, if the officer is trained properly.                                
  TAPE 94-41, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 007                                                                   
  REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON asked whether or not we allow for                        
  training in drug and alcohol detection, and questions                        
  regarding accuracy of drug and alcohol tests.                                
  Number 034                                                                   
  DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER stated that HB 319 would give an                      
  opportunity to enhance the short supply of funding for                       
  training.  He believes the Intoximeter 3000 to be accurate                   
  since these alcohol measuring devices are maintained on a                    
  daily basis through a computerized system.                                   
  Number 091                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON asked how quickly you must act in order to                     
  ensure an accurate reading.                                                  
  SGT. CRAWFORD explained how and when the different drugs                     
  peak in the body's system after ingested.  In short, the                     
  longer you wait, acquiring search warrants, the less likely                  
  you will be able to quantify the drug.  The sooner the                       
  REP. JEANNETTE JAMES questioned HB 445, wondering if it                      
  allows blood and urine to be taken from persons involved in                  
  a serious accident.                                                          
  Number 160                                                                   
  DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER said if they refuse to submit, then                   
  they become guilty, just as they would with the implied                      
  consent.  It would basically transpose the current implied                   
  consent for those involved in motor vehicle accidents.  He                   
  said "implied consent" would be the same as the implied                      
  consent if you did not take the intoximeter.  He said the                    
  revocation and loss of license, and a Class A misdemeanor                    
  applies.  It does not really get you to the point where you                  
  actually draw blood and urine.  There still has to be                        
  another step.                                                                
  Number 164                                                                   
  REP. JAMES asked whether or not blood and urine could be                     
  taken, in a case where the person is hospitalized, as part                   
  of the hospital admission, or would permission be required.                  
  She was under the impression that if someone was involved in                 
  a serious accident, those tests should be able to be taken                   
  without going through the arrest procedure.  She wondered                    
  just what this bill would do.                                                
  Number 180                                                                   
  DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER pointed out that page 8 addresses the                 
  person that is unconscious or in the hospital.  It is true                   
  that blood and urine would be drawn as part of the hospital                  
  procedure, but was another matter for the hospital to turn                   
  over blood and urine to a law enforcement person, so there                   
  would still be other steps to go through.                                    
  Number 204                                                                   
  DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER stated that AS 11.81.900(b), which is                 
  incorporated into page 8, line 25, defines serious injury.                   
  Number 225                                                                   
  REP. GREEN motioned to pass HB 445 out of committee with                     
  attached fiscal notes.  The bill was moved with no                           
  discretion or objection.                                                     
  Number 233                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced REP. MIKE NAVARRE, Prime Sponsor                  
  of HB 460, representing District 9.                                          
  REP. NAVARRE described HB 460 as a companion bill to SB 228,                 
  which proposes to provide that if a person has been                          
  previously convicted of a sexual offense, in all degrees                     
  (not just first degree, as is now the case), they will not                   
  be allowed bail if convicted a second time.  They will be                    
  required to stay in jail through the appeal process.  This                   
  is a way of getting a little tougher on these types of                       
  criminals without costing the state a lot of money.                          
  Number 305                                                                   
  REP. GREEN stated that the fiscal notes would be zero, since                 
  the person would be going to jail after conviction anyway.                   
  Number 320                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that these are all post-bail conviction                 
  considerations, not pre-conviction.  In post-conviction,                     
  credit is given for the time spent in jail, to apply to your                 
  Number 330                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND added the fact that those types of offenses do                 
  not normally result in overturning a sentence through the                    
  appeal process, so it is more efficient for the felon to                     
  start doing their time right away.                                           
  Number 352                                                                   
  REP. NAVARRE stated that constitutionally, the burden of                     
  proof has already shifted; the person has been found guilty                  
  beyond reasonable doubt.                                                     
  Number 356                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked, if in the event this bill does not                      
  pass, would the sex offender registration bill be plugged in                 
  just as soon as the ruling was made in the case?                             
  Number 360                                                                   
  REP. NAVARRE replied that, yes, that could help, because the                 
  felon would be required to register in other states as well.                 
  Number 385                                                                   
  REP. JAMES moved that HB 460 be passed out of committee with                 
  a zero fiscal note recommendation.  The bill passed with no                  
  The House Judiciary Committee was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.                     
  HB 376 - NOT HEARD                                                           
  HB 340 - NOT HEARD                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects