Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/25/1995 01:05 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE January 25, 1995 1:07 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice-Chair Representative Con Bunde Representative Bettye Davis Representative Al Vezey Representative Cynthia Toohey Representative David Finkelstein COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HB 27"An Act directing the Department of Public Safety to establish and maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification registration system and requiring DNA registration by persons convicted of a felony sex offense; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD * HB 26"An Act revising Rule 15, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to depositions, to adopt the comparable federal rule." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITNESS REGISTER JAY MILLER, Chief Forensic Science Systems Unit Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Washington D.C. (301) 779-3166 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information Supporting HB 27 GEORGE TAFT, Chief Alaska State Department of Public Safety Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory 5500 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1221 (907)338-6614 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information Supporting HB 27 DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 (907)465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information Supporting HB 27 LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault 130 Seward Street, Suite 501 Juneau, AK 99801 (907)586-3650 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information Supporting HB 27 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 11200 Whittier Street Juneau, AK 99811-1200 (907)465-4322 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information Supporting HB 27 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 27 SHORT TITLE: DNA TESTING OF CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS OFFENDERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL, Toohey, B.Davis, Porter, Green, Bunde JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 27 (H) JUD, FIN 01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 01/19/95 89 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE 01/20/95 104 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY 01/23/95 118 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY-1ST COSPONSOR 01/25/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 26 SHORT TITLE: DEPOSITIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL, Porter, Green, Bunde, B.Davis JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 27 (H) JUD, FIN 01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 01/19/95 89 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE 01/25/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-1, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:07 p.m. on January 25, 1995. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER announced Representatives Green, Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, and Davis were present. He noted Representative Finkelstein would be late. He stated that the following bills would be heard: HB 27, and HB 26. HJUD - 1/25/95 HB 27 - DNA TESTING OF CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS CHAIRMAN PORTER called Representative Sean Parnell, sponsor of HB 26, forward to discuss HB 27. The meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and Washington D.C. Number 024 REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL, sponsor of HB 27, noted that 26 states, at last count, have enacted DNA data banks in one form or another. The original filed bill was directed at registering DNA samples of sex offenders. The committee substitute expands that to include anybody convicted of a felony crime against a person. The bill, in short, does about four or five things. One, it requires the Department of Public Safety to establish the DNA identification registration system of persons committing violent crimes against persons. Second, it requires that a person convicted of a violent crime have a blood sample drawn for purposes of DNA identification analysis. Third, the DNA identification, under the bill, may not be used for any purpose that is not related to a criminal investigation or to improving operation of the DNA registration system. There are some other uses there, but we are basically trying to limit access to the data. We do not want it getting out into the private sector. Fourth, it requires the system to be compatible with the system currently being managed and developed by the Federal Bureau Investigation. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN arrived. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL stated if you look at modernization of the criminal justice system and law enforcement in general, you think back to the time when fingerprinting were a new technology, and then they started collecting fingerprints, and now law enforcement can look to prints if they do not have a match in their local database; they can go to the FBI and see if they have a match. Similarly with a blood sample, the idea is that, in the future, if we do not have a match against the state DNA data bank, they will be able to turn to the FBI and send the DNA sample there to see if they have a match. I think, just before the committee meeting started, you received what is entitled "The Summary of DNA Database Hits in Minnesota." This is an example of how the database has been used there successfully to solve some crimes that otherwise would have been much more difficult to solve. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL addressed the question of why is the bill is needed. Primarily, the bill addresses the high recidivism rate of this class of felons. It helps identify perpetrators who have a high likelihood of committing crimes again. U.S. Justice Department studies, in the late 1980s, confirmed that over 62.5 percent, or roughly that number, were going to re-offend, and were back in prison within three years after being released. In sexual assault cases and sexual offenses, the recidivism rate is going up, but also in the late 1980s the rate was at 64 percent; 64 percent of sexual offenders were going to wind up in prison again, so taking blood samples for DNA identification registration once a person is convicted, will enable law enforcement to stop the repeat offense from occurring, and deter those who otherwise might go out and commit these offenses again. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL made the point that enactment of the bill will also enable Alaska to join the national effort that is ongoing, in conjunction with the FBI, towards modernizing its criminal justice system. We have had a number of discussions with the Department of Law, and the Department of Public Safety on how exactly this could work, and we have representatives here from each of those departments. We also have a DNA expert, on teleconference, from the FBI in Washington DC, as well as George Taft from the Anchorage Crime Lab, who would essentially be coordinating this for Public Safety. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL urged Chairman Porter's support of the bill. He has made some changes to the bill. Draft "F" is what he would like to see the committee adopt as its working vehicle, and then amend it as some of those changes are talked through. Number 159 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any questions for Representative Parnell before the other testimony. Hearing none, he asked if either Jay Miller or Richard Guerrieri were available, via teleconference, in Washington D.C. The bridge operator explained that neither of the Washington D.C. witnesses had phoned in yet, so Chairman Porter asked for George Taft's testimony, from Anchorage. Number 170 GEORGE TAFT, CHIEF, ALASKA CRIME DETECTION LABORATORY, had looked through the bill and felt it certainly was doable, and the laboratories would have to work with the Department of Corrections on it. Number 180 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that judging by the fiscal note, it would be a couple of years before the system was up to speed, but you could begin sample taking and storing now. He asked Mr. Taft to expound on that process. MR. TAFT said they could certainly be on line by the date projected by this bill, to collect samples and have those samples on line for future reference. Number 190 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked some general questions on how this procedure works. Once the sample is taken, and then the DNA test is accomplished, then are the results stored as a film? Or how are they stored? And what are the steps involved for security so that samples are not confused and/or misused? Number 205 MR. TAFT said the samples would be taken and stored like any other criminal evidence in the laboratory. (Indisc. - paper shuffling). REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understood that the sample would be stored as a blood sample, and then refrigerated. Number 215 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL asked Mr. Taft to clarify how the blood samples would be stored, whether in vials of blood, or on swatches of cloth? Number 222 MR. TAFT said they could treat it and store it either of those two ways. Number 225 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked a couple of questions. First, he asked if by freezing, is that sealed, as well? His concern was that some products after a certain length of time, vary once they are frozen. Even though they are frozen, there are changes. Would there be any kind of a change that could render the sample inadmissable, or unreliable with time? Number 238 MR. TAFT knew of no change that could occur in the near future with the frozen blood samples. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN also expressed concern over the zero fiscal note. He was informed by other committee members that additional fiscal notes exist, with costs. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that we have received a fiscal note from the Department of Law, and three from Public Safety; one from Records, one from the Lab, and one from the computer system. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked Mr. Taft if she was correct in assuming that the samples are automatically tested when received to alleviate losing the samples if the electricity went out. Number 275 MR. TAFT answered that under this scenario, we would not do the DNA testing right away. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked why not now. MR. TAFT said the technology is so rapidly changing and technology is getting less expensive all the time. We are going from a 386 to a 486 and feel like we could warehouse these samples for the time being. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Mr. Taft knew the cost of one DNA test now. MR. TAFT said it could run anywhere from $50 to $500, depending on what is asked for. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made it known that he does not oppose the bill, but wanted to ask a question for the purpose of gathering information. He asked Mr. Taft to share some of the security procedures involved following an actual drawing of a sample. Number 299 MR. TAFT explained that they have strict control over any evidence they receive. They seal the blood sample until it is analyzed and identified, reseal it, and then it is frozen. The Crime Lab has a backup generator system that does not allow them to be without power, so there is no need for concern about that. Number 311 CHAIRMAN PORTER reaffirmed with Mr. Taft that it goes without saying that the general public is not allowed access to any of these areas. He then asked for further questions. Number 320 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if all the equipment and machinery would be covered separately from the operating costs. Number 328 MR. TAFT replied that there would not really be any capital costs, because most of that equipment is already in the lab's possession. Number 330 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked about the cost of the DNA test. He has never heard of a DNA test in that order of magnitude. He asked Mr. Taft to explain. He assumed they were doing an extremely limited test, if they are doing it for those kind of dollars. He said he cannot even get his water tested for that kind of money. Number 345 MR. TAFT repeated that the technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. Number 348 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Taft about the fiscal impact over the next two years. As the fiscal note states, there may be 300 individuals per year who may have a sample taken; and more than 300, if the committee substitute is adopted. He asked what procedure would be used two years from now if the police were investigating a crime that had a blood sample from a suspect. Would they be able to somehow efficiently run the identification of that sample against all 600 or 1000 of your samples, or would you have to have a name to really check it against? MR. TAFT answered that they would have to have a profile to check it against and, at this time, from this we would not have that. CHAIRMAN PORTER understood that at some time in the future, Mr. Taft is hoping the technology will come along to help classify the samples so that those kinds of tests, like the automated fingerprint system, can be done. Number 373 MR. TAFT clarified that. He said they could go back and pull their name out. Number 375 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that is basically the difference between the old fingerprint system and the new fingerprint system. Number 380 JAY MILLER, UNIT CHIEF, FBI LABORATORY, FORENSIC SCIENCE UNIT, explained he is responsible for the development of the database system software called Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). He also is responsible for the DNA Identification Act which passed last September, as part of the new national crime bill. Number 395 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Miller to explain the procedures and types of cases that can be made, and how they are made with DNA. Number 402 MR. MILLER thinks of DNA testing as a very discriminating form of looking at evidence in murder and rape cases as a forensic tool. The O. J. Simpson case is a good example of how discriminating that evidence can be using DNA testing. He described two scenarios where DNA data bases were particularly useful. One is where you have an unknown suspect of serial sexual assaults, where, by charging the DNA profile from the rape evidence even when you do not have a suspect, it is possible to link serial cases to each other through the rape evidence. That assumes that the procedures within the laboratory followed are for unknown subject rape cases. Unless they have a suspect, they do not tend to work the DNA evidence, it is not DNA evidence, but typically, typing is done only if you have a suspect available. But the value of the DNA database is that you can link serial rape cases to each other, and by doing that, you can help focus the investigative information and possibly identify the suspect through other investigative information. But if you had a DNA profile on record of previously convicted sex offenders, it is definitely possible to identify suspects from unknown subject rape cases. MR. MILLER explained about two-thirds of convicted sex offenders are rearrested within three years for a similar offense, and about one in eight are rearrested in a state other than the state in which they were originally arrested. So there is some interstate mobility of sex offenders, but in the case of Alaska, I would imagine that the interstate mobility issue is not really an issue. The primary uses of having DNA profiles on record will help to identify suspects, and having a DNA database system and software, the FBI provides to crime laboratories for free. It allows us to store DNA records for free. Clearly, the DNA testing is useful to crime laboratories. Number 463 CHAIRMAN PORTER informed Mr. Miller that Alaska is only three hours from America, so interstate problems do exist here too. Number 466 MR. MILLER apologized. Number 468 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he does not know anything about the body, but in his other life, he worked in the petroleum field and if they were to mix different types of crude oil, sometimes yes, sometimes, no, through some pretty sophisticated testing, they could tell there was a hybrid, and even proportionally tell which types of crude. In other cases it would not work. Is there any analogy with blood testing? Say the assailant and the victim's blood commingled somehow, could that be sorted out? Number 480 MR. MILLER said "yes, there are ways." He asked Mr. Taft if he would like to answer that question. Number 485 MR. TAFT let Mr. Miller go first. Number 486 MR. MILLER explained that most DNA testing is done in rape cases. That is why he tends to focus on that. Also the database is useful when you have a mixed sample. With a rape kit, you do, in fact, have DNA from the slide. You do have epithelial skin cells from the female victims mixed with DNA from the male semen. There are processes in all the procedures for separating the male and the female DNA cells. He said Mr. Taft can explain that better. There is a way to separate the different contributions based on the physical characteristics of sperm cells versus skin cells. MR. MILLER described the case of mixed blood samples in a murder investigation. We have bloody clothing or carpet or some other material is picked up to use as a sample. You cannot separate blood from blood, but each person who contributed to the blood will have a unique banding pattern that can be identified. From the two bands that come from each person, even if they are mixed in with another person, it is possible with known blood samples, to tell which of the mixed samples those bands belong to. So if you have known samples from three people, and you have a mixed blood stain from a piece of evidence, it is possible to tell that two or three people were, in fact, contributors to that mixed stain. Number 521 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if anyone else had questions. Number 523 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why we need the statute. Are we prohibited from collecting samples from suspects charged with a felony at this time? He did not believe so. He thought samples were already being taken, and that it sounds like a multimillion dollar project. Why does this bill limit testing for this purpose? It seems like the biggest chunk of this bill would be the cost of cataloguing it. Number 550 CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested the Department of Law would be better able to address some of these legal questions. Number 552 MR. MILLER did not know of any reason you could not do that, but all states that have established a DNA database system do, in fact, have specific laws authorizing the taking of blood samples and the storing of those in a state controlled database. The sensitivity is one of civil liberties concern. Because you are dealing with genetic information, people tend to get very sensitive to beginning the law enforcement database of genetic information unless there is specific public policy that has been statutorily established. Number 578 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about the states having specific statutes. Do most of these cover just murder, rape situations, or do some of them actually go down and cover robberies, assaults, and other categories? Number 581 MR. MILLER answered that all state laws cover felony sex offense. Some include misdemeanor sex offenses. Other states, like Minnesota, include murder offenses and felony sex offense. Both Virginia and Alabama cover (indisc.) which generates tremendous numbers of blood samples, which are not probably very well suited for this use. And some states do, in fact, include burglary and other violent crimes, such as aggravated assaults. The reason some will have burglary, especially home invasion, is that often times the charges of rape, or far down to the non violent offenses, when you have a blood sample from a person who is already known to break into a house, it is a good predictor of future usefulness for law enforcement, if you have that blood sample, it might aid a future identification. Number 610 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN understood that in cases of just a more average burglary, the reason states do not use it as much, is because it is less likely to produce a useful sample. It is not the kind of crime that is likely to have that kind of DNA involvement, is that correct? Number 620 MR. MILLER said the answer is yes, burglary by itself is not an indicator of future (indisc.). In one of the states, perhaps Texas, the discretion is left to the prosecutor to recommend to the judge as a part of the sentencing order, to include taking of a blood sample, if things like plea bargains or other considerations would not otherwise include a person in the database. That is one way of handling that issue. Number 630 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL stated the bill says the DNA identification registration system, as established shall be compatible with that utilized by the FBI. Later on in the bill, on page 2, it says that the equipment of a local system is compatible with that of the state's system. Basically we are trying to create a patchwork here that is consistent at the federal level, state level, and the local level. Can you comment? I understand you have some concerns on that. Maybe you can tell us what it takes to be compatible with the FBI's system. Number 640 MR. MILLER said the focus in the section on compatibility seems to focus on the physical things, like equipment, or administrative procedures, rather than what I think is at least as important a consideration, and that is the actual DNA typing test that is used. You could have two laboratories in a state that are using the same equipment and the same administrative procedures, but if they are using different typing methods, the results, the DNA profiles will not be comparable. If what you are seeking is the notion of statewide compatibility among crime laboratories for DNA testing, then I would suggest that there be a reference to the equipment and the methods of DNA typing, at the local level, being consistent with the state system. His suggestion was to insert the words, "DNA typing methods". Number 670 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said with this kind of compatibility in mind, he requested that Mr. Miller comment on the procedures, assuming that in Alaska, if a DNA sample is needed to be checked with the FBI sample, we would send the actual body fluid to the FBI. Or do you get the results of the local DNA test? Number 672 MR. MILLER said it could be done either way. The FBI laboratory does have a large case work unit, and they do process DNA from any laboratory that submits it. It does have DNA testing capabilities itself. Presently, we are only testing known subject cases. So currently, our present capacity will not allow use to accept unknown subject cases, but we do DNA typing for about 2,500 DNA cases a year, from all over the country. As your question relates to using the national database; what we are setting up, and what the service is that the FBI is providing to the states is a clearinghouse function. The DNA profiles that are going to be in the national database are, by and large, except for the few that are actually generated by our laboratory, the bulk of those, probably 95 percent at least, are going to be (indisc.) the state. And all of the convicted offenders samples that would be in the national database would be across the state. So, the code of assistance that we are going to operate in is to make that software available to each participating crime lab around the country. This software runs on IBM Personal Computers, which we provide free, including the training and support. We will allow, through a network, states to exchange records with each other through this national crime clearinghouse. The national system is not so much to do the DNA testing, but to offer an interstate comparison link to tell law enforcement agencies that they are, in fact, dealing with the same person. Number 707 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Miller what Alaska would need in order to be compatible with this nationwide data bank. Number 712 MR. MILLER understood that Alaska would plan to defer the actual DNA typing for now, but to first establish a sample bank. Number 717 CHAIRMAN PORTER confirmed that to be true. Number 718 MR. MILLER said they were looking at the method of using STRs which is a fairly new test within the generation of what is called TCR testing, (indisc.) Chain Reaction testing. Any of those tests based on TCRs which are currently available, or which are now undergoing validation studies around the country, which the lab chooses to use will be compatible with our software, and we will provide the software to any crime lab in Alaska that wants it, and it will save you the expense and trouble of having to build a computer system to match these records. Any of those records you want to compare with other states, that is the clearinghouse function that we provide. MR. MILLER said he is not aware of any of the procedures that are either currently in use in Alaska, or that are being talked about for the future that would be incompatible with what is going on in the rest of the country, or incompatible with the FBI's national system. Number 737 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it is reassuring to know that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing when it comes to federal and state government. Number 739 CHAIRMAN PORTER added, "even local." Number 740 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the cost of this process is these days. Number 745 MR. MILLER said there is DNA typing and then there is DNA typing. We have to be clear about what kinds of DNA tests are being done. If you are talking about the cost of doing a single sample from a convicted offender, using the method that is currently in use in most States, which is the older restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) method; those tests can be done where you send a batch of blood samples to the contractor, and they test on three markers within the DNA molecule. There are commercial companies that will do that test in the range of $50 a sample for three markers. That is using the RFLP method and it is not the extent that DNA is tested within a case, where you have multiple samples, and you have preparation work, and you have to qualify the DNA that you have, and there is a lot of preparation time and effort. A single sample in a commercial lab, RFLP for three markers these days, falls within the range of $50 to $75. If Alaska is not going to be using RFLP, and I understand you are not planning to use this for the database; TCR methods, generally, and especially the ones that come in a commercial kit, are easier to work with and are quicker. They also tend to be a little more expensive, per test. But what the current costs are on those, he is not exactly sure. Mr. Taft, who uses two or three of those systems, would be better able to tell you what the cost of those are, if they were used for the database samples. So, it all depends on what scenario you are talking about. Number 773 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked about the three identifying markers. He wondered, with his limited understanding of biochemistry and criminology, how you can identify a very large population using three markers. Number 780 MR. MILLER said that each marker, within the molecule, has many different forms in the human population. These are polymorphic regions that carry across the populations. Three markers within the RFLP system will get you numbers in the range of one in 10,000 and one in 100,000, typically. PCL markers tend to be a little more discriminating, and are easier to work with. If you are talking about 300 samples a year, all convicted offenders, and you are talking about rape cases; that still may be in the area of 200 a year, and you do not need discrimination levels to be in the one in a million category to be useful. In Alaska, if within the next ten years you have accumulated 3,000 to 5,000 samples, you really only need a discriminating level of distinguishing, say one in five or one in 10,000. Those levels of discrimination are reachable within the PCR systems that are currently available. On a national scale, it would be a (inaudible) with limited discrimination levels, but within the state of Alaska, in a database where there is really only going to be less than 10,000 samples for the next many years, it should not be a problem. Number 805 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thanked Mr. Miller. Number 806 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Miller. Hearing none, he requested testimony from an individual in D.C. As no one was available from D.C., he asked Mr. Guaneli from the Department of Law to testify, and welcomed him back. MR. DEAN GUANELI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW gave a preface to his testimony, saying the Administration has not taken a position on this or any of the DNA bills, or really any of the crime bills. Those positions are in the process of being formulated, and it is probably going to be after the budget is submitted before we reach some of those decisions. We have been authorized to indicate in this bill, or any number of bills, what the impact would be on the criminal justice system and on criminal prosecution, specifically. MR. GUANELI agreed, in general, with the comments made by everyone else that DNA testing is powerful evidence in criminal prosecutions, particularly in murder and rape cases where there is no eye witness; where the issue at trial is identity. In other words, "Who committed this crime?" Did this specific individual commit this crime? DNA evidence is often the best evidence you can have. In light of the unfortunate recidivism we have in this state and others, it is fair to say a number of people in jail now are going to be committing crimes in the future, and so there is a rational basis for this kind of testing of people who have committed violent crimes in the past. MR. GUANELI made it known that this is really only half of the issue from his standpoint. Using this as an investigative tool to solve criminal cases does not get people convicted of the crime unless it is admissible in court. So there is a whole other part of the DNA question. That is the admissability in court and what level of scientific evidence is going to be admissible, and what the jury will hear. Although this is something that is valuable, it is less valuable unless we also make sure at least one of the admissability bills passes this legislature. MR. GUANELI referred to Representative Vezey's question as to why we need legislation in this area. That is a fair question, but we have certainly taken the approach in other areas such as testing for the HIV virus in convicted sex offenders. More legislation was enacted. As the gentleman from the FBI said, with things like genetic testing and computer databases on people, and the whole idea of the government keeping files and lists on people, it is always safest to have legislation, and testimony as you have gotten today from the experts, in the field to... TAPE 95-1, SIDE B Number 000 MR. GUANELI (continued) one, show that this is a reliable testing method, and two, that appropriate safeguards are going to be applied for both the testing and the confidentiality of it, and that there is some relationship between the taking of blood from convicted violent offenders and future investigative needs. Once the legislature has made all of those determinations in enacting a piece of legislation, it certainly helps when the Department of Law is faced with the inevitable challenge amounted by some convicted person who does not want his or her blood drawn. Armed with that, we have a much greater chance of success, as other attorney general's offices have had in other states when their DNA testing laws have been challenged. For that reason alone, it is an appropriate subject for legislative action. He asked if there were other questions. Number 021 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted he has one question, assuming we are all watching the Simpson trial. He asked Mr. Guaneli's opinion, starting from a clear-cut, good, no-question sample to some of these gradations that we have talked about where they may be mixed or if he had a feel for the acceptability of this as at least supplemental to two of the things in the trial. Number 035 MR. GUANELI answered that those are legitimate questions, and he would be interested to hear the explanation from the FBI about the ability to separate samples. With DNA testing, like fingerprint testing, once you have used it as an investigative tool and you have narrowed your focus down to one person; whether the samples have been mixed at that point, you can always draw another sample of blood from that person who you focussed in on. It is a little like taking a fingerprint from that person. If it is smudged a little, you can take another fingerprint from the person and make whatever comparisons you can make. It is different from driving while intoxicated testing where you are taking a snapshot of the person's breath or blood at that moment, and you have got to do the testing fairly soon, as it disappears. With DNA testing, your genetic fingerprint does not change, and so it is appropriate to use it as an investigative tool, focus in on an individual, and if that individual has some question, draw another sample of blood and let them test it if they want to. There are always going to be questions when you have mixed samples, and it is a matter of relying on the scientists and the experts to tell us what conclusions they can draw. That is another reason why the admissability bills are so important, because to change the legal standard for admissability is the key to using this kind of evidence. Number 080 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN understood we will be working on that. Number 087 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked about Section 2, under (b), where it states that a person convicted in the state, of a crime against a person shall have a blood sample drawn. That does not include allowing a DNA sample to be used to convict that person, does it? Number 091 MR. GUANELI replied that was correct. This bill only establishes a database of samples from people who have already been convicted once, and its usefulness is if that person commits a crime in the future. Then it is a matter of deciding if this evidence can be used in the prosecution for a future crime. Number 102 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if we were assuming DNA is being used to convict him, originally of a crime. Number 106 MR. GUANELI stated this does not assume that DNA had anything to do with the initial conviction. Number 107 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY thanked Mr. Guaneli. Number 114 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked when a person is convicted, and assuming the person is incarcerated when the sample is being taken, if these people have the right to reject being fingerprinted, having blood samples taken, or other procedures of incarceration. Number 118 MR. GUANELI said when you are talking about a test such as fingerprinting which is not in any way intrusive, just rolling your finger on an ink pad or having a snapshot taken, they probably do not. When you start talking about other kinds of procedures where blood is being drawn, perhaps against their will, that raises another question. The courts upheld that for investigative purposes fingerprints and photographs can be taken. We can make people blow into a machine if they have been driving on the road, but when it comes to other types of more intrusive testing such as drawing blood or pumping your stomach; that is where the courts really draw the line on the ability of the government to just do it without some authorization by the legislature, or some authorization by a court pursuant to a warrant. MR. GUANELI told of a case where some police wanted to have someone operated on to remove a bullet to test it for forensics. It is a matter of how intrusive this kind of procedure is. For some people, getting a needle stuck into them is something they are afraid of, there are some inmates who really kick up a storm every time they are to be searched, but we have internal procedures that allow prison officials to search, but it still causes problems. The more authority we have to do this, the better off we are. Number 161 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted we provide all kinds of medical caring, including screening, for people who are incarcerated. He asked if there is anyone in our prisons who has not had blood samples taken? Number 170 MR. GUANELI did not know. They do some routine screening to allow for tests. There are some things Corrections can do to prevent the spread of contagious diseases throughout the prison, but other states that have done it, have done it by legislation. He thought we would be safer doing it by legislation. He did not know if we would ultimately prevail if we decided to do it without legislation. At least one other state says that if an inmate refuses to have their blood drawn, they can be disciplined for it, and lose good time, and ultimately stay in jail longer. He believed that procedure has been upheld, because there was a statute in place that said, "Your blood is to be drawn," they refused to do it, they kicked and screamed and so they were able to discipline him for it. I can see something like that having to be promulgated by regulation by Corrections in order to make this effective. Again, to the extent that they have statutory authority, we are a lot safer in doing that. Number 205 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked the difference between the original bill and the Committee Substitute. There was a provision where the Department of Public Safety could provide expert testimony in court on DNA evidentiary issues, and that was taken out. He asked if Mr. Guaneli had any comment on that. Number 210 MR. GUANELI said it was removed at his request after he spoke with Representative Parnell's office. Providing expert testimony is governed by rules, and whether or not the person has sufficient qualifications to be qualified as an expert. There is not a necessity to have a specific statute that says Public Safety can provide it. In other words, if Public Safety has as expert and that expert qualifies, they can testify. What we have found recently, is that some defense attorneys are simply giving subpoenas to crime lab chemists, and in essence, trying to get free expert witnesses. In other words, they are state employees, they figure they do not have to pay them an expert witness fee, and so they ask them to come and testify on their behalf. If there was a statute that allowed Public Safety, that made reference to that, they might have a greater claim to that. It is simply a matter of preserving the crime labs resources, and not having their chemists flying all over the state to provide free expert testimony. That was his reason for asking that to be deleted. Number 240 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there was anything under the current court rules that prohibits trying to get a person from there into the courtroom? Number 242 MR. GUANELI said absolutely not. There are court rules on expert witnesses. Number 246 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked who could give us an estimate on the number of people in the category of violent felons who go through the system annually. We have an estimate from the Department of Public Safety that there are 300 convicted sexual offenders that go through. If you extend that to include violent offenders, do you have any idea what the number would be? Number 260 MR. GUANELI said the statistics that they have show over the last few years, between 200 and 250 felons are convicted every year in the sexual offense area, and he thought they just rounded it up to 300. That total number, if you add on violent offenders, goes up to about 600 or 700, a year, who are convicted of a felony sex offense or a felony offense against a person. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how those figures would change if you included robberies. Number 272 MR. GUANELI said robberies would be included in there. Number 274 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN expressed astonishment that there are only that many robberies and assaults. Number 278 MR. GUANELI said as far as felony convictions, there are not a lot of people charged with robbery. The same people commit multiple robberies, and by the time we get them, it ends up being one case. It probably clears several robberies that have occurred. Number 284 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee adopt work draft for CSHB 27 9LS0148/F as the working draft. Number 305 Hearing no objection, CHAIRMAN PORTER announced Version F as the working draft. Number 310 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned paragraph (b), page 2, line 8. Number 320 MR. GUANELI did not have a specific opinion on that. It seems to be a policy judgement that blood drawn for this purpose should be limited to criminal prosecutions and any statistical analysis that goes along with that. If it gets expanded beyond that, you could do all sorts of testing for any number of infectious diseases. It could be used in civil cases, in paternity cases, and in child support cases, but it seems to me that those are really policy questions rather than legal ones. This is a choice to limit this to a specific purpose and that is for criminal investigation and prosecution. Number 340 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many blood samples are currently required, and how many samples we are going to take from an individual? Number 345 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted we do have other requirements, in statute, for some testing. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if they are all going to take different samples for each test. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated the intent of this bill is to give statutory authority for the criminal prosecution purpose. He would support this authority, and not just assume that we had that authority. Recognizing a lack of authority has happened, for example, if we took a blood sample from a convicted rapist for medical purposes in an institution and then used it as a comparative for a DNA sample, at the very minimum, they would spend three weeks of time arguing the point that we did not have the authority to make the comparison because it was taken for other purposes. This specifically says you may use these samples for criminal prosecutions. It may be unnecessary, but then again, it may be helpful. Number 373 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made the point that a blood sample, taken under this section, may be used only once. It seems that we are tapping this individual multiple times, when it would seem that one sample might be more practical. Number 383 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the blood that we are going to be tapping under this bill, is going to a state crime lab for a specific purpose, and this would preclude the desire of medical people to do research on genetics or something. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if there would be any reasoning behind addressing the issue of a statutory provision for HIV testing that was passed last year. Could the same blood be used for DNA testing? Number 397 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that a sample of it could be, but it would be diverted. One would go over to HIV testing, but once it gets over to the crime lab, it would be used for other things. Number 398 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would save the state any money to have the ability to draw the blood for both at the same time. CHAIRMAN PORTER did not know of anything that would preclude it. Number 407 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that part of the confusion is in what tapping someone actually means. In concept, you can get more than one sample out of the same tap. You just keep sticking little vials in, and keep filling them up. CHAIRMAN PORTER made the comparison to how it is done when you give blood. He then asked if there were others wishing to testify either via teleconference, or in the audience, on the CSHB 27 (JUD). Number 419 LAUREE HUGONIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, had a couple of brief comments to lend their support to the registration of DNA. The network is supportive of providing measures that assist the swift and accurate apprehension and conviction of sex offenders and we believe requiring the DNA registration will assist in that effort. Experts debate the percentages of recidivism for sex offenders. Some will say 50, some 60, some 80. But what they do not debate, is the fact that there is recidivism, so a sex offender is more likely to re- offend and commit other sex offenses. We think also, the requirement of registration of their DNA would give them cause to think; maybe it would be a deterrent. MS. HUGONIN said they also support the accessibility to law enforcement of as many identifiers as possible in trying to work their cases and provide for the apprehension of the sex offender, and believes that, beginning now, together the DNA fingerprints will give them a wider pool in order to help with that work. We would also support expanding the bill to include persons convicted of felony crimes against persons, for a little different reason than what was stated earlier, and that is because often times, or sometimes, people who have committed sex offenses are not necessarily charged with that sex offense. They have other charges that actually get brought forward and they get convicted of. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. Number 480 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated for Ms. Hugonin's information, the committee substitute they had adopted provides for this sample taking from anyone convicted of a violent felony, including sex offenses. He suggested amending page 2, line 19. He noted that we usually do not do this, but it is so simple. He asked Representative Parnell to state it. Number 486 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL described the amendment. Page 2, line 19, after the word "equipment" insert "and typing methods." On the same line, change the word "is" to "are." Number 490 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made the motion to amend as described. Hearing no objection, CHAIRMAN PORTER announced Version F of the bill was amended. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN expressed concern that the costs of this now are probably in the area of $100,000. The fiscal note was $50,000, and we have at least doubled the number of people to be put in the system, so that brings it up to $100,000. It is not completely clear what all these costs are going to be. That is probably a minimal fiscal note. There is probably some value in setting up a system that all of these folks are going to go into, even though some of them have very limited utility, such as a robbery. It would be nice to have some discretion to get the ones that the prosecutor feels may have some chance of being involved in a crime in the future. That could make this system useful. There was reference made by Mr. Guaneli, or some previous speaker, to the idea of some discretion of the prosecution. If we are looking for a way to keep the cost to the state down, that is the way to do it; to include all of the sexual crimes as in the original bill, and then add the others under the discretion of the prosecution. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked the sponsor about the fiscal notes being given late. He asked if they were applicable to the committee substitute? Number 525 MR. GUANELI said Lee Ann Lucas from the Department of Public Safety could properly address that. Number 530 LEE ANN LUCAS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said that with the committee substitute, from talking the Department of Corrections, who we would RSA money to do the collection of the samples, we would be looking at approximately 600, versus 300 with the expansion to felonies of crimes against persons. So that would increase, under the laboratory services fiscal note, the contractual would increase from 4.4 to 8.8 for the Department of Corrections to correct the additional 300 samples. Also for R & I there would be an additional amount for flagging the additional 300 records. Where we had 3000 for personal services under the Alaska Criminal Records and identification fiscal note, with the change, that would now be 6000 dollars, for a total of 11,000. Those would be the two changes. The rest are start-up costs, as reflected in the original fiscal notes. Number 550 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the sponsor of the bill, or any member of the committee had any comment on the suggestion made by Representative Finkelstein. Number 555 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL asked Representative Finkelstein if he could repeat his suggestion. Was it to take blood samples from sex offenders, and then at the prosecutors discretion for the rest? Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he felt the costs were less than he had anticipated in the new description. He was trying to find some middle ground between the original bill and the committee substitute in the amount of money necessary by leaving some discretion to the prosection on when to require the samples. Number 568 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL thought that would defeat the bill to some extent, because those people who are convicted of violent crimes against persons are the ones who end up murdering people later, or committing sex offenses later, and so it would be hard for a prosecutor to make a determination on who he or she thinks is going to do that. It is better just to build a database, especially when we are talking in the numbers that we are, of offenders and of dollar amounts. It just makes sense to have the database in place. Number 580 CHAIRMAN PORTER thought the testimony we received like that was from Mr. Miller, that a statute like that was being considered in Florida. There are some constitutional equal treatments that jump out at me, so that I would not want to just throw it into the bill without having those kinds of things answered. Number 586 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not offer an amendment on it, but stated it is a question of diminishing returns. There is even a sub-portion of the people who commit jay-walking who are eventually going to commit a violent crime someday, too. It would be nice to have all them on the register as well. It is just diminishing returns as we go down the line. Number 590 CHAIRMAN PORTER said with that in mind, burglary was a consideration, because sometimes burglars cut themselves going in and out of residences, and there are always potentials for violent crimes in burglary, because they do not really know if somebody is home or not; but for the considerations you are describing, everyone involved in discussing this drew the line where we did. Number 598 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed that the value of it may exceed the costs. Number 602 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY proposed the deletion of paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e). They are not of any valuable purpose to the bill. Paragraph (a) is not a really productive paragraph. Paragraphs (c), (c), (d) and (e) try to codify intelligent behavior on the part of our bureaucrats. That is a waste of time when we are trying to talk about something as complex as this is. We are talking about a program that has to be administered by experts. In order for us to try to give guidelines for these experts, it is really a little presumptuous on our part. Number 617 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the comparison between this form of identifying evidence and fingerprint comparison evidence is analogous to the extent that the technology of fingerprint identification now is such that through computer comparisons, you can compare a single latent fingerprint picked up at a crime scene with literally millions of single known prints taken from subjects. There are a number of different computer applications to provide that service, and if the Anchorage Police Department used type A, the state used type B, and the FBI used type C, none of that information could go back and forth. That is what paragraph (c) requires to be done. In this case there is some justification. Number 635 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred and thought that while we do want to make this as simple and straight forward as possible, there seems to be sometimes a piece of legislation not being properly interpreted by an agency, which then promulgates regulations that do not really address what was originally intended by the legislature. Where we can keep that to a minimum of going asunder on a rather new and unique scientific issue, perhaps the additional wording here would be in order. Number 646 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to the motion made to delete the paragraphs. Number 648 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE sympathized with the philosophy of having some awareness of the reality of defense attorneys looking for i's left un-dotted and t's left uncrossed, yet he felt the verbiage necessary by the system that we have. Number 660 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL vigorously opposed the amendment. The sections proposed to be deleted were provisions that the experts, George Taft, in particular, was the one who suggested language changes here, but as Mr. Miller indicated we need to provide the authority, especially when we are dealing with a constitutional issue like the right to privacy. We need to set up, provide the authority, and the reason for doing it. They can't just walk in and stick a needle in somebody without the authority and reason behind it. We have a significant interest, as a state, in doing this for these offenders based on the high recidivism rate, and our willingness and desire to deter this kind of activity. To pass this amendment is to gut the entire bill, and he felt the committee should vote "no." Number 674 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that technically the amendment motion was not properly in front of us because there was a motion to move the bill. He asked Representative Vezey to consent to remove his motion. Number 678 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked a few questions regarding committee proceedings. Number 690 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the proceedings fully. Once that was all straightened out, he asked if there were any other points of discussion on the motion to move this bill as amended. Hearing none, the bill was moved. HJUD - 1/25/95 HB 26 - DEPOSITIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES CHAIRMAN PORTER then announced HB 26 would be the next bill before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY left early. Number 725 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if she could make a motion to make Version C the committee's work draft. Number 730 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection. Hearing none, the committee substitute was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL, sponsor of the bill, came before the committee. He said under the current rule 15, the court can order depositions in a criminal case upon good cause being shown. That is a weak standard and permits the taking of numerous depositions in cases where the victim can be subjected to harassment of the defense. It is ripe for abuse, at that point. He read part of a speech by Ed McNally to sum up his reason for proposing the bill: The Alaska Rule 15 is far more liberal (referring to the federal rule 15), permitting a deposition of any victim or witness whenever good cause is shown. In the practice of the criminal courts in Alaska, Alaska Criminal Rule 15 has become a tool of aggressive harassment of witnesses, victims, and especially rape victims in criminal cases. The Victims Rights Act says that in advance of trial, rape victims do not have to talk to the lawyer for the man who raped them. Within Alaska, Criminal Rule 15 is routinely used by defense counsel to obtain a court order requiring rape victims to submit to a grueling and formal deposition with them. Under the Federal Rule 15, it says that depositions can be taken only under exceptional circumstances, rather than "good cause shown" standards. His first draft of the bill was strictly the federal rule. After discussions with the Department of Law, he backed off from that and submitted the committee substitute, Version C, which provides a standard very similar to the federal rule with respect to this special circumstances test. In the first portion, it says that the deposition of a prospective witness may be taken by either party upon notice as provided in B of this rule; if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that, one, the witness will not be present to testify at trial, or two, due to exceptional circumstances, the deposition is necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Essentially, what we are doing at the Department of Law's suggestion, is changing a portion of the Alaska rule. We are not throwing out the entire rule and all the cases that have come in under the rule. We are just changing the standard under which depositions can be taken. REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL went on to say that on page 2 of the work draft, Section 2 changes the rule so that courts will preside over depositions as well. This is done to give them some measure of control over the proceedings. In short, changing the wording of the Alaska rule to be parallel to the federal rule, is a warranted change, given the current use of depositions and abuse of depositions. He urged the committee's support of HB 26. Number 790 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were questions of the sponsor. Hearing none, he then requested Mr. Guaneli to come forward to testify. Number 795 MR. GUANELI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that often times in a criminal case, a rape victim has given a statement to doctors at the hospital, has given a statement to the police which is recorded and transcribed, has given a statement to the Grand Jury, which is recorded and transcribed, and all that information goes to the defense. Many times, if the defense can in some way find out the victim is not going to cooperate, or does not want to testify, the case may simply go away. Mr. Guaneli made it clear that he was not suggesting that defense attorneys ask for depositions to intentionally intimidate victims, but that is the effect of it. Getting in a small enclosed room, sitting across from the man who raped you is a terrifying experience. There is no judge present, there is just a court reporter who has another tape recorder going, and that statement is then recorded and transcribed. Throughout each of these statements, subtle details of the defense may change. Every time there is an additional statement taken, it is additional evidence that can be used against the victim as cross examination material. MR. GUANELI went on to say that in criminal cases, unlike civil cases, the defense already gets a large amount of material to know about the prosecution's case. For that reason, historically, depositions have not occurred in criminal cases. Unfortunately, some judges in Alaska, not all of them by any means, but some, have been very loose about allowing depositions in criminal cases, particularly in rape cases. This bill is intended to clamp down on that practice. If there is a good reason why a deposition ought to be taken, if the witness is dying or is going to be leaving the state, or if there are exceptional circumstances, but for it to be a routine practice seems inappropriate. MR. GUANELI said the other change occurs on page 2, Section 2. This bill says that if a judge is going to order a deposition, let the judge preside over that deposition. It should be done in a courtroom, in a closed proceeding with a measure of decorum, so the judge can protect that witness against an aggressive cross examination. In a criminal case, the prosecutor is not really the victim's lawyer. Victims often do not have the money to go out and hire a lawyer to protect them. In a normal deposition, the other attorney can raise legal objections, but the witness has to answer the questions. It is a good and helpful procedure to have the judge preside over that, in the rare circumstance that it should be necessary. Number 843 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if we would end up with a bottleneck, just because we do not have enough courtrooms available. Number 845 MR. GUANELI said it depends on how many of these are ordered by the judges, but he thought this should be a rare occurrence. It does not take up a lot of court time. It may advance the course of litigation, rather than delaying things. Number 849 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN was not clear on the necessity of this kind of approach. The impression he had from talking with defense attorneys is that these depositions are not granted often in the first place. TAPE 95-2, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Guaneli if he has actually seen a large number of these cases. MR. GUANELI noted that it is not all judges, it is just certain judges in certain areas of the state. In many areas of the state, it is a rare occurrence and this will not change that, but in those areas of the state where for one reason or another the judge is applying a looser standard, and with language such as "for good cause," and good cause is a pretty low standard, and it depends to a large extent on the judge's own subjective view about what that is. That can be used more than it should in some areas, so it varies by region and by judge. Number 017 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Guaneli if he was aware of circumstances where there are more than a handful of these depositions occurring, whether it is five or ten in a year or something like that. Number 021 MR. GUANELI said that was correct. Number 022 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the inclusion of Section 2, page 2, which says that the court shall preside over a deposition, and orders under (a). The rule goes on to say that parties can agree on some other form of deposition. He had an amendment prepared, if Mr. Guaneli felt there would be any kind of problem there, that would say, "nor does it preclude depositions taken or used under (g) of this rule." Number 024 MR. GUANELI said there are cases where the victim is not going to be the witness in the deposition. It may be perfectly appropriate to have it be a simple matter of agreeing whether it is going to be in front of a court reporter or in a room off somewhere, and you tape your testimony. Number 031 CHAIRMAN PORTER said his question is whether or not this can happen under this current wording of the bill. Number 036 MR. GUANELI said that no, he was satisfied. Number 040 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved that CSHB 26 (JUD) be passed from the Judiciary Committee, with individual recommendations. Number 045 CHAIRMAN PORTER added, and fiscal notes as attached. Hearing no objection, the bill was moved. ADJOURNMENT The House Judiciary Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.