Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/21/1999 01:10 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   April 21, 1999                                                                                               
                     1:10 p.m.                                                                                                  
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
HOUSE BILL NO. 176                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to attorney fees and costs and the granting of                                                                 
public interest litigant status in proceedings related to                                                                       
administrative actions and inactions; and amending Rules 79 and 82,                                                             
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 508, Alaska Rules of                                                                  
Appellate Procedure."                                                                                                           
     - MOVED HB 176 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 155                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to municipal assembly forms of representation and                                                              
     - MOVED HB 155 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 135                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to use of eavesdropping and recording devices by                                                               
peace officers."                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
HOUSE BILL NO. 158                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the                                                                    
division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal                                                                 
     - MOVED CSHB 158(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
* HOUSE BILL NO. 28                                                                                                             
"An Act imposing a surcharge on fines imposed for misdemeanors,                                                                 
infractions, and violations and authorizing disposition of                                                                      
estimated receipts from that surcharge; and creating the juvenile                                                               
justice grant fund in order to provide financial assistance for the                                                             
operation of youth courts."                                                                                                     
     - MOVED CSHB 28(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31                                                                                                 
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
requiring that the Governor be elected by a majority vote if a                                                                  
preferential voting system is provided by law.                                                                                  
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)                                                                         
"An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving                                                                     
sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."                                                                                 
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
BILL: HB 176                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGANTS                                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN, Rokeberg, James                                                                           
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/31/99       628     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/31/99       628     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 4/14/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/14/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/15/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/15/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/15/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/16/99       852     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                                                                              
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB 155                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) SMALLEY, Davis, Phillips                                                                         
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/24/99       555     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/24/99       555     (H)  CRA, JUD                                                                                            
 3/29/99       606     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): DAVIS                                                                                 
 4/07/99       679     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS                                                                              
 4/08/99               (H)  CRA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 4/08/99               (H)  MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                         
 4/08/99       686     (H)  CRA RPT 6DP                                                                                         
 4/08/99       686     (H)  DP: JOULE, KOOKESH, DYSON, MURKOWSKI,                                                               
 4/08/99       686     (H)  HARRIS, HALCRO                                                                                      
 4/08/99       686     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)                                                                             
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB 135                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: POLICE USE OF EAVESDROPPING DEVICES                                                                                
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT                                                                                             
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/12/99       438     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/12/99       438     (H)  JUDICIARY                                                                                           
 4/09/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/09/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB 158                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG                                                                                         
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/24/99       556     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/24/99       556     (H)  L&C, JUD                                                                                            
 4/07/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 4/07/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/07/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 4/09/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 4/09/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/09/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 4/12/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 4/12/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/14/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 4/14/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 158(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 4/14/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 4/16/99       841     (H)  L&C RPT  CS(L&C)1DP 6NR                                                                             
 4/16/99       841     (H)  DP: ROKEBERG; NR: MURKOWSKI, HARRIS,                                                                
 4/16/99       842     (H)  CISSNA, BRICE, SANDERS, HALCRO                                                                      
 4/16/99       842     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                                                             
 4/19/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/19/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB  28                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: SURCHARGE ON FINES; YOUTH COURTS                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) CROFT, Green                                                                                     
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        25     (H)  PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99                                                                             
 1/19/99        25     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        25     (H)  HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                             
 2/01/99       121     (H)  HES REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                                 
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD SMALLEY                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 428                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3779                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 155.                                                                                          
LINDA MURPHY, Borough Clerk                                                                                                     
Kenai Peninsula Borough                                                                                                         
144 North Binkley Street                                                                                                        
Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 262-4441                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Urged passage of HB 155.                                                                                   
PAT HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                                
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement on HB 135.                                                                       
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the legal issues related to HB 135.                                                               
DUANE UDLAND, Chief                                                                                                             
Anchorage Police Department                                                                                                     
4501 South Bragaw Street                                                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 786-8590                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 135.                                                                                        
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant                                                                                                    
Division of Alaska State Trooper                                                                                                
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225                                                                                                    
Telephone:  (Not provided)                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 135.                                                                                        
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Public Defender Agency                                                                                                          
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                                                                    
Telephone:  (907) 264-4400                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 135 and waived his time to                                                                  
                    other testifiers on HB 28.                                                                                  
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                                                                      
Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions of the committee members.                                                                
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                   
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
P.O. Box 110300                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 135.                                                                                        
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist                                                                                                           
   for the National Association of Independent Insurers                                                                         
3328 Fritz Cove Road                                                                                                            
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 789-0172                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 158.                                                                       
KATE AMPHAY, Intern                                                                                                             
   for Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 400                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4998                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 28.                                                                       
LINDA JOHNSON, Legal Advisor                                                                                                    
Anchorage Youth Court                                                                                                           
P.O. Box 102735                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99510                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 274-5986                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
WENDY LEACH, Executive Director                                                                                                 
North Star Youth Court                                                                                                          
800 Cushman Street                                                                                                              
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 457-6792                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
LISA MAKAR, Program Coordinator                                                                                                 
Mat-Su Youth Court                                                                                                              
1801 Parks Highway, Suite C-06                                                                                                  
Palmer, Alaska 99645                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 373-5193                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
MATT NEIL                                                                                                                       
441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 701                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 279-9609                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
BILL EDWARDS                                                                                                                    
12721 Schooner Drive                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska 99515                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 345-9477                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director                                                                                                 
Alaska Police Standards Council                                                                                                 
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
P.O. Box 111200                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-4378                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 28 in regards to the surcharge.                                                             
STUART BANNAN, Vice-President                                                                                                   
Anchorage Youth Court Bar Association                                                                                           
2130 Atwood Drive                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (Not provided)                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
RANDALL PATTERSON, Vice President                                                                                               
Anchorage Youth Court Board of Directors                                                                                        
1015 West 7th Avenue                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 272-6434                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer                                                                                     
Youth Corrections                                                                                                               
Division of Family and Youth Services                                                                                           
Department of Health and Social Services                                                                                        
P.O. Box 110630                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2212                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.                                                                              
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-36, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg and James.                                                                           
Representatives Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula arrived at 1:12 p.m.,                                                             
1:15 p.m. and 1:29 p.m., respectively.                                                                                          
HB 176 - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGANTS                                                                                              
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HB 176, "An                                                              
Act relating to attorney fees and costs and the granting of public                                                              
interest litigant status in proceedings related to administrative                                                               
actions and inactions; and amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules                                                               
of Civil Procedure, and Rule 508, Alaska Rules of Appellate                                                                     
Number 0089                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 176 [1-LS0656\D]                                                               
from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached                                                             
fiscal note(s).  There being no objection, HB 176 was so moved from                                                             
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                         
HB 155 - MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 155, "An                                                               
Act relating to municipal assembly forms of representation and                                                                  
Number 0190                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD SMALLEY, Alaska State Legislature, came                                                                   
before the committee as sponsor of the bill.  He noted that Linda                                                               
Murphy may be on-line as clerk of the Kenai Peninsula School                                                                    
District [Kenai Peninsula Borough].  He explained that she                                                                      
contacted him and suggested legislation that would allow                                                                        
flexibility for boroughs and municipalities across the state                                                                    
regarding elections in times of reapportionment and boundary lines.                                                             
He noted that there are conflicts and confusion, especially on the                                                              
Kenai Peninsula.  In some precincts there are four different                                                                    
assembly positions.  This bill would allow the flexibility to                                                                   
follow existing policy or to wait until such time the state has                                                                 
drawn the boundary lines.  He noted to the committee members that                                                               
there is a sectional analysis in the bill packet.  The big change                                                               
is in Section 3, which allows for the flexibility.  The new                                                                     
language reads, "The assembly may provide, by ordinance, for a                                                                  
change in an existing apportionment of the assembly whenever a                                                                  
final state redistricting plan is changed as a result of federal or                                                             
court action."  Hopefully, by allowing boroughs to wait there would                                                             
be fewer challenges to ballots, and a lot less confusion in regards                                                             
to whether or not a voter is in the right precinct.                                                                             
Number 0393                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the bill had a previous committee of                                                                   
referral - House Community and Regional Affairs - with six "due                                                                 
Number 0408                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that there are a number of people on                                                              
the Kenai Peninsula lined up to testify.  He asked Representative                                                               
Smalley whether there is a particular problem there regarding this                                                              
Number 0418                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY replied Ms. Murphy can probably answer that                                                              
question better.  There have been some difficulties in the past,                                                                
and the potential is even greater because there are at least four                                                               
assembly seats in the area with different boundary lines.                                                                       
Number 0448                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that there is area-wide representation                                                               
in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.  She asked Representative                                                                  
Smalley what is the positive effect of having district                                                                          
representation for the assembly seats.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY replied Ms. Murphy can probably answer that                                                              
question better.  It's a direction that the borough chose some time                                                             
ago.  It is done with the school board and assembly seats.  It has                                                              
to do with community members feeling that they are better                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY noted that the council seats for the city of                                                             
Kenai are basically open, but the assembly and school board seats                                                               
are apportioned.                                                                                                                
Number 0518                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT opened the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 0533                                                                                                                     
LINDA MURPHY, Borough Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, testified via                                                             
teleconference from Utah.  She informed the committee that                                                                      
Representative Smalley drafted HB 155 per her request.  Under                                                                   
current state law, boroughs with district assembly seats must                                                                   
present the voters with a reapportionment plan prior to the time                                                                
the state reveals its plan.  When the state reapportions, the                                                                   
state's voter precinct lines are shifted and changed.  Ms. Murphy                                                               
explained that it is easier for areas with district seats to have                                                               
the area's assembly lines follow state precinct lines because then                                                              
the voter only has one ballot.  Currently, there is no way of                                                                   
knowing where the state's voter precinct lines will fall.  As                                                                   
mentioned, one precinct in the Kenai Peninsula Borough contains                                                                 
portions of four different assembly seats.  Such a situation is                                                                 
confusing for the volunteer election workers, for qualifying                                                                    
someone to run for a district seat, and for absentee ballot                                                                     
requests in those precincts.  This legislation would provide the                                                                
borough with the flexibility to present its redistricting plan to                                                               
the voters after the state has done reapportionment.  She urged the                                                             
committee to pass HB 155.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Section 4, of existing                                                                 
statute, says that the ordinance will be submitted to the voters.                                                               
He asked whether the voters have to ratify the reapportionment plan                                                             
under the existing statute.                                                                                                     
MS. MURPHY replied yes.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there is anything in statute                                                              
that mandates that there "shall" be a reapportionment.                                                                          
MS. MURPHY clarified that Representative Rokeberg was referring to                                                              
Section 3, which does not deal with the initial reapportionment                                                                 
after the decennial census.  Once the state adopts a plan, the                                                                  
state's plan must be cleared by the Department of Justice in                                                                    
Washington, D.C. because Alaska falls under the Federal Voting                                                                  
Rights Act.  Therefore, the state's adopted plan could be changed                                                               
by the federal government or challenged in court by anyone in the                                                               
state.  If an area adopts a plan based on the state's plan, which                                                               
is subsequently overturned or changed by the federal government or                                                              
the court, that area would be able to revise the plan and present                                                               
the voters with a new plan based on the new lines for the state.                                                                
The current state law only allows boroughs to present a new plan to                                                             
the voters if the borough determines that apportionment does not                                                                
meet state standards.                                                                                                           
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 0873                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HB 155 out of committee with                                                               
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.                                                               
There being no objection, HB 155 was so moved from the House                                                                    
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
HB 135 - POLICE USE OF EAVESDROPPING DEVICES                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 135, "An                                                               
Act relating to use of eavesdropping and recording devices by peace                                                             
Number 1045                                                                                                                     
PAT HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative                                                              
Pete Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to                                                               
present the sponsor statement.  He said social changes have                                                                     
occurred since the State v. Glass (1978) decision over two decades                                                              
ago.  Illegal drugs are now a major social issue.  Violence and                                                                 
potential violence is a major concern to law enforcement because                                                                
drug dealers are usually armed.  This bill is for peace officer                                                                 
safety.  It would allow an officer to wear a wire without a warrant                                                             
for purposes of safety.  It would allow backup officers to monitor                                                              
a conversation and come to the rescue if an officer's safety is at                                                              
risk.  Presently, they use hand signals or other visual signals to                                                              
call for backup.  However, many conversations are out of sight of                                                               
the backup and requires this bill to improve an officer's safety.                                                               
He noted that the following restrictions are included:                                                                          
     - The monitoring can only occur during the investigation                                                                   
     or arrest of a person for a crime and if that officer is                                                                   
     a party to that conversation;                                                                                              
     - It must be for the safety of the officer;                                                                                
     - The conversation cannot be recorded; and                                                                                 
     - The backup officer(s) may not testify in a criminal                                                                      
     proceeding involving the content of the conversation or                                                                    
     that it actually occurred.                                                                                                 
MR. HARMAN further noted that there are constitutional issues that                                                              
need to be discussed which can only be resolved by the courts.  The                                                             
issue for this committee is whether or not officer safety is                                                                    
important enough to test its constitutionality, if it were to                                                                   
become law.  The American Civil Liberties Union has submitted an                                                                
amendment that the sponsor agrees with.  He explained that page 2,                                                              
line 23, would be changed to read, "communications and consented to                                                             
the interception," which means that an officer would have to                                                                    
consent to wearing a wire.  In other words, a peace officer could                                                               
not be required to wear a wire.                                                                                                 
Number 1229                                                                                                                     
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete                                                                  
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to                                                                    
discuss the legal and constitutional issues of the bill.  He noted                                                              
that the seminal case on point is State v. Glass.  In Glass, the                                                                
police used a wiretap and sought to admit it as evidence.  The bill                                                             
does not seek to do that, however.  It is solely for the safety of                                                              
peace officers.  Mr. Winchell further noted that in Glass the court                                                             
grappled with the issue of privacy.  It talked a lot about the                                                                  
supreme court decisions, particularly Justice Harlan's decision on                                                              
an expectation of privacy and a reasonable belief that privacy is                                                               
there.  The court adopted that rationale.  It also said that the                                                                
state has the right to extend rights of privacy further than what                                                               
the supreme court did.  He referred to page 9, of the Glass                                                                     
decision, and read the following:                                                                                               
     "Legitimate interests of law enforcement authorities,                                                                      
     however, may generally be met in the same manner as in                                                                     
     other searches and seizures.  In the absence of limited                                                                    
     exceptions, a search warrant should be obtained from an                                                                    
     impartial magistrate, based on probable cause to believe                                                                   
     that criminal activity will be discovered, before                                                                          
     electronic monitoring of conversations should be allowed.                                                                  
     It may be that, as in other search and seizure contexts,                                                                   
     the requirement of a warrant may be obviated under                                                                         
     exigent circumstances.  We withhold passing on that issue                                                                  
     until presented with a specific case."                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL noted that the bill would be the case.  It would                                                                   
probably wind its way up the courts.  The exigent circumstance is                                                               
officer safety.  In addition, the person listening to the                                                                       
electronic communication cannot testify as to any of the matters.                                                               
Number 1428                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this all sounds well and good for officer                                                             
safety, but once a person hears something, she wonders how there                                                                
can be assurance that it is not used for other reasons.                                                                         
Number 1461                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL stated it is a policy call that this committee and the                                                             
legislature have to make.  He informed Representative James that                                                                
this is being limited to the safety of peace officers.                                                                          
Number 1489                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Winchell to show her the language.                                                               
MR. WINCHELL replied the language is in Section 2(b) - "(b) A peace                                                             
officer monitoring a receiving unit under (a) of this section is                                                                
not competent to testify in a criminal proceeding involving a party                                                             
to the oral communication about the contents of the oral                                                                        
communication that was intercepted or the fact that the                                                                         
communication occurred."  The officer who is bugged can testify,                                                                
write a report, or swear upon an affidavit.  After all, it is a                                                                 
face-to-face conversation.                                                                                                      
Number 1552                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that isn't the scenario she is worried                                                                
about.  She is worried about somebody listening to a recording when                                                             
an officer is shot and killed.  That person can't tell anybody, but                                                             
he will.                                                                                                                        
MR. WINCHELL said there is a theory called the, "fruit of the                                                                   
poisonous tree."  If a person hears incriminating words that lead                                                               
to evidence further on, that evidence can be excluded based on that                                                             
theory, and a good defense attorney would argue and protect a                                                                   
person under that doctrine.                                                                                                     
Number 1638                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said therein lies the problem in the current                                                               
legal system - utilizing the truth, but it can't be told.  That is                                                              
one of the reasons the public has so much discomfort with the                                                                   
decisions that come out of the courts.  She sees some real problems                                                             
by opening this door and at the same time keeping it shut to the                                                                
room in certain circumstances that are not necessarily good for                                                                 
Number 1671                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL stated other states permit this, but Alaska has a                                                                  
right of privacy that is a little bit higher than other states in                                                               
the union, which the supreme court recognized as important in                                                                   
Glass.  At this point, our hands are tied, unless there is a                                                                    
constitutional amendment sweeping away that right.                                                                              
Number 1701                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT confirmed that whether the Glass decision says                                                             
it can't be done or whether it can't be used as evidence.                                                                       
MR. WINCHELL read the following:                                                                                                
     "One argument advanced is that bugging aids in                                                                             
     safeguarding informants.  This may be questionable since                                                                   
     the presence of electronic devices on the informant may                                                                    
     add to his risk, because sophisticated 'anti-bugging'                                                                      
     technology may disclose the presence of the device or it                                                                   
     may otherwise be discovered.  In any event, New Hampshire                                                                  
     has met that contention by holding that a statute which                                                                    
     permits participant monitoring does not permit the                                                                         
     introduction at trial of a tape recording of a                                                                             
     conversation transmitted by such a device.  The court                                                                      
     held that the purpose of the statute's exception was to                                                                    
     allow police officers to protect the undercover officer                                                                    
     and that monitoring for purposes of rescue was not                                                                         
     equivalent to monitoring for purposes of introduction of                                                                   
     the conversation at trial." [n34 of Glass]                                                                                 
MR. WINCHELL noted that is exactly what the bill is trying to do.                                                               
The bill is asking the court to recognize that there are exigent                                                                
circumstances for the safety of peace officers.                                                                                 
Number 1782                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the case from New Hampshire has a rule                                                              
like Glass, but the court said that their statute is okay because                                                               
it doesn't require using it.                                                                                                    
MR. WINCHELL said their statute permits participants to monitor [a                                                              
conversation] for safety reasons as long as they don't introduce                                                                
the tape in a trial.                                                                                                            
Number 1806                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that whether the State v. Ayers case                                                             
[State v. Ayers, 118 N.H. 90, 383 A.2d 87, 88 (N.H. 1978)] was a                                                                
question of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional                                                               
MR. WINCHELL replied it is the same kind of case that would come                                                                
down the pipe, if the bill passed out of the committee.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the State v. Brackman case [State                                                              
v. Brackman, 582 P.2d 1216 (Mont. 1978)] and noted that at least                                                                
Montana has the same rule that Alaska does in Glass.                                                                            
MR. WINCHELL replied the case held that privacy protections were of                                                             
such a large degree that it was distinguished between federal case                                                              
law and other states such as California.  The bill asks, as a                                                                   
matter of policy, for the legislature to empower peace officers to                                                              
protect themselves.                                                                                                             
Number 1843                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered why a statute is needed to do this.                                                               
Glass is an evidentiary limitation.  He asked Mr. Winchell whether                                                              
he agrees that peace officers can wear a wire now; they just can't                                                              
use it as evidence.                                                                                                             
Number 1864                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL replied perhaps peace officers can wear a wire now,                                                                
but it might incur civil liabilities for constitutional violations.                                                             
Number 1894                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Winchell why this should be exempted                                                             
from the warrant requirements.  This arguably is the right thing to                                                             
do for the safety of officers, but these are planned setups.  There                                                             
is plenty of time to go to a judge and get a warrant.                                                                           
Number 1933                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL replied it would streamline the system, perhaps to the                                                             
detriment of rights.  But, if peace officers have to go to a                                                                    
magistrate every time [to get a warrant] for a buy, they would                                                                  
flood the magistrates.  Yes, they have to do it anyway.  The bill                                                               
just says that it would not be used for evidence.                                                                               
Number 1962                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said:  "So, they can do it now.  They just                                                                 
have to get a warrant to do it."                                                                                                
MR. WINCHELL replied yes a Glass warrant.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that it is standard enough now to even                                                               
have a name - Glass warrant.                                                                                                    
MR. WINCHELL noted that there is worry about the propensity of                                                                  
violence.  He reiterated the gist of the bill is for the safety of                                                              
peace officers.                                                                                                                 
Number 1987                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated when he introduced the bill there was                                                                      
discussion from the Municipality of Anchorage that some of the                                                                  
courts do not go along with it and some do, therefore,                                                                          
clarification is needed on whether or not this is legal.  In                                                                    
addition, there are special circumstances that do not allow an                                                                  
officer to go to a magistrate.  For example, there are unusual                                                                  
types of things that occur on the spur of the moment when there                                                                 
isn't time to get a Glass warrant.                                                                                              
Number 2038                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL noted that the court recognized in Glass the existence                                                             
of AS 11.60.290.  He's not sure whether that statute is still on                                                                
the books, however.  It is unlawful to eavesdrop, and an officer                                                                
shouldn't be subjected to those kinds of problems.                                                                              
Number 2077                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a rendering by Judge Sigurd Murphy                                                             
- a judge that he holds in high regard - and stated a person can                                                                
never be sure about how a judge may come down on something.  He                                                                 
can, therefore, see why there is this kind of "belt-and-suspenders"                                                             
approach to protect an officer.  He asked Mr. Winchell to address                                                               
Representative James' concern regarding a murdered officer.                                                                     
Number 2108                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL replied, if an officer is murdered and somebody is                                                                 
listening on the other end, that testimony can be used if a                                                                     
compelling state interest is shown.  Baring that, other types of                                                                
evidence would have to be used to prove that a murder occurred.  He                                                             
reiterated the bill is trying to comply with the constitutional                                                                 
right to privacy and the Glass decision.                                                                                        
Number 2160                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that's how people commit homicides and "get off                                                             
the hook."                                                                                                                      
Number 2165                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said there are many, many exceptions to                                                                 
hearsay, which is one of the problems here, but the fundamental                                                                 
rule of the constitution is started out with, which is freedom from                                                             
unreasonable searches.                                                                                                          
MR. WINCHELL said it's unreasonable searches and an express right                                                               
to privacy.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the language - "(8) the making                                                              
by a uniformed peace officer of an audio recording in conjunction                                                               
with the video recording of traffic and other law enforcement                                                                   
patrol contact;" - and stated it seems to go off on a different                                                                 
Number 2217                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL replied when he read that portion he thought of a                                                                  
"COPS" show on television.  He doesn't know whether routine traffic                                                             
stops are so important and dangerous that they need to be carved                                                                
out as an exception.                                                                                                            
Number 2240                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she can see the intent of the bill,                                                                
but this went off on another tangent.  She isn't real clear on                                                                  
whether it might or might not cause damage to the intent of the                                                                 
rest of the bill.                                                                                                               
Number 2266                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated this is a crazed world anymore.  An                                                             
officer can respond to a domestic violence call, for example, and                                                               
get "nailed."  She asked Mr. Winchell, in recognizing the concern                                                               
of the safety of officers, how can we keep from going down a                                                                    
slippery slope.  In other words, what's to stop an officer from                                                                 
saying anytime he puts his badge on he is in a life threatening                                                                 
MR. WINCHELL replied one response is the vigilance of the                                                                       
legislature and a decision not to walk down that slippery slope.                                                                
The other response is in trusting the prosecutors and peace                                                                     
officers.  There has to be hope and trust that the peace officers                                                               
would act accordingly, and when they don't, that the court systems                                                              
would pick it up.                                                                                                               
CHAIRMAN KOTT opened the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 2370                                                                                                                     
DUANE UDLAND, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified via                                                                 
teleconference from Anchorage.  He is also president of the Alaska                                                              
Chiefs of Police Association.  He thanked the sponsor for bringing                                                              
the bill in.  This is an important issue for law enforcement.  He                                                               
noted that twenty-five years ago, when doing undercover work,                                                                   
officers rarely came upon guns.  Now, it's almost the norm.  The                                                                
nature of the business has changed and it has become more violent                                                               
out there.  This issue is near and dear to the working cops out on                                                              
the streets.                                                                                                                    
CHIEF UDLAND further stated, in response to Representative James'                                                               
frustration with the limitations of the statute, officers are stuck                                                             
with the boundaries where the supreme court has already ruled.  In                                                              
response to Representative Croft, as far as the existing statutes                                                               
are concerned, he has looked at that for years, and the district                                                                
attorney has always recommended that the law is not clear enough                                                                
and that peace officers would be committing a misdemeanor if safety                                                             
wires were used.  Therefore, universally, peace officers across the                                                             
state have not used safety wires.  He does not let his officers                                                                 
wear safety wires, under the current law, knowing that they may be                                                              
committing a misdemeanor.  In reference to the question of getting                                                              
warrants now and just continuing to do so, sometimes there isn't                                                                
enough information to get one.  Often times, officers go out and                                                                
make a drug-buy to establish probable cause then go get a Glass                                                                 
warrant.  And, unfortunately, an officer can't wear a safety wire                                                               
on that first buy requiring officers to go in cold without any                                                                  
resources or monitoring of what's going on around them.  He noted                                                               
that this is not just limited to drug-buys...                                                                                   
TAPE 99-36, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHIEF UDLAND continued.  There are decoy officers, such as women                                                                
officers dressed as prostitutes, that cannot be monitored.  If a                                                                
"John" pulls up and puts a gun to that officer's head, they would                                                               
not be able to hear any of that transaction making it very                                                                      
difficult to protect that officer.  In reference to Representative                                                              
Murkowski's [Kerttula's] concern regarding traffic, officers share                                                              
the same concern.  He's not sure why it should be in statute.  The                                                              
law is already very clear on videotaping and electronically                                                                     
monitoring conversations with a uniformed officer performing his                                                                
duties when a person knows that he is dealing with a peace officer.                                                             
Personally, he would like to see that language taken out.  In                                                                   
regards to the slippery slope concern, he agrees with the comments                                                              
made in terms of trusting peace officers, but the reality is an                                                                 
officer can wear a recorder now while performing his duties.  The                                                               
peace officers are asking to wear that recorder when there's danger                                                             
and where a person doesn't know that they are officers, which                                                                   
inherently involves undercover work and a lot of risk.  The peace                                                               
officers are asking that the legislature take a look at this.  They                                                             
fully expect this to be litigated, and hopefully, there will be a                                                               
favorable ruling.  He would be happy to answer any questions.                                                                   
Number 0070                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Chief Udland whether officers have tried                                                             
to apply for a safety Glass warrant to wear a wire going into a buy                                                             
that is possibly dangerous with a magistrate.                                                                                   
CHIEF UDLAND replied he can't say that there hasn't been a peace                                                                
officer who tried that approach.  He said:                                                                                      
     "The problem is, you know, say you are a citizen and you call                                                              
     us, you think that there is dope activity going on in a house                                                              
     down the street.  And, that's about all you know.  You just                                                                
     know that you have cars coming and going late at night and you                                                             
     see a bunch of strange people hanging around there all the                                                                 
     time stopping in for brief moments.  And, that's all the                                                                   
     information you have.  Well, that probably describes a dope                                                                
     house or crack house of some sort.  I don't know what                                                                      
     information we could possibly develop based on that to tell a                                                              
     magistrate that we think we've got a dangerous situation and                                                               
     we need a safety warrant.  There's no authorization for, in                                                                
     the current law, for safety warrant.  And, so it looks like                                                                
     the dilemma that in order to get information we have to go up                                                              
     to the house, and believe it or not a lot of the cases we make                                                             
     are just on situation I outlined where an officer walks up and                                                             
     knocks on the door and says, 'Hey, I heard you're selling                                                                  
     dope.  Anybody buying dope?'  And, then we go back and then we                                                             
     get a warrant to do what we call a Glass warrant so we can get                                                             
     a recorded buy.  And, then we go back with that first--that                                                                
     first contact with the crack house that we simply there's not                                                              
     enough information to articulate so, even if there was an                                                                  
     allowance for a safety wire I don't know how we would ever                                                                 
     develop the information, you know, to be able to articulate                                                                
     before a magistrate."                                                                                                      
Number 0140                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that's an interesting distinction.  It                                                                
doesn't have to rise to the level of a full probable cause.  It can                                                             
be crafted however.  While he can see how it would be difficult to                                                              
articulate a probable cause standard, he asked Chief Udland whether                                                             
there is some other standard that could be included to justify the                                                              
danger.  There are lower standards - reasonable suspicion or                                                                    
articulated facts justifying a danger.                                                                                          
Number 0173                                                                                                                     
CHIEF UDLAND suggested the language, "upon the belief of the police                                                             
officer."  He doesn't see the need to do that, however, because of                                                              
the prostitute example mentioned earlier.  Would an officer have to                                                             
have a wire warrant for every citizen that was in a car that                                                                    
stopped to talk to the decoy based on fear?  He doesn't know what                                                               
the standard would be and it seems somewhat impractical.                                                                        
Number 0198                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Chief Udland what situations this                                                                 
would have helped with in the past.  She also asked what would                                                                  
change with this.                                                                                                               
CHIEF UDLAND replied it would change any times in the past and                                                                  
present where officers are being sent into situations that are                                                                  
dangerous.  "We" are asking officers now to go into a dangerous                                                                 
situation without backup and monitoring, which goes on every day                                                                
across the state, particularly with drug investigations.  More                                                                  
times than not, when knocking on that hypothetical house he                                                                     
mentioned earlier, some form of weapon is found and that house                                                                  
later ends up being searched with a warrant.  He reiterated "we"                                                                
are sending officers into those situations without any protection                                                               
knowing that they are at great risk.  This bill would fix that.                                                                 
This is not unusual.  A lot of states and the federal government                                                                
get by just fine allowing this.  The Glass decision never really                                                                
anticipated the direction that violence has taken in this country.                                                              
Number 0261                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she understands what he is saying and                                                              
she certainly respects and admires peace officers.  She noted that                                                              
everything is done to protect officers, therefore, she is concerned                                                             
about the vigilance in terms of it becoming a reliance on                                                                       
monitoring rather than actually watching the officer.  She is                                                                   
trying to think of a concrete example where this would have helped                                                              
in terms of stopping violence towards an officer.  She agrees with                                                              
Representative Murkowski that an officer can face a violent                                                                     
situation on a simple call.                                                                                                     
Number 0291                                                                                                                     
CHIEF UDLAND replied a uniformed officer can wear a tape recorder                                                               
right now on a call.  He is talking about undercover work where                                                                 
people don't know that the person is an officer.  Every day peace                                                               
officers are going behind closed doors into potentially dangerous                                                               
situations and nobody is able to monitor them for safety.  If an                                                                
officer goes into an apartment and a gun is pulled to him, the                                                                  
backup officers have no idea what is taking place.                                                                              
Number 0341                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chief Udland what misdemeanor would                                                               
an officer be breaking if that officer wore a safety wire.                                                                      
CHIEF UDLAND replied that officer would be breaking a misdemeanor                                                               
in AS 42.20.300 - "Unauthorized publication or use of                                                                           
Number 0367                                                                                                                     
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant, Division of Alaska State Trooper,                                                                 
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from                                                                  
Anchorage.  He is not here to talk about the legal issues.  He is                                                               
here to talk about officer safety.  In 1993 and 1994, he worked in                                                              
a combined task force with the Anchorage Police Department.  During                                                             
that time frame, he worked on one of the largest heroin cases ever                                                              
held in Alaska.  He noted that often times, there isn't time in a                                                               
drug case to develop appropriate probable cause - because of its                                                                
tempo - to go before a magistrate in order to get a Glass warrant.                                                              
He cited an example of buying heroin in Spenard [Anchorage] in                                                                  
January.  It was extremely hard to stay close to his partner.  He                                                               
was not in sight or hearing range of him when he would go into a                                                                
particular house for a buy.  They had decided beforehand how long                                                               
to stay in a particular place.  It was an extremely tenuous                                                                     
situation and often he would proceed to locate his partner.  He                                                                 
noted that, in these types of cases, the dynamics change very                                                                   
rapidly.  In addition, the bad guys recognize the procedures.  They                                                             
watch "COPS" just like everybody else.  They realize that it takes                                                              
time to set up an operation and to do other things.  They naturally                                                             
want to avoid getting caught, so they often change locations,                                                                   
directions, names and places rapidly.  "We don't have time to do                                                                
all the things that you see in 'COPS' where they set up a raid team                                                             
and they get backup and they do all this other stuff."  He has been                                                             
in places in Anchorage during the winter where a gun shot could                                                                 
have gone off and his partner and backup would not have heard it.                                                               
They were in locales that weren't close enough to visually watch                                                                
him or touch him.  He thanked Representative Kott for taking the                                                                
initiative on this issue.  He would be glad to answer any                                                                       
Number 0540                                                                                                                     
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender                                                                  
Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference                                                              
from Anchorage.  The agency is concerned with the bill because it                                                               
believes that it is unconstitutional.  It is a difficult legal                                                                  
area.  In a wiretapping situation, "A" is talking to "B" and                                                                    
someone who is not a party to the conversation, "C," taps in and                                                                
listens to the conversation.  In a situation that the bill targets,                                                             
"A" is talking to "B," and "B" consents to a recording and/or to                                                                
broadcasting the conversation, which is not illegal under the                                                                   
federal constitution or under most state constitutions.  He cited                                                               
in Vermont and Massachusetts their supreme courts have ruled that                                                               
it violates the right to privacy when done in a home.  The Glass                                                                
case is older and has recently been reaffirmed in a case that                                                                   
involves a slightly different fact-pattern - State v. Page.                                                                     
MR. McCUNE noted it is important to understand what can be done                                                                 
now.  If an officer identifies him or herself as a peace officer,                                                               
that officer can tape or broadcast with or without the consent of                                                               
the person being contacted.  That was made possible by a decision                                                               
in the City and Borough of Juneau v. Quinto case [684 P.2d 127                                                                  
(Alaska 1984)].  In addition, if an officer has probable cause,                                                                 
that officer can get a Glass warrant for participant monitoring.                                                                
The legislature has made a lot of changes to the statute for the                                                                
judiciary to issue a warrant.  For example, it can be issued over                                                               
a telephone with telephonic testimony - AS 12.35.015.  In addition,                                                             
he noted that the statute refers to peace officers and stated that                                                              
there are special commissioned peace officers and he's not certain                                                              
whether they would be covered.  They are not regular peace                                                                      
officers, but people who are brought in specifically for drug                                                                   
undercover work.  The basic concern is the right of privacy, of                                                                 
going into a person's home without probable cause by an undercover                                                              
agent.  In reference to the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,"                                                             
if an officer monitors a conversation, it is questionable whether                                                               
or not that information can be used to develop further leads and                                                                
probable cause.  It could taint a further warrant, even though the                                                              
information was clear.  In conclusion, he echoes the concern of the                                                             
fact that there are more dangerous situations today.  Other                                                                     
societies have taken steps to de-arm their citizens rather than                                                                 
going after constitutional rights.  That's probably not a popular                                                               
thing to say these days, but there are other ways to deal with                                                                  
safety concerns.                                                                                                                
Number 1007                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he's not sure that he buys the "fruit of                                                              
the poisonous tree doctrine."  He asked Mr. McCune how is it                                                                    
materially different from an officer who heard something live                                                                   
versus an officer who heard it outside.                                                                                         
Number 1047                                                                                                                     
MR. McCUNE replied it's a situation where "A" and "B" are talking                                                               
together and "C" overhears the conversation.  "B" can certainly go                                                              
to a magistrate and furnish probable case for a warrant.  But, it's                                                             
against the constitution for "C" who overheard the conversation to                                                              
go to a magistrate and furnish probable cause for a warrant.                                                                    
Number 1122                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said one of the problems is the issue of                                                                
whether or not a person could have gotten a warrant.  There'll be                                                               
a lot of challenges to whether or not an officer wore a wire for                                                                
safety reasons.                                                                                                                 
Number 1149                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, he thought, the question is whether                                                               
the probable cause is issued by one of the witnesses to the event.                                                              
He wondered how getting a Glass warrant after the fact would be                                                                 
Number 1187                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned Mr. McCune as to whether there is a                                                                    
distinction between the Page and Glass cases because the bill                                                                   
requires an officer to wear a recording device on his person.  The                                                              
circumstances were not the same in Page.  A bugging device planted                                                              
in a wall would clearly be unconstitutional.                                                                                    
Number 1222                                                                                                                     
MR. McCUNE replied in Page a video camera was set up with the                                                                   
consent of one of the participants.  It is distinguishable, but the                                                             
courts looked at the people who set up the video camera as agents                                                               
and closely associated with one of the participants.  The case went                                                             
to the supreme court and Chief Justice Warren W. Mathews provided                                                               
a long legal opinion on participant monitoring, which is a real                                                                 
primer and good source of information for the committee to                                                                      
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Gerald Luckhaupt [Attorney, Legislative                                                                 
Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative                                                                   
Affairs Agency] to clarify the inclusion of an officer using audio                                                              
recording in conjunction with video recording.                                                                                  
Number 1340                                                                                                                     
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal                                                              
and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came before the                                                              
committee to answer questions.  He noted that the language was                                                                  
included based on discussion with staff.  He didn't want to make it                                                             
seem that the legislature was finding a practice - that is now                                                                  
legal and constitutional - illegal.  Currently, uniformed officers                                                              
can secretly tape-record conversations with suspects.  Even if they                                                             
aren't in uniform, if they are known to the person they are talking                                                             
to as a police officer, they can secretly tape-record and video                                                                 
tape conversations.  The addition of the language talks about how                                                               
undercovered officers can do this without authorizing the                                                                       
activities that the supreme court and court of appeals have found                                                               
to be legal and constitutional.  This line of thought came to him                                                               
from a footnote in Glass which excluded surreptitious tape                                                                      
recordings by peace officers, not on a constitutional ground, but                                                               
because it was excluded from a statute like AS 42.20.300.  Because                                                              
of Glass, any amendments made to the statute could be argued as                                                                 
illegal, therefore, he felt it was necessary to put that language                                                               
in to authorize those activities.                                                                                               
Number 1534                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Luckhaupt why doesn't the language                                                               
- "(6) a peace officer, or a person acting at the direction or                                                                  
request of a peace officer, engaging in conduct authorized by or                                                                
under AS 12.37" - take care of that.                                                                                            
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied AS 12.37 is the wiretapping statute.  Maybe,                                                              
it is something that he overlooked.  It is a different level of law                                                             
and probable cause and a warrant is required for a wiretap.                                                                     
Number 1580                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Luckhaupt why does it need to be                                                                 
repeated because Section 2, of the bill, puts this instance in AS                                                               
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied, "We may not.  Now that I think about it."                                                                
There may be a way around that.  He noted that subparagraph (6) may                                                             
need to be amended to indicate that a warrant is not required for                                                               
these types of activities.                                                                                                      
Number 1635                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Luckhaupt why Glass warrants aren't                                                              
misdemeanors now.                                                                                                               
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied they aren't misdemeanors now because of the                                                               
supreme court decision.  He doesn't know whether that decision has                                                              
been codified, however.  There were changes made in the wiretapping                                                             
law to accommodate the Glass decision, which is why it is unique to                                                             
Alaska.  He noted that it is participant-monitored activities, so                                                               
they would not be illegal.                                                                                                      
Number 1719                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it seems that AS 42.20.310                                                                            
["Eavesdropping"] is clear.  A person may not use an eavesdropping                                                              
device, and there is no exception for police conduct (indisc.) a                                                                
warrent.  He questioned whether every Glass warrant has been                                                                    
violating this statute for twenty years.                                                                                        
MR. LUCKHAUPT said he doesn't know.  He would have to think about                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it could be true, but there isn't a                                                                   
district attorney in the world who would prosecute an officer that                                                              
had a warrant to wear a wire as part of his duties.                                                                             
Number 1813                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Luckhaupt to look into the                                                                    
eavesdropping exemption in AS 42.20.320(a)(4) as well.  It looks                                                                
like the situations being discussed might already be covered, and                                                               
maybe, it's something that hasn't been utilized.                                                                                
Number 1885                                                                                                                     
MR. LUCKHAUPT referred Representative Croft to AS 42.20.300(a), in                                                              
response to his question regarding an officer who is transmitting                                                               
pursuant to a Glass warrant.  The officer who has a Glass warrant                                                               
is doing the transmitting and assisting others in receiving,                                                                    
therefore, he would not be subject to prosecution.  The supreme                                                                 
court requires an officer to get a warrant under Glass, if that                                                                 
officer is undercover and not known to the person he is speaking to                                                             
as a peace officer.  That does not clearly exempt the parties                                                                   
listed, so he can see the concern of Representative Croft.                                                                      
Number 1955                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Luckhaupt why the exceptions in the                                                              
bill do not talk about covers.  He referred to AS 12.37.                                                                        
MR. LUCKHAUPT noted that AS 12.37 is the wiretapping statute, which                                                             
requires a different type of warrant to engage in that activity.                                                                
When the statute was written, the drafters didn't want to tie them                                                              
Number 2009                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Luckhaupt whether there is any                                                                   
statutory section that codifies Glass warrants.                                                                                 
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied no.                                                                                                       
Number 2026                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Luckhaupt whether the exemption                                                               
in AS 42.20.320(a)(4) reaches the same result.                                                                                  
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that was added about two years ago to allow                                                               
law enforcement to tap into a phone during a hostage situation.  It                                                             
doesn't apply to anything at all in this bill.  He cited a hostage                                                              
situation, a barricade, and imminent illegal use of an explosive as                                                             
examples.  That operates as an exemption in the normal wiretapping                                                              
statute as well.  It basically codifies exemptions that other                                                                   
courts have found to be exigent circumstances, and have recognized                                                              
police activities to intercept those types of communications as                                                                 
warranted due to the danger to the public.                                                                                      
Number 2170                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that whether an officer can                                                                   
already monitor in those types of situations.                                                                                   
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied the exemptions apply by meeting the                                                                       
subparagraphs - AS 42.20.320(a)(b) and (c).                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that she is reading the section a                                                                 
little bit more broadly than Mr. Luckhaupt, particularly AS                                                                     
42.20.320 (a)(4).                                                                                                               
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated he reads AS 42.20.320 (a)(4) as the                                                                        
communications that are not being made by a law enforcement agency.                                                             
He has not seen that exemption applied towards allowing an officer                                                              
to use a wiretap, which is why he added the other statute in order                                                              
to allow wiretapping in these emergency situations.                                                                             
Number 2375                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA questioned Mr. Luckhaupt as to whether                                                                  
there has been any court case since this exemption was put in                                                                   
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied not in Alaska.                                                                                            
Number 2420                                                                                                                     
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services                                                                   
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came before                                                               
the committee to testify.  The Glass decision specifically states                                                               
that the monitoring or recording of private conversations without                                                               
a warrant violates the constitution - Article 1, Section 14; and                                                                
Article 1, Section 22.  The decision was more than evidentiary; it                                                              
was a decision based on a person's right to privacy, which has a                                                                
higher protection under the state constitution than the federal                                                                 
constitution and many other state constitutions...                                                                              
TAPE 99-37, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MS. CARPENETI continued.  The Ayers decision found that monitoring                                                              
for the safety of police officers is okay, but the use of the                                                                   
evidence is not.  The department would suggest, as one way to help                                                              
litigate this in court, adopting specific legislative findings that                                                             
repeat what Chief Udland has said regarding the times since the                                                                 
Glass decision was handed down.  Life has changed since then in                                                                 
this state and the country.  Certain investigations are a lot more                                                              
MS. CARPENETI further stated that one thing to consider is an                                                                   
individual coming into an officer's automobile and having the                                                                   
conversation recorded even though the wire is not on the officer's                                                              
person, but in the car itself.  That would not be allowed under the                                                             
bill as it is presently drafted.                                                                                                
Number 0187                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Carpeneti whether she is talking about a                                                                
privately owned automobile or a black-and-white police automobile.                                                              
MS. CARPENETI replied she is talking about an unmarked police                                                                   
officer's car.                                                                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, so a person wouldn't know it was a police                                                                   
MS. CARPENETI said right.                                                                                                       
MS. CARPENETI referred to Section 3(8), of the bill, and stated the                                                             
department would recommend that it not be included.  This activity                                                              
has been upheld by the courts in Quinto and Reynolds.  A peace                                                                  
officer in uniform can record a suspect's conversation, and even if                                                             
an officer is not in uniform as long as the suspect knows he is an                                                              
officer.  By including it in the bill, the courts may question the                                                              
language - "uniformed peace officer" - and interpret it to not mean                                                             
a peace officer who is not in uniform is not included and may not                                                               
be covered under this exemption.  She suggested considering the                                                                 
issue of when an officer is killed and provisions on whether or not                                                             
what the monitoring officer heard can be used [as evidence].  In                                                                
addition, she suggested considering Evidence Rule 412 where, in                                                                 
cases of perjury, evidence can be used that was obtained from a                                                                 
confession in a prosecution for perjury, or specifically provide                                                                
for otherwise.                                                                                                                  
Number 0388                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether there is an avenue                                                             
to take to help law enforcement enhance their ability to catch "bad                                                             
guys" in terms of letting them off because what was heard is not                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied there could be language indicating, in the                                                                
event the officer who is wearing the body wire is killed, the                                                                   
evidence can be used by the monitoring officer.  It could be an                                                                 
Number 0456                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether the bill could                                                                 
read - "put in harm's way" - rather then "killed."  In other words,                                                             
where does it stop?  Things have changed in the past twenty years;                                                              
it's dangerous out there.                                                                                                       
MS. CARPENETI said everybody has said, this bill would be litigated                                                             
and it's not clear whether it would be upheld.                                                                                  
Number 0546                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said:  "Let me understand that perjury idea.                                                               
So, we--it would pass this bill and somebody may have a security                                                                
wiretap on a police--undercover police officer who goes in to make                                                              
a buy.  They make a buy.  They prosecute the guy for it.  The guy                                                               
stands up and says, 'I didn't do it,' in court and is convicted.                                                                
Well, even before conviction, stands up testifies and says, 'I                                                                  
wasn't there' or 'I didn't say--sell it to him.'  And, then we say                                                              
'ah ha' now that you've said that we're bringing in the officer who                                                             
was out in the car and say, 'What did you hear on the wire?'                                                                    
Didn't you hear him say, 'I'll sell you twenty pounds of                                                                        
MS. CARPENETI interjected and said she was thinking of it more as                                                               
a separate prosecution.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that is possible too under evidentiary                                                               
rule.  It doesn't go to prove the truth of the matter, but to                                                                   
impeach the person who said it.                                                                                                 
MS. CARPENETI reiterated she was thinking of it more as a separate                                                              
prosecution.  It's probably safer to keep the bill as it is, but at                                                             
a certain point it won't work if an officer is lost.                                                                            
Number 0652                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Carpeneti whether he is right about                                                              
the impeachment possibility, if there isn't a caveat in the bill.                                                               
MS. CARPENETI said it couldn't be used in any circumstances under                                                               
the bill the way it is drafted.                                                                                                 
Number 0680                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA wondered, if a defendant perjury himself,                                                               
whether it can be used as impeachment since the evidence is                                                                     
suppressed because of a constitutional ruling.                                                                                  
MS. CARPENETI said it can be used if there is a violation of a                                                                  
person's Miranda rights.                                                                                                        
Number 0728                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated it is the intent of the Chairman to hold the                                                               
bill over until tomorrow [April 22, 1999].                                                                                      
HB 158 - NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY                                                                                 
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HB 158,                                                              
"An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the                                                                    
division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal                                                                 
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the committee will take up CSHB
158(L&C), Version 1-LS0128\I.                                                                                                   
Number 0889                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, Sponsor of HB 158, explained that the bill                                                             
would permit the Division of Insurance [Department of Commerce and                                                              
Economic Development] to gather in-depth statistical information                                                                
regarding health insurance policies.  The bill would also provide                                                               
a mechanism by which to inform Alaskan seniors of a missed                                                                      
insurance payment.  Representative Rokeberg informed the committee                                                              
that one of his constituents, an over 80-year-old man, was in a                                                                 
substantial automobile accident and did not realize that he had not                                                             
paid his premium.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the House Labor and Commerce                                                                 
Standing committee worked with the insurance industry in order to                                                               
develop a compromise bill.    The original bill required certified                                                              
mailings.  This bill covers personal insurance which includes                                                                   
property, casualty, automobile, and liability type insurance.                                                                   
Under HB 158, notification is provided to all insurers in Alaska                                                                
that a person 70 years old or older has the right to designate a                                                                
third party to receive notice of payment of premium and/or                                                                      
cancellation on three occasions per current statute.  The industry                                                              
is willing to send multiple notices for the three different                                                                     
statutory notification requirements.  This is believed to be of                                                                 
lesser cost to the insurance industry and would not create a                                                                    
mandate as would requiring certified return receipt mailings.  This                                                             
bill is supported by a number of senior groups around the state.                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee substitute  elevates the age                                                             
from 67 to 70.  He asked Representative Rokeberg why that was                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that testimony in                                                                
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee from the Division                                                               
of Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] and senior groups                                                              
revealed that the condition of dementia increases with age and                                                                  
becomes particularly acute around the age of 70.  Therefore, rather                                                             
than using the new social security age of 67, the age was raised to                                                             
70 which would include some 16,000 people.                                                                                      
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether all of the personal insurance policies                                                              
addressed in the bill require a person to provide his age.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the industry believes that                                                                       
information would be available due to underwriting purposes.                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that applies to homeowner's insurance.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that was discussed.  The testimony                                                                
indicated that the age information would be available and it would                                                              
not be a burden on the insurance industry.  If the insurance                                                                    
industry does not have this information, it will have to gather it.                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to why the certification and registered                                                               
mail requirement was omitted.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that, currently, the insurance                                                                
industry mails by certification with a computer printout and                                                                    
delivers the mail to the U.S. Post Office.  That list is filed as                                                               
their proof of mailing for cancellation.  The insurance industry                                                                
felt that if an individual certified mail, return receipt requested                                                             
there would be fairly substantial fiscal note implications which                                                                
would be passed on to the consumers.  Representative Rokeberg did                                                               
not want to, in the process of protecting people, end up raising                                                                
their premiums.                                                                                                                 
Number 1255                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there would be any litigation                                                                
caused later if a notice was sent to the designated recipient.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the notice would be sent to                                                              
both parties.  The insurance industry is mandated to inform an                                                                  
individual of the availability of this option in the regular                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, if the insurance company fails to                                                                   
notify the bill payer, would that alleviate the fact that the                                                                   
elderly are not covered because the payments were not made.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the level of notification has                                                               
been increased.  The desire is to avoid a situation in which the                                                                
individual does not have coverage as was the case for                                                                           
Representative Rokeberg's constituent.  He acknowledged that some                                                               
coverages have grace periods.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there were discussions                                                                      
regarding grace periods in the House Labor and Commerce Standing                                                                
Committee.  She feels that if this is going to be done for personal                                                             
insurance, it should also be done for life and health insurance as                                                              
well.  She informed the committee that typically, life insurance                                                                
has an allowance for a grace period for reinstatement, which is not                                                             
the case for personal insurance policies.                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the committee packet includes a                                                                  
letter from the Alliance of American Insurers which indicates that                                                              
homeowner's policies do not make any reference to the age of the                                                                
insured.  He said, "Is that just a 'red herring' that they are                                                                  
throwing up or would they change there way of doing business and                                                                
require age to be recognized?"                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred the question to Mr. George                                                                     
[lobbyist for the National Association of Independent Insurers].                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that there may be a language                                                                  
error in Section 2(1) of the committee substitute.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the language was taken from                                                                 
existing law.                                                                                                                   
Number 1498                                                                                                                     
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for the National Association of Independent                                                               
Insurers, informed the committee that it does not really matter                                                                 
whether the insurance company has the age of the individual in the                                                              
file.  This requires that everyone be offered a notice saying that                                                              
if a person is 70 years of age or older, that person may request to                                                             
be placed in the multiple notification program.  At some point,                                                                 
there would have to be a determination that the individual                                                                      
requesting this multiple notification is actually age 70 or older.                                                              
That information could be ascertained upon request of the program.                                                              
Mr. George noted that this would apply primarily to homeowner's                                                                 
insurance, fire insurance, and auto insurance.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether it would be possible to                                                                  
request dual statements for individuals under the age of 70.                                                                    
MR. GEORGE noted that there are notices to lenders, however there                                                               
is no statutory requirement for an insurance company to offer that.                                                             
Mr. George assumed that some insurance companies would offer that                                                               
service if requested.  This legislation would require that the                                                                  
insurance company provide that notification if the individual is                                                                
over the age of 70.  Mr. George emphasized that insurance companies                                                             
are not in the business of canceling insurance, but rather                                                                      
insurance companies are in the business of writing insurance.                                                                   
Insurance companies would like to keep a policy in effect once it                                                               
is in effect.                                                                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 1643                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved to report HB 158 [CSHB 158(L&C), Version                                                                    
1-LS0128\I] out of committee with individual recommendations and                                                                
accompanying zero fiscal notes.  There being no objection, HB 158                                                               
was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 3:12 p.m. and called the                                                                 
meeting back to order at 3:13 p.m.                                                                                              
HB 28 - SURCHARGE ON FINES; YOUTH COURTS                                                                                        
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 28, "An                                                                
Act imposing a surcharge on fines imposed for misdemeanors,                                                                     
infractions, and violations and authorizing disposition of                                                                      
estimated receipts from that surcharge; and creating the juvenile                                                               
justice grant fund in order to provide financial assistance for the                                                             
operation of youth courts."                                                                                                     
Number 1699                                                                                                                     
KATE AMPHAY, Intern, for Representative Eric Croft, Alaska State                                                                
Legislature, came before the committee to present the sponsor                                                                   
statement.  The bill is about a stable funding source for the youth                                                             
courts throughout the state.  It creates a juvenile justice grant                                                               
fund which would provide $80,000 in matching grants to communities                                                              
who would like to set up a youth court.  The youth courts are                                                                   
worthwhile programs because they save $30,000 per defendant.  An                                                                
average of $9,000 is paid annually to the youth courts to                                                                       
compensate the victims of juvenile crimes.  It's an effective way                                                               
to deal with juvenile crime in communities.  The youths who have                                                                
committed crimes learn that if they had gone to an actual court the                                                             
crime would become part of a record.  Youth court gives them a                                                                  
second chance.  In addition, those who participate in youth court                                                               
as judges and attorneys have gone through a rigorous course taught                                                              
by actual attorneys who volunteer their time.  The Anchorage Youth                                                              
Court handles about 500 cases per year.  Of those 500 cases, there                                                              
is a very low rate of recidivism - 11 percent.  That means 89                                                                   
percent of the completed cases are done successfully.  She                                                                      
believes, that the participants in youth court learn certain skills                                                             
that are valuable throughout their lives.  She cited clear logical                                                              
thinking as an example.  Some who participate as a defendant decide                                                             
to join the court and straighten out.  That aside, it's one thing                                                               
to say that the youth court is a successful program, but every                                                                  
successful program has room for growth to be even more successful.                                                              
This committee is considering HB 151, which would give the youth                                                                
courts the opportunity to hear alcohol-related cases.  The point                                                                
is, in order for this program to grow and take on more                                                                          
responsibilities, it needs to be supported.  She reiterated the                                                                 
grant would provide a stable source of funding.  She noted that                                                                 
there is some concern about whether or not the funds would infringe                                                             
on the police training program.  That is not the goal.  The sponsor                                                             
doesn't want to infringe upon those funds and is willing to work to                                                             
ensure that the bill becomes an applicable piece of legislation.                                                                
Number 2015                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Amphay to clarify the 89 percent                                                                 
MS. AMPHAY stated that 89 percent of the cases that are completed                                                               
by youth courts are successful.  The recidivism rate is 11 percent.                                                             
The figures are based on a three-year span.  She also noted that                                                                
the youth courts model their system after the actual court system.                                                              
Number 2065                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that nine out of ten youths do not                                                                    
re-offend, according to the sponsor statement.  The youth courts do                                                             
not let anybody off on a technicality.                                                                                          
Number 2078                                                                                                                     
MS. AMPHAY further noted that those who go through the youth courts                                                             
participate in community service as part of their punishment, earn                                                              
back the $50 that is charged to hear their case, and write                                                                      
letters-of-understanding to the victim(s).                                                                                      
Number 2126                                                                                                                     
LINDA JOHNSON, Legal Advisor, Anchorage Youth Court (AYC),                                                                      
testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  The money that the                                                                
bill would create is needed by all the youth courts around the                                                                  
state.  The AYC, currently, receives about $22,300 from the federal                                                             
government in grants.  However, the grant cannot be applied for                                                                 
next year because it has run its course.  The AYC has been                                                                      
receiving about $110,000 from the municipality mostly as revenue                                                                
sharing monies, which is in jeopardy.  Today, without taking on new                                                             
alcohol cases and without expanding staff - and it is understaffed                                                              
- the AYC needs about $250,000 per year to run its program.  She                                                                
noted that the youth court in Kodiak would take more cases if it                                                                
had more money.  All the youth courts around the state are always                                                               
scrambling to support themselves.  Anchorage Youth Court has never                                                              
asked for money from the state, and the state has never given any                                                               
money.  She noted that the intervention and education that the                                                                  
youth courts provide helps prevent re-offenders and takes a load                                                                
off of the court system and probation officers.  In effect, it                                                                  
tries to lessen the burden on the state.                                                                                        
Number 2290                                                                                                                     
WENDY LEACH, Executive Director, North Star Youth Court, testified                                                              
via teleconference from Fairbanks.  The youth court in Fairbanks                                                                
had an 8 percent recidivism rate for the first year and a half of                                                               
its operation.  That means 92 percent of the offenders did not come                                                             
back through the program.  All of the youth courts are always                                                                   
scrambling for funding.  As a new program, the North Star Youth                                                                 
court started off in a small cabin.  It continues to write grants                                                               
for funding.  A permanent source of funding is crucial to the                                                                   
continuing operation for all of the youth courts.  Most of them are                                                             
operating as nonprofit organizations and address prevention needs                                                               
and early intervention.  A permanent source of funding would not                                                                
only secure the continued operation of the youth courts, but also                                                               
work to establish additional ones.  She cited Delta Junction is                                                                 
interested in starting a youth court.  In addition, there is no way                                                             
that the North Star Youth Court would be able to take on the                                                                    
consuming cases addressed in another House bill [HB 151], without                                                               
additional funding.  The youth who participate in the program go                                                                
through an inordinate amount of hours of training, and the                                                                      
offenders who come through the program also serve as jurors,                                                                    
provide community work service hours, and provide a restoration to                                                              
the victim(s).  It is important to note that, in the absence of the                                                             
North Star Youth Court, the youth who are being arrested at the                                                                 
misdemeanor level are at the most receiving a 30 to 45 minute                                                                   
conference with a juvenile probation officer, which is not adequate                                                             
to meet the needs of these youths.  When the youth court sees                                                                   
TAPE 99-37, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MS. LEACH continued.  In Fairbanks, the youth court is handling a                                                               
number of domestic violence cases.  These are youth who have                                                                    
committed crimes against their mothers or grandmothers within their                                                             
homes.  She could go on about how it is important to offer a                                                                    
permanent source of funding for the continued operation and further                                                             
establishment of youth courts throughout the state, but she would                                                               
also like to let others testify.                                                                                                
Number 0040                                                                                                                     
LISA MAKAR, Program Coordinator, Mat-Su Youth Court, testified via                                                              
teleconference from Mat-Su.  She wanted to plug all the adult                                                                   
attorneys who help the program and the public defender's office in                                                              
the valley, which has almost single-handedly organized the                                                                      
volunteers.  They work really hard and even on their weekends.  It                                                              
is so important to address the youth-in-trouble in the very                                                                     
beginning and to work on prevention and intervention.  She worked                                                               
at McLaughlin Youth Center for over ten years.  She has seen both                                                               
sides of the story.  She knows that the first time a youth is                                                                   
arrested is a very important time.  She asked the committee members                                                             
to consider supporting the bill.                                                                                                
Number 0097                                                                                                                     
MATT NEIL testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He noted                                                                
that the 98-percent figure is accurate.  He does the statistics for                                                             
the youth courts and works with the Volunteers of America's youth                                                               
restitution program.  Over a three-year time frame, the youth                                                                   
courts have given over 25,000 hours to local nonprofit programs,                                                                
and have paid over $23,000 directly to victims as restitution.  It                                                              
has been very successful.  In addition, he noted that the Office of                                                             
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [U.S. Department of                                                                 
Justice] has indicated the importance of the immediate consequence                                                              
and social response to an action.  He strongly encouraged the                                                                   
committee members to support the bill.                                                                                          
Number 0167                                                                                                                     
BILL EDWARDS testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He is a                                                              
judge with the youth court program.  It is the best program that he                                                             
has been a part of in the city.  It has taught him indelible                                                                    
lessons.  It has given him many skills, which is a purpose of the                                                               
youth courts as well.  The recidivism rate speaks to the effect of                                                              
the program, but in talking to the offenders, it really has had an                                                              
effect on them.  They care about what has been told to them.                                                                    
Number 0235                                                                                                                     
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender                                                                  
Agency, Department of Administration, waived his time to others                                                                 
wanting to testify.                                                                                                             
Number 0246                                                                                                                     
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council,                                                               
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from                                                                  
Anchorage.  He noted that the surcharge, in the current bill, is                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that is correct.  There is an amendment                                                                    
reducing it to $10.                                                                                                             
Number 0270                                                                                                                     
MR. SHAW explained his concern.  The council has a surcharge of $50                                                             
for misdemeanor offenses when an incarceration may be imposed, and                                                              
a surcharge of $10 for all other offenses and infractions.  He is                                                               
concerned that a $25 surcharge may do some harm to the collections                                                              
of the council.                                                                                                                 
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is one of the reasons for the amendment.                                                                
Number 0296                                                                                                                     
STUART BANNAN, Vice-President, Anchorage Youth Court Bar                                                                        
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He is                                                                
also a judge.  The youth courts are effective because they treat                                                                
the offenders as people.  They receive two defense attorneys and                                                                
two prosecutors to represent the state.  Even though they are                                                                   
criminals, they are people that can be rehabilitated.                                                                           
Number 0370                                                                                                                     
RANDALL PATTERSON, Vice President, Anchorage Youth Court Board of                                                               
Directors, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He is a                                                                
former public defender and currently practices criminal defense                                                                 
cases.  The criminal defense lawyer in him doesn't like the idea of                                                             
having a client pay additional money at the end of a case.  Often                                                               
times, they don't have the money to pay and it becomes an                                                                       
additional burden.  However, this particular surcharge is something                                                             
that is needed for the reasons outlined earlier by Ms. Johnson.                                                                 
The Anchorage Youth Court is in danger of losing about one-half of                                                              
its budget, so it's important to point out that the youth courts                                                                
around the state provide a service that would have to be provided                                                               
- or should be provided - by the state if the courts were not here.                                                             
If they weren't here, that service would be provided by the                                                                     
Department of Health and Social Services and the court system.  The                                                             
youth courts save the state a lot of money and, therefore, the                                                                  
surcharge is a good idea.  He asked the committee members to pass                                                               
the bill out of the committee.                                                                                                  
Number 0485                                                                                                                     
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Youth Corrections,                                                                 
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and                                                                 
Social Services, came before the committee to testify.  The                                                                     
department supports the bill and encourages the legislature to find                                                             
any steady stream of funding for a very viable resource.                                                                        
Number 0516                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 0528                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move Amendment 1                                                                          
[1-LS0212\A.1, Luckhaupt, 2/22/99].  There being no objection, it                                                               
was so adopted.  It reads as follows:                                                                                           
     Page 2, line 24:                                                                                                           
          Delete "$25"                                                                                                          
          Insert "$10"                                                                                                          
Number 0548                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move HB 28, as amended, from                                                              
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached                                                                  
fiscal note(s).  There being no objection, CSHB 28(JUD) was so                                                                  
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                              
Number 0570                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                  
meeting at 3:45 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects