Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/10/2001 05:30 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 10, 2001                                                                                         
                           5:30 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 179                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to underage  drinking and  drug offenses;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 105(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to victims'  rights; relating to establishing an                                                               
office  of   victims'  rights;  relating  to   the  authority  of                                                               
litigants and the  court to comment on the  crime victim's choice                                                               
to  appear   or  testify   in  a   criminal  case;   relating  to                                                               
compensation   of  victims   of  violent   crimes;  relating   to                                                               
eligibility for  a permanent fund dividend  for persons convicted                                                               
of and incarcerated  for certain offenses; relating  to notice of                                                               
appropriations concerning victims' rights;  amending Rules 16 and                                                               
30,  Alaska   Rules  of  Criminal   Procedure,  Rule   9,  Alaska                                                               
Delinquency Rules,  and Rule 501,  Alaska Rules of  Evidence; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 133                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to restitution  for  criminal and  delinquency                                                               
acts; authorizing the  state to collect restitution  on behalf of                                                               
victims of crime  and delinquent acts and the  release of certain                                                               
information  related   to  that   collection;  relating   to  the                                                               
forfeiture  of certain  cash and  other security  for payment  of                                                               
other  restitution;  relating to  access  by  the Violent  Crimes                                                               
Compensation Board to certain  records regarding delinquency acts                                                               
to  award  compensation  to victims;  relating  to  immunity  for                                                               
damages related  to certain collections of  restitution; amending                                                               
Rule 82,  Alaska Rules of  Civil Procedure; and providing  for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 134                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to the  rights of  crime victims, the  crime of                                                               
violating   a  protective   injunction,  mitigating   factors  in                                                               
sentencing  for an  offense,  and the  return  of certain  seized                                                               
property  to  victims; clarifying  that  a  violation of  certain                                                               
protective  orders is  contempt of  the authority  of the  court;                                                               
expanding the  scope of  the prohibition  of compromise  based on                                                               
civil remedy  of misdemeanor crimes involving  domestic violence;                                                               
providing for protective  relief for victims of  stalking that is                                                               
not domestic  violence and  for the crime  of violating  an order                                                               
for  that relief;  providing for  continuing education  regarding                                                               
domestic  violence for  certain persons  appointed by  the court;                                                               
making  certain conforming  amendments; amending  Rules 65.1  and                                                               
100(a), Alaska Rules  of Civil Procedure; amending  Rules 10, 11,                                                               
13, 16, and  17, Alaska District Court Rules  of Civil Procedure;                                                               
and amending Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 67                                                                                                               
"An Act  requiring proof of  motor vehicle insurance in  order to                                                               
register  a   motor  vehicle;  and  relating   to  motor  vehicle                                                               
liability insurance for taxicabs."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 68                                                                                        
"An  Act   relating  to  civil  liability   for  transporting  an                                                               
intoxicated person  or for driving an  intoxicated person's motor                                                               
vehicle; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 179                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:OFFENSES RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/13/01     0560       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/13/01     0560       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
03/26/01                (H)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
03/28/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
03/28/01                (H)        <Bill Postponed TO 3/30/01>                                                                  
03/30/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
03/30/01                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
03/31/01                (H)        JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
03/31/01                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/10/01                (H)        JUD AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 105                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:VICTIMS' RIGHTS/ PRISONER'S PFD                                                                                     
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/20/01     0432       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/20/01     0432       (S)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/28/01                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
02/28/01                (S)        Moved CSSB 105(JUD) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee                                                                                    
02/28/01                (S)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
03/01/01     0555       (S)        JUD RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE                                                                    
03/01/01     0555       (S)        DP: TAYLOR, DONLEY, ELLIS,                                                                   
                                   THERRIAULT                                                                                   
03/01/01     0556       (S)        FN1: (COR)                                                                                   
03/01/01     0556       (S)        FN2: INDETERMINATE(LAW)                                                                      
03/01/01     0556       (S)        FN3: ZERO(REV)                                                                               
03/01/01     0562       (S)        COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR                                                                         
03/14/01     0655       (S)        FIN RPT CS FORTHCOMING 4DP                                                                   
                                   3NR 1AM                                                                                      
03/14/01     0656       (S)        DP: DONLEY, WILKEN, LEMAN,                                                                   
                                   WARD;                                                                                        
03/14/01     0656       (S)        AM:KELLY; NR: AUSTERMAN,                                                                     
                                   HOFFMAN, OLSON                                                                               
03/14/01     0656       (S)        FN1: (COR)                                                                                   
03/14/01     0656       (S)        FN2: INDETERMINATE(LAW)                                                                      
03/14/01     0656       (S)        FN3: ZERO(REV)                                                                               
03/14/01     0656       (S)        FN4: (LAA)                                                                                   
03/14/01                (S)        FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
03/15/01     0674       (S)        CS RECEIVED NEW TITLE                                                                        
03/20/01     0735       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/01                                                                    
03/20/01     0737       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
03/20/01     0737       (S)        FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
03/20/01     0737       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
03/20/01     0737       (S)        COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, DAVIS,                                                                
                                   COWDERY,                                                                                     
03/20/01     0737       (S)        WARD, GREEN                                                                                  
03/20/01     0737       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
                                   105(FIN)                                                                                     
03/20/01     0738       (S)        PASSED Y20 N-                                                                                
03/20/01     0738       (S)        EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS                                                                    
                                   PASSAGE                                                                                      
03/20/01     0738       (S)        COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                
03/20/01     0740       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
03/20/01     0740       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 105(FIN)                                                                       
03/20/01                (S)        RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                   
                                   203                                                                                          
03/20/01                (S)        MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                  
03/22/01     0677       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/22/01     0677       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
04/09/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/09/01                (H)        <Bill Postponed>                                                                             
04/10/01                (H)        JUD AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 133                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:RESTITUTION FOR CRIMES OR DELINQUENCY                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/19/01     0365       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/19/01     0365       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/19/01     0365       (H)        FN1: (LAW)                                                                                   
02/19/01     0366       (H)        GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                
02/19/01     0366       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
04/09/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/09/01                (H)        <Bill Postponed>                                                                             
04/10/01                (H)        JUD AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 134                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CRIME VICTIMS RTS/CRIMES/PROTECTIVE INJ.                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/19/01     0367       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/19/01     0367       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/19/01     0367       (H)        FN1: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
02/19/01     0367       (H)        FN2: INDETERMINATE(COR)                                                                      
02/19/01     0367       (H)        FN3: ZERO(LAW)                                                                               
02/19/01     0368       (H)        GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                
02/19/01     0368       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
04/09/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/09/01                (H)        <Bill Postponed>                                                                             
04/10/01                (H)        JUD AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff                                                                                                       
to Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented the proposed CS for HB 179,                                                                      
Version L, on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison                                                                           
Division of Juvenile Justice                                                                                                    
Department of Health & Social Services                                                                                          
PO Box 110635                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0635                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 179, explained the                                                                 
concept of community diversion panels.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General                                                                               
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 179, answered                                                                      
question regarding proposed Amendment 4.  Presented HB 133 and                                                                  
HB 134 and discussed how they could tie in with SB 105.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant                                                                                              
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Health and Social Services                                                                                        
P.O. Box 110601                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0601                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 179.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JULI LUCKY, Staff                                                                                                               
to Senator Rick Halford                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 111                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Presented  SB  105  on behalf  of  Senator                                                               
Halford, sponsor.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CINDY CASHEN                                                                                                                    
Juneau Chapter                                                                                                                  
Mothers Against Drunk Driving                                                                                                   
211 4th Street                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 133 and HB 134.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director                                                                                                        
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault                                                                          
130 Seward                                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 133 and HB 134.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-61, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN  ROKEBERG  called   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee  meeting  to  order  at   5:30  p.m.    Representatives                                                               
Rokeberg, James, Coghill, and Berkowitz  were present at the call                                                               
to order.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 179 - OFFENSES RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0234                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  that the first order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An  Act relating to underage drinking and                                                               
drug offenses; and providing for an effective date."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   mentioned  that  there  were   amendments  he'd                                                               
numbered according to the order in  which they would be taken up.                                                               
He offered that the amendments could mesh well together.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0346                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  made   a  motion  to  adopt   Amendment  1,  22-                                                               
LS0564\L.4, Ford, 4/5/01, which reads:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8, following "of":                                                                                            
          Insert "at least $200 but not more than"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "shall suspend the full amount of the fine                                                                 
     and"                                                                                                                   
          Insert "may suspend a portion of the fine imposed                                                                 
      under this subsection that exceeds $200 if the court                                                                  
     requires the person to pay for education or treatment                                                                  
     recommended by the court and shall"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  explained that  Amendment  1  would provide  the                                                               
courts  with flexibility  by setting  a base  of $200,  and would                                                               
allow for  a suspension of a  portion of that fine  if it exceeds                                                               
$200.  He clarified that the fine  would be at least $200 and not                                                               
more than $600.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0406                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted  that there were no  objections.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[It was clarified later that  the amendments pertained to Version                                                               
L, not  yet adopted.   Following the  adoption of Version  L, the                                                               
adoption of Amendments 1 and 2 was reconfirmed.]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0414                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  made   a  motion  to  adopt   Amendment  2,  22-                                                               
LS0564\L.3, Ford, 4/6/01, which reads:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 19 - 21:                                                                                                     
          Delete "The following conditions of probation                                                                         
     apply:                                                                                                                     
               (1)  the person shall pay for and enroll in                                                                      
     a juvenile alcohol safety action program;                                                                                  
               (2)"                                                                                                             
     Insert "The  court may  require the  person to  pay for                                                                    
     and  enroll   in  a  juvenile  alcohol   safety  action                                                                    
     program.     The  court  shall  impose   the  following                                                                    
     conditions of probation:                                                                                                   
               (1)"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 15:                                                                                                           
          Delete "has enrolled"                                                                                             
          Insert ", if required to participate"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 16:                                                                                                           
          Delete "and"                                                                                                      
          Insert "has"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "has enrolled"                                                                                                 
          Insert ", if required to participate"                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
          Insert ", has"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   explained  that   Amendment  2   would  provide                                                               
flexibility  to  the  court  by  allowing the  judge  to  be  the                                                               
"gatekeeper" with  regard to  attendance by  the offender  in any                                                               
Juvenile  Alcohol  Safety  Action  Program (JASAP)  that  may  be                                                               
established.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0501                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG made  a motion  to adopt  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS)  for HB 179,  version 22-LS0564\L,  Ford, 4/4/01,                                                               
as a work draft.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0531                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0555                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  M. NOBREGA,  Staff  to  Representative Norman  Rokeberg,                                                               
House  Judiciary Standing  Committee,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
presented  the  proposed   CS,  Version  L,  on   behalf  of  the                                                               
committee.    She  explained  that  Version  L  incorporates  the                                                               
recommendations made by the Department  of Law (DOL), deletes the                                                               
JASAP  requirements   for  first-time  offenders,   and  requires                                                               
education  courses  for  first-time  offenders.    These  changes                                                               
originally took the form of amendments adopted on 3/31/01.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0643                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that  there were  no further  objections to                                                               
the adoption  of the  proposed CS  as a  work draft.   Therefore,                                                               
Version L was before the committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0660                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  renewed the motion  to adopt Amendment 1.   There                                                               
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA confirmed  that Amendment 1 creates  a minimum [fine]                                                               
of $200, leaves the maximum [fine]  at $600, and allows the judge                                                               
to suspend between $200 and $600  in order that the defendant pay                                                               
for the alcohol  information safety school, as well  as any JASAP                                                               
fees.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed concern  over the term "treatment" being                                                               
added by Amendment 1.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NOBREGA noted  that another  amendment yet  to be  discussed                                                               
would  add  the  possibility  of requiring  JASAP  treatment  for                                                               
first-time  offenders,  and  paying   for  treatment  is  already                                                               
encompassed in HB 179 under a probation requirement provision.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0776                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG renewed the motion to adopt Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0787                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  objected for  the purpose  of discussion.                                                               
He  asked:   If the  provision for  mandatory payment  were being                                                               
taken  out,  would  it  be  included elsewhere  in  the  form  of                                                               
discretionary language?   He clarified  that he was  referring to                                                               
the first portion of Amendment 2.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  pointed  out   that  the  language  to  be                                                               
substituted  in that  portion  of Amendment  2  still includes  a                                                               
mandatory payment provision should the judge require enrollment.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 903                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted that  there  were  no further  objections.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0912                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG made  reference  to  Amendment 3,  22-LS0564\L.2,                                                               
Ford, 4/5/01, which reads:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 10, following "section":                                                                                  
          Insert ".  The court may require a person                                                                         
     convicted   under  this   subsection  to   comply  with                                                                
     treatment recommended  by a community  diversion panel.                                                                
     In this  subsection, "community diversion  panel" means                                                                
     a  group  approved  for   treatment  of  alcoholism  in                                                                
     persons  under 21  years of  age by  the Department  of                                                                
     Health and Social Services"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said he wanted  to delete  "treatment recommended                                                               
[by]"   and  insert   "[the]  jurisdiction   [of]",  and   delete                                                               
"treatment of  alcoholism [in]"  and insert  "adjudication [of]".                                                               
Thus, the amended version of Amendment 3 reads:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 10, following "section":                                                                                  
          Insert ".  The court may require a person                                                                         
     convicted  under this  subsection  to  comply with  the                                                                
     jurisdiction of  a community diversion panel.   In this                                                                
     subsection, "community  diversion panel" means  a group                                                                
     approved for adjudication of persons  under 21 years of                                                                
     age by the Department of Health and Social Services"                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  explained that the  intention of Amendment  3 was                                                               
to  set up  a  community  diversion panel,  similar  to a  "youth                                                               
court"  or a  small-community restorative-justice  panel; it  was                                                               
not intended to provide treatment.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked who is  going to  pay for it  and how                                                               
much it is going to cost.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0975                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG responded  that  it was  his  intention that  the                                                               
individual offender would pay the cost.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES clarified  that  she was  referring to  the                                                               
community diversion panel; that there must be some cost to that.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it depends.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  responded,  "It  depends;  ...  there  certainly                                                               
should  be no  fiscal note  attached  to it  in this  bill."   He                                                               
explained that  the intent was  to try  and broaden the  scope of                                                               
the judiciary.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES said  she  understood  that [concept],  but                                                               
countered  that  every time  the  scope  is broadened,  it  costs                                                               
money.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  inquired if Representative James  wanted to amend                                                               
that provision so that it would be self-supporting.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said she did  not want  to do so;  she only                                                               
wanted  to  know,  for  the  record,  what  [the  creation  of  a                                                               
community diversion panel] would do  to the cost, because she had                                                               
no  idea  and  there  was  not any  definition  of  [a  community                                                               
diversion panel].   It was simply  a title of something  that was                                                               
not listed anywhere else.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1031                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 [as amended].                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it  seemed Amendment 3 would reduce                                                               
the  overall  burden  on  the   court  system,  and  would  allow                                                               
alternative  sentencing through  community programs.   He  noted,                                                               
for example,  that the  youth court  is primarily  funded through                                                               
other means,  and most  restorative justice is  done in  a manner                                                               
similar  to   community  patrols;  [Amendment  3]   would  reduce                                                               
government burden and allow for more citizen participation.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  confirmed  that   it  was  his  intention  [with                                                               
Amendment 3] to reduce the court  system's burden.  He noted that                                                               
any formal [community diversion panel]  approved in the future by                                                               
the  [Department  of  Health  and  Social  Services  (DHSS)],  is                                                               
already addressed in Amendment 3.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said her concern  centered around  the fact                                                               
that if  there is never  a community diversion panel,  this whole                                                               
section wouldn't do anything.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there  already are [community diversion                                                               
panels].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1120                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BUTTCANE,  Legislative & Administrative  Liaison, Division                                                               
of  Juvenile  Justice, Department  of  Health  & Social  Services                                                               
(DHSS),  explained that  "community  diversion panel"  is a  term                                                               
[the DHSS]  is trying to  incorporate into its process.   Current                                                               
statute  has  a  section,  under the  delinquency  chapter,  that                                                               
relates  specifically to  youth courts.   But  as [the  DHSS] has                                                               
developed other types  of panels around the state  such as elders                                                               
courts  and  community  diversion  panels, [the  DHSS]  has  been                                                               
trying to  use a  more inclusive  term for  the concept  that was                                                               
developed as a youth court.   Thus community diversion panels are                                                               
part  of the  delinquency process;  they are  part of  the scheme                                                               
that relates to the diversion  of young offenders from the formal                                                               
court process into community response processes.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE  said to his  knowledge, [the DHSS] has  not applied                                                               
[community   diversion  panels]   to  persons   outside  of   the                                                               
delinquency  system;  therefore,  all references  in  statute  to                                                               
community  diversion panels  relate  to  offenses committed  [by]                                                               
delinquents, and  [community diversion  panels] are  the informal                                                               
programs.   He added that  conceptually, [the DHSS]  supports the                                                               
idea [of Amendment 3], but has some problems with the wording.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether  the term "community diversion                                                               
panel" is used elsewhere in statute or regulations.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BUTTCANE  responded  that  the  term  is  not  elsewhere  in                                                               
statute.  Only the term "youth  court" is used in statute, but as                                                               
[the DHSS]  negotiates with community  groups, [the  DHSS] favors                                                               
the language of ["community diversion  panel"], which will appear                                                               
in individual negotiated  agreements.  Thus the  elder's court in                                                               
Togiak, for  instance, is  referred to  as a  community diversion                                                               
panel.  He added that it is a commonly used term.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that for  her, that was  the problem:                                                               
"community  diversion panel"  is  in Amendment  3 in  quotations,                                                               
even though the term has not  yet been defined.  She offered that                                                               
every  statute  should  have  the benefit  of  having  its  terms                                                               
defined.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1268                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG argued that there  are two safeguards:  First, the                                                               
court has  to make the decision  on whether to make  the referral                                                               
[to a  community diversion  panel].   And second,  the [community                                                               
diversion panel]  has to  be approved  by the  [DHSS].   He added                                                               
that although he, too, preferred  to have definitions included in                                                               
statute,  he recognized  that the  area  of [community  diversion                                                               
panels] seemed to be growing.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  commented that she  was not opposed  to the                                                               
concept,  just that  she  had concerns  over  the language  being                                                               
inserted.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1338                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  agreed  to  review   the  specific  language  of                                                               
[community diversion panel] further as  the bill goes through the                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG  noted   there  were   no  further   objections.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1366                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  4,                                                               
which reads:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     (b) Upon probable  cause of a violation of  (a) of this                                                                    
     section  by  a  person  who  has  not  been  previously                                                                    
     convicted of  such violation  or previously  subject to                                                                    
     an  order under  this  section, a  peace officer  shall                                                                    
     apply to  the district court for  an injunction against                                                                    
     the person.  Such  injunction shall restrain the person                                                                    
     from violating section (a) and may                                                                                         
     (1) order the subject to  participate in or comply with                                                                    
     the treatment plan of a rehabilitation program;                                                                            
     (2)  prohibit  the   subject  from  consuming  alcohol,                                                                    
     inhalants, or intoxicating substances;                                                                                     
     (3)  prohibit the  subject from  driving  or seeking  a                                                                    
     driver's license;                                                                                                          
     (4) order the subject to pay court costs.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     (c)  Violation of  this order  may be  punishable by  a                                                                    
     fine of [$]1,000 and 40 hours of community work.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1375                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  objected.    He asked  what  portion  of                                                               
Version L Amendment 4 addresses.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ   explained  that  Amendment   4  would                                                               
replace Sections 1  and 2; although it is more  applicable to the                                                               
original version  of HB 179,  he didn't  have [Version L]  in his                                                               
possession at the  time of drafting it.   He went on  to say that                                                               
the bill has a scheme whereby  at the first offense, a person has                                                               
a violation; at the second offense,  a person is guilty of repeat                                                               
minor consuming, and at that  point, real penalties are incurred.                                                               
On the  first offense (when  the offender has slipped  "under the                                                               
radar  screen"), there  are no  costs  involved; and  on a  third                                                               
offense, there are additional penalties imposed.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said he fundamentally thinks  that is a                                                               
flawed scheme.   Trying to get  under the radar screen  the first                                                               
time would work  if everyone were just a  first-time offender; in                                                               
using the first offense to  create the second and third offenses,                                                               
however, the  penalties of the  second and third  offenses depend                                                               
on  the conviction  of  the  first offense.    And  if the  first                                                               
offense  conviction   can  be  attacked  because   there  was  no                                                               
attorney,  or if  some other  doubt can  be cast  on "how  good a                                                               
conviction   it   was,"  then   there   is   the  potential   for                                                               
constitutional problems  with the "habitual minor  consuming" and                                                               
other penalties.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1456                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  offered that with Amendment  4, instead                                                               
of having  a first offense  thought of  the way it  currently is,                                                               
when an  offender is caught for  the first time, he/she  is taken                                                               
to the  judge/magistrate, who  then places  the offender  under a                                                               
court order.   Clearly, such  an order  - in addition  to perhaps                                                               
including some of  the items listed in [Version L]  - should tell                                                               
the minor  he/she could not drink  again.  Also, the  court would                                                               
have   the  discretion   to   order   participation  in   alcohol                                                               
information  safety  courses,  restrict driving  privileges,  and                                                               
require payment  of court costs.   And while these items  may not                                                               
normally be  considered "penalties,"  there are  costs associated                                                               
with them.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  continued.    In this  way,  he  said,                                                               
because there would  not be any criminal charge,  there would not                                                               
be any requirement for an attorney  to become involved.  It would                                                               
be  a civil  order, similar  to a  domestic violence  restraining                                                               
order.   If a  person commits  a second  offense, not  only would                                                               
he/she enter into the  minor-in-possession criminal world, he/she                                                               
would also  be in  violation of  the order  imposed on  the first                                                               
offense, and  thus be subject to  the penalties of $1,000  and 40                                                               
hours of  community work service.   Representative Berkowitz said                                                               
he was  trying to get around  the cost problem by  not making the                                                               
first offense criminal, but civil.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1599                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  inquired if the idea  was that there would  be no                                                               
fine or punishment unless there was a violation of the order.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  responded that  there would be  no fine                                                               
in the sense of  what is normally thought of as  a fine; it would                                                               
not show  up [as such].   But the court can  order the individual                                                               
to pay court costs.   If someone is 16, he  posited that it would                                                               
not make  much difference to that  person if he/she had  to pay a                                                               
$200 fine or pay $200 in court  costs.  "The message of having to                                                               
shell something  out for something  you did should be  there," he                                                               
said.   Also,  the  provisions  [of Amendment  4]  would have  an                                                               
immediate impact;  one of  the problems  with criminal  cases, he                                                               
added, was that the offense occurs  but then it is a while before                                                               
anything happens.   In contrast,  a court order goes  into effect                                                               
right away.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG responded  that he would be  more comfortable with                                                               
that  theory  if   the  fines  and  suspensions   and  the  "EIS"                                                               
educational school  were mandated.   He inquired, "Can we  have a                                                               
violation and a fine, as well  as a requirement to attend school,                                                               
and still make this work?"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said,  "No.  You can't  have a violation                                                               
and make it work with the first offense."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked whether Representative  Berkowitz believed,                                                               
from a  constitutional standpoint,  that [the  solution presented                                                               
by Amendment 4] would hold up better.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ answered  that he  thought it  was more                                                               
palatable, and although subject to  some criticism, it would draw                                                               
less criticism from a constitutional standpoint.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said  he thought if there were an  attempt to have                                                               
a   "look-back"  at   previous  convictions   -  which,   to  his                                                               
understanding, HB 179 did not have - it "wipes the slate clean."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ countered  that this  did not  wipe the                                                               
slate clean.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1699                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEAN  J.   GUANELI,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Legal                                                               
Services  Section-Juneau, Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law                                                               
(DOL), said he appreciated  Representative Berkowitz's efforts to                                                               
craft a  solution to  the problem -  stemming from  supreme court                                                               
case law  - of not being  able to base  a later crime on  a prior                                                               
offense in  which the defendant did  not have a right  to counsel                                                               
or to a jury  trial.  [The DOL] does not want  to provide a right                                                               
to  counsel or  a jury  trial for  first-offense minor  consuming                                                               
because of costs.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said the solutions  posed by Representative Berkowitz                                                               
[via Amendment  4] and the  proposed CS  are similar in  that, as                                                               
part of some proceeding, the offender  is put under a court order                                                               
and  a violation  of that  order  triggers additional  penalties.                                                               
With  Version L,  it is  a criminal  proceeding for  a violation;                                                               
with  Amendment 4,  it is  a  civil proceeding  of a  restraining                                                               
order.  He believes both  solutions are effective ways of dealing                                                               
with the aforementioned supreme court case law, he said.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI added, however, that  he thought the solution offered                                                               
by Version  L would be more  favorable to the courts  because the                                                               
decision, in  terms of a  criminal [proceeding] for  a violation,                                                               
will be based  on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.   By contrast,                                                               
a decision  in terms of a  civil [proceeding] for of  a violation                                                               
of a restraining order will be  based on proof by a preponderance                                                               
of the evidence.   The latter, a civil standard,  is a much lower                                                               
standard.   Thus if courts  have to make later  decisions because                                                               
of  [repeat  offenses], they  would  be  more comfortable  basing                                                               
those  decisions  on [the  higher  standard  of] proof  beyond  a                                                               
reasonable doubt.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1812                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI noted  that another  problem the  civil standard  of                                                               
proof raises is that it is  much more likely that minors would be                                                               
subjected to  a protective  order.   For example,  if there  is a                                                               
party, the police  arrive, and the kids scatter,  then the police                                                               
would not have  to prove beyond a reasonable doubt  that the kids                                                               
were drinking; they would just need  to find out the names of the                                                               
kids  and prove  by a  preponderance of  the evidence  - such  as                                                               
running away  from the  party -  that they  were guilty  of minor                                                               
consuming.    He   suggested  the  frequency  of   the  kinds  of                                                               
complaints  that arise  now with  the  minor-consuming law  would                                                               
increase under a civil standard [as posed by Amendment 4].                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI  referred to  the  point  raised by  Chair  Rokeberg                                                               
regarding an  inability to impose  a fine in a  civil restraining                                                               
order context.  He said he  thought it was an important aspect to                                                               
have an  amount of  money suspended that  the minor  knows he/she                                                               
will  have to  pay if  he/she does  not comply  with the  court's                                                               
conditions.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG surmised  from Mr.  Guaneli's testimony  that the                                                               
administration did not support Amendment 4.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked, "Anything  we work on is going                                                               
to butt us up against that problem  of trying to not pay for some                                                               
constitutional protections or  right to counsel."   He added that                                                               
what he was  trying to do [with  Amendment 4] was to  say that it                                                               
is not  criminal problem  the first  time around;  it is  a civil                                                               
problem.   He suggested  that the flaw  of not  providing counsel                                                               
was  present  in  [Version  L]   as  well,  because  those  later                                                               
convictions  are  dependent  on the  earlier  convictions,  which                                                               
under [Version L] would be done without benefit of counsel.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested the legislature  needs to set the policy                                                               
in such a  way that the courts recognize  that certain restraints                                                               
need to  be put on the  administration of justice.   For a first-                                                               
time offense  to mandate counsel  and incur the whole  panoply of                                                               
the judicial system  is not well-founded.  He added  that in this                                                               
day and  age of  high costs, increasing  efficiencies have  to be                                                               
kept in mind.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that  "we keep telling people that                                                               
our rights are priceless."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1987                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG responded,  "Their rights  are priceless;  that's                                                               
why  a judge  is making  this decision.   They'll  be before  the                                                               
bench."   He noted  that there had  been previous  testimony that                                                               
said  a district  court  jury trial  would be  1  percent or  3.7                                                               
percent,  depending  on which  study  is  referenced.   He  asked                                                               
whether that  was worth the  protections offered by a  jury trial                                                               
for a first  offense.  He answered  that it seemed to  him to not                                                               
be warranted in terms of the administration of justice.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  added that the [expense  of the] jury trial  was one                                                               
thing,  but he  thought  that the  Public  Defender Agency  (PDA)                                                               
constituted the  much bigger expense.   He explained that  a wide                                                               
range of offenses  under Alaska law subject someone  to fines but                                                               
don't  carry a  right to  a  jury trial  or a  right to  counsel.                                                               
Examples are speeding,  which has a potential  $300 fine; running                                                               
a  red  light; any  number  of  driving offenses;  possession  of                                                               
alcohol in  a local-option  area, which can  have a  $1,000 fine;                                                               
and  commercial  fishing  violations,  with  fines  ranging  much                                                               
higher than $1,000.  Alaska law  has a number of precedents where                                                               
fines have been imposed without  carrying a right to counsel/jury                                                               
trial; therefore, it  is a matter of determining  what rights are                                                               
at stake and what social stigma is attached.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  said he does  not believe minor consuming,  at least                                                               
for  the  first  offense,  carries the  social  stigma  of  being                                                               
labeled a criminal.   He noted that the  legislature determined a                                                               
number of years  ago to decriminalize minor  consuming.  Although                                                               
"we're" taking  a step away from  that because of the  problem of                                                               
minors  who  habitually  consume  alcohol, Mr.  Guaneli  said  he                                                               
thinks the  record is clear  that the legislature does  not label                                                               
that  a crime;  thus  it does  not  carry with  it  the right  to                                                               
counsel or a jury trial.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2087                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said  "we" issue  points  for  traffic                                                               
violations, and  if a  certain number  of points  are aggregated,                                                               
then  the license  is lost.   He  asked whether  there are  other                                                               
penalties [imposed] if there are too many points.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI responded  that loss of license is the  only one.  It                                                               
carries  with it  some mandatory  insurance  requirements and  so                                                               
forth, he added.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked why  [the committee]  couldn't do                                                               
some  kind  of  "point  scheme"  for  minors  in  possession  [of                                                               
alcohol].                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  replied that  there are  probably a  lot of  ways to                                                               
address problems,  and in  the point system  context there  is an                                                               
administrative  process  that  leads   to  the  revocation  of  a                                                               
license.   The  reason  no  jury trial  or  right  to counsel  is                                                               
associated  with  it  is  because there  is  a  clear  connection                                                               
between  the  driving  violations  -  and  the  points  that  one                                                               
assesses - and  one's fitness to drive; therefore,  the state has                                                               
a right to take one's license.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI  said what  isn't  present  in the  minor  consuming                                                               
situation, and  isn't present  in most  instances, is  that nexus                                                               
between simply  drinking and  driving.  While  a scheme  could be                                                               
conceived whereby  points could be  assessed, there still  has to                                                               
be a  connection made  to driving,  in order  to take  a license,                                                               
unless there is a right to a jury trial and a right to counsel.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI said  it is  a  subject worth  discussing, but  this                                                               
problem needs to be fixed now.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2175                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES remarked  that she'd  said almost  the same                                                               
thing when [the legislature] passed the "Use It, Lose It" law.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment [4].                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked  Mr. Lindstrom whether he'd had  a chance to                                                               
look  at  [Amendment   1].    He  asked   if  that  discretionary                                                               
"treatment" [language] should be left  in or removed, and whether                                                               
Mr. Lindstrom was going to add a fiscal note to it.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2214                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ELMER LINDSTROM,  Special Assistant, Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Department  of  Health and  Social  Services,  replied that  [the                                                               
department]  didn't  object  to  the  amendment,  and  it  hadn't                                                               
occurred to him  that this might "drive" a fiscal  note.  He said                                                               
there are no added costs.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that [HB 179]  would be held over.   He                                                               
asked Mr. Guaneli  and Mr. Buttcane to work on  it, and indicated                                                               
he would be working on it as well.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL asked  about the  possibility of  getting                                                               
the (JASAP) up and running by June 1.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  commented that  he  has  another amendment  that                                                               
limits the JASAP program to a pilot area.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2273                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LINDSTROM said [the department]  assumed JASAP programs would                                                               
be  "rolling  out" in  six  to  eight  communities based  on  the                                                               
requested  funding, both  in the  budget and  on the  fiscal note                                                               
before  the  committee.    The communities  not  listed  in  this                                                               
amendment include Juneau, the  Matanuska-Susitna area, Kenai, and                                                               
maybe Bethel and  Dillingham.  He said "we" would  still like the                                                               
flexibility to  get in as  many communities as possible  with the                                                               
existing resources.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. LINDSTROM  noted that previously,  the committee had  a truly                                                               
"pilot project" bill, the therapeutic  court bill, which is doing                                                               
something  new and  has  an evaluation  component  and so  forth.                                                               
Frankly, he said,  the JASAP program is new  technology.  "We've"                                                               
had  the alcohol  safety action  program running  successfully in                                                               
many communities for  a number of years; the courts  love it, and                                                               
wish there were more, in different places.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LINDSTROM explained  that the  JASAP program  is essentially                                                               
the same  technology, and Fairbanks  already had  some experience                                                               
with it.   He  said, "It  will work.   It does  work. ...  So the                                                               
notion of a  sunset or ... treating these as  a pilot project ...                                                               
doesn't make  a lot of sense  to us.  It  has proven technology."                                                               
[The department]  would hope  to have as  much flexibility  to go                                                               
into  as   many  communities  as  possible   with  the  resources                                                               
available.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG stated  that  he was  not  offering an  amendment                                                               
because   Anchorage  was   incorrectly   added,   which  was   an                                                               
[unintended mistake].                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES said  she thought  she heard  Mr. Lindstrom                                                               
say he  has enough money  to do what he  wants, and she  asked if                                                               
[the committee] wants him to do that much or not.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that  this is a question for                                                               
the House Finance Committee.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2360                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  announced  that  HB  179  would  be  held  over,                                                               
awaiting an amendment tomorrow.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SB 105 - VICTIMS' RIGHTS/ PRISONER'S PFD                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion of HB 133 and HB 134]                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO.  105(FIN), "An Act relating to victims'                                                               
rights; relating  to establishing  an office of  victims' rights;                                                               
relating to the  authority of litigants and the  court to comment                                                               
on the crime  victim's choice to appear or testify  in a criminal                                                               
case;  relating to  compensation  of victims  of violent  crimes;                                                               
relating  to  eligibility  for  a  permanent  fund  dividend  for                                                               
persons  convicted  of  and incarcerated  for  certain  offenses;                                                               
relating to notice of  appropriations concerning victims' rights;                                                               
amending Rules  16 and  30, Alaska  Rules of  Criminal Procedure,                                                               
Rule 9, Alaska  Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501,  Alaska Rules of                                                               
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2384                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JULI LUCKY, Staff to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State                                                                         
Legislature, came forth to present SB 105 on behalf of Senator                                                                  
Halford, sponsor.  She stated:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     The  sponsor sees  this as  a practical  application of                                                                    
     the   Victims'   Rights   Amendment   to   the   Alaska                                                                    
     Constitution,  which was  ratified by  popular vote  in                                                                    
     1994 by over  86 percent of the voters.  ... [With] the                                                                    
     amendment  to  the   constitution,  victims  also  have                                                                    
     certain rights in statute.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     We feel  that this  will be setting  up an  office that                                                                    
     will  ensure that  these victims  of violent  crime are                                                                    
     aware of their rights, and  also will advocate on their                                                                    
     behalf in the  court system.  [A prior  version of] the                                                                    
     bill did  pass unanimously  ... and  was vetoed  by the                                                                    
     governor  last year.   We're  hoping to  not be  vetoed                                                                    
     this year.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY explained the changes between last year's House                                                                       
Judiciary Standing Committee version and the current version:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     As it  left House Judiciary  last year, it  was located                                                                    
     in  the   legislative  branch.     The  bill   that  we                                                                    
     introduced has it currently  in the legislative branch,                                                                    
     which ...  we believe ...  is better.   As it  left the                                                                    
     House ...  and conference  committee last year,  it was                                                                    
     in the Department of Public  Safety, which there were a                                                                    
     lot of strenuous objections to.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     As  far as  the changes  that are  made in  this year's                                                                    
     bill, there  [were] some changes in  Senate Finance and                                                                    
     on  the Senate  floor regarding  a higher  compensation                                                                    
     cap for victims,  which I believe is Section  2 of this                                                                    
     bill.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     There's  some  added  language requiring  the  victims'                                                                    
     advocate  to contract  for services,  which we  believe                                                                    
     fosters  a  complementary   working  relationship  with                                                                    
     victims' groups, and also  allows the victims' advocate                                                                    
     to  privatize   where  appropriate.    We   added  some                                                                    
     language allowing grants to nonprofit victims' groups.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     As  you   may  be  aware,  the   funding  mechanism  is                                                                    
     forfeited   permanent   fund  dividends   from   repeat                                                                    
     criminals.   It  is  anticipated [that]  there will  be                                                                    
     money  to  pay for  the  office  and [have]  additional                                                                    
     funds.   What we  did was we  added grants  directly to                                                                    
     nonprofit victims'  groups as another allowable  use of                                                                    
     these funds that would be generated.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     There  was an  amendment offered  in Senate  Finance by                                                                    
     Senator  Donley  regarding  victims'  choosing  not  to                                                                    
     testify  or  appear  at  court, and  there  is  also  a                                                                    
     proposed  amendment ...  to ...  reword that  language.                                                                    
     ...                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-61, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2483                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY continued explaining:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     ...  We  feel  the   victims  go  through  a  traumatic                                                                    
     experience; some  of them  may not  be able  to testify                                                                    
     based on fears  or other problems that  they have after                                                                    
     the  commission of  the crime.  ... Therefore,  ... the                                                                    
     statement shouldn't  be made, "Well, the  victim didn't                                                                    
     care  enough   to  come  to   court  to   testify  and,                                                                    
     therefore,  we believe  that the  perpetrator shouldn't                                                                    
     be sentenced to this amount of the crime." ...                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Senator  Donley, after  offering  the amendment,  spoke                                                                    
     with the Department of Law  and came up with some other                                                                    
     language;  they felt  it was  more  appropriate to  put                                                                    
     this  into the  sentencing  section as  opposed to  the                                                                    
     victims' rights section of statute.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether that amendment is [22-LS0219\J.1,                                                                  
Luckhaupt, 3/26/01], and whether the sponsor approves of it.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY answered in the affirmative.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2442                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG stated that it has been suggested that [the                                                                      
legislature] is creating a new office and that there already is                                                                 
an existing contract for victims' rights activities.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY remarked that [the sponsor] believes the nonprofit                                                                    
victims' groups as well as the departments have done a good job                                                                 
focusing on the victim.  The  victims' advocate and the Office of                                                               
Victims' Rights provide  an advocate who is trained  in the legal                                                               
system and  has confidentiality and  standing to be able  to find                                                               
out what's  going on,  whereas a  nonprofit victims'  group might                                                               
not.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LUCKY told  members  there is  also  the ombudsman  function                                                               
through  which if  someone  feels  his/her constitutional  rights                                                               
have been  violated, he/she  will have  recourse.   Victims could                                                               
say,  "We'd  like you  to  investigate  this and  recommend  some                                                               
systemic changes."  The ombudsman's  office would then be able to                                                               
make a  report, the justice  agency involved in the  report would                                                               
be able  to review the report,  and then those findings  could be                                                               
made public.   Ms.  Lucky said experiences  in other  states show                                                               
that being able  to have this conversation, have  the report, and                                                               
come up with  recommendations makes the state  more responsive to                                                               
the victims.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked Ms.  Lucky whether this  office would                                                               
be established under the legislature.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY concurred.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES   asked   whether  it   would   have   any                                                               
relationship to the ombudsman's office.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY responded  that the statutes almost  mirror [those for]                                                               
the ombudsman's office, but it would  be a separate entity.  This                                                               
would deal specifically with violations  of crime victims' rights                                                               
and justice agencies.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that she  finds the purpose of this                                                               
very different  from the ombudsman's  office, and it is  hard for                                                               
her  to   see  a  relationship   between  this  office   and  the                                                               
legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY explained:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     We  believe that  they are  dealing  with the  victims,                                                                    
     just  like they  would  with constituents  and the  ...                                                                    
     public  safety and  justice agencies.  ... Some  of the                                                                    
     comments  we've  heard  since  we  moved  back  in  the                                                                    
     legislature  have been  that ...  people  are having  a                                                                    
     problem, let's  say, with the prosecutor's  office; the                                                                    
     witness  coordinator   isn't  calling  them   back,  or                                                                    
     they're unable to  find out what's going  on with their                                                                    
     case. ...  The courts  will say,  "Well, we're  ... the                                                                    
     impartial body  here, and we'll  need to hear  from the                                                                    
     attorneys   from  the   defense  side   and  then   the                                                                    
     prosecution  side,  and  then we  will  determine  what                                                                    
     needs to be done." ...                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The experience  in other states has  shown that people,                                                                    
     when they  feel like they're  not getting a  fair break                                                                    
     from the  police or  they're not  getting a  fair break                                                                    
     from  the prosecutors  or people  are not  calling them                                                                    
     back,  ...  don't  have  any faith  in  the  fact  that                                                                    
     calling another  branch within  that umbrella  is going                                                                    
     to  give them  any relief.  ... Minnesota  has a  crime                                                                    
     victims' ombudsman's  office, and they have  found that                                                                    
     by  calling this  office, they  feel that  they have  a                                                                    
     neutral third party.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY,  for an example,  referred to  a murder case  cited in                                                               
the bill packets.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2130                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ remarked  that  he  has always  thought                                                               
this was  a bad  idea.   He said he  thinks the  correct approach                                                               
would be  for [the state] to  take the money and  fund the victim                                                               
witness  coordinators and  the district  attorney offices  across                                                               
the state.   Instead, a third party is going  to be injected into                                                               
an adversarial system that is not capable of doing that.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that  nothing in the investigation                                                               
section [of the  bill] precludes the victims'  advocate from, for                                                               
example, subpoenaing the  notes of the prosecutor  or the defense                                                               
attorney.  That  item alone could be incredibly  problematic.  He                                                               
asked how Ms. Lucky anticipates  the impact of trying to subpoena                                                               
those notes,  which could  be something as  simple as  thinking a                                                               
witness is marginal.   Those things, he said,  can be devastating                                                               
if  they  are  widely  disseminated.    There  is  a  reason  why                                                               
privilege  and confidentiality  are  attached to  them.   On  the                                                               
defense side,  he stated, anything  that the defendant  tells his                                                               
or her  attorney is sacrosanct.    There is no  provision in this                                                               
legislation that  would recognize those features  of the criminal                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY responded  that she thinks the wish  is that "throwing"                                                               
money  into  the  witness  coordinator   problem  would  fix  the                                                               
problem;  however,  since  the  witness  coordinator  is  in  the                                                               
prosecutor's  office, people  feel that  continually calling  the                                                               
prosecutor's office is biased.   With regard to policy, Ms. Lucky                                                               
said she  thinks having a  neutral party  that looks out  for the                                                               
rights of the victims is the correct way to go.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  commented that he finds  it ironic that                                                               
[the legislature]  has a  majority that  ostensibly wants  to cut                                                               
the budget  and reduce government  bureaucracy, but is  doing the                                                               
exact opposite with [this legislation].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that SB 105 would be held over.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 133 - RESTITUTION FOR CRIMES OR DELINQUENCY                                                                                
HB 134 - CRIME VICTIMS RTS/CRIMES/PROTECTIVE INJ.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion of SB 105]                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  that next the committee  would hear two                                                               
bills:  HOUSE  BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating  to restitution for                                                               
criminal and  delinquency acts; authorizing the  state to collect                                                               
restitution on  behalf of  victims of  crime and  delinquent acts                                                               
and  the   release  of  certain   information  related   to  that                                                               
collection; relating to the forfeiture  of certain cash and other                                                               
security for payment of other  restitution; relating to access by                                                               
the  Violent   Crimes  Compensation  Board  to   certain  records                                                               
regarding  delinquency acts  to  award  compensation to  victims;                                                               
relating to  immunity for damages related  to certain collections                                                               
of  restitution;   amending  Rule  82,  Alaska   Rules  of  Civil                                                               
Procedure; and providing  for an effective date,"  and HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO. 134,  "An Act relating  to the  rights of crime  victims, the                                                               
crime of  violating a  protective injunction,  mitigating factors                                                               
in sentencing  for an offense,  and the return of  certain seized                                                               
property  to  victims; clarifying  that  a  violation of  certain                                                               
protective  orders is  contempt of  the authority  of the  court;                                                               
expanding the  scope of  the prohibition  of compromise  based on                                                               
civil remedy  of misdemeanor crimes involving  domestic violence;                                                               
providing for protective  relief for victims of  stalking that is                                                               
not domestic  violence and  for the crime  of violating  an order                                                               
for  that relief;  providing for  continuing education  regarding                                                               
domestic  violence for  certain persons  appointed by  the court;                                                               
making  certain conforming  amendments; amending  Rules 65.1  and                                                               
100(a), Alaska Rules  of Civil Procedure; amending  Rules 10, 11,                                                               
13, 16, and  17, Alaska District Court Rules  of Civil Procedure;                                                               
and amending Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1934                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEAN  J.   GUANELI,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Legal                                                               
Services  Section-Juneau, Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law                                                               
(DOL), came forth to  present HB 133 and HB 134.   He stated that                                                               
in  1984  the  Alaska  voters overwhelming  passed  the  Victims'                                                               
Rights Amendment  to the constitution,  but 15 years  earlier, in                                                               
1979,  the Department  of Law  was  already at  the forefront  of                                                               
trying to provide for victims' rights.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI  explained  that  at  that  time,  [the  department]                                                               
applied for  federal grants  that were  available to  provide for                                                               
paralegal assistants in the district  attorneys offices to act as                                                               
assistants for victims and witnesses,  to help guide them through                                                               
the court process,  and to help them to overcome  the trauma that                                                               
comes with testifying  in court proceedings.   [The DOL] provided                                                               
[the  paralegals  and  the   prosecutors]  with  training,  which                                                               
continues today.   Every  year the criminal  division of  the DOL                                                               
puts on a three-day conference  funded by federal funds under the                                                               
Violence Against Women Act.   Training is provided in topics such                                                               
as  domestic   violence,  sexual  assault,  dealing   with  child                                                               
victims, and  cross-cultural communication  with victims.   Also,                                                               
through the federal grant, [the  DOL] has a volunteer coordinator                                                               
whose job  is to  recruit volunteers from  across Alaska  to help                                                               
out  in  the DAs  (district  attorneys)  office, especially  with                                                               
contacting victims.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI went on to say  that [the DOL] has provided brochures                                                               
for  victims  of  domestic  violence,  explaining  what  families                                                               
should  know  about child  sexual  abuse,  sexual assault,  crime                                                               
victims' rights, and personalized  safety plans.  These brochures                                                               
are in English, Yupik, and Inupiat.   He noted that [the DOL] has                                                               
done  this because  it  is the  right  thing to  do.   [The  DOL]                                                               
realized  long ago  that the  reason it  loses criminal  cases is                                                               
that victims and witnesses don't cooperate.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI told  members the  Department  of Corrections  [DOC]                                                               
also  has  recognized that  victims  are  important, and  has  an                                                               
automated  victim-notification  system  that informs  victims  of                                                               
when  offenders  are being  released  from  prison.   Every  pre-                                                               
sentence report filed  in felony cases has a  specific section on                                                               
victim impact.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  reported that the  DOC also has a  victims' services                                                               
unit that  provides training  to all  DOC employees  and provides                                                               
classes  to the  offenders on  victim impacts.   The  Division of                                                               
Juvenile Justice has  changed its focus to an equal  focus on the                                                               
offender and  the victim;  the division  has found  that bringing                                                               
the victim  into the process  of dealing with  juvenile offenders                                                               
is helpful for the juvenile offender  and the victim to bring the                                                               
matter to closure.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1683                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI noted that [the  DOL] also listens to victims through                                                               
the Council  on Domestic Violence  and Sexual Assault as  well as                                                               
the  Network on  Domestic Violence  [and Sexual  Assault].   Last                                                               
fall,  there was  a  victims' roundtable  at  which victims  came                                                               
together and  told [the  department] about  some of  the problems                                                               
that  they have  been  having.   As  a  result, [the  department]                                                               
discovered that  one of  the primary  problems [victims]  have is                                                               
collecting  restitution.     House  Bill  133   provides  a  more                                                               
effective way of collecting restitution for victims.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI stated that the DOC  has put on a number of community                                                               
justice forums  on crime and  victimization.  [The  Department of                                                               
Law] has  also heard from victims  of theft that when  the stolen                                                               
property is  pawned, they have  a difficult time getting  it back                                                               
from  pawnshops.     Part  of  HB  134,   therefore,  provides  a                                                               
streamlined  method   for  establishing  their  claims   to  that                                                               
property.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI reported  that [the department] has  also listened to                                                               
victims  who have  said it  is great  to have  restraining orders                                                               
against domestic violence,  but there is a real gap  in the law -                                                               
there is no  easy way to get a restraining  order against someone                                                               
who is stalking  them.  Providing a protective  order that guards                                                               
against stalking as well as domestic violence is part of HB 134.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  noted that  these bills  are long  and appear  to be                                                               
complex,  but  [the  DOL]  has  a great  deal  of  experience  in                                                               
collecting  fines and  judgments in  favor of  the state.   House                                                               
Bill 133 directs those same efforts  to the civil division of the                                                               
DOL and puts  that unit to work collecting  restitution on behalf                                                               
of victims.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI explained  that HB 134 does a number  of things, some                                                               
of  which were  enacted last  year.   This year's  bill adds  the                                                               
restraining order  for victims of  stalking, and it  provides for                                                               
additional remedies  involving contempt  of court  for violations                                                               
of protective  orders where there  is no effective  remedy today.                                                               
All of the  provisions are ones that victims  and victims' groups                                                               
have said  they need.   Although  it is late  in the  session, he                                                               
said, it is important to  the administration and the victims that                                                               
HB 133 and HB 134 be enacted this year.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1467                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI explained that combining  these two bills with SB 105                                                               
will  create a  mechanism for  getting these  bills enacted  this                                                               
year and  for having a  comprehensive victims' package.   Through                                                               
some  informal  discussions  with Senator  Halford's  office,  he                                                               
said, he believes  the Senator would consider this.   He believes                                                               
it  is a  win-win  situation -  a win  for  those in  legislative                                                               
leadership positions, and a win for  victims - if all three bills                                                               
can get passed.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said  he believes SB 105  contains enough protections                                                               
against potential  abuses for  [the DOL]  to be  comfortable with                                                               
it.  He added  that in some cases it is  important for victims to                                                               
have a  neutral advocate  - someone  outside of  the prosecutor's                                                               
office.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  remarked that he is  not alarmed by the  notion that                                                               
there might  be a legislative-branch employee  investigating [the                                                               
DOL's] activities.   In addition to reports  that might criticize                                                               
some  agencies, there  ought  to be  reports  that indicate  when                                                               
agencies are doing a good job.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI noted  that  the  lead-in to  the  title  of SB  105                                                               
indicates it is  an Act relating to victims' rights.   He said he                                                               
thinks victims'  rights is precisely what  HB 134 is.   Under the                                                               
constitutional provision relating to  victims' rights, one of the                                                               
primary  victims'  rights is  the  right  to receive  restitution                                                               
[from] the  offender.  The  only effective way  to do that  is to                                                               
provide  a mechanism  in the  DOL using  its existing  collection                                                               
unit.   In  conclusion, he  stated  that he  thinks the  language                                                               
related to victims'  rights is broad enough to  encompass both of                                                               
the governor's bills [HB 133 and HB 134].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1223                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr.  Guaneli whether he would take                                                               
a look  at protections that  could be  added to SB  105 regarding                                                               
work product and attorney-client [privilege].                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  responded that he would  be happy to take  a look at                                                               
that.   He noted  that the current  ombudsman bill  also provides                                                               
broad subpoena power  for the ombudsman.  In  the past, ombudsmen                                                               
have  done limited  investigations of  the prosecutors'  offices.                                                               
Further, he noted  that he doesn't believe there has  ever been a                                                               
situation in which the ombudsman wanted any kind of confidential                                                                
prosecutor's notes.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1163                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CINDY CASHEN, Juneau Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving                                                                     
(MADD), came forth in support of HB 133.  She stated:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The   MADD  Juneau   Chapter   strongly  supports   the                                                                    
     governor's  victim  rights  package.    MADD's  mission                                                                    
     statement includes aiding the  victim of drunk driving.                                                                    
     This bill is  directly aimed at dealing  with the drunk                                                                    
     driving victims, and unless you  have ever lost someone                                                                    
     to drunk driving, you have  no idea how vital this bill                                                                    
     is to us.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     When my dad was killed,  our minds and bodies went into                                                                    
     shock.   Unfortunately, we faced  before us  a mountain                                                                    
     of paperwork. ... Writing a  check for the urn, signing                                                                    
     permission  for organ  donation, rewriting  the will  -                                                                    
     these are  just a few  of the  personal ones we  had to                                                                    
     deal with.  We also had  to learn how the system worked                                                                    
     in [terms]  of my mother's  future.  We  were fortunate                                                                    
     in that Dad was  wise in his decision-making concerning                                                                    
     his  possible early  demise, but  many others  have not                                                                    
     been as  fortunate as  us.  But  even though  my father                                                                    
     acted in such  a manner, it took weeks  and even months                                                                    
     to  sort through  the paperwork,  and even  now, almost                                                                    
     one year later, there is still some to be dealt with.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Victims don't  just get to  grieve and mourn.   We have                                                                    
     to carry  on with our  lives, ... much as  we sometimes                                                                    
     wish not.  Sometimes it is all  we can do to get out of                                                                    
     bed and get dressed.   At times, to have the resources,                                                                    
     the energy, [and] the capability  to focus on financial                                                                    
     matters is simply not possible.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     It is common  for the victim's brain to be  in a frozen                                                                    
     state of shock, one which  can last for several months,                                                                    
     even as long  as a year.   I can tell you  that that is                                                                    
     what is  happening to me.  ... It is during  this time,                                                                    
     however,  that decisions  need  to  be made  concerning                                                                    
     financial restitution.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     So,  how   can  a  victim   deal  with  such   a  huge,                                                                    
     complicated subject  when merely  remembering someone's                                                                    
     name is impossible?  This  bill would eliminate or take                                                                    
     away much of the stressful  work from the victim.  This                                                                    
     package  would  allow  the victims  to  concentrate  on                                                                    
     healing.   It was  very frustrating watching  my mother                                                                    
     try to get  on with her life and at  the same time deal                                                                    
     with paperwork. ...  This package is a good  thing.  It                                                                    
     shows the  State of Alaska  will care for  its victims.                                                                    
     Our  chapter  urges  this  committee  to  support  this                                                                    
     package.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0975                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CASHEN further described her personal situation:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     When my dad  was killed, we were fortunate  in that our                                                                    
     drunk driver didn't fight back.   He showed remorse and                                                                    
     he dealt  with it.   We  were the  minority.   But what                                                                    
     happened was, we  still had to go  through the process,                                                                    
     ... and  it was extremely frustrating  trying to figure                                                                    
     why it took  so long, for instance, to arrest  him.  It                                                                    
     took  weeks  to arrest  him,  and  it drove  my  mother                                                                    
     crazy. ...                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     But  ...   we  were   fortunate  ...  [to   have]  this                                                                    
     particular woman - she was  a victims' advocate, but it                                                                    
     was not her  job to do what  she did.  What  she did is                                                                    
     what  is  written  in  this  bill:  ...  she  saved  my                                                                    
     mother's  life.   She became  the  go-between, and  she                                                                    
     explained  to my  mother what  was going  on.   And for                                                                    
     some  reason  ...  when  she   said,  "This  is  what's                                                                    
     happening, this is what the  police officers are doing,                                                                    
     this is what the prosecutor  is doing, this is what the                                                                    
     defender  is  doing, and  so  forth,"  ... it  was  all                                                                    
     right.   When my mother had  to wait for four  days for                                                                    
     the prosecutor to  return a call because  he's so over-                                                                    
     worked and he  has so many other cases that  he did the                                                                    
     best  he could,  ... she  needed the  answers now.  ...                                                                    
     This  office would  be able  to do  that.   This office                                                                    
     would care for the victim.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0827                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence                                                                   
and Sexual Assault, came forth and stated:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     We  are  in   a  time  right  now   where  we're  being                                                                    
     challenged  on  the  seriousness  with  which  we  take                                                                    
     sexual assault,  for example.  The  9th [Circuit] Court                                                                    
     of Appeals  has struck  down part  of our  sex offender                                                                    
     registration  system.   And looking  at their  thinking                                                                    
     behind that  process, and seeing  that ... some  of the                                                                    
     things that  we considered when we  were testifying for                                                                    
     the  legislation  to  help protect  the  public  safety                                                                    
     [were]   seen   as   overbroad   or   too   harsh,   is                                                                    
     disheartening.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     We've recently  had a  case in  Alaska in  a sentencing                                                                    
     for a sexual  assault in the second degree,  which is a                                                                    
     class B felony, in which  the judge was making comments                                                                    
     about not needing to listen  to a victim in the context                                                                    
     of a pre-sentence report or  at a sentencing because he                                                                    
     had  heard her  at trial  and what  really more  did he                                                                    
     have  to learn?    And on  Sunday in  Juneau  we had  a                                                                    
     hostage  situation  where  a  perpetrator  of  domestic                                                                    
     violence  went  into  a  church with  a  gun  and  held                                                                    
     hostage his victim.   In having all  of those instances                                                                    
     coming  together  at  the same  time  when  we're  also                                                                    
     looking at ways to help  the system help victims and be                                                                    
     responsive to what  victims are saying as  to what they                                                                    
     need, is a very important nexus.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Mr.  Guaneli  spoke  about   the  roundtable  that  the                                                                    
     victims and  victim service providers  had back  in the                                                                    
     fall where  restitution kept coming  up as  a forefront                                                                    
     effort  -  that if  we  could  get restitution  to  the                                                                    
     victims ... it would be  one of the most helpful things                                                                    
     that  could  happen.   They  could  pay some  of  their                                                                    
     bills; they could have a  sense of justice.  They don't                                                                    
     always see  that the  perpetrator is  in the  jail, but                                                                    
     they  can  see that  they  have  had that  court  order                                                                    
     probably enforced  and listened to by  having the money                                                                    
     in their  hands. ... And to  do it in such  a way where                                                                    
     the  burden  is  not  on the  victim  to  recover  that                                                                    
     restitution,  which in  many situations  now is  how we                                                                    
     have the system working, ... will be very helpful.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0536                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUGONIN went on to say:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Some of the provisions in  HB [134], we think, are also                                                                    
     very  critical to  assisting victims  in being  able to                                                                    
     feel  more safe  and take  some steps  toward accepting                                                                    
     some justice.   For  violating protective  orders there                                                                    
     are  seven  provisions  where  it  can  be  a  class  A                                                                    
     misdemeanor if you violate that order.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Unfortunately, there seems  to be a need  to have those                                                                    
     provisions violated  more than once before  the case is                                                                    
     in a situation where  it can be successfully prosecuted                                                                    
     at  that  level  of  crime.     Allowing  for  contempt                                                                    
     violations to  be prosecuted, I  think, will be  a more                                                                    
     immediate way to say, "You  can't do that, and here's a                                                                    
     penalty."   In some  studies that  have been  done with                                                                    
     perpetrators of  domestic violence,  it seems  that the                                                                    
     more  quickly you  can say,  "Don't do  that," ...  and                                                                    
     there's a  penalty and  it's immediate,  their behavior                                                                    
     changes. ...                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     I think that  having a way that is easy  for victims of                                                                    
     stalking ... to get  some protection is very important.                                                                    
     I don't think there are a  lot of cases in Alaska where                                                                    
     this would be applicable, but there are some. ...                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     One  of the  provisions that  was in  a bill  last year                                                                    
     that  made it  through the  House and  not through  the                                                                    
     Senate  was to  change the  definitions in  the statute                                                                    
     involving   civil  compromise.     It   has  an   older                                                                    
     definition of domestic violence,  and the suggestion is                                                                    
     to change it to a  crime involving domestic violence so                                                                    
     it would  capture the ...  definition from the  1996 DV                                                                    
     [domestic  violence] Act.    I  think that's  important                                                                    
     because  it  particularly  adds  dating  relationships.                                                                    
     The federal Violence Against Women  Act, too, has added                                                                    
     dating  relationships into  its definition  of domestic                                                                    
     violence.  ... Prior  to 1996,  we did  have people  in                                                                    
     dating  relationships that  were  violent; we  afforded                                                                    
     them the protection  of being able to  get a protective                                                                    
     order.   So we think  it makes sense in  this situation                                                                    
     to have them excluded from that civil compromise.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     A final  section that may not  get a lot of  debate ...                                                                    
     is  a section  that  requires  training for  mediators,                                                                    
     child  custody investigators,  and guardians  ad litem.                                                                    
     ...  There'd  be a  training  that's  sponsored by  the                                                                    
     Council on Domestic Violence and  Sexual Assault, so we                                                                    
     can have some faith in  the accuracy of the information                                                                    
     that  they're  receiving  in its  currentness  and  its                                                                    
     applicability  to  situations  in which  they  will  be                                                                    
     making determinations  that truly  affect the  lives of                                                                    
     the families that are involved.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     We  hope for  your  thoughtful  consideration of  these                                                                    
     bills.  If  the way to get them through  is to put them                                                                    
     in Senate Bill 105, then  we hope that's something that                                                                    
     you're able to work out,  that you would consider being                                                                    
     cosponsors of  the legislation, and  that you  would do                                                                    
     what you could to ensure its passage this session.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0214                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 133 and HB 134 would be held                                                                   
over.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0188                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects