Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/27/2017 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 30 Minutes Following Session --
+= HB 123 DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH CARE COSTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 42 FORFEITURE & SEIZURE: PROCEDURE; LIMITS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         March 27, 2017                                                                                         
                           1:21 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 123                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to disclosure of health care services and price                                                                
information; and providing for an effective date."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 42                                                                                                               
"An Act relating  to seizure of property;  relating to forfeiture                                                               
to the state; relating to criminal  law; amending Rules 3, 4, 11,                                                               
12,  16, 32,  32.2,  32.3,  39, 39.1,  and  42,  Alaska Rules  of                                                               
Criminal  Procedure, Rules  501, 801,  and 803,  Alaska Rules  of                                                               
Evidence, and Rules 202, 209,  and 217, Alaska Rules of Appellate                                                               
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 123                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH CARE COSTS                                                                                    
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
02/13/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/13/17       (H)       HSS, JUD                                                                                               
03/02/17       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/02/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/02/17       (H)       MINUTE (HSS)                                                                                           
03/09/17       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/09/17       (H)       Moved CSHB 123(HSS) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/09/17       (H)       MINUTE (HSS)                                                                                           
03/10/17       (H)       HSS RPT CS (HSS) 5DP 2NR                                                                               
03/10/17       (H)       DP: JOHNSTON, TARR, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-                                                                  
                         LEONARD, SPOHNHOLZ                                                                                     
03/10/17       (H)       NR: KITO, EASTMAN                                                                                      
03/24/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/24/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/24/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/27/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 42                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE & SEIZURE: PROCEDURE; LIMITS                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17                                                                               
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/23/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/23/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/23/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/01/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/01/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/01/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/13/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/13/17       (H)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
03/22/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/22/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/22/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/27/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 123, presented a                                                                
recap on the legislation, and answered questions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA BARNES, Staff                                                                                                           
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of HB  42,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director                                                                                                         
Legal Services Section                                                                                                          
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of HB  42,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney                                                                                                         
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of HB  42,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:21:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to  order at 1:21  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Fansler,                                                               
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Eastman,  and Reinbold were present                                                               
at the call to order.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
             HB 123-DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH CARE COSTS                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:22:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  123, "An  Act relating  to disclosure  of health                                                               
care  services  and  price  information;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:23:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE IVY  SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State  Legislature, advised                                                               
that  the  bill  is  about price  transparency  and  bringing  an                                                               
element of  the free market  into the health care  marketplace of                                                               
which, currently,  does not exist.   She pointed out  that health                                                               
care  consumers  do not  know  their  health care  services  cost                                                               
unless they call  and ask for special quotes and  rates.  Through                                                               
this  bill,  she  said,  her  goal is  to  introduce  more  price                                                               
competition, open up the conversation  about price competition to                                                               
compare prices in health care consumerism.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:24:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to a document  titled "Top 50 CPT  Codes -                                                               
Hospital 1,"  and asked Representative  Spohnholz to  explain the                                                               
document.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained  that the list for  the top 50                                                               
CPT  codes  most  frequently  provided  was  requested  of  Becky                                                               
Hultberg, Alaska State Hospital  and Nursing Association (ASHNA).                                                               
This is  not exactly the  manner in  which the services  would be                                                               
listed that the bill requires.  She explained as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     We  actually asked  for services  listed  by CPT  code,                                                                    
     which is  the designation, is appropriate  in the third                                                                    
     column  here  with a  description  that  is written  in                                                                    
     plain language  so that a non-medical  professional can                                                                    
     understand it  along with the undiscounted  price.  So,                                                                    
     what we're looking at here  is a very different sort of                                                                    
     list,  it is  the  CPT code  description  which is  for                                                                    
     billing purposes,  along with the CPT  code number, and                                                                    
     the number  of times this  service was offered  at this                                                                    
     particular  hospital over  the last  -- the  2016 year.                                                                    
     So,  you can  see that  the vast  majority of  services                                                                    
     that  were offered  in  this  particular hospital  were                                                                    
     either  labs  of  some kind,  or  emergency  department                                                                    
     treatments.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:26:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX read  the title  of the  second column  as                                                               
"Charge CPT  Code," and whether  the [third column -  2016 Count]                                                               
was how many times people have had the procedure.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  responded that  the  CPT  code is  the                                                               
number used for medical billing  purposes, and [the third column]                                                               
"2016 Count"  is the  number of times  that service  was provided                                                               
within that facility.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  clarified that this description  of CPT                                                               
is  how the  medical billing  people see  them, not  as the  bill                                                               
requires.   Also,  it is  important  to note  in HB  123 that  it                                                               
distinguished  between individual  providers of  health care  and                                                               
facilities.   Therefore, a hospital  would clearly fall  into the                                                               
facility category  offering more services  due to the  volume and                                                               
the scope of its  services, and the bill asks for  the top 50 CPT                                                               
codes.  In  the case of an individual  medical practitioner, such                                                               
as a  family doctor, they would  list the top 25  most frequently                                                               
offered services, and their services  could differ depending upon                                                               
the medical services offered by each practitioner.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:28:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  whether their  discussion in  her                                                               
office regarding facilities had been fixed in the bill.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to the  bill, page 2, lines 26-                                                               
29, [Sec. 18.23.400(d)], which read as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (d) A health care provider or health care                                                                             
     facility may include a statement  with a list published                                                                    
     under  (c)   of  this   section  explaining   that  the                                                                    
     undiscounted  price may  be higher  or  lower than  the                                                                    
     amount  an individual  actually  pays  for health  care                                                                    
     services described in the list.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  explained that  the bill allowed  for a                                                               
disclaimer to  be included on  the price  list, and the  bill did                                                               
not prescribe what that disclaimer  should read specifically.  In                                                               
the  case  of  a  community  health center  with  a  sliding  fee                                                               
schedule,  the  Alaska  Primary Care  Association  wanted  to  be                                                               
certain that potential health care  consumers were not scared off                                                               
by  the  undiscounted price  listed.    The Alaska  Primary  Care                                                               
Association wanted  to be able to  post that there was  a sliding                                                               
fee  schedule and  that the  actual  price a  consumer would  pay                                                               
would be much different.  She  offered that this would apply to a                                                               
private  practitioner's  needs, such  as  indicating  they are  a                                                               
preferred  provider or  covered  under  various health  insurance                                                               
plans.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:29:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred  to the Veterans Administration,                                                               
and having  the Indian Health Service  publish its top 25  or top                                                               
50 "expenses, and  I would love that ..."   In the event everyone                                                               
else has  that requirement, it  is only fair that  the government                                                               
facilities "expose that, as well."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred  to HB 123, Version  I, page 3,                                                               
lines [24-31, Sec. 18.23.400(h)(2)] which read as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
            (2) ... "health care facility" does not                                                                             
     include                                                                                                                    
             (A) the Alaska Pioneers' Home and the                                                                              
      Alaska Veterans' Home administered by the department                                                                      
     under AS 47.55;                                                                                                            
             (B) an assisted living home as defined                                                                             
     in AS 47.33.990;                                                                                                           
             (C) a nursing facility licensed by the                                                                             
     department to provide long-term care;                                                                                      
              (D) a facility operated by an Alaska                                                                              
     tribal health organization; and                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out  that the provision provides                                                               
a  few  exclusions because  the  health  care consumed  in  those                                                               
services was  different.  She added  that it had been  brought to                                                               
her attention  that there could  be a separation of  powers issue                                                               
because  the  legislature  did  not  have  authority  to  mandate                                                               
federally funded facilities.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:31:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD reiterated  that if  the private  sector                                                               
was under this  requirement, it was only fair that  the public be                                                               
under   the  same   requirement,   especially  if   it  was   the                                                               
government's requirement.  She  asked Representative Spohnholz to                                                               
speak to the issue of  possibly being in conflict with anti-trust                                                               
laws.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  responded  that  she  was  unsure  any                                                               
specific antitrust statutes  related to this, there  was a domain                                                               
issue.   She reiterated  that state  governments cannot  tell the                                                               
federal government what to do;  therefore, the legislature cannot                                                               
legally require,  for instance,  the Veterans'  Administration to                                                               
list its  prices.  She  related that  in the event  the committee                                                               
wanted to  propose an amendment  changing the body of  this bill,                                                               
perhaps  Legislative  Legal  and   Research  Services  should  be                                                               
brought  in  to   consult  on  that  particular   element.    She                                                               
acknowledged that she did not  consult with Legislative Legal and                                                               
Research Services  on that particular limitation  because she was                                                               
advised by professionals in the field that it was not advisable.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:32:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  pointed out  to  Representative  Reinbold that  in                                                               
terms  of  offering  an  amendment,  it would  be  due  by  5:00,                                                               
3/28/17.   He commented that  the issue  was not a  separation of                                                               
powers, but rather  "federal supremacy" which meant  no state had                                                               
the authority  to order  the federal  government to  do anything,                                                               
and this would not be an  exception.  Frankly, he said, there was                                                               
no basis for Alaska to  require federal agencies to disclose that                                                               
information.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:33:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said  she  will  look  into  the  issue                                                               
because  in the  event any  state dollars  were going  into these                                                               
facilities, it was  only prudent for the legislature  to be wise.                                                               
She opined that  a lot of Medicaid state funding  does go to some                                                               
of these facilities.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  pointed out  that there  are facilities                                                               
receiving public money that will  be required to post their fees,                                                               
and  there was  not  a  clear bright  line  between  those as  it                                                               
related  to  public  funding  versus not  public  funding.    For                                                               
example,  she  pointed  to  the  community  health  centers  that                                                               
receive  a substantial  amount of  funding through  Medicaid, and                                                               
said they will list their billing amounts.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:34:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   asked  whether  this   conflicts  with                                                               
federal  laws  because  a  couple   of  doctors  sent  her  laws,                                                               
although, those laws were not currently in front of her.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  answered that,  to her  knowledge, this                                                               
bill   does   not   conflict  with   federal   law   beyond   the                                                               
constitutional limitations previously discussed.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:35:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  commented  that   just  because  she  was                                                               
insured  did not  mean she  didn't not  care about  the costs  of                                                               
service.  She offered a scenario  of being insured and visiting a                                                               
doctor with  his rack rates  on the  wall, and she  then checking                                                               
with another doctor  who has lower rack rates listed.   She asked                                                               
whether  it was  conceivable, due  to the  type of  insurance she                                                               
carried  and  the  relationship between  her  physician  and  the                                                               
insurance company, that the doctor  with the higher rack rate was                                                               
actually  charging her  insurance company  a lower  fee than  the                                                               
doctor with the lower rack rates.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  responded that  it was possible  if the                                                               
doctor with  the higher rack  rate was a preferred  provider with                                                               
her insurance provider,  and the doctor with the  lower rack rate                                                               
was not.   In the event  they were both preferred  providers they                                                               
would likely  be paid  at the  same rate.   However,  she pointed                                                               
out, there will be  some patients who pay the full  rate or pay a                                                               
higher percentage of that full rack  rate.  Yet, posting the full                                                               
undiscounted price  still has merit  because it is the  basis for                                                               
which all prices are derived.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:36:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said  her question goes back  to the person                                                               
with  insurance and  why they  would  care which  doctor had  the                                                               
higher rack  rate.   In the event  both providers  were preferred                                                               
providers, one  could have a  rack rate of  $200 and the  other a                                                               
rack rate of $100, and both  providers would end up with $50 from                                                               
the insurance company.  She asked whether she was correct.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that,  in theory, it was possible,                                                               
and  what Representative  LeDoux  identified is  one  of the  big                                                               
challenges  in the  health  care  market place,  in  which it  is                                                               
difficult to determine exactly what  [amount] would be paid.  She                                                               
said she does  not claim that this bill would  solve that problem                                                               
because  the bill's  goal is  to help  consumers understand  that                                                               
some health  care is  expensive, some is  less expensive,  and to                                                               
get more information  out to the consumer.  It  was also designed                                                               
to  stimulate  a  conversation  between  individual  health  care                                                               
consumers, the billing departments, and their doctors.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  said  that  in  following  up  on  the                                                               
3/24/17 discussion,  a letter  was received  from Jeff  Ranf, Co-                                                               
Chair of the Legislative  Community Committee, Alaska Association                                                               
of Health  Care Underwriters.   Mr.  Ranf reminded  the committee                                                               
that  it was  not always  clear to  individuals that  someone was                                                               
paying full  freight even if  they were not paying  full freight.                                                               
Due  to  the  fact  that   health  care  costs  are  dramatically                                                               
increasing, there  is disconnect between  the end user  of health                                                               
care  services  and  those  charging   for  it.    Representative                                                               
Spohnholz described  this bill  as one tiny  step forward  in the                                                               
first mile  of a  long-term marathon in  trying to  reduce health                                                               
care costs.  This bill is  simple to implement, a simple strategy                                                               
to understand, and it will  help inform conversations and dialogs                                                               
about health care costs, she explained.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:39:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  said he appreciates the  place the                                                               
bill is trying to  get to, but he is also  cognizant of the legal                                                               
realities.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:40:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN   asked   the  sponsor   to   offer   an                                                               
understanding of  "how it is that  we get here" with  health care                                                               
and the lack  of transparency.  He further asked  why it was that                                                               
health  care  traveled down  such  a  different road  than  other                                                               
services to then get to the point  of passing a bill like this to                                                               
fix it.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ  related that that's a  big question and                                                               
posited  that the  journey into  opacity in  health care  pricing                                                               
occurred when  health care insurance  was first introduced.   The                                                               
first provider of  health care insurance was what  is now Premera                                                               
Blue Cross,  a group of doctors  came together to put  together a                                                               
funding  structure  that  made it  more  affordable  for  regular                                                               
working  people to  get health  care and  afford their  services.                                                               
She opined that that was a  laudable goal in financing for health                                                               
care, but that was the  beginning of separating the consumer from                                                               
the person  selling the  services.  Since  that time,  the market                                                               
has gotten more complex with more  payors in the market adding to                                                               
its complexity, and  "anytime you're not actually  looking at the                                                               
actual cost and paying attention, you  are more likely to not pay                                                               
attention to the  cost" such as, certain young  people with their                                                               
first credit card, she offered.   Her hope, she said, is to shine                                                               
a little  more light on the  costs of health care,  and she looks                                                               
forward to  advancing other  bills approaching  the issue  from a                                                               
different tact.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:43:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that  since most consumers of health                                                               
care  in Alaska  fall under  some kind  of private  or government                                                               
sponsored health  care program,  and insurance sets  those costs,                                                               
whether she  had considered  hitting it dead  on and  going after                                                               
the   insurance  costs   side  of   things  and   the  need   for                                                               
transparency.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  said  that   she  had  considered  his                                                               
suggestion and it would possibly be a bill for another day.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:44:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD,  in response to  Representative Eastman,                                                               
offered  that  previously  she was  the  operations  manager  for                                                               
Medical Park  Family Care, and that  it was difficult to  quote a                                                               
price at someone's  request.  For example, a person  may say they                                                               
have a  sore throat  when in reality  they have  more complicated                                                               
issues they are  not comfortable telling the  receptionist.  Once                                                               
the patient was  before the doctor, five or six  other issues may                                                               
come up that required a shot  or whatever.  She said that vaccine                                                               
charges  change  often,  insurance plans  change  regularly,  and                                                               
sometimes people come  in as a veteran, under TRICARE,  or due to                                                               
a  car accident.    She  related that  Medical  Park Family  Care                                                               
charged different prices  when it was an  automobile accident, or                                                               
workers'  compensation',  or a  contract  with  unions, or  state                                                               
employees,  and it  was  complicated to  determine  the fees  for                                                               
"twenty different things" in a comprehensive exam.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:46:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN commented  that Representative  Reinbold's comments                                                               
were far afield from this bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted his  appreciation to ASHNA in                                                               
providing the top 50 most common CPT codes.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  said  he  found the  confusion  of  price  between                                                               
Hospital 1  and the unidentified hospital  interesting, and noted                                                               
that a complete blood count was the most common procedure.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[HB 123 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
         HB 42-FORFEITURE & SEIZURE: PROCEDURE; LIMITS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:48:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  42, "An  Act  relating to  seizure of  property;                                                               
relating to  forfeiture to the  state; relating to  criminal law;                                                               
amending Rules  3, 4, 11, 12,  16, 32, 32.2, 32.3,  39, 39.1, and                                                               
42, Alaska Rules of Criminal  Procedure, Rules 501, 801, and 803,                                                               
Alaska Rules  of Evidence,  and Rules 202,  209, and  217, Alaska                                                               
Rules  of Appellate  Procedure;  and providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  that this  was the  fourth hearing  on the                                                               
bill, and last week the  committee adopted a committee substitute                                                               
[Version U] as the working  document wherein John Skidmore walked                                                               
the committee through the bill.   He then described the amendment                                                               
procedure.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN further advised that  he had submitted Amendments 1-                                                               
4, and passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:49:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt  Amendment 1, Version 30-LS0193\U.11,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 8 - 10:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(c)  Before ordering the return of seized                                                                            
     property subject to forfeiture, the court                                                                                  
               (1)  must find that                                                                                              
               (A)  the item has no evidentiary value; or                                                                       
               (B)  the parties have reached an agreement                                                                       
     or stipulation that preserves  the evidentiary value of                                                                    
     the property or maintains  the evidentiary integrity of                                                                    
     the property; and                                                                                                          
               (2)  may require the property owner to post                                                                      
     cash or a secured monetary bond  in an amount up to the                                                                    
     fair market value of the property."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:49:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:50:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that Amendment  1 responds to  a discussion                                                               
during  the last  hearing regarding  [Sec. 12.35.220(c),  Version                                                               
U,] page 5, [lines 8-10], which read as follows:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (c) The court may order the return of seized                                                                          
     property subject  to forfeiture  upon finding  that the                                                                    
     item  has no  evidentiary value  and establishing  that                                                                    
     the property  owner has posted a  secured monetary bond                                                                    
     equal to the fair market value of the property.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that subsection  (c) addressed  the topic                                                               
of returning seized  property to the owner of  that property, and                                                               
addressed that  sometimes evidence has no  evidentiary value, yet                                                               
other  times  the  evidence  has  continuing  evidentiary  value.                                                               
There are ways in which to  reach an agreement allowing the value                                                               
of the  evidence to be shown  in court without the  evidence, for                                                               
example,  pictures  of  the  item if  the  defendant  waived  any                                                               
objection to not having the evidence present.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  further explained that  the courts have  the option                                                               
of asking the  owner of the property to post  a monetary bond, up                                                               
to the value of that property,  in the event the property was not                                                               
returned at the end of the case.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:52:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  the  sponsor's thoughts  regarding                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Representative  Tammie Wilson had advised                                                               
his  office  that   she  was  comfortable  with   "all  of  these                                                               
amendments."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:52:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA  BARNES,  Staff,  Representative  Tammie  Wilson,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, advised  that the sponsor had  no objection to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER asked  whether that was  true with  the other                                                               
offered amendments.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BARNES replied  that some  of the  amendments are  obviously                                                               
somewhat duplicative,  but the  sponsor had  no objection  to the                                                               
amendments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:53:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  withdrew his  objection.  There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:53:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  2, Version 30-LS0193\U.6,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, following line 2:                                                                                                  
     Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                          
        "* Sec. 10. AS 12.36.060(a) is amended to read:                                                                     
          (a)  A deadly weapon, other than a firearm or                                                                         
     ammunition,    forfeited    to    the    state    under                                                                    
     AS 12.55.015(a)(9), unless  remitted under AS 12.36.320                                                                
     [AS 12.36.050],   shall   be   disposed   of   by   the                                                                    
     commissioner  of  public  safety  under  this  section.                                                                    
     Under  this  subsection,  the  commissioner  of  public                                                                    
     safety                                                                                                                     
               (1)  may declare a weapon surplus and                                                                            
     transfer it to the commissioner of administration;                                                                         
               (2)  may, if the weapon is suitable for law                                                                      
     enforcement  purposes,   training,  or  identification,                                                                    
     retain the weapon  for use by the  Department of Public                                                                    
     Safety  or transfer  the weapon  to  the municipal  law                                                                    
     enforcement agency  making the  arrest that led  to the                                                                    
     forfeiture;                                                                                                                
               (3)  shall destroy a weapon that is unsafe                                                                       
     or unlawful.                                                                                                               
        * Sec. 11. AS 12.36.060(c) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (c)  A firearm or ammunition forfeited to the                                                                         
     state under  AS 12.55.015(a)(9), unless  remitted under                                                                    
     AS 12.36.320  [AS 12.36.050], shall  be disposed  of as                                                                
     provided in AS 18.65.340."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 20, following line 22:                                                                                                
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 31. AS 12.36.050 is repealed."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:54:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained Amendment 2 as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Prior to  what is in  Sec. 12.35.220, which is  pages 4                                                                    
     and 5 of  the -- of the CS.   That provides a mechanism                                                                    
     for  all property  to be  returned, not  just firearms.                                                                    
     And, 12.36.060 is a specific  provision that relates to                                                                    
     the return  of firearms.   And so, the purpose  of this                                                                    
     amendment -- the  purposes of this amendment  is to add                                                                    
     Sec. 320,  which we just  referenced, to  the remission                                                                    
     of firearms, and  then later in the  section, we repeal                                                                    
     Sec.   12.36.050  that   was  the   specific  provision                                                                    
     relating  to   remission  of  property.     And  that's                                                                    
     probably not  the most clear  description of  what this                                                                    
     does.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:55:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  Chair   Claman  to  explain  Sec.                                                               
12.36.320   because  the   amendment   basically  replaces   Sec.                                                               
12.36.050  with Sec.  12.35.220.320, and  Sec. 12.35.320  doesn't                                                               
appear in the amendment."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN further explained Amendment 2, as follows:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     So, .320  -- .320  is the  provision that  provides for                                                                    
     the remission of forfeited property,  as well as seized                                                                    
     property.   And, 12.36.050,  which is  what you  see on                                                                    
     the  last page  of Amendment  number 2,  is a  separate                                                                    
     provision in the statutes --  it's a separate provision                                                                    
     in  the  statute  that  relates  to  the  remission  of                                                                    
     forfeited  property.   And, the  analysis of  -- showed                                                                    
     that  we were  actually  now, by  enacting the  portion                                                                    
     that  is the  12.36.320, we  are essentially  doing the                                                                    
     same  thing   that  takes   place  in   12.36.050,  but                                                                    
     expanding  the   scope  of  the  return   of  forfeited                                                                    
     property.   And so,  the advice from  Legislative Legal                                                                    
     was  that keeping  12.36.050  duplicated  what we  were                                                                    
     doing in 12.36.320.  And then  -- and then what goes on                                                                    
     in   12.36.060   is   now  replacing   12.36.050   with                                                                    
     12.36.320, which is what we are enacting.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     So, in  -- in broad terms  what Amendment 2 does  is it                                                                    
     takes  on  a  specific  provision as  to  one  type  of                                                                    
     property  in 12.36.050,  and replaces  it with  what is                                                                    
     now .320  that is  broader in scope  for the  return of                                                                    
     property.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:57:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered his understanding of Amendment 2 as                                                                 
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     It   takes  the   explanation   offered  currently   in                                                                    
     12.36.050, of  the findings of fact  that are necessary                                                                    
     for a forfeited  weapon to be returned.   And, it takes                                                                    
     those  same findings  of  fact and  it  says these  are                                                                    
     necessary  for any  property to  be  returned to  avoid                                                                    
     duplicative  -- not  duplicative  -  that's sound  like                                                                    
     false, but duplicate references in  the law, not just a                                                                    
     section just  for weapons, but for  any property that's                                                                    
     sought to be returned to  the owner.  12.36.320 in this                                                                    
     bill  covers all  property  including  weapons, and  so                                                                    
     it's a  -- Legal's  way of  expanding that  standard we                                                                    
     have for owners to get guns back, to all property.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:58:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     We  don't seem  to  have 12.36.050,  I  don't think  is                                                                    
     actually  in this  new bill.    But, I  guess I'm  just                                                                    
     wondering if the -- if that's  the reason -- if .050 is                                                                    
     everything except  weapons, then why don't  we just add                                                                    
     weapons  to .050,  instead  of  making .050  everything                                                                    
     except  weapons.   Maybe  it would  be  just easier  to                                                                    
     include weapons in .050 -- undo the exclusion.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  advised   Representative  LeDoux  that  the                                                               
intention was  not to  exclude weapons  from AS  12.36.050, which                                                               
was solely about remitting a weapon.   He said that the amendment                                                               
said that  those findings of  fact, that have  to be made  by the                                                               
court to give that back to  the owner, apply to all property that                                                               
an owner  claimed interest,  that's the standard  that had  to be                                                               
met for the property to be returned.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:00:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  pointed out  that AS 12.36.050  relates to                                                               
weapons, but it  doesn't relate to all weapons  and asked whether                                                               
it just relates to a firearm or ammunition.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it is just related to guns.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX suggested  making AS  12.36.050 relate  to                                                               
all deadly weapons rather than including two sections for it.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:01:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN offered the following:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     The goal  in .320 is not  -- is to expand  it, not just                                                                    
     to firearms  and deadly weapons,  to all property.   So                                                                    
     it isn't a question of --  we would need -- well, first                                                                    
     Leg Legal did not seem to  want to do it with .050, but                                                                    
     --  that's the  first part  of  the answer.   But,  the                                                                    
     second part of the answer  is that .320 would expand it                                                                    
     to  all types  of property.   The  areas that  are very                                                                    
     concerned   in   forfeiture    being   planes,   boats,                                                                    
     automobiles, they would be covered  by .320, and not --                                                                    
     and  because they  cover all  those  kinds of  property                                                                    
     would  also  apply  to  firearms  and  deadly  weapons.                                                                    
     Whereas,  .050 is  a much  more  limited rescission  of                                                                    
     property statute.   So,  I think Leg  Legal --  I think                                                                    
     the  way  they started  was,  they  started drafting  a                                                                    
     section  for   rescission  of  property   about  boats,                                                                    
     planes, and  automobiles.   And then  in the  course of                                                                    
     working on  it, we  realized that  there was  a statute                                                                    
     about  guns, and  that we  should  remove that  statute                                                                    
     about guns and  all put it into what  was being drafted                                                                    
     for the bill.  That  was probably the sequence that led                                                                    
     us where we are.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:02:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked that Legislative Legal and                                                                        
Research Services describe the workings of Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked whether there was other discussion,                                                                    
outside of the Legislative Legal and Research Services question,                                                                
regarding Amendment 2.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:03:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the following:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     So, under  Amendment 2, the section  that we're dealing                                                                    
     with  here  in Sec.  10,  does  specifically deal  with                                                                    
     deadly weapons  and, we're simply bringing  .320, which                                                                    
     isn't -- doesn't one --  at least one of the amendments                                                                    
     for the bill  do something to change .320?   Or, are we                                                                    
     simply  saying   .320  is   great  as   is,  unamended,                                                                    
     unchanged, and now  we want it to  cover deadly weapons                                                                    
     also?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER opined that Amendments 4 and 6 speak to AS                                                                   
12.36.320.  He then held Amendment 2, and moved the committee to                                                                
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30-LS0193\U.4,                                                                 
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "under AS 12.36.310"                                                                                           
          Insert "that provides for forfeiture by law,                                                                          
     regulation, or ordinance"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "under AS 12.36.310"                                                                                           
          Insert "that provides for forfeiture by law,                                                                          
     regulation, or ordinance"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 24 - 26:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to Amendment  3, and advised that  part of                                                               
what was recommended in the bill  was to no longer provide a list                                                               
of every single offense with  a forfeiture provision within Title                                                               
12.36.  He explained as follows:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     But  instead,  just  make  a   reference  to  laws  and                                                                    
     regulations  that  involve  forfeiture, and  by  adding                                                                    
     language that  doesn't list the offenses,  which was --                                                                    
     a list  of offenses  is under AS  12.36.310.   If there                                                                    
     was just  a reference to the  statutes themselves, then                                                                    
     there is  no longer a  need to have AS  12.36.310 where                                                                    
     the statutes  would be listed separately.   Which would                                                                    
     tend to  create lots  of revisor's  bills in  the years                                                                    
     ahead  if  we were  supposed  to  list every  --  every                                                                    
     offense that  had a --  was subject to forfeiture.   So                                                                    
     that, the  purpose in  trying to  reduce the  number of                                                                    
     words in  the statutes  was to just  reference offenses                                                                    
     that  had  forfeiture  provisions,   and  take  out  AS                                                                    
     12.36.310, and that is the purpose of Amendment 3.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that this had nothing to do                                                                    
with "the lists being collected of -- the lists that they took,"                                                                
it's simply listing the laws, regulations, ordinances.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:06:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.  There being no                                                                  
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:06:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  4, Version 30-LS0193\U.9,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 5, following "fair":                                                                                          
          Insert "market"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, following line 8:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          "(c)  The court may order the remission of                                                                            
     property conveyed by                                                                                                       
               (1)  inheritance to an individual who was                                                                        
     not a party to the offense resulting in forfeiture; or                                                                     
               (2)  gift from a person other than the                                                                           
     defendant."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsection accordingly.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:06:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the  committee packet and explained that                                                               
[Conceptual  Amendment 1  to]  Amendment 4  was  provided by  the                                                               
Department  of Law.    Chair Claman  moved  to adopt  [Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  1  to]  Amendment  4.     There  being  no  objection,                                                               
[Conceptual Amendment 1 to] Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:08:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:08:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that  Amendment 4,  as amended,  spoke to                                                               
concerns   regarding  AS   12.36.320,   remission  of   forfeited                                                               
property, and  this was a  change to  AS 12.36.320.   He reminded                                                               
the committee  there was concern  regarding someone  who receives                                                               
property by  gift or inheritance,  and how that would  impact the                                                               
analysis  of  whether the  owner  could  receive their  property.                                                               
Within discussions at  the Department of Law, he  said, it became                                                               
apparent the  committee was  focused on  what happened  to gifted                                                               
property before  a crime occurred.   He referred to  his previous                                                               
example of  the gift of  his grandfather's favorite  pistol being                                                               
stolen from his  house and used in  a crime, and said  that is an                                                               
example of the pre-crime transmission  of property.  Although, he                                                               
noted,  the  Department of  Law  was  concerned about  post-crime                                                               
transfer of property wherein people  transfer property to conceal                                                               
the property and  avoid its forfeiture for a  variety of reasons.                                                               
In addressing both the pre-crime  transfer of property by gift or                                                               
inheritance, as  well as  not allowing  that to  be a  basis upon                                                               
which  one  could avoid  forfeiture  of  property for  post-crime                                                               
transfers of  property, [Conceptual  Amendment 1 to]  Amendment 4                                                               
addressed those issues, he said.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  pointed out  that the first  thing that  happens in                                                               
Amendment 4, [Sec. 12.36.320(a)(4)], page 7, line 5, which read:                                                                
                                                                                                                                
             (4) was a bona fide purchaser for fair                                                                             
     value.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that  the drafters  realized the  term more                                                               
commonly used was fair market  value, and "market" was added into                                                               
paragraph (4), as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
             (4) was a bona fide purchaser for fair                                                                             
     market value.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:11:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  that  new subsection  (c)  was added,  and                                                               
would  be  positioned before  the  current  subsection (c).    He                                                               
explained  that  this  subsection  (c) was  designed  to  address                                                               
concerns  with   inheritance  and  gifts,  and   it  incorporated                                                               
[Conceptual Amendment  1 to] Amendment  4.  He  further explained                                                               
that the concern from the Department  of Law was that even in the                                                               
gift  situation,  it  was  important  to  that  the  concepts  in                                                               
paragraphs  (1),  (2),  and  (3)  be  added  into  the  gift  and                                                               
inheritance language, regarding legal  right to the property, did                                                               
not knowingly participate  in the commission of a  crime, and did                                                               
not  know that  the  property was  used in  the  commission of  a                                                               
crime.   The new  subsection (c) provides  that first,  the court                                                               
would have  to find by  a preponderance  of the evidence  that AS                                                               
12.36.320(a)(1)(2)(3),  but not  paragraph  (4) are  proven by  a                                                               
preponderance of  the evidence.   The court  would then  have the                                                               
option that it  "may order" the remission of the  property if the                                                               
property was conveyed by gift  or inheritance, he offered.  There                                                               
was a  note in  the gift that  it must come  from a  person other                                                               
than the defendant, he pointed out.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that  that was an  effort to  address the                                                               
gift and  inheritance situation,  and also the  concerns directed                                                               
at  both  the  pre-crime  and  post-crime  gift  and  inheritance                                                               
issues.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:13:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that he  was not entirely sure how                                                               
[Conceptual  Amendment  1 to]  Amendment  4  was beneficial,  and                                                               
asked Chair Claman to speak specifically to the amended portion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  responded that  the concern  the Department  of Law                                                               
raised  was that  circumstances  could arise  in  which a  person                                                               
could  gift  property  for  the  purpose  of  concealment.    For                                                               
example, he said,  his mother gifts him a car,  he then loans the                                                               
car to a friend who he knows  is a bit of ne'er-do-well, and that                                                               
the person has a tendency to  commit crimes in vehicles.  In that                                                               
situation,  he  should  not  qualify as  an  innocent  owner  and                                                               
receive his property  back because he was foolish  enough to loan                                                               
it  to that  ne'er-do-well  friend.   He  noted that  [Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1  to] Amendment  4 added in  paragraphs (1),  (2), and                                                               
(3), meaning  that he had to  show that he was  the equivalent of                                                               
an innocent owner and not gaming the system.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:15:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that  [Conceptual Amendment 1] ended                                                               
with an ellipsis  punctuation, and asked what  language takes the                                                               
place of the ellipsis.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that  "if the  court finds"  language would                                                               
come just after subsection (c), which would read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          (c) If the court finds by a preponderance of the                                                                      
     evidence  that  AS  12.36.320(1),  (2),  and  (3),  are                                                                    
     proven, the  court may order the  remission of property                                                                    
     conveyed by                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN explained  that he  handwrote a  comma and  a lower                                                               
case  "t" on  the face  of  Amendment 4,  [to include  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1] because  Amendment 4 originally read  with a capital                                                               
"T", as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
       (c) The court may order the remission of property                                                                        
     conveyed by                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that he understood.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:16:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that  [Conceptual Amendment 1] read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked  the reason for the  language "by a                                                               
preponderance of the evidence," and  whether that was the highest                                                               
level of evidence.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained  that  the  language  was  tracking  the                                                               
language in  AS 12.36.320(a), and further  explained that "beyond                                                               
a  reasonable   doubt"  is  the  highest   standard,  "clear  and                                                               
convincing   evidence"  is   the  next   highest  standard,   and                                                               
"preponderance  of   the  evidence,"   is  typically   the  civil                                                               
standard.   In terms of  evidentiary findings those are  the only                                                               
three standards involved.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:17:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP advised  that he  supports Amendment  4, and                                                               
then referred  to [Sec. 12.36.320(b)],  page 7, lines  6-7, which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (b) Upon a showing that the person is entitled to                                                                     
     relief under (a) of this section, ...                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered testimony as follows:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     So, it  seems to me  that all  of Amendment 4  could be                                                                    
     just dropped in right there,  "the court may order that                                                                    
     ..." and then  you go right -- right  down through this                                                                    
     -- this amendment, "the court  may order" because you -                                                                    
     - because (a) has to be  proven.  We've just said it in                                                                    
     line (b) [sic], "Upon a  showing the person is entitled                                                                    
     to relief under  (a)" that's what we're  saying in this                                                                    
     Amendment 4, as  amended.  "under (a)  of this section"                                                                    
     and  then go  right  into Amendment  4,  the court  may                                                                    
     order the  remission of property conveyed  by (1), (2),                                                                    
     and  then what  we  have  there in  (b)  now should  be                                                                    
     number (3).   And that to me, seems like  it would just                                                                    
     flow logically  and we wouldn't have  broken up showing                                                                    
     things that  have to be  proved under (a)  first, under                                                                    
     two different subsections.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:18:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that  the issue driving  Amendment 4  was the                                                               
issue of gifts  and inheritance, of which  subsection (b) doesn't                                                               
address.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  argued that  it would  if that  language was                                                               
inserted  there, "the  court  may order"  and  just taking  Chair                                                               
Claman's language there, right after  the word "section," on page                                                               
7, line 7.  He then read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     the court may order  the remission of property conveyed                                                                    
     by (1) inheritance to an  individual who is not a party                                                                    
     to the  defense resulting in forfeiture;  (2) gift from                                                                    
     a person  other than  the defendant;  or, (3)  would be                                                                    
     ...                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:19:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  SKIDMORE,   Director,  Legal  Services   Section,  Criminal                                                               
Division, Department  of Law  (DOL), responded  to Representative                                                               
Kopp's suggestion  by advising  that the  problem with  trying to                                                               
fold what was happening with  Amendment 4 in with subsection (b),                                                               
Version U, was  that subsection (b) addressed the  fact there was                                                               
a posting of money for the property  when it had released it.  He                                                               
related  that that  was  a  different concept  than  what was  in                                                               
Amendment  4,  in  that  Amendment 4  attempted  to  address  the                                                               
ability for property  to be returned if it was  an inheritance or                                                               
a gift, and there had not  been the concerns raised in paragraphs                                                               
(1) - (3) of subparagraph (a).                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP further  argued  that he  was not  convinced                                                               
because it  logically flowed  perfectly, as  all four  would drop                                                               
right in there.   He said, "You  have to find (a),  and just like                                                               
what you  have said, the  court ordering  an amount equal  to the                                                               
value of  the person's interest  be paid  to the person,  or that                                                               
the  property be  released  to  the person,  (a)  must be  found,                                                               
(a)(1), (2),  and (3), must  be found,  so (a)(1), (2),  and (3),                                                               
must be found for all of your amendment too."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:22:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER noted the  purchasing an item less  than fair                                                               
market  value,   that  was  not   a  gift,   would  automatically                                                               
disqualify someone  from receiving their property.   For example,                                                               
he offered,  parents sold their  daughter a car for  an extremely                                                               
reduced price,  and it was  not quite a  gift even though  it was                                                               
not  purchased at  fair market  value.   Then,  he said,  someone                                                               
takes that car and  uses it in the commission of  a crime and now                                                               
the  daughter  can't  get  it  back because  she  fell  into  the                                                               
Netherlands.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE responded  that his scenario would not  be a problem                                                               
because the concerns presented during  the last committee hearing                                                               
dealt with that bone fide purchaser  for fair value.  Amendment 4                                                               
said that  a person had to  comply with paragraphs (1),  (2), and                                                               
(3), but not paragraph (4).   The fair market value was no longer                                                               
an issue  for the court to  decide if the person  had legal right                                                               
or interest in  the property.  For example, his  uncle sold him a                                                               
Ferrari for  $50, Mr. Skidmore  now held  legal right to  the car                                                               
even though he didn't pay  fair market value under paragraph (1).                                                               
Mr. Skidmore  then loaned  his Ferrari to  his friend,  Jeff, not                                                               
knowing Jeff  would use  it in  the commission of  a crime.   Mr.                                                               
Skidmore  could still  get his  Ferrari  back because  he had  no                                                               
reason  to know  the car  would be  used in  the commission  of a                                                               
crime, thereby,  not having  to establish now  that he  paid fair                                                               
market  value.    Amendment  4, he  explained,  was  designed  to                                                               
eliminate that  rationale of the  fair market value having  to be                                                               
established.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:24:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER referred to  Amendment 4, page 1,  lines 6-9,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       (c) the court may order the remission of property                                                                        
     conveyed by                                                                                                                
          (1) must be an inheritance to and individual                                                                          
        who was not a party to the offense resulting in                                                                         
     forfeiture; or                                                                                                             
             (2) gift from a person other than the                                                                              
     defendant.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR  FANSLER said  those  are  now two  new  requirements                                                               
replacing paragraph (4).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:24:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  answered that when  his uncle allowed  Mr. Skidmore                                                               
to  purchase  the Ferrari  for  $50,  a  certain aspect  of  that                                                               
remained a gift.   He explained that a gift does  not have to be,                                                               
"I give it to  you and you don't pay me anything for  it.  A gift                                                               
is that I'm giving you something  for which I haven't gotten fair                                                               
market  value."   Therefore, even  when  he paid  less than  fair                                                               
market  value,  that  was  still  a gift  from  his  uncle.    He                                                               
explained that  Amendment 4 does not  add two of them,  it is one                                                               
or the  other because the  "or" is used  on Amendment 4,  page 1,                                                               
line 8.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER offered  a scenario wherein  an item  was not                                                               
intended to  be a gift, such  as a person conducting  a yard sale                                                               
who unknowingly  sold a valuable  antique gun  to a person  for a                                                               
small price that was not a gift.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  referred to  AS  11.46.980,  market value  of  the                                                               
property  at the  time and  place  in which  the crime  occurred,                                                               
which was actually  discussing the value of  the property stolen.                                                               
He offered that if everyone  knew absolutely everything there was                                                               
to know about that piece of property  at the time it was sold, it                                                               
was "I, as  the seller, think that I'm getting  a fair return for                                                               
the property  that I have," and  if he didn't realize  the item's                                                               
true value, that was the fair market price.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:27:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER, noted  that the next  scenario was  more for                                                               
the committee to  consider, and referred to Amendment  4, page 1,                                                               
line 9, which read as follows:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
               (2) gift from a person other than the                                                                            
     defendant,"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said that the  defendant gifts "this" to a                                                               
person 20  years earlier, and  later steals it in  the commission                                                               
of a crime.  In that  situation, the person was an innocent party                                                               
who  held  legal title,  did  not  knowingly participate  in  the                                                               
commission  of a  crime, and  did  not have  reasonable cause  to                                                               
believe, and the  person still could not receive  it back because                                                               
it was the defendant that gifted it to the person.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE offered his response as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     I  think  I understand  the  proposition  that you  are                                                                    
     suggesting that  a defendant gifts property  to another                                                                    
     person and  then obtains  that property  to use  in the                                                                    
     commission of  a crime.   And, the person to  whom they                                                                    
     gifted it to, you are  suggesting, the state's going to                                                                    
     seek  forfeiture from  that person  simply because  the                                                                    
     defendant took  it back to use  it in a crime.   To me,                                                                    
     it's not that it was given  to you by the defendant, to                                                                    
     me, what  matters are subsections  [sic] (1),  (2), and                                                                    
     (3).  That the person  actually had the property -- had                                                                    
     legal  right   to  the   property,  that   they  didn't                                                                    
     knowingly   participate  in   the  commission   of  the                                                                    
     offense,  and  they did  not  know  or have  reason  to                                                                    
     believe that  the property  would be  used to  commit a                                                                    
     crime.  That's  actually the exact same  language to go                                                                    
     back  to  the  previous discussion  the  committee  had                                                                    
     about  eliminating the  statute  that  dealt only  with                                                                    
     weapons.  Those same three  concepts are the exact same                                                                    
     three concepts that  are in that other  statute.  Those                                                                    
     are the  exact same  three concepts  that are  found in                                                                    
     statute that we want to  make sure that when the person                                                                    
     is using whatever  property it is in  the commission of                                                                    
     a  crime, a  person  that  they took  it  from or  that                                                                    
     loaned  it to  them,  didn't realize  how  it would  be                                                                    
     used.   Those are  the key  elements, not  who actually                                                                    
     gave them the property.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:30:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  responded that it makes  sense, although, the                                                               
gift from a person part gives him a bit of heartburn, but ...                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE offered  that it was a policy call  as to whether or                                                               
not to  eliminate it, and that  it would not change  the analysis                                                               
for  the Department  of Law.   What  remained important  were the                                                               
first three paragraphs, he said.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:30:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred  to Amendment 4, page  1, line 5,                                                               
dealing with  "fair market value,"  and commented  that paragraph                                                               
(4) was  not especially helpful.   He then referred  to paragraph                                                               
(1)  "acquired in  good  faith," and  opined  that paragraph  (4)                                                               
simply  reestablished  that the  property  was  acquired in  good                                                               
faith.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:31:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  referred to [Sec. 12.36.320,  remission of                                                               
forfeited  property],  page  7,  line  5,  and  said  that  [with                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 1  to  Amendment 4]  it  currently read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (4) was a bona fide purchaser for fair                                                                           
     market value.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested inserting as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
               (4) was a bona fide purchaser for fair                                                                           
     market  value,  or  inherited   the  property  from  an                                                                    
     individual  who   was  not  a  party   to  the  offense                                                                    
     resulting in forfeiture, or the property was a gift.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN explained  that  the language  in  Amendment 4  was                                                               
recommended  by the  Legislative Legal  and Research  Services in                                                               
dealing with the problem.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX requested  a comment  from Hilary  Martin,                                                               
Legislative  Legal and  Research  Services, as  to her  suggested                                                               
language.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:33:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HILARY   MARTIN,  Attorney,   Legislative   Legal  and   Research                                                               
Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency, Alaska  State Legislature,                                                               
said that the proposed language could  easily be added on page 7,                                                               
line 5,  because if  the committee  was keeping  preponderance of                                                               
the evidence and  wanted paragraphs (1), (2), and  (3), to apply,                                                               
paragraph (4) could be rewritten as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      either bona fide purchaser for fair value inherited                                                                       
     the property or was gifted a property to someone other                                                                     
     than the defendant.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:33:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether  it  would  have  to  read                                                               
"inherited  the property  from --  it  was a  gift from  somebody                                                               
other than the defendant," because  Mr. Skidmore had advised that                                                               
it didn't matter whether it came from the defendant or not.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE stated that Representative LeDoux was correct.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN  said that was a  decision for the committee  to make,                                                               
as she was just relating to the language in Amendment 4.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that it was just a suggestion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:34:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN   offered   that   he   understood   the                                                               
requirement in  paragraph (4) dealing  with fair market  value to                                                               
relate  directly to  whether the  property was  acquired in  good                                                               
faith.  Paragraphs  (1) and (4) more or less  accomplish the same                                                               
thing, and he asked what would  be lost by simply eliminating the                                                               
following language,  "was a bona  fide purchaser for  fair market                                                               
value."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN  explained that it  would just remove  the requirement                                                               
that  the person  must  have  purchased it  for  fair value,  and                                                               
paragraphs  (1), (2),  and (3),  would still  apply.   Again, she                                                               
related, that was  a decision for the committee as  to whether it                                                               
wanted to require a bona fide purchaser for fair value.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:36:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN surmised  that in  addition to  making it                                                               
shorter,  it might  render a  lot of  the issues  being discussed                                                               
today unnecessary to work through.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  explained that  the significance  of the  bona fide                                                               
purchaser for  fair market value goes  to the crux of  the issue.                                                               
He explained  that the committee  was focused on the  exchange of                                                               
property  prior  to  the  commission   of  an  offense,  and  the                                                               
prosecutors  were  more interested  in  what  happened after  the                                                               
offense  had occurred.   He  offered a  scenario of  committing a                                                               
crime with  the antique  gun, and after  committing the  crime he                                                               
asked his  friend, Fred, to buy  the $5,000 gun for  $100.  There                                                               
was  nothing  that said  that  was  not  in  good faith,  but  in                                                               
reality, Mr.  Skidmore tried  to divest  himself, give  away that                                                               
property  to  someone  else  so  it  was  no  longer  subject  to                                                               
forfeiture, and  sold it  for far  less than its  worth.   In the                                                               
event no  one was able  to prove  Mr. Skidmore sold  the property                                                               
inappropriately,  judgment  was  passed,  the  property  was  not                                                               
forfeited,  two years  later  he  goes back  to  Fred and  offers                                                               
$2,000 for the  antique gun, and Mr. Skidmore now  has the gun he                                                               
was trying to prevent from being forfeited, he offered.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE   explained  that  forfeiture  was   important  and                                                               
powerful  in  law  enforcement   because  a  fishing  vessel,  or                                                               
airplane could be altered in a  manner as to be used for criminal                                                               
circumstances.  He  then referenced Star Wars, and  how Hans Solo                                                               
altered  the Millennium  Falcon to  enable him  to smuggle  goods                                                               
into the  Millennium Falcon, that  is what people do.   Criminals                                                               
alter airplanes,  boats, and  other items in  such a  manner that                                                               
the actual  value of the  item was  not as important,  but rather                                                               
the  importance  then  became  that  the  alternation  allowed  a                                                               
criminal  to  engage in  illegal  conduct.   Case  law  discusses                                                               
forfeiture,  and the  value of  forfeiture ensures  that whatever                                                               
item had been  altered for illegal purposes was taken  out of the                                                               
market place  and was no  longer used  for illegal purposes.   He                                                               
reiterated  that when  a particular  piece of  property had  been                                                               
altered for  illegal use and was  taken out of the  market place,                                                               
therein lies  its value.   He remarked  that when  discussing the                                                               
bona fide  purchaser, the  division wanted to  be certain  it was                                                               
not a "shell  game" where the property somehow  slid into someone                                                               
else's hands  after the crime,  and that person claimed  they did                                                               
not knowingly participate  in a crime, and didn't  have reason to                                                               
believe the property  was used in a crime.   The division has had                                                               
cases  in which  fishing vessels  were altered  to hide  catches,                                                               
airplanes altered for  hunting or fishing, which is  why the bona                                                               
fide  purchaser  remains  important from  the  law  enforcement's                                                               
perspective, he said.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:40:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that  he did  not believe  the                                                               
language in  Amendment 4, would  limit the ability of  the courts                                                               
working with information provided  by law enforcement, or whether                                                               
the fair  market value of an  item changed when it's  modified or                                                               
rendered for  smuggling purposes.   He referred to  paragraph (1)                                                               
and the  language "acquired  in good faith,"  and said  there was                                                               
nothing  in the  language  that  kept an  item,  returned by  the                                                               
court, from  being sold back to  whomever sold it to  them in the                                                               
first  place.   "Acquired  in  good  faith"  appeared to  be  the                                                               
interest here,  and if  the prosecutor had  established it  was a                                                               
tool  used by  smugglers, then  possibly the  good faith  portion                                                               
would come into question there, he offered.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN pointed  out  that he  was convinced  the                                                               
committee should get  rid of paragraph (4),  thereby, ending many                                                               
of the issues being discussed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:44:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  noted  that  whether  Amendment  4  was                                                               
perfect was yet to be decided, and maintained her objection.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  said she  supported the philosophy  of the                                                               
amendment, but wondered whether the language was correct.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:45:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that  Amendment 4  went through  a tremendous                                                               
number of  iterations in coordination  with different  members of                                                               
the committee, the  Department of Law, and  Legislative Legal and                                                               
Research  Services.   Chair Claman  said he  recognized that  the                                                               
amendment might be less than  a perfect solution so the committee                                                               
could vote down the amendment, and he would continue to work on                                                                 
it because it was a committee bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  reiterated   that  she   was  just   not                                                               
comfortable  with the  language, and  pointed out  that the  next                                                               
committee of referral  was the House Finance  Committee, and that                                                               
committee  wanted the  House Judiciary  Standing Committee  to do                                                               
the substantive work.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:46:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Version U, [page 6, lines 27-31                                                                 
and page 7, lines 1-5], which read as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          (a) A person seeking remission of the person's                                                                        
     interest  in property  forfeited under  AS 12.36.300  -                                                                    
     12.36.340 shall  prove to the court  by a preponderance                                                                    
     of the evidence that the person                                                                                            
               (1) holds a legal right, title, or interest                                                                      
     in the property seized, acquired in good faith;                                                                            
               (2) did not knowingly participate in the                                                                         
     commission  of  the crime  in  which  the property  was                                                                    
     used;                                                                                                                      
               (3) did not know or have reasonable cause to                                                                     
     believe that the property was  used or would be used to                                                                    
     commit a crime; and                                                                                                        
               (4) was a bona fide purchases for fair                                                                           
     value.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered testimony as follows:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     I think that  the sum total of the language  of the CS,                                                                    
     Version U,  in front  of us, as  Representative Eastman                                                                    
     has pointed  out, it could  very --  clearly identifies                                                                    
     that  a   person  seeking  remission  of   the  persons                                                                    
     interest.  Their interest in  the property, you have to                                                                    
     show that you have legal  right, title, or interest, so                                                                    
     that's  covered.   That that  person did  not knowingly                                                                    
     participate  in the  commission of  the crime  in which                                                                    
     property  was used,  which  the  Millennium Falcon  was                                                                    
     used, that's covered.   And, they did not  know or have                                                                    
     reasonable  cause  to  believe that  the  property  was                                                                    
     used,  or  would be  used  to  commit a  crime,  that's                                                                    
     covered.  And  then, with the amendment, we  get rid of                                                                    
     the problem  of the language  saying "and, you  have to                                                                    
     show  that  you are  a  bona  fide purchaser  for  fair                                                                    
     market value."   Now, by adding this  subsection to say                                                                    
     that  --  "the court,  in  those  situations where  its                                                                    
     inheritance or  a gift, the  court may still  order the                                                                    
     remission of property,  if you were not a  party to the                                                                    
     offense  resulting in  forfeiture, or  it was  given to                                                                    
     you as a  gift from someone other  than the defendant."                                                                    
     So,  I think  if --  we may  be a  little windy,  but I                                                                    
     think we get at  something conceptually that arrives us                                                                    
     to  protecting  people's rights,  allowing,  certainly,                                                                    
     anybody who can make at least  make a case to the court                                                                    
     that they are  an innocent party to do so.   So, that's                                                                    
     my comment.   I think --  still the word "and"  on line                                                                    
     4, page 7 troubles me when  we are still tying all four                                                                    
     of  those  things  together,  "and,  was  a  bona  fide                                                                    
     purchaser for fair  market value." I'm not  sure why we                                                                    
     have to have  an "and" there.  But, I  think -- because                                                                    
     you can  certainly have  (1) through  (3), and  (4) not                                                                    
     apply.   And  still have  your legal  right, title,  or                                                                    
     interest and not have been  a bona fide purchaser.  So,                                                                    
     but if  -- if this  new subsection cures that,  then --                                                                    
     and  it  looks to  me  like  it does,  it  specifically                                                                    
     addresses inheritance  and gifts.  I'm  trying to think                                                                    
     if there was any other  way you can get property, tooth                                                                    
     fairy.  But, or someone  transfers something to you, is                                                                    
     that  --  is   that  a  gift?     Because  someone  has                                                                    
     transferred to you, families  transfer property to each                                                                    
     other's   names,   fishermen  will   transfer   permits                                                                    
     sometimes, maybe even boats, I don't know.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:49:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN related  that  he would  rather give  the                                                               
courts  some discretion,  which was  why he  was not  comfortable                                                               
with  the  current language.    He  said  that  in the  event  an                                                               
individual paid greater than fair  market value, they wouldn't be                                                               
caught up  by any  of this because  it would not  be a  gift when                                                               
paying more than its fair market value.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that  it was difficult to draft                                                               
language  in  a committee  hearing,  and  suggested appointing  a                                                               
subcommittee to come back with the appropriate language.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  noted   that  the   language   did  not   address                                                               
Representative Eastman's  issue about fair market  value, and the                                                               
prosecutor's  office has  problems  eliminating  the fair  market                                                               
value language.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:51:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD maintained her objection.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative  Claman voted  in                                                               
favor  of   adopting  Amendment  4.     Representatives  Eastman,                                                               
Reinbold,  Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins,  LeDoux,  Fansler voted  against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 4 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 1-                                                               
6.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:52:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  then returned the committee to  the motion to                                                               
adopt  Amendment 2,  and noted  that Representative  Reinbold had                                                               
asked that Ms. Martin to speak to Amendment 2.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER explained to  Ms. Martin that previously Chair                                                               
Claman explained  Amendment 2, and Representative  Reinbold asked                                                               
that  Legislative  Legal  and   Research  Services  also  explain                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:53:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN  responded that Amendment 2  repealed existing statute                                                               
AS 12.36.050,  and new  Secs. 10  and 11,  in the  amendment, are                                                               
conforming changes.  AS 12.36.050  was repealed, and AS 12.36.320                                                               
had similar  language in the  bill.  Therefore, she  offered, the                                                               
reference was updated from AS 12.36.050 to 12.36.320.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  Ms. Martin  to carefully  explain                                                               
repealed AS 12.36.050.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARTIN answered  that AS  12.36.050, remission  of forfeited                                                               
property,  specifically   discussed  remission  of   a  forfeited                                                               
weapon.   The  language  under  AS 12.36.320,  in  the bill,  was                                                               
almost identical,  except it  covered all  property and  not just                                                               
weapons.     She  referred  to  AS   12.36.320(a)(4),  bona  fide                                                               
purchaser for  fair value, and  noted that  it was not  a current                                                               
requirement under AS 12.36.050.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:54:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  surmised that it streamlined  the law to                                                               
include firearms.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARTIN reiterated  that repealed  AS 12.36.050  dealt solely                                                               
with weapons, AS 12.36.320 applied  to all property, and it would                                                               
be fairly duplicative to have both.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that it expanded the scope of                                                                  
returned property to include firearms.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN reiterated that repealed AS 12.36.050 applied solely                                                                 
to weapons, and the new bill section applies to all property.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:56:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.  There being no                                                                  
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:57:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP withdrew Amendment 5, labeled 30-LS0193\U.3,                                                                
and Amendment 6, labeled 30-LS0193\U.2 [prior to moving to adopt                                                                
the amendments].                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, Version 30-                                                                  
LS0193\U.1, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 23, following "property.":                                                                                  
          Insert "(a)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, following line 25:                                                                                                 
          Insert new subsections to read:                                                                                       
          "(b)  If a law enforcement agency has possession                                                                      
     of seized property belonging to  a victim of a crime or                                                                    
     to an innocent owner,  the law enforcement agency shall                                                                    
     return  the property  to the  victim or  innocent owner                                                                    
     not  later than  120 days  after a  defendant has  been                                                                    
     charged in the underlying criminal case.                                                                                   
          (c)  When a law enforcement agency has seized                                                                         
     property  but  a suspect  has  not  been identified  or                                                                    
     charged  within 120  days after  the  seizure, the  law                                                                    
     enforcement  agency  shall  inform  the  owner  of  the                                                                    
     property that  a suspect has  not yet been  charged and                                                                    
     return the property to the  owner if the owner requests                                                                    
     the return of the  property. The law enforcement agency                                                                    
     shall,  before returning  the  property  to the  owner,                                                                    
     require the  owner to sign a  waiver acknowledging that                                                                    
     return   of  the   property  might   affect  a   future                                                                    
     prosecution if a suspect is later identified.                                                                              
          (d)  In this section, "innocent owner" means a                                                                        
     person who                                                                                                                 
               (1) holds a legal right, title, or interest                                                                      
     in the property seized, acquired in good faith;                                                                            
               (2) did not knowingly participate in the                                                                         
       commission of the crime in which the property was                                                                        
     used;                                                                                                                      
               (3) did not know or have reasonable cause to                                                                     
     believe that the property was used or would be used to                                                                     
     commit a crime; and                                                                                                        
               (4) was a bona fide purchaser for fair                                                                           
     value."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, following line 23:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          "(f)  Unless a defendant requests inspection or                                                                       
     testing of property not later than 120 days after the                                                                      
      defendant has been charged, the defendant's right to                                                                      
     inspect or test the property is waived."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected for discussion.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:57:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN offered  that currently,  the legislature                                                               
asks  law   enforcement  to  focus  on   convictions,  preserving                                                               
evidence, and  such.  Except,  there was not a  counterbalance to                                                               
at  least  minimize  re-victimizing   victims  of  crimes.    For                                                               
example, a mother had her car  carjacked while she was in it with                                                               
her daughter,  the car  was later found  and seized  as evidence,                                                               
which left  the mother  with no car  and no way  to get  to work.                                                               
This  situation made  the mother's  victimization worse  than had                                                               
the car  simply been stolen  because the  state now had  the car,                                                               
and  she  couldn't get  the  car.   Inevitably,  victims'  rights                                                               
stepped in,  petitioned the  court, and the  car was  returned to                                                               
the mother.   It appeared to him, he noted,  that the legislature                                                               
set  up  those types  of  circumstances  to  continue.   In  that                                                               
regard, he would  like to counterbalance the  ask the legislature                                                               
gave to  law enforcement to  pursue the conviction with  making a                                                               
reasonable determination  as to whether the  conviction was worth                                                               
more than the actual injury  crime victims suffer.  Obviously, he                                                               
commented, a win-win would be to ...                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  Representative  Eastman  to  focus  on  the                                                               
amendment itself,  and not  an amendment that  is not  before the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:00:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    EASTMAN   explained    that   this    amendment                                                               
specifically  set out  a  reasonable timeline  of  120 days,  and                                                               
after that  point, a  determination would be  made as  to whether                                                               
the property  should go  back to  the crime  victim.   He offered                                                               
that,  currently, the  legislature  asks law  enforcement to  not                                                               
give property back  in these situations, and  commented that this                                                               
amendment would nudge law enforcement to speed up the process.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:01:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE,  in  addressing   the  department's  concerns  and                                                               
possible   constitutional   issues,   offered   that   while   he                                                               
appreciates   returning  property   back  to   innocent  victims,                                                               
Amendment 7 violates the constitution.   He referred to Thorne v.                                                             
Department of Public Safety, 774  P.2d 1326 (1989), and explained                                                             
that Thorne  specifically referred  back to other  Alaska Supreme                                                             
Court cases  establishing due process rights  and the requirement                                                               
to preserve evidence until the time  of trial.  He explained that                                                               
Amendment   7  could   create   substantial   problems  for   the                                                               
prosecution in any  number of cases.  For example,  he said, when                                                               
he  was a  prosecutor  in Dillingham,  they  prosecuted a  double                                                               
homicide in  which a  14-year old girl  was raped,  murdered, and                                                               
her body  placed in  a land  dump.  It  took the  prosecutors six                                                               
months to  [indict the  defendant], which  was two  months longer                                                               
than  the  120  days.    In those  circumstances  it  would  have                                                               
compromised  the   prosecutors'  ability  to  file   charges  and                                                               
ultimately  bring  the  responsible   person  to  justice  and  a                                                               
sentence of 99-years.   He agreed there is a need  to find a good                                                               
way  to return  property to  innocent folks,  and he  argued that                                                               
this amendment was not the right way to achieve that goal.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:03:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that she understood  where Mr.                                                               
Skidmore  was coming  from, but  believed Representative  Eastman                                                               
had an  important point because  over 2,000 vehicles  are stolen.                                                               
She  described it  as  outrageous that  in the  event  a car  was                                                               
stolen, the  victim then had  no way to get  to work and  was re-                                                               
victimized.  She asked Mr. Skidmore for a solution.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said that he  agreed, reiterating that there  was a                                                               
need  to find  an avenue  to get  property back  to the  innocent                                                               
victim,  and that  the  Department  of Law  has  been working  on                                                               
solving the  problem.  With  regard to vehicles, he  pointed out,                                                               
not only  was it  a problem  for victims,  it was  also extremely                                                               
expensive for  law enforcement  to store  property.   Three years                                                               
ago the division implemented the  policy of having motions filed,                                                               
by either  a prosecutor or  defense attorney, to have  the seized                                                               
property returned, and  a response was not required  by the other                                                               
party,  and the  court  would ultimately  rule  on the  property.                                                               
Absent  that  process, he  advised,  there  was a  constitutional                                                               
problem and the answer is to use the court process.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:05:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said, "I truly  believe that you can find                                                               
an amendment  to this  amendment" allowing  property to  be given                                                               
back to the victim, unless  the prosecution or defense absolutely                                                               
needed that evidence.  She said  she would back up her colleague,                                                               
"and  expect,  you  know,  some   sort  of  an  amendment  to  an                                                               
amendment" to address this issue before the bill moves forward.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:05:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  instructed   Representative  Reinbold   that  the                                                               
Department of Law [a separate  branch of state government] is not                                                               
part  of the  legislative  branch of  state  government, and  the                                                               
Department of  Law had no  obligation to propose amendments.   He                                                               
reminded her that  the committee had been  advised that Amendment                                                               
7  violated the  constitution and  the committee  could do  as it                                                               
wished.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued that  it violated the constitution                                                               
in the opposite way.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:06:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  he agreed  with the  sentiment of  the                                                               
amendment, and  reminded the committee that  the 2014 legislature                                                               
passed AS  12.36.070, Return of  property by hearing,  which read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (a) A crime victim who is the owner of property                                                                       
     not belonging  to a law  enforcement agency that  is in                                                                    
     the  custody  of  the agency  under  this  chapter  may                                                                    
     request  that the  office  of  victims' rights  request                                                                    
     that  the  agency  return the  property  to  the  crime                                                                    
     victim.  The request  under  this  subsection shall  be                                                                    
     filed by  the office  of victims'  rights on  behalf of                                                                    
     the  crime victim  after the  office  has conducted  an                                                                    
     investigation and  has concluded that the  crime victim                                                                    
     is entitled  to the  return of  the property  under the                                                                    
     factors listed in (c) of this section.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (b) Within 10 days after receipt of a request                                                                         
     under  (a) of  this  section  and following  reasonable                                                                    
     notice   to  the   prosecution,   defense,  and   other                                                                    
     interested parties, the agency  shall request a hearing                                                                    
     before the court to determine  if the property shall be                                                                    
     released to the crime victim.  If the property is being                                                                    
     held in  connection with a  criminal case,  the hearing                                                                    
     shall  be before  the court  with  jurisdiction of  the                                                                    
     criminal  case.   If  no   criminal  case   is  pending                                                                    
     regarding the  property, the hearing shall  be before a                                                                    
     district  or  superior  court  where  the  property  is                                                                    
     located.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          (c) At the hearing, a party that objects to the                                                                       
     return of  the property shall  state the reason  on the                                                                    
     record.  After  a  hearing, the  court  may  order  the                                                                    
     return  of  the  property  in  the  custody  of  a  law                                                                    
     enforcement agency to the crime victim if                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
               (1) the crime victim by a preponderance of                                                                       
     the evidence provides  satisfactory proof of ownership;                                                                    
     and                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (2) the party that objects to the return of                                                                      
     the property fails  to prove by a  preponderance of the                                                                    
     evidence  that the  property must  be  retained by  the                                                                    
     agency  for evidentiary  purposes under  the provisions                                                                    
     of this chapter or another law.                                                                                            
          (d) If the court orders the return of the                                                                             
     property  to the  crime victim,  the  court may  impose                                                                    
     reasonable conditions  on the return.  Those conditions                                                                    
     may include an  order that the crime  victim retain and                                                                    
     store the  property so that  the property  is available                                                                    
     for  future court  hearings,  requiring photographs  of                                                                    
     the property  to be taken,  or any other  condition the                                                                    
     court considers  necessary to maintain  the evidentiary                                                                    
     integrity of the property.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (e) In this section, "crime victim" has the                                                                           
     meaning given to "victim" in AS 12.55.185 .                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:08:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  advised  that  this  law  was  well  vetted                                                               
through  three legislative  sessions  before  enactment, and  "it                                                               
totally addresses" what  Amendment 7 was driving at,  and it gave                                                               
authority to  crime victims to bring  it [before the court].   He                                                               
related that the problem with setting  a 120 day timeline, as Mr.                                                               
Skidmore pointed out, certain trials  take a long time, sometimes                                                               
years.   In all  types of  situations, this  statute specifically                                                               
allowed a  person to petition the  court for a hearing  to decide                                                               
whether the  evidentiary value the state  was claiming outweighed                                                               
the crime victim receiving their property back.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:09:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  offered  that  due  to  recently  passed                                                               
legislation,  certain  cases  are  not  prosecuted  for  whatever                                                               
reason.    Vehicles  are  stolen, he  said,  and  after  whatever                                                               
process the state went through,  the state determined there was a                                                               
way to  prosecute, yet, decided  not to  prosecute the case.   He                                                               
commented that  this is  all in  the backdrop  of the  system not                                                               
working in  the manner  that "we  would like  to see  it designed                                                               
to."   Last weekend, in his district ...                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  interjected  that   while  these  are  interesting                                                               
comments, they have  nothing to do with Amendment 7,  and the 120                                                               
day timeline  wherein if the  property had not been  returned, it                                                               
must be returned immediately.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the second  and third portions of the                                                               
amendment   dealt   strictly   with  situations   in   which   an                                                               
unidentified suspect  had not  been charged,  and the  state gave                                                               
the owner  of the property  the opportunity to waive  their claim                                                               
in allowing  that property  to be  used in  the prosecution.   He                                                               
continued  that  the legislature  asked  that  person to  make  a                                                               
decision on  whether or not  they want  to risk the  evidence not                                                               
being sufficient  to pursue a  conviction against the  person who                                                               
violated their  property rights.   Which, he  commented, appeared                                                               
to be  a reasonable thing  to do,  especially in the  backdrop of                                                               
cases that would not be prosecuted.   He argued, there is nothing                                                               
unconstitutional  about this,  although,  if  there was  anything                                                               
unconstitutional it  may be pursing  prosecution of a case  in an                                                               
unconstitutional manner.   There was nothing here  that said that                                                               
had to  happen, but it  is known that  fewer cases were  going to                                                               
prosecution which was the reason for Amendment 7, he said.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:12:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that  she liked the language, "they                                                               
shall  return  it,"  and she  appreciated  Representative  Kopp's                                                               
point about  the 2014 legislature.   Unfortunately, she  said, it                                                               
still put the  victim in the "mother may I,  mother may I, mother                                                               
may I have a hearing, mother  may I," and asked the Department of                                                               
Law to work with her on this  issue.  She said that the executive                                                               
branch doesn't have to work with  amendments, but "I can tell you                                                               
that it  seems like the  executive branch is pretty  much running                                                               
the  legislature right  now with  all the  rebuttals, with  their                                                               
testifying, with their carrying their bills ..."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:14:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN pointed  out that  her statements  were beyond  the                                                               
scope of this amendment.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said, "I'm  just saying, you guys brought                                                               
it  up where  he doesn't  have  to help  me, you  know, write  an                                                               
amendment," but  there are  probably one  thousand people  in the                                                               
executive branch  working with different  members in some  way or                                                               
another.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified  that he did not say Mr.  Skidmore did not                                                               
need to  work with her,  and further  clarified that he  said Mr.                                                               
Skidmore did not need to write  the amendment.  Chair Claman told                                                               
Representative Reinbold  to not  say that  he made  statements he                                                               
did not make.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:14:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  reiterated that victims of  crime have a                                                               
right to their property, and  requested that the committee have a                                                               
hearing with regard to the process for returning property.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that he  had been a  victim of crime  and had                                                               
also been a  prosecutor.  He commented that he  would not want to                                                               
be the  prosecutor who, working  with a  victim of crime  who had                                                               
lost a  loved one, and have  to advise the crime  victim that the                                                               
case couldn't  be prosecuted because  that piece of  property had                                                               
to be given back because  the legislature gave law enforcement no                                                               
choice.   Also, he said, he  would not want to  be the prosecutor                                                               
who had to look  into the eyes of the victims  and advise that he                                                               
lost  the case  because the  legislature determined  the property                                                               
had to be returned in 120 days.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  argued that  that  is  exactly why  she                                                               
wants   an  amendment   to  Amendment   7,  to   address  extreme                                                               
circumstances  where   the  prosecution  absolutely   needed  the                                                               
evidence.   Although,  she said,  she doesn't  want 2,000  people                                                               
unable  to able  to go  to work,  lose their  jobs, and  not feed                                                               
their families  because the state kept  their car.  She  said, an                                                               
amendment was worthy on this amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:16:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER maintained his objection to adopting                                                                     
Amendment 7.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 7.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:16:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill would not move from committee                                                                  
today, and he encouraged every member to communicate with his                                                                   
office to work on an alternative to Amendment 4.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[HB 42 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:18:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB123 ver I 3.10.17.PDF HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Sponsor Statement 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Explanation of Changes ver I 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Document-Article ADN-A Doctor's Quest to Remain Human Inside an Insane Medical System 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Document-American's For Progress-Price Transparency 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Document-AAMC Price Transparency in the News 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Document-Truven Health Analytics-Save $36 Billion in US Healthcare Spending Through Price Transparency 2.22.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Document-Letters and Emails of Support 3.23.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Additional Document-Jeffrey Ranf Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Additional Document-Top 50 CPT Codes with descriptions 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 3.10.17.pdf HJUD 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB042 Amendments #1-7 3.24.17.pdf HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB042 Draft Proposed CS ver U 3.21.17.pdf HJUD 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 42
HB042 Sectional Summary ver U 3.21.17.pdf HJUD 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 42