02/28/2003 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2003
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Coghill
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Ralph Samuels
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to court-ordered restitution and compensation
following a criminal conviction."
- RESCINDED ACTION OF 2/21/03; MOVED NEW CSHB 23(JUD)
OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act amending the definition of 'lobbyist' in the Regulation
of Lobbying Act, and as it applies in the act setting standards
of conduct for legislators and legislative employees, to define
'regular' and 'substantial' as those terms describe activities
for which a person receives consideration for the purpose of
influencing legislative or administrative action."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to the DNA identification registration system;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 23
SHORT TITLE:RESTITUTION FOR CRIME VICTIMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WEYHRAUCH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0037 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0037 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0037 (H) JUD
01/21/03 0037 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/14/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/14/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/03 0231 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GARA
02/21/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/21/03 (H) Moved CSHB 23(JUD) Out of
Committee
02/21/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE:DEFINITION OF LOBBYING
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0216 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0216 (H) JUD
02/14/03 0216 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/28/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 49
SHORT TITLE:EXPAND DNA DATABASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ANDERSON, HAWKER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0044 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/17/03)
01/21/03 0044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0044 (H) JUD, FIN
01/21/03 0044 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
01/31/03 0107 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM, SAMUELS
02/12/03 0201 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LYNN, KOOKESH,
WOLF,
02/12/03 0201 (H) WILSON
02/14/03 0219 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WEYHRAUCH
02/18/03 0232 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
02/21/03 0274 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SEATON
02/28/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE MATHIS, Senior Operations Manager
Nana Development Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 106.
MARY KATHRYN THOMAS, Owner
Arctech Services
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
GINGER STOCK, Owner
WebWeavers, LLC;
Member
Board of Directors
Alaska State Chamber [of Commerce (ASCC)]
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
LARRY CREWS
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC);
Greater Sitka Chamber of Commerce
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
DAN F. KENNEDY, CPA
Owner
Kennedy & Company, LLC
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
TONY KRIER, Owner
Tony's Rentals
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
GRAHAM G. STOREY, Executive Director
Nome Chamber of Commerce
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
ROBERT VENABLES
Haines Chamber of Commerce
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
CHRIS BEHEIM, Director
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory ("Crime Lab")
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 49.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 49.
DALE PITTMAN, Police Chief
University of Alaska - Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
49.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Relayed the PDA's concerns regarding HB 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Gara, and Gruenberg were present at the call
to order.
HB 23 - RESTITUTION FOR CRIME VICTIMS
Number 0159
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 23, "An Act relating to court-ordered
restitution and compensation following a criminal conviction."
[In committee packets was a new proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 23, Version 23-LS0134\S, Ford, 2/26/03.]
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that in drafting CSHB 23(JUD) [following
the hearing on 2/21/03], a technical issue arose with regard to
the amendments that were adopted. She indicated that the new CS
in members' packets will address that issue.
Number 0191
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to rescind the
committee's action on [2/21/03] in reporting CSHB 23(JUD) [the
proposed CS, Version 23-LS0134\D, Ford, 1/29/03, as amended on
2/21/03] from committee. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 0219
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the new proposed CS for
HB 23, Version 23-LS0134\S, Ford, 2/26/03, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version S was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Version
S merely conforms the language in Section 2, page 2, lines 11-
14, to the language in Section 1, page 1, lines 10-13. He
relayed that Version S has the sponsor's support.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report Version 23-LS0134\S,
Ford, 2/26/03, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, the
new CSHB 23(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 106 - DEFINITION OF LOBBYING
Number 0378
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act amending the definition of
'lobbyist' in the Regulation of Lobbying Act, and as it applies
in the act setting standards of conduct for legislators and
legislative employees, to define 'regular' and 'substantial' as
those terms describe activities for which a person receives
consideration for the purpose of influencing legislative or
administrative action."
Number 0430
JOE MATHIS, Senior Operations Manager, Nana Development
Corporation, testified in support of HB 106. He opined that the
current statute "greatly inhibits any normal business person
from participating in the public process." Noting that a person
who spends more than four hours in a 30-day period speaking to
[elected officials] is required to register as a lobbyist, he
offered his belief that this is an unreasonable [restriction],
since he does not want to have to register as a lobbyist and,
yet, it is virtually impossible to come to Juneau and speak with
60 legislators within that four-hour time period. He mentioned
that it is pretty hard [for him] to track just how much time he
spends in contact with legislators regarding a variety of
issues, but if he exceeds the four-hour time period stipulated
in current law, he is required to register as a lobbyist, pay a
registration fee, provide personal financial information for
public scrutiny, file reports, and be subject to significant
fines.
MR. MATHIS said that Nana Development Corporation has
approximately 30 affiliated businesses and subsidiaries. He
relayed that there is always legislation pending that affects
his business and, therefore, it very easy for either a business
associate or himself to use up that four-hour allotment and, in
doing so, they all become subject to the current registration
requirements for lobbyists. He remarked that once one becomes a
lobbyist, he/she is prohibited from actively working in
campaigns or making contributions outside of his/her district.
He opined that these restrictions preclude "bona fide business
people" from becoming involved in the "business process." He
urged the committee to pass HB 106.
Number 0695
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), relayed that AkPIRG is opposed to HB
106 because it believes that the bill will gut the regulations
pertaining to lobbying to such a degree that no one will be
required to register as a lobbyist. He elaborated:
This is bad public policy and will further erode the
public's trust in the political system, allowing
special interests to influence legislators. Since
statehood, Alaska has had a law regulating lobbyists,
and this revision to it would render that law useless.
This current legislation would override a 26-year-old
regulation. The ability to transparently see who's
attempting to influence our legislators is something
the public has come to depend on, and this bill will
greatly decrease that transparency and expand the
power of special interests over our political system.
... Currently, registered lobbyists are not able to
host fundraisers, nor are they able to donate to
candidates outside their legislative district. And
the limit of four hours is exactly that; ... if you're
going to go and just talk to your legislator and
engage in direct communication, four hours is
definitely a long time. But if you're going to
influence people outside your legislative district,
which is the definition of lobbying, then you should
be subject to limits, and you should not be able to
donate to people outside your legislative district,
nor hold fundraisers for those people.
And there are two ways to attempt to get around that
provision. First, you could attempt to directly
remove it and say that lobbyists should be allowed to
hold fundraisers or donate to those candidates. Or,
secondly, ... you could change who needs to register
as a lobbyist, thus exempting those folks from the
fundraiser and donation ban. This legislation appears
to be an attempt to do that, and we think that's a
poor idea. The definitions in this bill for "regular"
and "substantial" are not adequate to capture all the
people currently engaging in lobbying. And If we put
the standard at 30 days and 40 hours, we're going to
miss a lot of people who are lobbyists, and the public
needs to know this information.
Number 0851
MR. CLEARY continued:
Today I went to the APOC [Alaska Public Offices
Commission] web site and printed out the number of
lobbyists currently registered in the state of Alaska;
there are 178, by my count, and ... I don't know how
many of these people would then ... not have to
register as lobbyists and why the people of the state
of Alaska would be served by that. Now, according to
the Center for Public Integrity, ... in 1999 and 2000
- both those years - nearly $11 million was spent on
lobbying in Alaska, making the state 12th in the
nation for most lobby expenditures; 331 special
interests registered in those years. So, if we're
looking at trying to decrease the amount of special-
interest control and persuasion on our legislature,
the best way to do that is by transparently showing
who is trying to influence our legislative branch and
who's hiring those people. So, just to sum up: This
is bad public policy and AkPIRG would like you to vote
against this bill and not pass it out of committee.
MR. CLEARY, in response to questions, said he would be available
at the next hearing on HB 106 and would provide the committee
with written comments and suggestions.
Number 0913
MARY KATHRYN THOMAS, Owner, Arctech Services, relayed that her
company is a family-owned small business, and that they are
oilfield contractors, loggers - harvesting beetle-kill timber,
and own a trucking business. She mentioned that in looking at
the APOC definition, she has probably gone over the four-hour,
thirty-day limit for many years when speaking to legislators.
She relayed that in working with different organizations,
including serving on various boards, she has come before the
legislature to speak on issues of concern to those
organizations. She mentioned that having to register as a
lobbyist would also require making disclosures. She relayed
that while large businesses can afford to hire a dedicated
lobbyist who will keep his/her duties separate from the normal
duties of running a business, small businesses can't afford do
that, adding that when she is lobbying for her business, she is
exposing her business interests. She said that she has concerns
because in order for her to adequately address her business's
needs, she has to interact a lot with the legislative branch as
well as with agencies in the executive branch. She also relayed
that similar to her wanting to represent her business interests,
she also wants to be able to put her name on the "sponsorship of
a candidate's fundraiser." She said that she would like to see
HB 106 move forward.
Number 1144
GINGER STOCK, Owner, WebWeavers, LLC; Member, Board of
Directors, Alaska State Chamber [of Commerce (ASCC)], testified
in support of HB 106. She opined that four hours is not a
significant amount of time, and that currently, the regulations
pertaining to and the definition of lobbyist seem limiting and
unproductive for those who are trying to do business in Alaska.
She urged the committee to support HB 106.
Number 1250
LARRY CREWS; Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC); Greater
Sitka Chamber of Commerce, remarked that in addition to these
organizations, he is also speaking as a small business owner.
He offered his belief that the four-hour-per-month limitation is
inadequate. He opined that no time limit should be set for non-
compensated persons, but that if one is required, it should be a
more reasonable amount of time, such as 30 or 40 hours per
month. He said that he does not feel that he should have to
register as a lobbyist simply because he has to spend six hours'
cumulative time each month, for example, with his
representatives. He asked the committee to consider the small
business owners who periodically need the help of government
officials, and to not make it any harder than it already is for
those people seeking the help they need.
Number 1328
DAN F. KENNEDY, CPA, Owner, Kennedy & Company, LLC, testified in
support of HB 106. Speaking on behalf of himself and his
business partner, he said that they were very excited to see
committee support of HB 106. He mentioned that he is a board
member of the Alaska Society of Certified Public Accountants
(ASCPA), and a past president of the "Greater Wasilla Chamber of
Commerce." He opined that changing the definitions is very
important in order for small businesses to have access to the
decision-makers within state government. He relayed that he
refers to the current four-hour standard as a draconian
restriction.
Number 1436
TONY KRIER, Owner, Tony's Rentals, said that he supports the
comments of Mr. Mathis and Ms. Thomas. He indicated that when
he contacts his legislators, he has to do so via telephone and,
thus, he has probably gone over the four-hour time limit. In
closing, he said that he supports HB 106.
Number 1497
GRAHAM G. STOREY, Executive Director, Nome Chamber of Commerce,
said that he supports HB 106. He offered his belief that the
points made by Mr. Cleary do not reflect the realities of rural
Alaska. Mr. Storey noted that only two members of the
legislature represent the Nome area; thus, he opined, for "all
those other issues out there," [Nome residents] have no voice.
He remarked that whenever access to government is expanded, it
is an excellent public policy. In response to a question, he
suggested that the problem with the current law is that the
four-hour limit for talking to legislators and other government
officials does not provide enough time to address all the issues
that might be of importance to a particular small business or
community.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that whenever the committee considers
pending legislation and current statutes, it is important to
keep in mind the impact on the entire state.
Number 1641
ROBERT VENABLES, Haines Chamber of Commerce, asked the committee
to support HB 106. He opined that clarifying the terms
"regular" and "substantial" will better reflect what a
businessperson's time commitment must be in order to effectively
communicate with the legislature. Four hours per month is
hardly a substantial amount of time, he remarked, noting that it
would merely amount to a person being able to spend only about 6
minutes with each legislator. "The business community wants to
be involved with the legislature, and if we're to take the time
and expense to come down to the state capitol to discuss issues
that are important to us, then we would ask to not be penalized
for those efforts," he added. In conclusion, he relayed the 135
members of the Haines Chamber of Commerce would like to thank
the legislature for its efforts in making state government work
better for the people across the state who are in business.
Number 1745
ANDREE McLEOD, by way of introduction, said that in addition to
being a citizen of Alaska, she is a "public member living
outside the capital when the legislature is in session." She
went on to say:
If you want a more educated voter, a more involved
citizenry, and a more responsive government, you will
not pass this bill out of committee. At a time in
this country when there should be as much openness and
dialog as possible between the government and the
people about what government is doing, to propose a
blatant circumvention of well-written laws regarding
the openness and candor of lobbyists' government
activity is clearly a betrayal not only of the people
of Alaska, but of the democratic process itself.
MS. McLEOD indicated that she would be able to offer further
testimony when HB 106 is next heard
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that representatives from the APOC and
from the ASCC would testify at the next hearing on HB 106, and
that further public testimony would also be heard at that time.
She announced that HB 106 would be held over.
HB 49 - EXPAND DNA DATABASE
Number 1836
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 49, "An Act relating to the DNA identification
registration system; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1847
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that
during his campaign, [expanding Alaska's DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) database] was one of the issues he campaigned on. He
mentioned that he has taken a tour of the state's Scientific
Crime Detection Laboratory ("Crime Lab") and has asked questions
of the director regarding sample collection and storage. He
noted that under current statute, "1996 is the earliest from
which DNA can be taken from a felon"; that at first, samples
could only be taken from people convicted of a felony crime
against a person; and that as of 2001, samples could be taken
from people convicted of burglary.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON explained that HB 49 would expand the
state DNA database to include all persons convicted of a felony,
as well as those convicted of certain misdemeanor sexual
offenses. He opined that adoption of HB 49 would increase the
number of crimes that are solved, prevent future crimes, and
exonerate the innocent; he noted that members' packets include
articles detailing examples of how the collection of DNA samples
has contributed to the aforementioned. He said that although
expanding the DNA database may initially result in increased
costs, he would argue that it will reduce costs [to the criminal
justice system] in the future, adding that there is information
in members' packets regarding the issue of costs. He suggested
that adoption of HB 49 will create a win-win situation.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:45 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
Number 2070
CHRIS BEHEIM, Director, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory
("Crime Lab"), Department of Public Safety (DPS), provided a
PowerPoint presentation in addition to his spoken comments. He
offered the following:
Back in 1982 we were very limited in our capability.
Basically, the only thing we were doing is examining
... for the presence of blood or semen stains on
sexual assault cases. In 1987 we hired a serologist
at the laboratory, and we instituted "ABO blood
grouping." And I remember a case: we had a burglary
once, where the suspect cut himself, left some blood
at the scene, and he happened to be type "AB blood."
Well, type AB blood is the most rare; it's found in
about 5 percent of the population, so those numbers
give you about 1 in 20.
In 1992 we added our first DNA test; it was called
"DQ-alpha" testing. And this is a great breakthrough
because ... we were using a process called "PCR" - or
the Polymerase Chain Reaction." Not to get too
technical here, the PCR is a procedure which actually
[allows us to] take very small amounts of biological
material, put it through the process and amplify it -
generate copies of it - and be able to get a DNA type.
It was much more discriminating than the ABO typing,
and [on] average, you could eliminate about 99 percent
of the population - give you odds [of] about 1 in 100.
Our first DQ-alpha case that we used in court was a
homicide investigation that happened up in Fairbanks
in 1992. The victim had been strangled with an
electrical cord, sexually assaulted, and stabbed with
a kitchen knife many times; it was a very brutal crime
scene. We used the DQ-alpha technique and we
eliminated the first suspect that ... law enforcement
had brought in. The investigation continued, and when
they learned that a sexual offender who had been
recently released from jail in Arizona moved into the
Fairbanks area and was in the neighborhood, they
checked into his past, and they determined - they
found out through the investigation - that he had a
previous conviction for sexual assault and strangling
his victim with an electrical cord.
Number 2182
MR. BEHEIM continued:
We seized his watch, in (indisc. - coughing) part of
the investigation, and when we took the watch apart,
you can see that there was some blood underneath the
band [visible on page 4 of the PowerPoint
presentation]. This watch was seized about six weeks
after the crime. The DNA type was obtained on the
watch, and it matched back to the victim of the
homicide. There was other evidence presented, and the
suspect was convicted of the crime and is back in
jail. We enhanced our DNA testing in '96, adding
"Polymarker," and that could eliminate 99.9 percent of
the population. But the big breakthrough came in
1999, when we began "STR [short tandem repeat]
typing." This is an actual statistical number from an
unsolved homicide that we have on our convicted
offender database [page 5 of the PowerPoint
presentation reads: 1 in 2,111,000,000,000,000,000].
...
And, basically, it was decided in 1997, by the FBI
[Federal Bureau of Investigation] and a group of crime
laboratories, to standardize on 13 specific markers -
DNA markers. They're called the 13 core loci. And at
that time, the test wasn't even commercially
available; it wasn't 'til the next year ... it became
in use. But the beauty of this is that now
laboratories around the country standardize on one DNA
typing method, and it would allow for laboratories to
compare and share information. It also made
databasing much, much easier because the process is
much faster and cheaper and much more sensitive than
the old techniques that were used for database
purposes.
We knew that this databasing was coming down the line,
and in 1996 a bill was passed which established the
DNA registration system. And this required
individuals convicted of a felony crime against a
person after January 1 [1996] ... to provide a blood
or oral sample for inclusion into the database. Now,
at that time, we weren't doing anything with them but
collecting the samples and storing them at the
laboratory in the freezer. Burglary was added as a
qualifying conviction in September of 2001. And I
think it's important to note that these laws only
included individuals convicted of a felony crime after
certain dates. So [it's] after January 1 [1996] in
the case of felony crimes against a person, and
September [2001] for burglary ....
Number 2317
MR. BEHEIM went on to say:
The system that allows us to do the databasing and the
comparisons and the searching is called CODIS
[Combined DNA Index System] ... and it is basically
... software and support, which is provided at no cost
by the FBI. They came up, installed it at the
laboratory, and they support it; they send technicians
up when we need them, and they provide secure
communications back to the FBI. There are two indexes
that we use to store the DNA information. [The] first
index is called the convicted offender index, and
there we place DNA profiles from individuals convicted
of qualifying offenses. The second index is called
the forensic index, and that contains evidence that is
recovered at crime scenes.
And the purpose of CODIS is, first of all, to identify
suspects, and it's done by comparing the DNA profiles
from the crime scenes to the DNA profiles of the
convicted offenders. The other thing that CODIS can
do is link cases, and that's done by comparing DNA
profiles obtained from different crime scenes and
trying to match them up. If a match [is] obtained -
for instance, a convicted offender is matched to a
crime scene - it's called a hit. And technically we
call that an offender hit. If we have a hit between
two seemingly unrelated cases, that's called a
forensic hit. So there's two different types of hits.
Obviously, the forensic hit would [provide law
enforcement, then, with resources]. [The preceding
bracketed portion was not on tape, but taken from the
Gavel to Gavel recording on the Internet.]
TAPE 03-14, SIDE B
Number 2375
MR. BEHEIM continued:
They'd know that cases were committed by the same
individual and they may be able to get some
investigative information - pool resources, coordinate
investigations - and look for [a] common link between
cases. There are different levels of CODIS. We have
the state's level in Anchorage, and then there's the
National DNA Index System, or NDIS; NDIS was open for
business [on October 13, 1998]. And, basically,
laboratories around the country can upload data into
the National DNA Index System and then search
different databases. So, our samples could be
searched against any other participating state's
databases.
In October of [1999] there were 10 states in the
United States that were uploading DNA profiles into
the National DNA Index System, using the latest STR
technology. As you can see [from page 11 of the
PowerPoint presentation], Alaska was one of the first
states; we were ahead of both California and New York,
and we're very, very proud of that fact. So what was
in NDIS, the National DNA Index System? Well, in
October of [1999] there were about 20,000 convicted
offender profiles, and about 1,700 forensic profiles.
In the year 2000 there was one hit made at the ...
[NDIS], and this involved a case that [the] FBI
laboratory worked; it was an unsolved rape/murder case
that was submitted from Iowa. They analyzed it, got a
DNA profile, uploaded it into the [NDIS], and searched
it against all the profiles that they had at [NDIS].
It hit against a convicted offender who had been
entered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
[FDLE] laboratory in Tallahassee. And you can see
[from page 13 of the PowerPoint presentation] that the
offender had a prior conviction in Florida for sexual
assault in [1999]. So, this hit linked that offender
to the homicide in Iowa. Only one hit in 2000; that's
not very impressive, but things have changed.
Number 2283
MR. BEHEIM went on to say:
Now, CODIS -- actually, in December, Hawaii became the
50th state to get a CODIS ... installed, so all 50
states have the software on hand, and many states are
uploading. There are now over a million profiles -
probably approaching a million and a half profiles [in
NDIS]. There are 42 states, the two federal labs -
the FBI and the Army lab - and Puerto Rico ...
uploading. So what's in our database? January of
2003 ... we had [a] little over 3,000 convicted
offender samples in our database. We also had 242
forensic profiles; these are profiles obtained from
crime scenes. Included in this number are 126 "no
suspect" forensic samples; these are crime scene
evidence that law enforcement really doesn't know who
the perpetrator was. And this 126 number includes 11
unsolved homicides, 80 sexual assaults, 28 burglaries,
[and] 7 miscellaneous cases.
We are working very hard to add additional samples - I
just talked [to] the lab this morning - we should be
adding another 20 or so burglary cases, hopefully, in
the next week. We are also working on unsolved
homicides; I believe the commissioner might have told
you about the "cold case" units that are operating
around the state looking at evidence from old cases -
we have entered, I think, our oldest cases from 1978
into the system. We have several assaults from the
early [1990s] - assaults on children - that I would be
very anxious to get a hit on.
Our first hit in the database occurred in October of
2001. This was a forensic hit. We linked a sexual
assault that took place in Anchorage in August of
[1997] to another sexual assault that happened in
December of [1998]. We did not have any information
to provide the investigator as to who the perpetrator
was - we could just tell them that the same individual
was involved in both crimes. [On] January 25 of last
year we had our first NDIS hit. Basically, I was
called by the CODIS manager from the state of Oregon,
and he informed me that one of our crime scene samples
from a 1995 Fairbanks investigation hit against a
convicted offender sample that they had just entered
into their database in Oregon. What was interesting
about this was that in January, January 1 of 2002,
Oregon went to an all felon database, and the
convicted offender who was added was added because of
a drug conviction - a felony drug conviction.
Number 2170
MR. BEHEIM continued:
[On] March 7 of last year, we had our first offender
hit in our state database. This involved a woman from
Bethel who was picked up in front of the ... village
store up there, sexually assaulted, thrown out of the
vehicle - the perpetrator's vehicle - and she didn't
have a clue who the assailant was. We entered the DNA
profile that we obtained from the sexual assault kit
into CODIS, and we got a hit. I was very pleased to
call up the Bethel police department and provide them
with the name of the individual. And when I gave them
the name, they were well aware of that person - he had
been a very active criminal in the Bethel area - but
they had no idea he was related to this crime. And he
at first denied being the offender, but then, when
presented with the DNA evidence, he changed his plea
and is now back in jail.
In April of last year, we had another hit. A woman
was abducted from downtown Anchorage, taken out into
the valley, [and] sexually assaulted. During the
assault she struggled with the assailant, scratched
him, and got some of his blood on her clothing. The
[Alaska] State Troopers submitted the clothing from
the assault victim to the laboratory; we were able to
isolate the bloodstains, extract DNA, and enter it
into ... CODIS. We conducted a search and it hit
against the two unsolved Anchorage sexual assaults
that we had matched that had happened four or five
years prior. The victim also provided law enforcement
with the license plate number of the assailant, and he
was eventually arrested down in Houston, Texas, and
brought back to Alaska, and I believe he is awaiting
trial on at least five sexual assaults - we had
another CODIS hit on his sample.
[On] October 11 of last year, we had another hit.
This involved a University of Alaska student who was
sexually assaulted. An individual was arrested for
that crime, and when we got his DNA sample, then we
did a comparison, and found that he was eliminated:
he could not have been the perpetrator of this
assault. The DNA, then, from the victim, was entered
into the database and it hit against a convicted
offender. And, again, law enforcement had no
connection to that offender and probably would never
have solved the case without the database.
Number 2049
MR. BEHEIM relayed:
As of February 25 [2003] we've had a total of 19 hits
in our database: 12 of these have been convicted
offender to forensic hits - the crime scene evidence
...; and 7 of these are case to case hits - connecting
two or more cases - showing that the same perpetrator
was involved. This has really surprised me - the
number of hits that we were able to generate in such a
short time; ... I've been totally amazed at this.
We've aided a total of 23 different investigations.
If you look at this table, Investigations Aided [on
page 23 of the PowerPoint presentation], it's provided
by the FBI, you can see these are investigations aided
through October 2002. You can see that Alaska, at
that time we had 22 hits, and if you look, compared to
other states, we have one of the highest hit rates per
capita. You see we've had 22 investigation aided,
California had 99. So we're doing an outstanding job,
but I think we could do much better.
There's been a lot of media coverage on DNA. This
article in USA Today [shown on pages 24 and 25 of the
PowerPoint presentation], pointing out that just four
states account for 56 percent of all the matches, and
many states don't have a single match in their
database. ... One of the things that convinces me that
we could do better is ... [from] information I got off
the Internet the other day. A law firm in Tacoma,
Washington, that specializes in DNA database issues
analyzed the database laws from all 50 states. And,
actually, the state of Alaska's database law was
ranked near the bottom as being one of the weakest
laws in the country. In fact, only Connecticut had a
state law which was rated lower. They used a 1 to 20
scale, 20 being the highest; Alaska was rated 5.
Oregon, on the other hand, was given ... a perfect
score of 20.
Number 1956
MR. BEHEIM continued:
So, that brings the question: Should [Alaska's]
database law be expanded? And how would we do that?
Well, currently, there are 40 states' and the federal
DNA database laws that are retroactive, and they would
collect from anybody still incarcerated or under
control - under probation or parole - for a qualifying
conviction. And if you remember, our database law was
not retroactive; it would only collect from
individuals convicted after a starting point. So what
this means is, we have people sitting in jail that
committed a crime in [1995] that don't have to give a
sample, and the only way we'll get a sample from them,
as things stands right now, is if they are released,
reoffend, are caught, convicted and thrown back in the
slammer, and then required to provide. That's the
only way that we can search their DNA sample against
unsolved cases.
And law enforcement [officials] have told me that they
are convinced that we have individuals sitting in jail
that have definitely committed other crimes. Some are
suspected of committing other murders in Alaska and in
the Lower 48, and since these acts were committed
before the qualifying time of the current law, we
don't have samples from them. There are 24 states,
now, that collect from all felons. South Dakota, I
was just informed yesterday, just expanded, so they
became the 24th state, the first state this year, to
go "all felons." And this makes a tremendous
difference. Many states are collecting from all
registered sex offenders; Alaska does not. It's not a
felony crime to commit attempted sexual abuse of a
minor in Alaska; even though it would require someone
to register as a sex offender, we do not have samples
from them.
Many states have made it a felony to refuse to provide
a DNA sample - ... the point being here that if
someone is convicted of burglary, ... he might think
that his DNA might be on file for committing a
homicide or two, [and] he just might [be] inclined to
refuse to give a DNA sample and take the misdemeanor
rather than risk a homicide conviction. The law could
also be expanded to increase the penalty for
unauthorized disclosure of DNA records. There are
concerns that that DNA can be misused: genetic
information could be obtained from the samples to look
to see if someone might have a propensity for getting
a certain disease [for example]. What I would like to
see done would be to increase the penalty for
unauthorized use of DNA records to make that a felony;
it's currently a misdemeanor.
Number 1809
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, on the issue of unauthorized use, said: "I
certainly want the evidence to be used to help convict people; I
certainly want the evidence to be used to help exonerate people
who are wrongly convicted. Beyond either of those uses, is
there any use that you consider to be legitimate?"
MR. BEHEIM said yes. The one other use would be for gathering
statistical population data for court testimony. He elaborated:
We use that by removing any personally identifying
information, using the same markers - the same 13 core
loci markers. But in Alaska we have unique
populations, Native populations, that we need to do
research on to see how unique a specific profile is
within a given population. For example, when we run
and generate a profile, we typically report out the
population frequencies for different races - there'll
be information for Caucasians, African Americans,
Yupik, Inupiat, and Athabascans - and the numbers vary
slightly between the different groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that the accuracy of DNA testing is
strong enough that everybody in the state probably has a
different DNA reading. "So you're not saying that you need to
do a statistical analysis to see if there are many people in the
state with the same DNA reading - that's not the point," he
surmised.
MR. BEHEIM said no, it's to be able to present statistical
numbers in court; the courts have found that they need that type
of information presented. Basically, this information takes
away the argument that since there are close-knit communities in
Alaska, that a DNA sample might not have the astronomical odds
of 1 in 2 quintillion [of identifying a specific suspect].
Therefore, the Crime Lab's research using "law enforcement
identification markers" illustrates for the court the
significance of a DNA match.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether HB 49 contains language
defining either authorized use or unauthorized use of DNA
samples.
Number 1672
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
indicated that HB 49 itself does not contain such definitions;
instead, AS 44.41.035(f) currently sets up the authorized uses
for DNA samples.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON mentioned the that there is a proposed
committee substitute (CS) from the governor's office that will
include a provision regarding the unlawful use of DNA samples.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that the aforementioned provision will
say:
A person commits the crime of unlawful use of DNA
samples if the person knowingly, without authorization
under AS 44.41.035, possesses or allows another person
access to a blood, oral, or tissue sample collected
for inclusion in the DNA identification registration
system.
CHAIR McGUIRE posited that this language will make it clear, via
reference to AS 44.41.035, what the authorized uses are. She
noted that also included in the aforementioned CS is a provision
to make unlawful use of DNA samples a class C felony.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that the aforementioned CS is
not yet in its final form.
MR. BEHEIM offered that Virginia's DNA database is one of the
largest and oldest databases in the country. He offered the
following statistics: in 1998 there were 5 cold hits; in 1999
there were 74 cold hits; in 2000 there were 178 cold hits; in
2001 there were 308 cold hits; and in 2002 there were 445 cold
hits. A cold hit, he explained, is when the lab enters a crime
scene sample into the database without any knowledge of who the
perpetrator is, and it results in a match. He mentioned that
included in these statistics are 44 hits on homicide cases; 65
hits on sexual assault cases; and 153 hits on cases involving
property crimes. He also mentioned that cumulatively, Virginia
has "just topped 1,000 hits in the Virginia database; they are
an 'all felon' state."
Number 1422
MR. BEHEIM [referring to pages 28-31 of the PowerPoint
presentation] mentioned that when broken down, Virginia's
statistics show the number of cold hits for each category of
prior conviction. He noted that the percentage of cold hits
wherein the offender had a prior conviction for drugs was
higher, at 18 percent, than for those with a prior conviction in
the categories of crimes against a person, at a combined total
of 17 percent: sex crime, 7 percent; [wound/assault, 6 percent;
and homicide/abduction/kidnapping, 4 percent]. He also noted
that those who were placed in the Virginia database because of a
felony drug conviction are having their DNA hit on many
homicides [23 percent], sexual offenses [18 percent], and other
crimes - especially property crimes [48 percent]. Additionally,
those who were placed in the Virginia database because of a
forgery conviction - what many consider to be a white-collar
crime in which the perpetrator isn't someone who is likely to
commit a violent crime - had their DNA hit on 10 homicides [and
14 sexual offenses]. The statistics indicate that 85 percent of
Virginia's hits would have been missed if that database had been
limited to only violent offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON remarked that a constituent of his has
expressed the concern about including samples from persons with
multiple DWI (driving while intoxicated) convictions. He
invited Mr. Beheim to comment.
MR. BEHEIM said:
I believe that ... if we would look and were able to
get the statistics, I'm sure that they would have some
hits from individuals convicted of felony DWI. ... I
know of cases from England, where their database is
very expansive - they have the largest database in the
world right now - where ... they've solved old
homicides from people arrested for DWI.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked:
Why would we expand the DNA list to include the
storage, the taking, the processing of DNA blood
samples from people whose convictions are the kind
that don't show they have a propensity for violence -
somebody who passes a bad check, somebody who lies
under oath - the things like that? You've got me
convinced that we need to collect and store and
process the DNA evidence of people who engage in
violence, who threaten violence, who use weapons
during their crimes, ... who engage in sexual conduct
that's inappropriate and criminal. I'm just wondering
about this other category of people who are non-
violent, ... or why we would store their evidence.
Number 1169
MR. BEHEIM replied:
I think the evidence that Virginia has for just
individuals convicted of felony drug possession,
[showing] that they are also committing sexual
assaults and homicides, is pretty convincing. And
[the] same with the case [of] ... forgery; again,
that's a non-violent crime, yet people with felony
forgery convictions are also perpetrating other types
of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Beheim to elaborate on the
statistic regarding the 10 homicides related to hits from those
convicted of forgery.
MR. BEHEIM explained that those 10 homicide crimes solved
constituted 14 percent of the total number of hits from those
convicted of forgery.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that even one hit [that solves
a homicide] makes it worthwhile [to expand the DNA database].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he merely wants to make sure they are
doing something relevant. He asked whether there are any
statistics which demonstrate that a person who commits forgery
is more likely, when compared to a general member of the public,
to engage in a violent crime. If people who are engaging in
these non-violent crimes don't have a greater propensity for
violence than people in the general public, "why are we doing
it," he asked.
MR. BEHEIM indicated that he did not have those types of
statistics, and reiterated that 85 percent of Virginia's hits
would have been missed if that database had been limited to only
violent offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wants to ensure, if they do expand
the DNA database, that it is being expanded to [only] include
people who have a higher propensity to do something violent, and
to that end, he relayed that he would like to see statistics
regarding the types of crimes whose perpetrators fall into that
category.
MR. BEHEIM reiterate that he did not have those types of
statistics. He suggested that perhaps a professor in
criminology or sociology might have such data.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his belief that the national
statistics do illustrate that such a propensity exists among
convicted felons of all types of crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied:
Just so the public understands, ... I may very well
support the bill as written, but the big question is
how broadly should we expand the DNA database. Each
piece of DNA that we take and that we process and that
we store costs us a certain amount of money. Right
now there's federal money to pay for that, ... but in
a few years maybe there won't be. And then, maybe
we've expanded this database so broadly that it's now
cutting into our public safety budget, and we're
losing troopers on the streets and law enforcement
officers on the street in Anchorage.
And maybe this is the time for us to say, "Well, let's
figure out how broad to make it, but not make it
broader than we need to, and not increase the expense
broader than we need to." So I think I keep going
back to: ... If the person's convicted of a crime
that gives us any reasonable expectation that they
might be more likely than a general member of the
public to commit a violent crime in the future, let's
take their DNA evidence. ... But my concern is, why
are we taking it from people if we don't have any
understanding whether or not they're more likely than
the average person to commit a violent crime? And I
guess I'm struggling with that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG sought confirmation that fingerprints
are collected from a large variety of people, regardless of
whether they have committed a crime, including members of the
military and people who apply for membership in the bar
association, and often are simply used as a method of
identification.
MR. BEHEIM confirmed this.
Number 0560
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Beheim whether there is any
real difference between [DNA samples] and fingerprints.
MR. BEHEIM said: "Not the way that we are applying it here. We
are strictly using law enforcement identification markers here.
We're treating the DNA as a piece of identification." In
response to questions, he acknowledged that having a DNA sample
of all children born could assist law enforcement in identifying
individuals who are later kidnapped, as well as in identifying
found human remains burned beyond recognition in a fire. He
also mentioned that the NDIS currently has indexes for missing
persons. In addition, the NDIS also allows relatives of missing
persons to volunteer their DNA for the purpose of "paternity-
type testing"; he noted that those types of samples are kept
separate and not included in the samples that can be searched
against samples collected at crime scenes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it doesn't seem to him that "this"
is much different than any other type of identification. On
that point, he asked why "this" should be treated any
differently.
MR. BEHEIM pointed out that DNA testing is much more expensive
than "rolling a fingerprint card." Thus it would not be cost
effective to just take everybody's DNA and put it into the
system; the costs would be astronomical. He surmised that the
cost of DNA testing is the reason why states have set specific
limits regarding whose samples are collected.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted the legislature must also consider the
privacy issues surrounding DNA testing and sample collection.
She reminded members that DNA doesn't just reveal one's own
genetic makeup, but also that of one's blood relations. She
remarked that it is critical to ensure that collecting DNA is
done for the right reasons, and that when people use it for the
wrong reasons, "we put the hammer down on them heavily" because
the potential for misuse of DNA information is much greater than
for misuse of fingerprint information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the cost is per sample.
Number 0289
MR. BEHEIM said that the cost for a convicted-offender sample is
about $40. He noted that this price does not apply to forensic
evidence. For convicted-offender samples, contract
laboratories, which often are highly automated, are utilized.
In contrast, a lot more care has to be taken with forensic
samples, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that one of his concerns centers
around the cost; he said he wants to ensure that the DNA
database isn't so big that "we're going to end up taking law
enforcement officers off the street to pay for it." He asked
whether there is any data regarding the cost, in addition to the
$40 per sample, to law enforcement for taking the sample,
temporarily storing it, sending it off to the [laboratory],
receiving it back, and then storing it for the long term.
MR. BEHEIM said he did not have any information regarding those
costs. He noted, however, that the collection of a DNA sample
involves just taking an oral swab, which is often now being
collected, along with fingerprints, at sentencing. He also
clarified that in addition to the aforementioned $40 per sample,
which is the cost of processing the sample, the DNA sample-
collecting kits themselves cost about $10 each, maybe less.
MR. BEHEIM, returning to his presentation, relayed that when
Oregon expanded its DNA database last January to include all
felons, the hit rate in the first year went up 400 percent. He
indicated that of those offenders with hits, 22 percent had
prior felony drug convictions and 21 percent had prior sex crime
convictions.
TAPE 03-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. BEHEIM [referring to page 34 of the PowerPoint presentation]
posited that the recent trend around the nation is to expand DNA
databases to all felons: there were 5 states in 1998; 6 states
in 1999; 7 states in 2000; 14 states in 2001; 23 states in 2002;
and, in addition to North Dakota just becoming one of those
states, [15] other states have such legislation pending in 2003.
Turning again to the question of why Alaska should expand its
DNA database, he posited that law enforcement will catch more
criminals, the innocent will be exonerated, it will enhance
public safety, and it is very cost effective. He mentioned that
June 3, 2002, the Crime Lab had a CODIS hit against a sexual
assault that happened in Anchorage in 2000. The criminal
history of the offender showed that he had convictions going
back to [1984]. Mr. Beheim remarked that had Alaska's law been
retroactive, when that offender was in jail in 1996 for a 1994
conviction, they could have collected a DNA sample then, and he
would have created a hit from the 2000 sexual assault; thus
preventing his subsequent victim in 2001 from being assaulted.
MR. BEHEIM [turning to pages 38-41 of the PowerPoint
presentation] highlighted the issue of costs and funding. He
relayed that the congressional budget passed in February 2003
includes millions of dollars for DNA [issues]: over $40.5
million for the Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP), $28.1
million for DNA grants, and $13.1 million for DNA "elimination."
He noted that current federal DNA legislation has bipartisan
support, and that congressional Senate Bill 149 "includes $100
million for DNA authorization." He stated his belief that
Alaska would be able to get federal funds to pay for "the entire
program," and that Congress would authorize "this" as a
continuing program. He also mentioned that in President Bush's
proposed 2004 budget, there is almost $130 million for DNA
backlog elimination, and that there is a large research project
in progress to increase DNA capacity and develop new technology
that will lower the costs of DNA collection and testing.
MR. BEHEIM [referring to page 42 of the powerpoint presentation]
highlighted some of the safeguards already in place with regard
to the DNA process: laboratories performing analyses are
accredited; lab procedures are strictly controlled and reviewed;
all hits to convicted offenders are confirmed; CODIS computers
and lines are very secure; and DNA profiles provide no health or
genetic information. He noted that all CODIS operators go
through a national security check before they are authorized to
utilize the system.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how long they could anticipate
receiving federal funding to cover the costs of Alaska's
program.
MR. BEHEIM suggested four to five years.
Number 0690
DALE PITTMAN, Police Chief, University of Alaska - Anchorage
(UAA), recapped the sexual assault incident mentioned by Mr.
Beheim that took place at the UAA wherein the first suspect was
exonerated by the DNA evidence, and a second suspect was
subsequently convicted because of the DNA evidence. He noted
that in addition to a previous crime of assault for which he'd
had his DNA sample taken in 1997, the man that was convicted of
the 2002 sexual assault had also been convicted previously for a
misdemeanor sexual offense. He opined that it would be helpful
if the DNA database were expanded to include, at the minimum,
samples from all those convicted of any misdemeanor sexual
offense.
Number 0815
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA),
Department of Administration, said that the PDA has several
concerns with HB 49. She elaborated:
There are, of course, several concerns that the [PDA]
has with the proposed significant expansion of the
list of crimes for which a person is convicted or
adjudicated that would require the person to give a
DNA sample - those crimes that have been added to the
list, as already have been mentioned. But I think we
need to look at all of them. [There are] two sex
offense misdemeanors, but [with] the inclusion of
every felony, this would add over 80 offenses to the
list of the felonies currently targeted for DNA
sampling. Under Title 11 - there are many offenses
under that title; also under Title 28, so, as
Representative Gara mentioned, DWI - felony DWI. That
would also include felony failure to stop, under Title
4; it would include felonies under that. It could
include issuing a bad check; felony shoplifting;
vehicle theft; [and] criminal mischief. And it adds
over 80 offenses to the current list. And these are
ones that are not ... a violent crime against a
person.
In some of the examples given, it appears that the
people that were identified in the database had prior
misdemeanors, but they also had a burglary or ... a
violent crime against a person that would already be
covered under the current [law]. Certainly, there are
concerns with privacy, that if this serious invasion
of a person's privacy that would be impacted by this
bill [were] warranted, right now it is a misdemeanor
to refuse to supply that DNA sample. The [PDA] does
not represent very many people that are charged with
that. Certainly keeping it a misdemeanor - we would
strongly encourage. Raising it to a felony,
especially when you're including misdemeanor offenses
in the hits that you would require a sample, then, if
the person does not provide the sample, ... giving
them a felony for a misdemeanor underlying offense
seems extreme.
Number 0969
MS. WILSON continued:
[We] also have concerns with the retroactive
application that is mentioned, and those would be ex
post facto concerns. The other consideration I have
is that in all [of] the studies and the information
received in the presentation from Mr. Beheim, it seems
there is no provision or mechanism in this bill for
exonerating innocent people who were wrongfully
convicted a substantial period ago. It looks like
most of the efforts are for ongoing or active
investigations. But what about a person who is
sitting in jail who has been wrongfully convicted
prior to [1995 or 1996], where there was biological
evidence taken at the scene that has never been
matched?
In the bill as passed now, the offender may have his
DNA sample taken, but what's missing is there's no
mechanism for accessing that DNA evidence that is at
the scene that may be sitting in a records locker in
the basement of a jail or ... a police department.
That forensic evidence is in the possession of the
public safety [agency]. It is not easily accessible
for a person who is sitting in jail who has been
convicted. So, it applies to ongoing or unsolved
crimes. But what if a person's been wrongfully
convicted? And certainly across the country, there
are, in over 30 states, provisions for a person to
access DNA sampling or apply to a court to get a DNA
sample; test, then, and see; and make a showing
whether or not that sample matches what was taken at
the crime scene. ...
That may not be something that could be included in
this bill and it may ... be a whole separate bill, but
it certainly is a consideration that if one of the
purposes stated is to exonerate innocent people, it
would be nice if we could look at some of the people
that may be convicted. ... I did submit an
indeterminate fiscal note. We represent people right
now who are charged with that ... misdemeanor of
failing to provide; ... there's hardly any of those.
If it was raised to a felony, certainly, there would
be more of ... those. But, at this point, there's no
way of knowing - ... especially if you expand this
list of crimes that you would be including, that you
would want a DNA sample [for] - how many people would
then refuse in the future.
MS. WILSON said this is a well-intended bill, but the PDA has
concerns with it. She said she would be happy to work with the
sponsor.
Number 1117
CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that she and Representatives Gara and
Anderson have discussed the issue of exonerating the wrongly
convicted, adding that the testimony from the university police
provided an excellent example of DNA samples exonerating the
innocent.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he agreed with the exoneration point
and is considering whether it should be addressed in this or a
different bill. He asked Ms. Wilson whether she could provide
draft language regarding exoneration for the next hearing on the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said the issue is access to the DNA
sample as much as it is exoneration.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that there are two issues the
committee would like to look at separately. One is to make sure
that convicted people have access to DNA evidence through this
process to try to prove their innocence. The separate question
is whether the procedure is allowed currently under Alaska law,
and how it can be changed to make sure that somebody, after the
appeal time runs out, can open a case if he/she finds DNA
evidence and proves they are actually innocent. One relates to
AS 44.41.035 and whether it is broad enough to allow defendants
access to the evidence for exoneration. The other question is,
does the legislature have to change Alaska's legal procedures -
as 30-some other states have - to give people time to reopen
their cases.
CHAIR McGUIRE invited witnesses to submit written statements and
backup material, which would be distributed to members of the
committee.
Number 1302
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports leaving the [refusal
to give a DNA sample] a class A misdemeanor, and he also
supports access for the purpose of exoneration. He mentioned
that it would be really helpful to put all issues relating to
DNA in one bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Rudinger, Executive Director of
the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), to provide, at the
next hearing of HB 49, the AkCLU's perspective on current law
regarding allowed uses of DNA evidence and violations of that
authorized use.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the availability of federal
money is one of the driving forces for this bill. He said his
concern is that state and local governments are faced with
legislation that is driven by available money, but after a few
years, the funding goes away. He said there is no provision
made for that eventuality, when the legislation is initially
passed. The state may be left with an expensive program that it
can't afford to maintain. Since this is the first bill
resulting from federal money that he has seen this session, he
said he wants to be sure the state is not put in a position of
an unfunded federal mandate. He said he's asking people on line
and in person to consider this [situation].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the intent language should
include the note that the bill is being passed because of the
availability of federal money. Maybe, he opined, the
legislature ought to consider building a sunset clause into the
bill, so that when the money goes away, the legislature has to
reauthorize it, to be sure that the state has that money in five
years or whenever. Such would force the legislature to think
about that now, and put a provision in each bill. It's almost
like a joint resolution rolled into the bill, so that a copy of
that bill and that provision shall be sent to the delegation in
Congress. If Alaska starts taking that kind of a step, maybe
through the NCSL [National Conference of State Legislatures],
other groups, and other state legislatures would be convinced to
do it also. He said he may offer language on this concept [at
the next meeting].
[HB 49 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1553
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|