04/01/2005 02:09 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB184 | |
| HB12 | |
| Presentation on Sex Trafficking by Leslie R. Wolfe, Ph.d., President, Center for Women Policy Studies | |
| HB148 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2005
2:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Ralph Samuels
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to bail review."
- MOVED CSHB 54(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act relating to firearms."
- MOVED CSHB 184(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to televisions and monitors in motor vehicles."
- HEARD AND HELD
PRESENTATION ON SEX TRAFFICKING BY LESLIE R. WOLFE, PH.D.,
PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR WOMEN POLICY STUDIES
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to trafficking of persons."
- MOVED CSHB 148(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to sex trafficking and tourism."
- MOVED CSHB 101(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: BAIL REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS, STOLTZE
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/05
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) JUD, FIN
03/30/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/30/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 184
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL FIREARM ORDINANCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
02/28/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/05 (H) CRA, JUD
03/22/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/22/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/22/05 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1DNP 3AM
03/22/05 (H) DP: SALMON, NEUMAN, OLSON;
03/22/05 (H) DNP: CISSNA;
03/22/05 (H) AM: LEDOUX, KOTT, THOMAS
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG, LYNN, GARDNER, MCGUIRE
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/01/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/17/05 (H) Moved CSHB 12(STA) Out of Committee
03/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/05 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP
03/18/05 (H) DP: GARDNER, LYNN, GATTO, GRUENBERG,
ELKINS, SEATON
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
02/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/05 (H) JUD, FIN
03/07/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/07/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 101
SHORT TITLE: SEX TRAFFICKING AND TOURISM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CROFT
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) JUD, FIN
03/07/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/07/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA NIELSEN, Staff
to Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 54, explained the
proposed amendment on behalf of Representative Samuels, one of
the bill's prime sponsors.
ERICH DeLAND, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
House Finance Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 184 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Chenault.
WALT MONEGAN, Chief
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184, expressed
concerns with the bill and responded to questions.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison
Institute for Legislative Action
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
Sacramento California
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184, provided
comments and asked for the committee's support of the bill.
FRED PIKE, Interim Manager
Bristol Bay Borough
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 184.
JERRY CASTLEBERRY, Chief
Bristol Bay Borough Police Department
Bristol Bay Borough
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 184.
JENNIFER YUHAS, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
CARY R. GRAVES, City Attorney
City of Kenai
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184, expressed
concern with language in the bill and suggested a change.
SCOTT HAMANN
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
KATHLEEN WASSERMAN
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
184.
FREDERICK H. BONESS, Municipal Attorney
Department of Law
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184, expressed
concerns with the bill and suggested a change.
DAVID WEIZER
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 12 and relayed
his personal experience regarding family members who died in a
vehicle accident caused by someone who was watching a DVD while
driving.
DEBORAH CHORMANSKI HULL-JILLY, Acting Chief
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 12 and offered
statistics.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced Leslie R. Wolfe, Ph.D.,
President, Center For Women Policy Studies, who gave the
presentation on sex trafficking, and responded to a question;
spoke as the sponsor of HB 148.
LESLIE R. WOLFE, Ph.D., President
Center For Women Policy Studies
Washington D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the presentation on sex trafficking
and responded to questions.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 148.
MARK GNADT, Staff
to Representative Eric Croft
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 101, presented the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version G, on behalf of the
sponsor, Representative Croft.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:09:06 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Coghill, and Dahlstrom were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kott, Gruenberg, and Gara
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 54 - BAIL REVIEW
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to bail review." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
54, Version 24-LS0271\Y, Luckhaupt, 3/21/05, which had been
adopted as the work draft on 3/30/05.]
2:09:14 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 54. She noted that member's
packets included a proposed amendment labeled 24-LS0271\Y.2,
Luckhaupt, 3/30/05, which read:
Page 2, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. AS 12.45.015, added by sec.
3 of this Act, takes effect only if sec. 5 of this Act
receives the two-thirds majority vote of each house
required by art. IV, sec. 15, Constitution of the
State of Alaska.
* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. AS 47.12.110(f), added by
sec. 4 of this Act, takes effect only if sec. 6 of
this Act receives the two-thirds majority vote of each
house required by art. IV, sec. 15, Constitution of
the State of Alaska."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
SARA NIELSEN, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, Alaska
State Legislature, one of the prime sponsors of HB 54, said, on
behalf of Representative Samuels, that the proposed amendment
simply states that the court rule changes would require a two-
thirds vote.
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt the foregoing proposed
amendment as Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB
54, Version 24-LS0271\Y, Luckhaupt, 3/21/05, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 54(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 184 - MUNICIPAL FIREARM ORDINANCES
2:10:07 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act relating to firearms."
2:10:56 PM
ERICH DeLAND, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, House
Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said on
behalf of Representative Chenault that HB 184 prohibits a
municipality from overriding state law on the issue of firearms.
WALT MONEGAN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), said he has two issues to raise
regarding HB 184, one of them being that the bill could cloud
existing law and policy as they pertain to weapons. For
example, if a group of youths are driving down the road shooting
firearms out of their vehicle, that behavior is currently
covered by local municipal law - discharging a weapon within a
municipality - but state law stipulates that the behavior would
have to take place on a highway and that the behavior would have
to endanger someone before it would be covered.
MR. MONEGAN said that similarly, there is a local Anchorage
ordinance prohibiting firearms in municipal buildings, and that
that ordinance might no longer be enforceable after the passage
of HB 184, since no such prohibition exists in state law. A
bigger issue, however, is that passage of HB 184 could affect a
local government's ability to govern itself, which in turn could
complicate the issue of rural law enforcement staffing. If
local governments decide to do away with local laws and opt to
follow only state laws, then the state will end up having to pay
for expanded law enforcement into Bush areas, and there will be
less money available for education and other items that promote
peaceful communities. He asked the committee to consider the
possible unintended consequences, the backlash, of mitigating
local governments' rights.
2:14:49 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative
Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), urged the
committee to support HB 184, adding that it will strengthen and
broaden the existing "Alaska state firearm preemption statute."
He offered his understanding that current [state] law only
narrowly limits a local government's ability to impose two types
of restrictions, one pertaining to the right to own or possess
firearms within a residence, and one pertaining to the
transportation of unloaded firearms. Any other type of
restriction may be imposed by local municipalities. Further,
existing [state] law allows local governments to create
restrictions in the aforementioned two categories if the
restrictions are ratified by the voters. He said that the NRA
doesn't think that this stipulation is right; the fundamental,
constitutional rights of a minority should not be limited just
because a majority of voters support the ratification of
limitations.
MR. JUDY opined that HB 184 will provide for a standardization
of all firearms laws throughout the state, based upon current
and future statutes enacted by the legislature. The bill will
make null and void any local ordinances that are more or less
restrictive than current state law. He attempted to assure the
committee that HB 184 would in no way lessen the current body of
federal and state firearms laws., and mentioned that there are
"at least seven and half pages of specific state laws" dealing
with misconduct involving weapons. The problem with local
firearm ordinances, he opined, is one of sheer variety; where no
uniform state laws are in place, the result can be a complex
patchwork of restrictions that change from one local
jurisdiction to the next.
MR. JUDY offered his belief that it is unreasonable to expect
people, whether they are residents or visitors from out of
state, to know a myriad of varying laws. Where inconsistent
laws are in place, law-abiding citizens with no criminal intent
are placed in jeopardy of running afoul of restrictions they
don't even know exist. Further, he remarked, antigun proposals
and restrictive ordinances at the local level threaten honest
firearm owners' rights and the fundamental American principle of
equal protection under the law. Necessary criminal laws should
be enacted at the state level, because a uniform application of
law treats all citizens fairly and because all citizens in this
state should benefit from and be protected equally by those laws
which are determined to be needed.
MR. JUDY, in conclusion, said that HB 184 will allow law
enforcement to concentrate on "the real criminal element," that
enforcement of unwitting violations by otherwise law-abiding
citizens diverts scarce law enforcement resources. To prevent
the problems associated with restrictive local ordinances, 44
states have enacted "firearm preemption laws" similar to [HB
184], he remarked, adding that existing Alaska law is among the
weakest. He urged the committee to support HB 184.
2:18:02 PM
FRED PIKE, Interim Manager, Bristol Bay Borough, said that
notwithstanding the fact that he is a lifetime member of the
NRA, he is opposed to HB 184. The Bristol Bay Borough, he
explained, has successfully, for the past 20 years, kept an area
near Naknek closed to the use of high-powered rifles in the
hunting of big game, on the grounds that the use of such
firearms near that village presents a safety hazard to both
villagers and other hunters in the field.
JERRY CASTLEBERRY, Chief, Bristol Bay Borough Police Department,
Bristol Bay Borough, said he opposes HB 184 for safety reasons.
(indisc. - teleconference static).
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Castleberry whether his testimony
mirrors that of Mr. Pike's.
MR. CASTLEBERRY said it does.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a copy of the Bristol Bay
Borough ordinance that HB 184 would invalidate.
MR. CASTLEBERRY agreed to provide the committee with a copy of
that ordinance.
2:21:24 PM
JENNIFER YUHAS, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), testified in support of HB 184. She said:
On behalf of the board of directors of the Alaska
Outdoor Council - representing over 54 member clubs
and nearly 4,000 associate members, for a collective
membership of nearly 12,000 individuals - which is
also the recognized state association for the National
Rifle Association, I would like to thank
Representative Chenault for his sponsorship of HB 184,
and offer our enthusiastic support of this
legislation.
First of all, we support the testimony offered by
Brian Judy of the NRA. House Bill 184 more fully
recognizes the constitutionally guaranteed right of
private individuals to lawfully exercise their right
to keep and bear arms, and reduces current confusion
faced by law-abiding citizens as they attempt to do
so. The proposed legislation before you only
addresses municipal ordinances with [regard] to
current Alaska firearm statutes.
While many decisions should be left to local control,
it is unacceptable to allow a governing entity to
unnecessarily restrict the constitutionally guaranteed
right of our law-abiding citizens. In passing this
legislation today, the committee will be validating
the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear
arms of all law-abiding Alaskans, and [will be]
supporting the fact that any right guaranteed by our
founding document should not be infringed.
Three years ago this body passed legislation
eliminating the requirement for Alaska's law-abiding
citizens to obtain a special permit to exercise their
right to carry concealed firearms as well as open
ones. Currently, six municipalities throughout our
state have not recognized this change [via] ... their
own ordinances. These municipal ordinances are not
well publicized, and this current discrepancy is
confusing to well-intended, law-abiding Alaska
citizens, and creates an unnecessary dictum for
enforcement authorities.
By passing this legislation today, you will be
recognizing the constitutionality of the Second
Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] and rewarding
Alaska's law abiding citizens by eliminating confusion
and removing an unnecessary burden from the already
lengthy duties of our valuable enforcement staff. The
Alaska Outdoor Council strongly advocates the passage
of this legislation, and thanks you for your support.
MS. YUHAS concluded:
I'd also like to add, ... with regard to [Mr.
Monegan's] comments, that state law already prohibits
the discharge of a firearm or other weapon from or
across a highway. And, as I've personally been
involved in the debate surrounding firearm legislation
over the last few years, we've consistently heard from
our enforcement personnel on the front lines that
while we may hear from certain chiefs in opposition to
the ability of the private individual to exercise
[his/her] Second Amendment rights, ... those on the
front line do not consider the removal of the
imposition of a permit requirement to be burdensome on
their ability to do their job.
2:24:26 PM
CARY R. GRAVES, City Attorney, City of Kenai, expressed the
Kenai City Council's concern with the portion of HB 184 that
would prohibit a municipality from enacting or enforcing an
ordinance regulating the use of a firearm if it is inconsistent
with state law. The City of Kenai feels that that portion of
the bill would, in effect, repeal Kenai's local ordinance that
outlines what parts of the city a person can or cannot discharge
a firearm in. Currently the city code allows for the discharge
of guns in the rural parts of the city, but prohibits it in the
residential parts of the city. "It's a public safety issue to
us," he remarked, adding that there has been an ordinance
regulating the discharge of firearms on the books since 1963,
and that it has been amended over the years.
MR. GRAVES said that two years ago, the city adjusted the
shooting boundaries to reflect new residential areas within the
city, and adopted a very clear, definitive, color-coded map
outlining those boundaries. Those maps are available at City
Hall and in the city code. He relayed that when he's shown
those maps to citizen's asking about the shooting areas, the
citizens have told him that they thought the boundary limits
were very clear and very well defined. "I want to emphasize
that the city is not anti gun or anti hunting - quite the
contrary; however, the city council feels that the city should
have the ability to regulate the discharge of firearms within
its boundaries," he added.
MR. GRAVES said that the city does not currently, nor intends in
the future to, regulate the sale, transfer, or transportation of
firearms; nor does the city oppose the portions of the bill that
speak to the sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms. In
conclusion, he asked that the word "use" be removed from the
bill so that a municipality can maintain its ability to control
the discharge of firearms within its boundaries.
2:26:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Graves to send the committee
a copy of any ordinances that would be invalidated by HB 184.
MR. GRAVES agreed to do so.
2:28:05 PM
SCOTT HAMANN said he strongly supports HB 184, and relayed that
he generally carries a firearm when traveling and doesn't want
to have to worry about violating local ordinances and, thus,
have his firearm confiscated or be hauled off to jail. He
characterized the concept of making [firearm regulation]
consistent throughout the state as a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Hamann whether he's ever taken a
firearm into a municipality and then found out that doing so was
illegal.
MR. HAMANN said he had not, but is worried about possible future
municipal laws.
2:30:36 PM
KATHLEEN WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), said that the
AML believes that most local decisions should be left with local
municipalities. She posited that whether one packs a firearm
into a municipality is not as much of an issue as is the use to
which one puts that firearm, and noted that many communities
across the state have ordinances currently on the books that are
intended to keep people from discharging guns within their city
limits. She offered her belief that most municipalities have
the right and duty to protect the people of their communities,
and that ensuring that municipalities retain the right to
establish ordinances for that purpose is the right thing to do.
MS. WASSERMAN indicated that to [establish a state law] because
of the fear that a municipality might adopt an ordinance in the
future is a dangerous route to take; rather, people should act
at the local level if they feel that a local government is
attempting to establish an ordinance with which they don't
agree. She said that the AML thinks that local communities need
to have a local say with regard to the use of firearms.
Additionally, with regard to the fiscal note, she surmised that
if municipalities no longer had the right to prosecute anyone
for discharging a firearm, then the state would bear the burden
of prosecuting people for that behavior.
2:32:58 PM
FREDERICK H. BONESS, Municipal Attorney, Department of Law,
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that the MOA has
concerns with HB 184, and that he's provided the committee with
copies of the municipal ordinances that he thinks would be
impaired by the bill. He went on to say:
I think the law is quite clear that any municipal
ordinance which is in conflict with state law is
invalid and would not be affirmed by the courts.
That's already the law - no particular legislative
action is required to implement that - that is the law
as a matter of ... supreme court decisions. This
[bill] uses the language "inconsistent", which, in
light of the existing law with respect to conflicts,
will undoubtedly have to be read by the courts to mean
something broader. And that has serious implications
because the amount of state law which addresses
municipal-specific problems or concerns from a safety
point of view is really nonexistent.
So, for example, there's nothing in state law that
addresses the question of whether you can bring a gun
into a municipal building, whereas there is, in state
law, a specific prohibition against bringing a gun
into a state courthouse. ... Were we to try [to] ...
implement policies or ordinances which prohibit people
from bringing guns into municipal buildings, the court
is very likely to conclude that because the state has
not prohibited bringing guns into municipal buildings
... and has addressed it with respect to state
courthouses, our ordinance would be inconsistent.
That is really an untenable result from the point of
view of public safety and the safety of our employees,
and for that reason we would very much be concerned
and not in favor of language that simply says
"inconsistent".
One solution from the point of view of a municipality
like Anchorage, which has many urban-related gun
issues that aren't true for other parts of the state,
[would be] ... to limit the application of [the bill]
... to not make this law apply to home rule
municipalities. That would deal with the larger urban
areas and allow them to deal with urban-related
matters. As [Mr. Monegan] said, this would ...
inhibit our ability, significantly, to prevent
discharge. One of the witnesses testified that it's
already against state law to shoot from a highway or
across the highway, but a highway under state law has
a specific definition, and many of the non-major roads
in the municipality would not qualify as highways and
[so] would not be governed by state law. And, again,
because state law doesn't address the issue, the
language of "inconsistency" would result in our
inability to address the issue.
CHAIR McGUIRE, characterizing Mr. Boness's points as valid,
encouraged Mr. Boness to also consider possible changes to
current state firearm laws that would further the municipality's
goals with regard to public safety, and predicted that HB 184
will have the support it needs to pass the legislature. She
said she is not sure how a judge would interpret the word
"inconsistent".
2:38:47 PM
MR. BONESS reiterated, however, that changing the language to
say, "in conflict with state law", would address many of the
concerns raised. Because of the way courts interpret statute,
he predicted, use of the term "inconsistent with" could result
in the court saying that the legislature already knew that
things that were in conflict couldn't be part of the municipal
code and so the word "inconsistent" must mean something other
than "in conflict with." He mentioned that by taking away local
control, the legislature is basically suggesting that it should
pass what amounts to ordinances, as a matter of state law, for
each local jurisdiction.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that the sponsor's belief is that the
right to bear arms is a constitutional right and therefore it is
the state's responsibility to generate policy with respect to
any restrictions that would govern that right.
2:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the term "inconsistent"
would be susceptible to sufficient definition to avoid a
constitutional challenge of void for vagueness.
MR. BONESS offered his belief that in order to maintain
ordinances necessary for regulatory purposes, the court might
find that "inconsistent" is an acceptable term.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that Congress
attempted to legislate "at this level" when it prohibited people
from bringing guns on or near school yards, but it was held, in
Lopez v. United States, that that violated state rights - local
legislative authority. He asked whether the court might also
find that [the bill] violates the constitutional right of a home
rule municipality to enact its own legislation.
MR. BONESS acknowledged that that could be the case, but pointed
out that the legislature has the authority to impose particular
state laws on home rule municipalities. He offered his belief
that home rule municipalities don't have the same constitutional
rights that states do vis-a-vis the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, predicting that the bill will
initially be litigated in the context of somebody being charged
with violating a local ordinance, asked whether the focus of the
trial will become whether the defendant should be released on a
technicality, that of whether the ordinance is "inconsistent"
with state law, rather than whether the guilty should be
punished.
MR. BONESS opined that that would be the case.
2:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether state law lists places to
which firearms can be brought but to which local law prohibits
the bringing of firearms.
MR. MONEGAN mentioned licensed premises, and relayed that his
officers are trained to make the assumption that every person,
every home, and every car has a gun, and that those guns are
always loaded.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the MOA currently has
something different than state law with regard to bringing
firearms into licensed premises, or whether the thought is that
the MOA might in the future enact something to address such
situations.
MR. MONEGAN indicated that a problem arises if someone starts
drinking in a licensed premises while in possession of a
firearm; such [compromises] the safety of everyone in the
establishment, and likened that behavior to drinking and
driving.
2:47:48 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE, remarking on a shortness of time, closed public
testimony on HB 184.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
delete "inconsistent" from page 1, line 5, and insert "in
conflict".
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. DeLAND indicated that Amendment 1 would be acceptable to the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that adoption of Amendment 1
would eliminate the need for other amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL spoke in favor of Amendment 1. He added,
"I want our constitution to mean something when you're in a
community, but I also want communities to be able to take care
of whatever unique things that they really have been empowered
to do under our [Alaska State] Constitution, so I think that
would be consistent ..."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON interjected to remove his objection and
indicate that he supports Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE characterized the adoption of Amendment 1 as a
compromise position.
2:50:27 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objection to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, characterizing the title as awfully
broad, asked that it be narrowed.
MR. DeLAND offered his understanding that the title has been
written as it is for a reason.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that the sponsor has asked her to oppose
any amendments that would change the title.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:50 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
2:51:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would not be offering
an amendment to change the title.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HB 184, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
184(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 12 - TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
2:52:15 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to televisions and monitors
in motor vehicles." [Before the committee was CSHB 12(STA).]
2:52:47 PM
DAVID WEIZER said he supports HB 12 on behalf of [himself,] his
brother Martin Weizer, sister-in-law Bethany Weizer, and his
recently deceased parents, Bob and Donna Weizer. He relayed
that on October 12, 2002, his parents were killed in a horrible
vehicle accident when they were hit head on traveling southbound
on the Seward highway, and that there was nothing left of their
vehicle after the ensuing fire. Charges of second degree murder
were brought against the driver of the other vehicle when the
Alaska State Troopers determined that he had possibly been
watching a DVD movie while driving. The driver, however, was
acquitted of all charges, and the trial was of interest
nationwide. He characterized the legislature as working on the
vanguard of legislation pertaining to a nonpartisan issue - that
of "our collective safety on the roads of this nation with
drivers confronted by increasing and, in many ways, preposterous
distractions."
MR. WEIZER said the questions become: what societal benefit is
provided by full-motion video in the front of a vehicle for
entertainment purposes; what sane individual makes the argument
that he/she should have the right to watch a video while
driving; and what corporate interest would argue against severe
penalties for violating the inherent safety features they
themselves design into their own products. In answer to those
questions, he said, "We would argue, 'None; we all have to drive
the roads of our nation together.'" He noted that the driver of
the other vehicle began his defense in the trial by admitting
that he installed a DVD player in the front of his truck in such
a way that it would play while the truck was moving, but argued
that there was nothing wrong or illegal with having done so, and
that he did it because " it was just easier." Mr. Weizer noted
that in addition to the movie "Road Trip" being found in the
driver's DVD player, he also had "a gaming station fully wired
into the floor" of his truck.
MR. WEIZER relayed that the jury found reasonable doubt that the
driver was watching the DVD at the time of the accident and that
such was the state's burden to prove in a murder trial. He
opined that the legislators' burden is to reasonably believe
that the driver was watching a DVD while driving and that others
do as well every day. In reaching such a conclusion, he
remarked, the legislature has the power to prevent the type of
upheaval that his family suffered in the wake of the driver's
acquittal of all charges. "You have the power to set an example
for our nation," he said, adding, "My parents were on their way
to celebrate their upcoming retirement, but they never made it;
they were 26-year residents of Alaska, grandparents, law-abiding
citizens, [and] over 450 people attended their funeral."
MR. WEIZER concluded by saying that it is common sense that one
should not drive while watching a video, but added that when
that which is common sense not to do becomes common place -
marketed by manufacturers and idealized on certain TV programs -
it falls to the nation's legislators to influence and, when
necessary, severely punish people's actions, especially when it
results in injury, serious injury, or death. He asked the
committee to support HB 12, said that [passage] of the bill will
lead the way for legislators across the nation to enact similar
legislation, and predicted that members will find support among
their constituents for the bill.
CHAIR McGUIRE, one of the prime sponsors of the bill, thanked
Mr. Weizer for his testimony, relayed that she knew Mr. Weizer's
family, and offered that many members of the legislature [did as
well and] are sorry for his loss.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, one of the prime sponsors of the bill,
said he appreciated Mr. Weizer's testimony, and thanked the
bill's other prime sponsors and co sponsors.
2:59:51 PM
DEBORAH CHORMANSKI HULL-JILLY, Acting Chief, Community Health &
Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), first relayed
that the DHSS supports HB 12. She characterized the intent of
the bill as one of striving to prevent motor vehicle accidents
and their related injuries and deaths of vehicle occupants and
pedestrians by giving law enforcement agencies the authority to
cite drivers who are viewing entertainment devices. She
expressed appreciation of Mr. Weizer's testimony, and then
offered statistics. For example, research has shown that 25 to
56 percent of all vehicle crashes in the United States involve
factors wherein the driver was distracted or inattentive in some
fashion.
MS. HULL-JILLY relayed that in 2002, a Gallup Poll survey
regarding distracted and drowsy driving attitudes and behaviors
found that 22 percent of the causes that led to a crash involved
dealing with some form of technology within the vehicle,
including cell phones, beepers, in-car navigation systems,
Global Positioning Systems (GPSs), Internet and e-mail, radio,
and other technology. Additionally, the National Center for
Statistics and Analysis' (NCSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) listed driver inattention or inattentiveness as
the primary factor in nearly 7 percent of fatal crashes in
Alaska in 2003.
MS. HULL-JILLY noted that the development of electronic devices
for use in motor vehicles is a rapidly growing field, and the
majority of manufacturers of in-vehicle entertainment systems
have reviewed issues pertaining to driver distractedness and
have included features to minimize distractions, such as
locating the screens out of the driver's view, providing
headphone jacks for the [other] occupants, and developing driver
interlock systems that prohibit viewing while the vehicle is in
motion. The need for the development of technology minimizing
driver distractions, specifically those caused by in-vehicle
entertainment systems, has been acknowledged by auto
manufacturers. Other technological steps taken with the goal of
minimizing driver distractions include minimizing hands-on/eyes-
off-the-road time for adjusting features, simplifying or
reducing the number of steps required to adjust the technology,
and developing a common interface system for multiple devices.
MS. HULL-JILLY remarked, however, that the research and
development of such technology is lagging behind consumer
demand. She noted that 38 states have some form of legislation
banning front-seat entertainment systems, and that 12 states
have similar laws pertaining to televisions and monitors in
motor vehicles but exempt GPSs and driving-direction systems.
Consumers can now purchase and install in-vehicle entertainment
systems in vehicles not already equipped with such, and in so
installing can bypass the equipment's safety devices and
manufacturer recommendations. Additionally, it is possible to
modify moving map displays so that movies and DVDs can be viewed
by the driver; directions for such modifications are available
on the Internet, as is information regarding how to
disengage/circumvent an in-vehicle entertainment system's built-
in safety features. In conclusion she noted that contrary to
manufacturers' recommendations to not engage in certain activity
while driving, it is still possible to use a portable computer
for various applications such as listening to music and viewing
GPS, "map" software, or movies.
[HB 12 was held over.]
^PRESENTATION ON SEX TRAFFICKING BY LESLIE R. WOLFE, PH.D.,
PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR WOMEN POLICY STUDIES
3:05:42 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
the presentation on sex trafficking by Leslie R. Wolfe, Ph.D.,
President, Center For Women Policy Studies.
3:06:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced Dr. Wolfe, said Dr. Wolfe is a leader in [the subject
of] international human rights, specifically as they relate to
the trafficking of women, and surmised that Dr. Wolfe would be
able to address the issues and questions raised during committee
discussion regarding legislation pertaining to the problem of
human trafficking.
3:07:20 PM
LESLIE R. WOLFE, Ph.D., President, Center For Women Policy
Studies, relayed that as a domestic policy issue, the Center For
Women Policy Studies has been working with the national network
of state legislators on the issue of trafficking women and girls
into the U.S. since 1988/1989, when Senator Paul Wellstone first
started crafting what became the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2000. She went on to say that the Center For Women
Policy Studies is currently working state by state to promote
the confrontation, by state leadership, of human trafficking,
and offer its resources to states crafting legislation in
response to this international crisis. Unfortunately, most
press coverage and policy discussion addresses human trafficking
as a problem that occurs someplace else, in other countries, but
the United States, as a big, rich country, is a major
destination country for traffickers, and thus the U.S. is
implicated in what the center defines as a major violation of
women and girls' human rights.
DR. WOLFE explained that the trafficking of women and girls
around the world and into the U.S. is a huge criminal enterprise
involving both large and small criminal groups; such criminal
enterprise results in enormous profit for the traffickers and
huge oppressions for the women and girls trafficked. She
characterized the numbers given by the U.S. Depart of State
regarding human trafficking as totally inaccurate; nonetheless,
even those numbers indicate that approximately 15,000 women and
girls are trafficked into the U.S. every year, though the Center
For Women Policy Studies believes that the number might be
closer to 100,000. The women and girls who are being trafficked
into the U.S. are from grievously impoverished communities all
over the world, where they live in extreme poverty, poverty far
surpassing that found anywhere in the U.S. And although there
is a tendency to blame the parents and other family members of
those that are trafficked for letting such a thing occur, one
must realize that such women and girls and their families are
not faced with easy choices and are encouraged by the lies told
to them by those trafficking them to believe that their lives
will improve in countries like the U.S.
DR. WOLFE raised the issue of trafficking mail order brides, who
are not covered under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000, characterized it as "bride trafficking," and said it is
not the romanticized version of acquiring a mail order bride
that comes to mind for many people when they hear the term.
Instead it is really a commercial enterprise, and many of these
women end up as battered wives and murdered wives, or end up
trapped in domestic servitude in severe isolation in rural
communities. The Center For Women Policy Studies defines the
trafficking of women and girls as the quintessential violation
of women's autonomy and human rights, and also as the ultimate
reflection of woman's status in many parts of the world as the
property of men.
DR. WOLFE said it is distressing to hear the analogy that the
trafficking of human beings is like the trafficking of illegal
commodities such guns or drugs. On the contrary, human beings
are not a commodity, so to define them as such or to liken them
to such is false and potentially dangerous, allowing one to
distance oneself from such women and girls and negating the
efforts being made to understand the problem of human
trafficking in a women's human rights context rather than from a
law enforcement perspective.
DR. WOLFE noted that people also use the analogy of illegal
immigration, and relayed, for example, that Arizona's recently
passed legislation regarding trafficking contained very "anti-
immigrant smuggling" provisions. However, human trafficking is
not the same thing as immigration, she warned, because those who
immigrate come by choice, and those who are trafficked are
victims of force, coercion, and deception, all of which are
hallmarks of a trafficked woman or girl's experience.
Traffickers are not strangers to a community, and so the women
and girls and their families are less likely to run away or
refuse a trafficker's offer, she pointed out.
3:19:50 PM
DR. WOLFE added that traffickers often offer the women and girls
fake employment contracts or fake visas, or will allegedly
"marry" the victim. Traffickers will tell the women and girls
that they will have a good job, that they will be a waitress or
a nanny or a childcare or eldercare worker, or - as occurred in
the case in Alaska - that they will be an ethnic dancer, or that
they will get to go to school. All of these promises are lies,
and so when they come into the country, they are forced into
sexual exploitation and labor servitude. She relayed that most
of the women trafficked into the U.S. are trapped in exploitive
labor situations; such trafficking is very serious and very
hidden, and she surmised that 94.8 percent of the women and
girls trafficked into the U.S. for exploitative labor are also
sexually abused, raped, sexually assaulted, and sexually
exploited.
DR. WOLFE said that although such abusive situations can result
for American women and girls who are trafficked between states
or communities, when international trafficking of women and
girls from non-English speaking countries occurs, it has far
different qualities for them. They arrive feeling optimistic
that they will get a good job in this new country and be able to
support their families back home, but then find themselves
imprisoned in a brothel or a sweatshop or a trailer in an
agricultural field. These women and girls have no recourse;
they are completely frightened, they don't even know where they
are in this huge country, they don't speak or read the language,
they don't know how to contact anyone for help, they don't know
that there are things like battered women shelters or rape
crises centers or refugee and immigrant women shelters, and they
fear the local police because back in their home countries, the
police are in league with the traffickers. Such women and girls
are deeply frightened, they have been threatened and brutalized
and told that their families will be killed if they try to
escape or tell anyone what has happened; additionally, their
passports have probably been taken away and so they have the
fear that they will be deported, since no one has told them that
there is such a thing as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
of 2000, which allows victims who cooperate with law enforcement
an opportunity to stay in the U.S.
DR. WOLFE relayed that because many times, the audiences she has
spoken to say that they are horrified that such things occur but
argue that such things can't actually happen "here," she is
obliged to tell them about several federal cases that reflect
the reality of trafficking women and girls into the U.S. from
other countries. One such case she relays to such audiences
involved teenage Mexican girls who were lured to the U.S. with
promises of legitimate jobs, but who were then forced into a
brothel in Plainfield, New Jersey. Another such case involved
young women from Uzbekistan who were trafficked into the U.S.
and forced into strip clubs in El Paso, Texas. Still another
such case involved a young woman from Ghana who was smuggled
into Maryland by a well-to-do and very well-connected married
couple from Ghana and was forced to work for them in the U.S.
for no or minimal pay as a domestic servant and nanny; her
employers hid her passport and threatened her with deportation
and imprisonment. The wife's mother is a member of parliament
in Ghana and the United States is trying to extradite her.
DR. WOLFE said that the latter case is a very typical
trafficking case, and offered her belief that such probably
happens [frequently] in places where there are quite a few
diplomats. She went on to relay that there are also women - for
example, from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador - who pay a
substantial sum of money to be brought to the U.S., and had
these women just paid their money and been brought into the U.S.
and been allowed to go there own way, that would have been an
issue of illegal immigration. Instead, however, these women
were confined in so-called safe houses where they were forced to
cook and do housework without pay and were repeatedly raped by
the traffickers; in other words, they were held in bondage. She
said she also tells audiences about the young Russian women who
were brought to Alaska a few years ago under the pretense of
dancing in ethnic festivals but were then forced to work in
strip clubs.
DR. WOLFE characterized these few cases as merely the tip of the
iceberg, and indicated that the Center For Women Policy Studies
believes that state law on this issue has an important role to
play, that it is not enough to just have a federal law in place,
and so has been working with elected state officials to get
state law enacted. She added, "We take the same position we
took in the era of civil rights laws, that you must pass a
federal civil rights law - it's the first thing - but every
state should pass it's own state law; some of them are better
than the federal law, some of them aren't, but the states have
the right and the responsibility to do that." She said that the
Center For Women Policy Studies also believes that it is
important to create federal-state partnerships in fighting
trafficking, and noted that even the current assistant attorney
general for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
has agreed that there must be federal-state partnerships; she
posited that this means that the DOJ is supporting the notion of
having state laws, as well, on this issue.
DR. WOLFE opined that states must make individual, domestic
responses to this international crises, and reiterated that the
Center For Women Policy Studies has undertaken the job of
helping states develop legal and policy framework that will
enable states to prosecute and punish traffickers while also
meeting the needs for protection and services of the trafficked
women/men and girls/boys. She characterized existing state laws
as inadequate to the task, requiring that new provisions be
added. In working with state legislatures around the country,
the Center For Women Policy Studies has proposed three types of
state legislative initiatives as well as very aggressive
partnering with federal agencies. The first recommendation is
for states to make trafficking of women and girls into the state
from other countries a state felony offense with appropriately
harsh punishments for traffickers. She characterized such as a
standard criminalization statute with one exception, that being
that it should also include protections for the women and girls
who've been trafficked into the community.
3:31:27 PM
DR. WOLFE said that such a state statute should also include
provisions that allow victims to sue for damages and the cost of
bringing the suit. The Center For Women Policy Studies also
prefers that such state statutes provide for mandatory
restitution to the victims, particularly absent the right to
sue. She noted that many are under the impression that anti-
prostitution laws are sufficient; however, such laws provide for
the arrest of the victims, not the perpetrators. In contrast,
the focus of the type of legislation being promoted by the
Center For Women Policy Studies is one of arresting only
perpetrators - the traffickers - though such individuals will
lie and assert that the women consented to their treatment.
Such an assertion, she warned, must never be allowed to be used
as a defense, since legally binding consent of this kind can't
exist in the context of the deception and fraud that are the
hallmark of traffickers' promises and, thus, of the consent.
DR. WOLFE said that the Center For Women Policy Studies also
recommends that state legislatures create task forces or study
commissions with mandated memberships of all appropriate
officials, non-profit organizations, and service providers, to
really study the nature and extent of trafficking within the
state. She mentioned that the best bill in this regard that she
has seen is a 2004 Connecticut statute that created an
interagency task force on trafficking in persons, and
characterized this legislation as the ideal model. California
went a step further and created a select committee on human
trafficking. Such task forces can answer the question, "Is
international trafficking a problem in my state." She opined
that any state with an airport or an interstate highway can be a
target state for traffickers, adding that Missouri understood
this fact and passed a trafficking criminalization statute just
last year.
DR. WOLFE went on to say that the Center For Women Policy
Studies also recommends creating legislation that would begin
regulating international matchmaking organizations, as well as
legislation addressing the issue of sex tourism. She noted that
Hawaii has gotten started on the latter issue by passing a bill
that simply regulates travel agencies, and opined that any
travel agency that engages in planning and organizing sex tours
in other countries needs to be put out of business or at least
punished. She said that another thing that can be done is to
encourage Alaska's congressional delegation to support funding
of local battered women shelters, local rape crises centers, and
other such local organizations via appropriations made under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Violence
Against Women Act; such funding will enable local organizations
to serve the needs of trafficking victims.
3:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA thanked Dr. Wolfe for her work on
Representative Kerttula's bill.
DR. WOLFE relayed that rather than bringing around model
legislation, the Center For Women Policy Studies prefers to let
individual state legislatures create their own state laws.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked which strip club the aforementioned
women who were trafficked into Alaska ended up being forced to
work at.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA relayed that it was at the Crazy Horse
[Saloon].
DR. WOLFE noted that this issue has recently been raised in
Denver because of a case involving massage parlors.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that she and Representative Gara had
sponsored legislation last year that would have regulated strip
clubs.
DR. WOLFE opined that the owners of such clubs probably know
that their workers are not there of their own free will and are
just not being honest about that knowledge.
3:39:59 PM
DR. WOLFE, in response to a question, indicated that to her
knowledge only Hawaii and Washington have dealt legislatively
with the issue of regulating international matchmaking
organizations. Under such legislation, which she characterized
as mild, an organization must inform a "recruit" that she can
request a background check on any man, and the organization is
restricted from allowing the participants to have any contact
with each other until the woman receives that information. The
entire burden is on the women, however, and Dr. Wolf said that
this makes no sense to her, that although several groups are
simply interested in regulating such organizations, she herself
would prefer to see them stopped altogether.
DR. WOLFE offered an example of a young eastern European woman
who came to the U.S. as a mail order bride but who was murdered
by her husband, and this was discovered when the man applied for
a second eastern European bride. Dr. Wolfe relayed that she met
the parents of the murdered women in Seattle at a 2001
conference involving legislators and the Center For Women Policy
Studies; the parents had come to Seattle just to be near where
their child was buried. She said that although the Washington
legislation is a good first step, it does not do nearly enough
with regard to international matchmaking organizations. Such
organizations now have a [powerful] industry lobby, and the
Washington state legislators who sponsored the legislation
shared with Dr. Wolfe the very nasty, scary e-mails they
received from supporters of the international matchmaking
organizations.
3:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not very satisfied with what
he is hearing about [international matchmaking organizations],
and asked Dr. Wolfe to discuss the issue further with him at a
later time.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:44 p.m. to 3:55.
HB 148 - TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS
3:45:55 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to trafficking of persons."
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 148, said that members now have in their packets a new
suggested draft from the Department of Law (DOL) which adds that
the conduct would be a crime if it involves deception, which is
defined in statute. The suggested draft keeps the language
regarding bringing a person into the state, since such is
quantifiably different than transporting a person within the
state. She offered her belief that most people who are being
brought into the state are from foreign countries. The DOL's
suggested draft reads:
"An Act relating to human trafficking; and providing
for an effective date."
* Section 1. AS 11.41 is amended by adding new
sections to read:
Sec. 11.41.310. Human trafficking in the first
degree. (a) A person commits the crime of human
trafficking in the first degree if the person compels
or induces another person to come to this state to
engage in sexual conduct, adult entertainment, or
labor in the state by force or threat of force against
any person, or by deception.
(b) In this section,
(1) "adult entertainment" means the conduct
described in AS 23.10.350(f)(1) - (3);
(2) "deception" has the meaning given in
AS 11.46.180;
(3) "sexual conduct" has the meaning given
in AS 11.66.150.
(c) Human trafficking in the first degree is a
class A felony.
Sec. 11.41.315. Human trafficking in the second
degree. (a) A person commits the crime of human
trafficking in the second degree if the person obtains
a benefit from the commission of human trafficking
under AS 11.41.310, with reckless disregard that the
benefit is a result of the trafficking.
(b) Human trafficking in the second degree is a
class B felony.
* Sec. 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2005.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that although the suggested draft is cleaner,
she liked the original bill's narrow definition of labor and the
fact that it included involuntary servitude.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her belief that the current
definition of labor already includes involuntary servitude, and
therefore she didn't feel it was necessary to specify it.
3:48:09 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
concurred.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked about the language that is currently in
proposed AS 11.41.350(b)(1)(A) of HB 148 that reads:
any scheme, plan, or pattern of behavior intended to
cause a person to believe that, if the person does not
enter into or continue the servitude, such person or
another person will suffer serious physical injury or
physical restraint;
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posited that the concept embodied in
that language is covered under the definition of "deception".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to proposed AS 11.41.315 -
regarding the crime of human trafficking in the second degree -
in the DOL's suggested draft, and asked whether it should be
altered such that it would be a crime only if one knew he/she
were engaging in human trafficking; in other words, the language
currently has a standard of reckless disregard, but should it
instead have a standard of knowing disregard.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that point.
MS. CARPENETI explained that when the legislature requires a
culpable mental state of reckless disregard, "knowing" and
"intentional" are also included. Thus it is not a defense for
one to say he/she did something intentionally rather than
recklessly.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is concerned that someone could be
charged with this crime even if he/she did not know he/she was
obtaining a benefit from human trafficking.
MS. CARPENETI mentioned that there are different levels of
culpable mental states.
CHAIR McGUIRE said her concern is that it would be difficult to
have to prove that people were intentionally obtaining a
benefit, and referred to strip club owners as an example of
those who could claim that they didn't know the women were not
there of their own accord.
3:53:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that his suggestion is worth some
thought, however.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA concurred with Chair McGuire, adding
that in order to be prosecuted, one must have known the risk and
consciously disregarded it. She opined that someone who has
hired a woman from another country has a duty to ask the woman
what her situation is.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred, reiterating her belief that it would be
too hard to prove a crime has been committed if the standard is
raised above reckless disregard.
3:54:47 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to
replace the text in HB 148 with the language in the DOL's
suggested draft [text provided previously]. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:55:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 148, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
148(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 101 - SEX TRAFFICKING AND TOURISM
3:56:20 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 101, "An Act relating to sex trafficking and
tourism."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 101, Version 24-LS0412\G, Luckhaupt,
3/23/05, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version G
was before the committee.
MARK GNADT, Staff to Representative Eric Croft, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, noted on behalf of Representative Croft
that at the bill's last hearing, it became obvious that HB 101
has two distinct parts, one of which is somewhat duplicated in
other legislation and has therefore been removed from Version G.
Version G now contains only the other part of the original bill
and is modeled on Hawaii statute. He provided members with both
a copy of that statute and an article mentioning a case wherein
a man who was engaged in offering tours for the purpose of
having sex in Thailand turned in his travel agency license. The
Hawaii legislature enacted its statute after the situation about
the aforementioned man was brought to its attention. He added,
"So there is some precedent for the need of it in Hawaii; there
also [is], with the federal prosecution in 2001, ... some idea
that there might be some need for it here as well."
MR. GNADT offered that Version G now targets the demand for sex
trafficking, which is present in other countries as well as in
the United States. Version G will help Alaska do its part in
fighting this international problem: if a company promotes
prostitution - or a commercial sex act - or promotes,
advertises, or facilitates travel for either of those purposes,
the company can be prosecuted. Additionally, he remarked, the
inclusion in Version G of a definition for "commercial sex act"
is intended to encompass more than those acts that are normally
thought of as prostitution but which are equally horrible.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that Chip Wagoner was in the audience, and
offered her belief that he was "giving his support to HB 101."
CHAIR McGUIRE after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 101.
3:59:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why Version G proposes to make
promoting sex tourism a class A felony; in comparison, the
Hawaii statute makes that activity a class B felony.
MR. GNADT said that the original bill made the crime a class A
felony and so Version G merely maintains that level of penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has a problem with making the
crime a class A felony. In response to a question, he indicated
that he would be willing to offer an amendment that would make
the crime a class C felony.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to the language on page 2, lines 4-
5, which says that a person commits the crime of promoting sex
tourism if he/she provides or advertises access to or
facilitates the availability of commercial sexual acts. He
pondered whether it should only be a crime if one intentionally
facilitates the availability of commercial sexual acts, not when
one unknowingly does it.
MR. GNADT said that is a good point, and surmised that the
sponsor would be amenable to language that would "tighten" that
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
page 2, line 8, to replace "class A felony" with "class C
felony".
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
She said she isn't opposed to having the crime be a class A
felony.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that although he feels it
would be appropriate to make the crime outlined in the bill a
felony, he questions whether it should be a class A felony,
because the penalties are so severe.
[Following was some discussion regarding what the penalties
currently are for different classes of felonies.]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that Representative Kerttula has
recommended making the crime a class A felony if the victim is
under the age of 18, and a class C felony if the victim is [18
years of age or older].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that as a friendly
amendment to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she could accept such a change.
4:04:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, upon further reflection, however,
pointed out that one wouldn't necessarily be able to tell how
old an intended victim is at the time a person is being
prosecuted for the crime of promoting sex tourism. He asked
whether it will be a separate count for each person [in the
tour] or for each tour. In other words, would a tour for which
ten people have signed up result in ten crimes or one crime? He
also asked whether the sentences would be consecutive or
concurrent.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that it would be a
separate crime for each victim.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again pointed out, however, that the
crime involves the organization of a tour and so there may not
actually be any victims if a tour operator is charged with the
crime before the tour departs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that it would be a separate
crime for each client.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that if that is the case, then
charging a person with a class A felony for each client booking
the tour could result in that person being in prison [for a very
long time] particularly if he/she is also subject to consecutive
sentencing.
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her understanding of what portions of the
new sentencing structure entail.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, said that
he hopes that Representative Dahlstrom would remove her
[suggested amendment and] objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Representative Gruenberg makes an
interesting point, particularly given the state's new sentencing
scheme.
4:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
CHAIR McGUIRE read portions of the new sentencing scheme.
4:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again asked whether it would be a
separate crime for each client booking the tour or whether the
tour itself constitutes a crime. He indicated a preference for
having it be the latter but then applying an aggravating
sentencing factor for each client that books the tour.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection to Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
MR. GNADT, in response to Representative Gruenberg's most recent
question and comment, indicated that the acts of selling and
facilitating could warrant sentencing aggravators for each
client, but that the act of advertising would just be considered
one crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the latter would be true
if one advertises in more than one medium for each tour.
MR. GNADT indicated that the intent was to consider the act of
advertising a tour as one crime.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to Representative Gruenberg that he
discuss that issue further with the sponsor before the bill is
heard on the House floor.
4:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to page
2, line 4, to add "intentionally" before the word "facilitates".
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB
101, Version 24-LS0412\G, Luckhaupt, 3/23/05, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
[zero] fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 101(JUD)
was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
4:13:46 PM
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|