05/05/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB316 | |
| SB134 | |
| SB206 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2006
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act extending the termination date for the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar Association; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 316(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 134(JUD)
"An Act relating to a pilot project to review and investigate
certain complaints from victims of sexual assault in the first
degree or sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree concerning
actions of justice agencies."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 134(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 206(FIN)
"An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention
and identification of persons."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 206(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF GOVERNORS ABA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE, GRUENBERG
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) JUD, FIN
04/26/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/26/06 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/04/06 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/06 (H) Meeting Postponed to 5/5/06
05/05/06 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/05/06 (H) <Pending Referral>
05/05/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 134
SHORT TITLE: PILOT PROJECT: SEX OFFENSE VICTIMS RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE
03/08/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/05/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/05/05 (S) Moved CSSB 134(STA) Out of Committee
04/05/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/05 (S) STA RPT CS 4NR 1DP NEW TITLE
04/06/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, ELTON, HUGGINS, DAVIS
04/06/05 (S) DP: WAGONER
04/06/05 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/18/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/12/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/12/06 (S) Moved CSSB 134(JUD) Out of Committee
04/12/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/06 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
04/12/06 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS, GUESS
04/13/06 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
04/20/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/20/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 134(JUD)
04/21/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/06 (H) STA, JUD
05/02/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/02/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/02/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/02/06 (H) STA RPT 5DP
05/02/06 (H) DP: GATTO, ELKINS, RAMRAS, GRUENBERG,
SEATON
05/04/06 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/06 (H) Meeting Postponed to 5/5/06
05/05/06 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/05/06 (H) <Pending Referral>
05/05/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 206
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION /I.D. OF PERSONS;CONTEMPT OF CT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE
01/09/06 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/16/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/08/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/06 (S) Moved CSSB 206(JUD) Out of Committee
03/15/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/06 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2AM NEW TITLE
03/15/06 (S) DP: SEEKINS, HUGGINS
03/15/06 (S) AM: FRENCH, GUESS
03/20/06 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/20/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/20/06 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/06 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/06 (S) Moved CSSB 206(FIN) Out of Committee
03/23/06 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/24/06 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/24/06 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, BUNDE, DYSON,
STEDMAN
03/24/06 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/12/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 206(FIN)
04/13/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/06 (H) JUD, FIN
04/26/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/26/06 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/04/06 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/06 (H) Meeting Postponed to 5/5/06
05/05/06 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/05/06 (H) <Pending Referral>
05/05/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LAUREN RICE, Staff
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 134 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Bunde; responded to questions on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Bunde, during discussion of the proposed HCS for SB 206,
Version R, and amendments to it.
MARY ANNE HENRY, Director
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR)
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 134.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 134; during discussion of
amendments to the proposed HCS for SB 206, Version R, expressed
concerns.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04:15 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Kott, Wilson, and Coghill were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gara, Anderson, and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 316 - EXTEND BOARD OF GOVERNORS ABA
1:04:32 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act extending the termination date
for the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association; and
providing for an effective date." [In committee packets was a
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 316, Version 24-
LS1076\I, Bullock, 5/3/06.]
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that the committee has decided to extend
the sunset date of the Board of Governors ("Board") of the
Alaska Bar Association (ABA) for one year in order to allow the
legislature time to work on the recommendations offered by the
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit in its report released by
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
1:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 316, Version 24-LS1076\I, Bullock,
5/3/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version I
was before the committee.
1:05:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report the proposed CS for HB 316,
Version 24-LS1076\I, Bullock, 5/3/06, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 316(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 134 - PILOT PROJECT: SEX OFFENSE VICTIMS RIGHTS
1:05:43 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 134(JUD), "An Act relating to a pilot
project to review and investigate certain complaints from
victims of sexual assault in the first degree or sexual abuse of
a minor in the first degree concerning actions of justice
agencies."
1:05:57 PM
LAUREN RICE, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, presented SB 134 on behalf of Senator
Bunde. She explained that SB 134 came about because a
constituent who was a sexual assault victim could not get her
phone calls to the police returned. Currently, such a victim
has no other recourse if she is not getting sufficient help from
the police. Senate Bill 134 will [via a pilot project] expand
the responsibilities and investigation rights of the Office of
Victims' Rights (OVR) in order that it may look into the
investigation portion of a sexual assault in the first degree
case or a sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree case, and
serve as an advocate for the victim through the investigation
phase and the court proceedings. She concluded by noting that
[CSSB 134(JUD)] has the support of the Department of Law (DOL),
the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the OVR.
1:07:19 PM
MARY ANNE HENRY, Director, Office of Victims' Rights (OVR),
Alaska State Legislature, characterizing the current version of
SB 134 as a good bill, she opined that the OVR would be in the
best position to [institute the proposed pilot program and]
investigate complaints arising from the aforementioned type of
cases not being investigated by the police in a timely or
complete manner. At the end of August 2008, at the conclusion
of the pilot program and its study of complaints going back to
mid-2003, the OVR will provide the legislature with a report
outlining any problems found as well as any potential solutions.
In conclusion, she expressed her willingness to institute the
pilot project and conduct the study.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 134.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how victims will learn of the
OVR's new responsibility to investigate the aforementioned type
of complaint.
MS. RICE relayed that currently various shelters and law
enforcement agencies provide victims with information about the
OVR via a pamphlet, and so the hope is that information about
the proposed pilot program and the OVR's new responsibilities
will also be distributed in that same manner.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the bill contains
no requirement that the OVR take specific action to notify the
public about the pilot program and its new investigative
responsibilities. He asked what steps the OVR intends to take
in that regard.
MS. HENRY relayed that one option that was discussed, but not
adopted, in a prior committee was for law enforcement to simply
provide the OVR with a copy of all police reports involving
instances of sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor. In lieu
of that, however, the OVR intends to undertake an advertising
campaign that would include providing information in the Alaska
Bar Rag and various newspapers, as well as to shelter personnel,
private attorneys, police academy trainees, first responders,
and nurse aides so that they can advise victims of the
opportunity to seek assistance from the OVR.
1:13:14 PM
MS. HENRY, in response to a question, relayed that the DOL was
opposed, on the basis of protecting the privacy rights of
victims, to simply having the front sheet of all police reports
of the aforementioned crimes sent to the OVR - the front sheet
would show that a rape had been reported and the names of the
defendant and victim. Her initial thought was that without
something along those lines occurring, the OVR won't have a very
good statistical base for the pilot project's study if the OVR
simply waits for victims to come to the OVR, particularly given
that under current statute, the OVR must wait for victims to
come to it for help. She noted, for example, that the
aforementioned constituent who was having difficulties getting a
response from the police hadn't gone to the OVR at all. She
said that the OVR understands the DOL's concern about
confidentiality and so would therefore only use the numbers
gleaned from the front sheets for statistical purposes as they
relate to the report that the OVR will be providing to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a willingness to offer a
conceptual amendment to that effect, and asked Ms. Rice whether
the sponsor would be amenable to such a change.
MS. RICE said she wasn't able to answer that question, but
acknowledged that there are valid points on both sides of the
argument. Victims must be afforded privacy and yet doing so
could make it hard for the OVR to determine how many cases are
being reported versus how many cases are being investigated,
particularly in rural areas, unless some action is taken to
ensure that statistical information is provided to the OVR.
CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to comments, offered her
understanding that one of the DOL's concerns with having all
police reports faxed to the OVR is that the OVR would then have
the ability to contact the victim and that may violate the
victim's privacy rights.
MS. RICE, in response to comments and questions, reiterated that
law enforcement agencies currently provide victims with
information about the OVR via a pamphlet.
MS. HENRY, to further clarify, explained that officers are
required to give victims information about the OVR, but at the
time of most assaults, victims are not thinking about what kind
of future help they might need from the OVR and so that
information probably goes by the wayside.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she shares the DOL's concern
regarding confidentiality.
MS. RICE clarified that there is no intention of allowing the
OVR to contact the victim unless the victim initiates contact.
Instead, the OVR could simply be provided statistical
information when crimes involving sexual assault or sexual abuse
of a minor occur.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that the front sheet of the police
report could simply have certain information redacted -
information such as the victim's name.
1:20:39 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
indicated that that proposal is more acceptable than providing
the OVR with victims' names.
MS. HENRY, in response to comments, attempted to assure the
committee that the OVR doesn't intend to call any of the
victims, and would instead only be using the statistical
information to assist with its study and investigations
regarding whether law enforcement adequately and in a timely
fashion investigates sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor
cases. She said she would be amenable to having victims' names
redacted; another option would be for law enforcement to send
the OVR "everything" and the OVR would simply continue to abide
by its own confidentiality requirements. She surmised, though,
that law enforcement agencies are probably not going to be
thrilled with having to fax sexual assault reports to the OVR.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that another option would be
to encourage law enforcement officers to provide victims with an
additional pamphlet of information about the OVR during a follow
up visit.
MS. CARPENETI said she would have no objection to such though it
would be up to law enforcement agencies to consider that option;
furthermore, the OVR would have to provide law enforcement
agencies with additional pamphlets.
MS. HENRY said she would be fine with such a change.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, confirmed that law
enforcement officers are required to provide victims with
information about the OVR, and noted that they are not forbidden
from giving it more than once.
MS. HENRY suggested making it a requirement that law enforcement
provide the aforementioned pamphlets more than once.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG raised the issue of a possible
conceptual amendment to that effect.
1:26:12 PM
MS. RICE said that that idea has merit, but pointed out that the
thrust of the bill is to address the fact that Alaska has the
highest rate of sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor
crimes in the nation while simultaneously having the lowest rate
of arrest for such crimes - number one and number fifty,
respectively. Furthermore, she remarked, she has a concern that
because part of the problem appears to be that the police aren't
following through with their investigations in such cases - the
police aren't making any follow up visits and aren't returning a
victim's phone calls - then the victim isn't going get that
extra pamphlet. Therefore, in addition to requiring law
enforcement officers to provide victims with OVR information
more than once, it might be best to also require law enforcement
agencies to fax the OVR simple statistical information such as
that a rape has occurred, the time that it was reported, [and
the location at which it occurred]. Such information is
important for the OVR to have as it conducts its study and
investigations - the OVR must have the opportunity to gather
real data.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred.
MS. CARPENETI said:
Although I think it's a good idea and I think maybe
police departments do this now - follow up with
information - requiring them to do so in statute is
probably not necessary because ... it probably doesn't
apply in ... all cases. And the police are working
pretty hard anyway - they're not going to miss a
chance to inform victims, I think.
MS. HENRY, in response to the question, said she would like a
conceptual amendment to say that all law enforcement in the
state must fax the following information to the OVR: the report
of a sexual assault in the first degree or a sexual abuse of a
minor in the first degree, the date of the offense, the police
report number, and the officer assigned.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, expressed a preference
for having that suggested conceptual amendment applied to
uncodified law, since it pertains to a pilot program.
1:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to add to uncodified law the language: "All ...
investigating law enforcement personnel must fax the following
information to [the] OVR: ... [the report of a sexual assault
in the first degree or a sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree], the date [of the offense], the police report number,
and the officer assigned.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected, characterized that language as
cumbersome, and asked whether law enforcement has had a chance
to weigh in on this issue.
MS. RICE relayed that the DPS and the DOL worked closely to
draft the bill, and, to the best of her knowledge, both, along
with the Anchorage Police Department (APD), are in support of
the bill in its current form.
CHAIR McGUIRE observed that if this committee adopted Conceptual
Amendment 1, and [the APD] then voiced concern, the language
could be removed in the bill's next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and expressed concern over what
the OVR's investigation might involve, and whether it could
impede a police investigation or cause difficulty for the
accused.
1:34:39 PM
MS. HENRY again pointed out that the purpose of the bill is to
[authorize the OVR to] find out if there are problems with the
way police investigations of the aforementioned crimes are
currently being conducted, so the OVR would simply be tracking
how such investigations are coming along and whether a
particular case has been declined for prosecution, so there
shouldn't be a concern that someone will be convicted before
having a chance to go to trial or before charges are even filed.
The OVR will essentially be investigating whether officers
simply need more training, whether they are just dropping the
ball, or whether there are other factors coming into play. She
noted that particularly for crimes that occur in villages, if
the police drop the investigation without good reason, even if
the victim is somewhat relieved and has no interest in going
forward with the case, the OVR will still want to know why the
investigation was dropped but isn't going to want to start
something up again with the victim.
MS. CARPENETI said she would hesitate to insert the requirement
proposed by Conceptual Amendment 1 before having had a chance to
consult with police agencies.
MS. RICE said that although she understands Representative
Coghill concerns, if it is clear that the aforementioned
information being faxed to the OVR must have the names - both of
the victim and of the alleged perpetrator - and all contact
information redacted, it shouldn't be cumbersome or breach
confidentiality. The problem in Alaska is severe enough, she
opined, that they must try alternative methods of gaining real
information regarding investigations. She also mentioned that
only 3 percent of reported rapes turn out to consist of false
accusations.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that there is a dearth law
enforcement in certain areas of the state, and indicated that he
is not willing to have attention focused on the investigation
procedures of just this one type of case, particularly when the
problem may stem from a lack of manpower or peer pressure within
a community.
1:39:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested changing Conceptual
Amendment 1 such that the required information would be sent to
the OVR later in the process, since it is merely statistical
information the OVR is seeking.
MS. HENRY said providing the OVR with the aforementioned types
of information later in the process wouldn't alleviate
situations wherein the victim never hears from the police again.
In such situations, what is the likelihood that the OVR will
ever be informed of the case?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that the OVR would still be
notified that there has been a report, the date of the report,
the number of the report, and the officer assigned -
notification just wouldn't occur right at the outset.
CHAIR McGUIRE spoke of a circumstance in Nome wherein a woman
was murdered by a police officer, a police officer who had been
involved in multiple [sexual] assaults of women in that
community over a long period of time. If a woman is being
assaulted by the very people she is supposed to report such an
assault to, what is her recourse if those people never follow up
on the investigation and she doesn't know that the OVR is
available to help? Chair McGuire said she doesn't disagree that
Conceptual Amendment 1 might create a ministerial burden for the
police, but the state must start gathering information regarding
why the state has these incredibly high rates of sexual abuse of
a minor and sexual assault cases but embarrassingly low
conviction rates; furthermore, SB 134 merely authorizes a pilot
program with a sunset date, and so if there is a chance that
[Conceptual Amendment 1] can help the state, it ought to be
incorporated.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
MS. HENRY, in response to a question, indicated that she would
like to have the aforementioned information faxed to the OVR
within two weeks of the date the report was made.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG called that timeframe stipulation an
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to the
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1. There being none,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was amended.
CHAIR McGUIRE then asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended. There being none,
Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
1:44:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to change statute such that law enforcement
officers must give OVR information to victims at each subsequent
contact.
MS. RICE offered her belief that having such information
distributed during either the first and/or the second contact
ought to be sufficient.
MS. HENRY said that would be fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated the motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to change statute such that law enforcement
officers must give OVR information to victims at the first and
second contact.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that she is not sure what statute would
be changed as a result of adopting Conceptual Amendment 2.
MS. CARPENETI said she would like to hear from law enforcement
on this issue, though it seems like it wouldn't be much of a
burden to give the OVR information to victims a second time.
CHAIR McGUIRE committed to contacting law enforcement agencies
between now and the time the bill gets to the House Finance
Committee regarding what their thoughts are on this issue, and
then, if their input is that it will create too great a burden,
this additional language could be removed in that committee.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:48:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 17
following "action"
insert:
"including recommendations, if pertinent, for
action to address law enforcement personnel shortages
in both urban & rural areas in this state."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that Amendment 3 pertains to the
report the OVR will be presenting to the legislature, and
suggested that one cause for the problem could be a shortage of
law enforcement officers, adding that it would be useful if the
report produced by the OVR confirmed that such is the case. He
remarked: "Until you hire police officers, and until you have
enough law enforcement, I don't think you're ever going to make
real progress in the area of crime deterrence."
MS. RICE surmised that the sponsor would have comments regarding
that issue, particularly as it relates to local governments in
unorganized areas of the state. She offered her understanding,
however, that the DPS has worked hard to recruit personnel and
has the funding to hire more law enforcement officers; therefore
it is not an issue of the state not attempting to fill
positions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the OVR is not the right
entity to be making law enforcement personnel recommendations,
and indicated that he would be opposing Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that Amendment 3 would not be requiring
the OVR to find a solution to the lack of law enforcement
personnel; instead, the OVR would simply be required to provide
recommendations on that issue in its report if it seems
pertinent.
1:53:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the report could
contain such information anyway, and reiterated that he would
not be supporting Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that Amendment 3 might be helpful
and won't do any harm.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he doesn't want the OVR's
report to become "the report" on law enforcement personnel
issues, and suggested that Amendment 3 might change the scope of
the proposed study.
CHAIR McGUIRE opined that language in the bill already grants
the OVR the opportunity to say why it thinks that the
aforementioned types of cases aren't being investigated in a
timely or complete manner, whereas Amendment 3 could be more
broadly construed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Amendment 3 such that
the phrase "if pertinent" is changed to, "if the office
determines it is pertinent". There being no objection,
Amendment 3 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to again amend Amendment 3, as
amended, such that the phrase "urban & rural" is changed to
"urban or rural". There being no objection, Amendment 3, as
amended, was again amended.
MS. RICE said she is not sure that Amendment 3, as amended, fits
within the intent of the bill or is in line with the OVR's
original charge, which is to serve as victim advocate.
1:59:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara
voted in favor of Amendment 3, as amended. Representatives
McGuire, Kott, Coghill, and Anderson voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4.
CHAIR McGUIRE, notwithstanding the failure of Amendment 3, as
amended, to be adopted, indicated that the legislature would
still like the OVR's report to the legislature to include
information on law enforcement personnel and staffing if it
finds that such issues have contributed to a lack of timely or
complete investigations of the aforementioned types of cases.
2:00:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 4, to change page 2, line 15, such that the report
shall be presented to the legislature on the first day of [the
first session of] the 26th legislature, [which would start in
January of 2009]. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:02:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSB 134(JUD), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion,
offered observations on what occurs in Senate committee
hearings, and then removed his objection.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
reporting CSSB 134(JUD), as amended, out of committee. There
being none, HCS CSSB 134(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 206 - DETENTION /I.D. OF PERSONS;CONTEMPT OF CT
2:04:50 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 206(FIN), "An Act relating to contempt
of court and to temporary detention and identification of
persons." [In members' packets was a proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt,
5/4/06.]
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that proposed amendments have been
distributed and that a representative from the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) was available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided along with a handwritten change]:
Page 3, line 23:
After "person is", insert "for no longer than is"
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the proposed House committee substitute
(HCS) for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06, ought
to be adopted before any amendments to it are addressed.
LAUREN RICE, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Bunde and in response
to a question, relayed that Representative Gruenberg worked with
the sponsor on the changes incorporated into the proposed HCS
and could therefore explain the differences.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that proposed AS 12.50.201(c)
now contains language stipulating that a person receiving a
subpoena may request the district attorney to move to quash the
subpoena; that Section 1 has been rewritten to clarify that the
contempt provision now also applies to any civil or criminal
court proceeding; and that at the request of the APD, proposed
AS 12.50.201(d)(1) and (2) - which pertain to how fingerprints
and photographs may be used and when they shall be destroyed -
now also include the phrase, "unless it is determined that the
person is suspected of committing the crime under
investigation".
2:10:02 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE [although no formal motion had been made]
determined that there were no objections to adopting the
proposed HCS for SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06,
as the work draft, and so announced that Version R was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that he wants to ensure that law
enforcement can get the information it needs and that innocent
people are not detained for any longer than necessary.
MS. RICE relayed that the sponsor supports Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided along with a handwritten
change]:
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "reasonable suspicion"
Insert: "probable cause"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, on the issue of detaining an innocent
person because he/she is a witness, opined that law enforcement
should have to meet the higher burden of probable cause -
probable cause that the person has information - before being
able to detain him/her as a witness.
2:14:24 PM
MS. RICE relayed that the sponsor feels that Amendment 2 moves
away from the intent of the bill and would weaken it; the
situations that the bill is trying to address are often violent,
emotional, fluid circumstances, and it would be too hard to
prove that one had probable cause to detain someone as a
witness.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
the DOL has a real concern with Amendment 2. The current
standard for an investigative stop by a police officer is
reasonable suspicion, and the bill simply maintains that
standard. At a time when a police officer is attempting to
investigate what happened, he/she should be able to stop a
person if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person has
information. Changing the standard to probable cause would be
confusing to police officers.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that he would be maintaining his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that law
enforcement can't currently detain an innocent person and thus
Amendment 2 lowers the standard such that now an innocent person
can be detained.
MS. CARPENETI opined that for investigative purposes, police
ought to be able to stop a person and ask him/her what he/she
knows, based on a reasonable suspicion. To require the police
to have probable cause is too high a burden and will defeat the
purpose of the bill, and for that reason the DOL would object to
the adoption of Amendment 2.
2:16:52 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara voted in favor
of Amendment 2. Representatives Anderson, Coghill, Gruenberg,
Kott, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2
failed by a vote of 1-5.
2:17:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read [original punctuation provided along with a handwritten
change]:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "may have"
Insert: "has"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that being able to detain someone
based on a reasonable suspicion that he/she "may have"
information would mean that the police would be able to detain
everybody. Amendment 3 would stipulate that detaining a person
can only be done if there is a reasonable suspicion that the
person "has" information, so that law enforcement won't be able
to simply detain everybody.
CHAIR McGUIRE characterized that as a fair requirement.
MS. CARPENETI said that as long as the standard is reasonable
suspicion, stipulating "has" is okay with the DOL.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 4, labeled 24-
LS1197\R.1, Luckhaupt, 5/5/06, which read:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "(i)"
Page 2, lines 2 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(C) AS 09.50.010(5) or 09.50.010(10) if
the conduct involves the failure to honor a subpoena
or refusal to be sworn or answer as a witness in
connection with a civil or criminal court proceeding
or an appearance before the grand jury;"
Page 2, line 7, following "(1)(B)":
Insert "or (1)(C)"
Page 3, line 14:
Delete "or move the court to quash the subpoena"
Page 3, line 17, following "identification.":
Insert "The person may also use other rights provided
by law to respond to the subpoena."
The committee took an at-ease from 2:19 p.m. to 2:20 p.m.
2:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to divide Amendment 4
into Amendment 4a and Amendment 4b. There being no objection,
it was so ordered, with Amendment 4a and Amendment 4b reading as
follows:
Amendment 4a:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "(i)"
Page 2, lines 2 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(C) AS 09.50.010(5) or 09.50.010(10) if
the conduct involves the failure to honor a subpoena
or refusal to be sworn or answer as a witness in
connection with a civil or criminal court proceeding
or an appearance before the grand jury;"
Page 2, line 7, following "(1)(B)":
Insert "or (1)(C)"
Amendment 4b:
Page 3, line 14:
Delete "or move the court to quash the subpoena"
Page 3, line 17, following "identification.":
Insert "The person may also use other rights provided
by law to respond to the subpoena."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4a,
which he characterized as merely making grammatical changes.
There being no objection, Amendment 4a was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti to comment on
Amendment 4b.
2:22:28 PM
MS. CARPENETI said that the DOL had concern with the language,
"or move the court to quash the subpoena" - now contained in
Version R - because it implies that a person will get the
subpoena quashed as long as he/she provides his/her state ID,
and so Amendment 4b removes that language and instead inserts
language clarifying that the person has other rights provided by
law with which to deal with the subpoena.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is his intention to allow a
person who provides valid government-issued ID to file a motion
to quash the subpoena if the district attorney won't withdraw
it.
MS. CARPENETI said that a person always has the right to move to
quash a subpoena, but the language currently in Version R
implies that the subpoena will automatically be quashed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that the language currently in
Version R specifies that the person must first file a motion to
quash - and then it would actually be up to the court to decide
whether to do so - and that exactly satisfies his intention.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not be offering
Amendment 4b.
2:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed HCS for
SB 206, Version 24-LS1197\R, Luckhaupt, 5/4/06, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
206(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|