Legislature(2005 - 2006)
08/04/2006 02:51 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB3005 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
August 4, 2006
2:51 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
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3005(JUD) am
"An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention
and identification of persons; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 3005(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 3007
"An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention
and identification of persons."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3002
"An Act relating to the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act;
relating to municipal impact money received under the terms of a
stranded gas fiscal contract; relating to determination of full
and true value of property and required contributions for
education in municipalities affected by stranded gas fiscal
contracts; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 3005
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION/IDENTIFICATION; CONTEMPT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
07/27/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
07/27/06 (S) JUD
08/02/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
08/02/06 (S) Moved CSSB 3005(JUD) Out of Committee
08/02/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
08/02/06 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
08/02/06 (S) DP: GUESS, THERRIAULT
08/02/06 (S) NR: HUGGINS
08/02/06 (S) AM: FRENCH
08/03/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
08/03/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 3005(JUD) AM
08/04/06 (H) JUD AT 10:30 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL MALONE, Intern
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the Senator Bunde, sponsor of
SB 206, presented SB 3005, which was sponsored by the Senate
Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.
DEAN GUANELI
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the former chief assistant attorney
general in the Criminal Division of the Department of Law (DOL),
assisted with the presentation of SB 3005 and responded to
questions.
WALT MONEGAN, Chief
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 3005, provided
comments and responded to questions.
SENATOR CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 3005, provided a
comment as the sponsor of SB 206.
LAUREN RICE, Staff
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 3005, provided
comments and responded to questions on behalf of Senator Bunde,
sponsor of SB 206.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:51:26 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Gara, Gruenberg, Coghill, Wilson, Anderson, and Kott
were present at the call to order.
SB 3005 - DETENTION/IDENTIFICATION; CONTEMPT
2:51:35 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3005(JUD) am, "An Act relating to
contempt of court and to temporary detention and identification
of persons; and providing for an effective date."
2:52:02 PM
MICHAEL MALONE, Intern to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of Senator Bunde, sponsor of SB
206, that SB 3005 will balance the need to protect individual
freedom with the ability to prosecute crime effectively and
provide defendants with witnesses on their behalf. Witnesses
are crucial to both the defense and prosecution, but
unfortunately material witnesses often refuse to cooperate with
law enforcement officials, and this significantly impedes the
ability of the criminal justice system to bring indictments or
prosecute crimes; SB 3005 protects material witnesses from
unreasonable arrest or confinement, and helps ensure the
availability of crucial testimony.
MR. MALONE indicated that SB 3005 has undergone minor changes
since its introduction and so is now slightly different than HCS
CSSB 206(JUD), which was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee on 5/5/06. The current version of SB 3005
limits applicable property crimes to only the most serious arson
cases, and limits applicable felony crimes against a person to
ensure that victims of domestic violence (DV) are not charged
with a misdemeanor for refusing to be photographed. Under
current common law, he posited, law enforcement officers are
allowed to gather evidence at the scene of any crime, including
taking photographs, and proposed AS 12.50.201(e) clarifies that
the bill is not attempting to overrule any power granted to
peace officers by the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the difference was between
CSSB 3005(JUD) and CSSB 3005(JUD) am.
2:54:47 PM
DEAN GUANELI, speaking as the former chief assistant attorney
general in the Criminal Division of the Department of Law (DOL),
relayed that the amendment adopted on the Senate floor in part
further restricts the types of crimes for which a person could
be detained; for crimes against a person, one may only be
detained if the situation involves a felony crime.
[Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative
Anderson.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that at the time a gang-
related crime occurs, law enforcement won't know whether the
victim of an assault will develop a more serious injury, and
thus he would be prepared to delete the word "felony" from
page 2, line 15.
MR. GUANELI explained that the aforementioned Senate amendment,
which was introduced by Senator Bunde, incorporated that
limitation at the request of Senator French. Mr. Guaneli
offered his understanding that Senator French felt that many
witnesses may also be victims of domestic violence and as such
shouldn't be forced to have his/her picture taken.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that at the time a gang-related
crime occurs, law enforcement won't know whether the victim of
what appears to be a misdemeanor assault will actually develop a
more serious injury and thus end up being the victim of a felony
assault.
MR. GUANELI noted that the kinds of situations that the
Anchorage Police Department is concerned about are situations
involving guns, knives, and clubs, all of which give rise to
felony-level conduct. It will be the rare instance wherein a
gang-related fight doesn't include weapons of some kind and an
ostensibly misdemeanor injury later develops into a felony-level
injury. Furthermore, Mr. Guaneli remarked, Senator French also
pointed out that the legislation is allowing law enforcement to
detain and photograph - and in some cases fingerprint -
completely innocent citizens, and this should be done in only
the most serious circumstances. Allowing this detention only
for felony crimes will give some level of comfort to a court
that reviews a challenge to this legislation, he surmised, and
thus he relayed to Senator Bunde that the felony-level crime
threshold was not harmful.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, though, that a barroom
brawl could result in what at first appears to be a mere
misdemeanor-level injury actually developing into a felony-level
injury.
3:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wants to ensure that the
identification requirements of the bill won't endanger witnesses
to gang-related crimes, and hence will be offering an amendment
to address this concern of his. He then referred to the
language on page 2, line 14, which stipulates that a person may
be detained simply for being "near" the scene of a crime, and
said he is concerned that it will give law enforcement the right
to do "neighborhood sweeps." He indicated that he would like to
define the term, "near" so as to ensure that it won't include
locations where one couldn't have seen or heard the crime; in
other words, "near" should mean a location within viewing or
listening distance of the crime. He opined that this will be
sufficient for law enforcement since the standard will be
reasonable suspicion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to questions, referred to
Amendment 1, which, with handwritten corrections, read [original
punctuation provided]:
at p. 2 line 14,
Delete "near"
insert "within viewing or listening distance of"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd had a similar concern and so
had prepared an amendment that replaces the words, "near the
scene" with the words, "in the immediate vicinity".
MR. GUANELI explained that the whole concept of detaining people
who may have witnessed or been "near" the scene of the
commission of a crime comes from the model code of pre-
arraignment procedure by the American Law Institute and is not
viewed as particularly threatening by legal scholars. Police
will only stop a person who they feel is in a position to have
information; to limit those who may be detained to only those
who've been within viewing or listening distance of a crime will
remove law enforcement's ability to detain someone a block away
who may have seen the getaway car speeding away. He surmised
that law enforcement officials - when responding to felony-level
assaults, arson, criminal mischief, and misconduct involving
weapons - are only going to be seeking information from people
whom they believe might have heard or seen something, those most
likely to aid in the material investigation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what kind of guidance will be given to
police with regard to how they should interpret what the term,
"near" means.
3:16:45 PM
MR. GUANELI indicated that the DOL doesn't advise the police on
how to do their job; the police have a wide range of discretion
regarding how to deal with certain situations, and he is not in
a position to say how the police will deal with gang-related
incidents, particularly given the wide range of circumstances
and surroundings that might be present at any particular
incident. The police, he predicted, are going to deal with such
situations as they do all situations - with judgment and
discretion and under review of the courts if there is a
challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed a preference for the current
language of, "at or near".
MR. GUANELI offered his belief that SB 3005 will allow the
police to stop people and ask them who they are, and doesn't
require the people to say anything other than who they are.
Most people who witness something will want to cooperate with
the police, and under the bill, those few who don't wish to
cooperate will be required to either show or provide some form
of identification (ID) or face receiving a subpoena to testify
before a grand jury. Ultimately, if such people refuse to
provide identification or refuse to be photographed or
fingerprinted, they could be charged with a crime, but most
people, he predicted, will simply choose to provide law
enforcement with their ID.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that Amendment 1 will defeat the
purpose of the bill because the person will simply be able to
state that he/she neither saw nor heard anything.
MR. GUANELI concurred that Amendment 1 seems to contain a built-
in excuse.
3:23:40 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), with regard to Amendment 1,
pointed out that the potential witness may not know that he/she
has witnessed something because he/she may not have had a direct
connection with the crime itself; for example, a person might
not be within sight or hearing of a crime but does notice a
vehicle speeding away from the area, and the police ought to be
able to ask that person what he/she saw or heard and obtain
contact information so as to be able to question that person
again. He also pointed out that the APD is not generally called
right away, and so persons involved in a gang-related crime may
get quite a distance away from the scene, and thus the police
ought to have some flexibility with regard to who they can
question.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA argued that a police officer won't have to
prove that a person heard or saw something in order to detain
him/her; rather, the officer merely has to have a reasonable
suspicion that the person might have seen or heard something.
So it won't matter that the person claims not to have seen or
heard anything. Acknowledging the difficulty of defining what
does constitute "near", he suggested that they leave that
language as is and merely say what doesn't constitute "near";
for example, the term "near" shall not be interpreted to mean a
location from which the person could not have heard or seen
evidence of the crime. In this way, if someone couldn't have
seen or heard something, he/she can't be [charged with a crime]
for not providing law enforcement with ID.
MR. MONEGAN explained that normally, when officers arrive on the
scene, after they have stabilized the situation and gotten an
idea of what occurred, they will canvass the neighborhood to see
if anyone has seen or heard anything, and the officers must take
peoples' answers at face value. But if a person who was in the
immediate vicinity of a crime claims not to have seen or heard
anything, [then under the bill's current language] the police
would be allowed to obtain that person's ID, photograph, or
fingerprints in order to question him/her later.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Monegan whether he is amenable to
adding language which stipulates that "near" does not mean a
location from which the person could not have heard or seen
evidence of the crime.
MR. MONEGAN, in response, asked members to consider a situation
in which a witness saw the crime but by the time the police
arrive has fled to his/her house two blocks away, but police are
directed to the witness by someone else who saw him/her leaving
the scene.
CHAIR McGUIRE and REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that "near"
should be linked with "at the time the crime was committed".
MR. MONEGAN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that HCS CSSB 206(JUD) included the
phrase, "during the commission of a crime", and suggested that
they insert that language into SB 3005.
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out, though, that the concern with that
language is that it excluded people that may have fled, or that
may be around, that might have information that could help lead
to solving the crime, and surmised that they shouldn't go back
to that language. She acknowledged that Representative Gara has
highlighted a problem wherein the police might use the language
currently in the bill to conduct neighborhood sweeps without
cause. She suggested that the phrase, "within viewing or
listening distance at the time the crime occurred" would get
them where they want to go. She surmised that police officers
are trained to not misuse their powers and responsibility.
MR. MONEGAN concurred, and offered that there is also sufficient
oversight of what officers do should anyone challenge their
actions under this legislation.
3:34:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said: "What I'd like to do ... is say,
'near' doesn't include if you're so far away that you couldn't
have seen it or heard it, and then I'll put in a sentence that
says a person who was near the scene of the crime is subject to
this section even if she or he left the area before the peace
officer detains the person".
MR. MONEGAN said such language would work for him.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wants to ensure that they don't
exclude someone who might have witnessed someone fleeing the
scene of the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that that is a flaw in the bill,
not in Amendment 1.
MR. GUANELI, in response to comments and a question, said he
doesn't believe there is a flaw in the bill with regard to
people who flee. The bill is structured such that the police
will have the authority to stop someone who is near the scene of
the crime but not if that person is a mile away, for example.
However, if a crime is committed where no one can see it or hear
it, but yet a person sees someone fleeing the area, the police
ought to be able to obtain information from that person. He
added, "This is an important piece of legislation, ... and I
hate for it to get bogged down on what I'm not certain are
realistic fears about ... police abuses of something that ... we
haven't even tried yet.
MR. MONEGAN pointed out that police officers are highly
motivated with regard to cases that involve violent crimes, that
such cases have a higher priority, and that police won't be
asking for information from people who were not in the area
where a crime occurred until someone at the scene gives police a
reason to start questioning people away from the scene; when
someone does have information to offer or is in a position to
offer some, the police ought to be able to obtain contact
information from him/her. He added that when police are
investigating a serious crime, that is their focus and they do
not spend time canvassing the neighborhood for small
infractions, and thus are unlikely to pursue someone simply for
refusing to provide contact information unless the police have a
reasonable suspicion that the person is somehow involved in the
crime.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that Amendment 1 would be set aside.
3:40:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 2,
which, with handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 3, line 13
Change "is" to "may be"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that "may be" is the correct
technical term because the court won't yet have made a
determination. He offered his understanding that the
administration has no objections to Amendment 2.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 3,
which, with handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 3, line 17
After "subpoena" insert: "or the lead
investigator"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the reason for providing
for this option is that it may be difficult to locate the same
officer who served the subpoena in order to show him/her the
identification. He offered his understanding that the
administration has no problem with Amendment 3.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
3:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 4,
which, with handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2 line 31 after "photographic identification",
insert the following ", or other valid identification
that the officer finds to be reliable to identify the
person,"
Page 3 line 18 after "photographic identification",
insert the following ", or other valid identification
that the officer finds to be reliable to identify the
person,"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that not everyone has
photographic identification, so Amendment 4, which was drafted
by Mr. Guaneli, would allow other forms of identification to
substitute. He offered his understanding that the
administration was amenable to Amendment 4.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 4. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:43 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.
3:48:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 5,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
AS 09.50.020(a) is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. 09.50.020. Penalty. (a) A person who commits a
contempt is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that although SB 2005 in part
attempts to modernize the contempt statutes, which are used by
the court to enforce its orders and control the integrity of its
process, Amendment 5 would update and simplify what the
punishments will be by charging a violator with a class A
misdemeanor, which could result in someone having to serve up to
a year in jail and being fined up to $10,000. He pointed out
that under Amendment 5, the courts will have complete discretion
over the matter of fines and jail time for contempt violations.
MR. GUANELI indicated that he is satisfied that in most
instances the penalties for contempt are insignificant, and that
as a practical matter the current contempt provision is almost
never used. He characterized Amendment 5 as effecting a good
change because it will provide the court with more authority.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 5. There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
3:52:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Insert at p.2 line 23
"(4) The term "near" shall not be interpreted to mean
a location from which the person could not have heard
or seen evidence of the crime, or flight from the
crime. A person who was near the scene of a crime is
subject to this section even if the person left the
area before the peace officer detains the person."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that Amendment 6 will address his
concerns in that although it will leave the term, "near" in the
bill, it will also stipulate that "near" won't mean a distance
so far away that the person couldn't have either seen or heard
something at the scene of the crime or the flight away from the
scene of the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that under proposed AS
12.50.201(a)(2), the police officer, before being able to detain
a person, must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has
information of material aid in the investigation of the crime.
MR. GUANELI indicated that his comments regarding Amendment 1
also apply to Amendment 6. In response to a comment, he said he
is concerned about requiring the police to calculate whether a
person they wish to ask questions of was able to hear or see
anything, because he does not want officers to hesitate when
trying to decide who they have a right to speak to. "I just
worry that we aren't going to be able to anticipate all of the
situations that are going to confront the police, and that by
being ... overly cautious and overly suspicious about the
police, that we're going to hamper their ability to do their
job," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, however, that the police will
be asking themselves whether someone could have seen or heard
something anyway, and he just wants to prevent the police from
using the bill to go a few blocks away and start doing a
neighborhood sweep. He suggested that the courts will
ultimately be deciding what constitutes "near".
3:58:49 PM
SENATOR CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of SB 206, simply asked the committee to come down on
the side of stopping violence and gang problems.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated his belief that when proposed
AS 12.50.201(a)(1) and (2) are taken together, it means that
before detaining someone for information, the police must have a
reasonable suspicion that that person has information that could
be of material aid in the investigation of a specific crime.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and McGuire
voted in favor of Amendment 6. Representatives Coghill, Wilson,
Kott, Anderson, and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 2-5.
4:00:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA [made a motion to adopt] Conceptual
Amendment 7, which, with handwritten corrections, read [original
punctuation provided]:
Insert new 12.61.120(b), and re-letter accordingly.
"(b) If a person is required to provide
information as a witness, or potential witness under
AS 12.50.201, the information under subsection (a) may
not be provided to a defendant if providing this
information creates a public safety risk to the
person. If the defendant is without counsel, the
person may be made available for interview with the
defendant at a place, and in a manner, that protects
the defendant's constitutional right to obtain
evidence, and protects the persons [sic] safety."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wants to ensure that a witness isn't
required to provide identifying information to a gang member who
would later hurt the witness. He offered his understanding that
under current law a person doesn't have to provide information
to the defendant unless the defendant doesn't have an attorney.
Conceptual Amendment 7 maintains that requirement while also
requiring that the witness is protected.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he wished to amend Conceptual
Amendment 7 to the effect that "these protections are in
addition to the other protections we have for witnesses."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would support such an amendment
to Conceptual Amendment 7.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 7, to add after the last sentence the words, "The
witness protections in this section are in addition to the
protections in AS 12.61.120". [Conceptual Amendment 7 was
treated as amended.]
4:05:31 PM
LAUREN RICE, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Bunde, sponsor of SB 206,
offered her understanding that current statute stipulates how
the identity of victims of sexual assault shall be protected,
and asked whether [Representative Gara's goal could be
accomplished] by simply including material witnesses in that
statute. She recalled that the Anchorage Daily News had printed
information about a witness at the scene of a gang-related
shooting, and this was not appreciated by the APD; the newspaper
had printed the physical characteristics of the witness, the
area he lived in, and [a description of] his car, and under the
existing statute pertaining to victims of sexual assault, the
newspaper would not have been allowed to print such information
had the person been a victim of sexual assault. In response to
questions, she said that Senator Bunde had intended to work on
this issue next year, and that she would like to hear Mr.
Guaneli's comments on Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended.
MR. GUANELI said that there is a specific statute that says
information about victims of sexual offenses shall be withheld
from public inspection; furthermore, agencies can't be forced to
disclose the names of victims. Limiting what information can be
printed in a newspaper, however, is a broader topic involving
the First Amendment. He characterized Representative Gara's
point as a good one, and noted that current law contains some
protections for the addresses and telephone numbers of victims
and witnesses, and so even though the prosecution is ordinarily
required to turn everything over to the defense, the prosecution
can't be forced to turn over that particular type of information
unless the court finds good cause for doing so. Also there is a
specific statute which says that with certain types of crimes,
if the judge finds that the victim may be in jeopardy, those
types of information don't have to be provided because doing so
might endanger the victim.
MR. GUANELI characterized the first sentence of Conceptual
Amendment 7, as amended, as appropriate. With regard to the
second sentence, he pointed out that there is an existing court
rule that speaks to depositions in criminal cases, and so on the
issue of making a witness available for an interview, they
probably ought to proceed under those existing court rules.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, expressing an interest in crafting some
sort of witness protection mechanism, withdrew Conceptual
Amendment 7, as amended.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked on possibly inserting language into the
bill asking for a report that would provide the legislature with
suggestions for witness protection mechanisms. She added, "We
all wish that people would be willing to be part of solving
crimes and to be forthcoming, ... [but] we know that they're
not; that's the purpose of the bill, it's to say ... we're going
to reach in there with the heavy hand of the government and get
this information because there's a greater goal of solving the
crime." That being said, the situation could arise wherein the
mother of a couple of children witnesses a crime and knows that
the defendant knows who she is; under the current language, the
woman would have to face either putting herself and her children
in jeopardy or not complying with the law. Therefore, the bill
should require that recommendations be provided to the
legislature regarding witness protection mechanisms.
MS. RICE reiterated that Senator Bunde was intending to
introduce legislation next year that would deal with such
concerns, adding that perhaps a report of the kind Chair McGuire
mentioned is worth looking into.
CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, noted that the bill
has an immediate effective date.
4:16:58 PM
MR. GUANELI, in response to questions, relayed that AS 12.61
also covers a number of protections for witnesses; that there is
not a witness protection program at the state level; and that he
doesn't know how successful the federal program has been, though
it is a controversial program and has been subject to a number
of abuses. In Alaska, he surmised, most often a witness will
have a fear of immediate retribution, which the first part of
Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended, addressed.
CHAIR McGUIRE observed that it is not yet known what the
repercussions of Anchorage's mounting gang violence will be.
The neighbors of gang members are going to continue to live in
neighborhoods where gang violence occurs but will now be put in
a position of having to provide information about those that
could retaliate.
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Conceptual Amendment 8, which, with
handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation provided]:
The state has an interest in protection [sic]
witnesses from violence or other danger.
The Department of Public Safety shall provide a
report to the legislature by february 1, 2007. The
report shall propose workable measures to protect
witnesses who must provide information under SB 3005,
and who might be endanged [sic] by providing their
identifying information to other persons, including
gang members, who might endanger a witness providing
such information.
CHAIR McGUIRE characterized Conceptual Amendment 8 as at least a
statement of intent.
4:22:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 8.
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion that all members of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee be shown as co-sponsors of
Conceptual Amendment 8. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 8. There being none, Conceptual
Amendment 8 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would still try to craft something
regarding witness protection as outlined in the first sentence
of Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended, before the bill is heard
on the House floor.
4:23:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSSB 3005(JUD) am, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection,
HCS CSSB 3005(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 4:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|