Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
02/21/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2007
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to requiring electronic monitoring as a special
condition of probation for offenders whose offense was related
to a criminal street gang."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 133
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUCH
02/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (H) JUD, FIN
02/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/21/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 133.
RICK SVOBODNY, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 133.
GARDNER COBB, Captain
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 133, provided
comments and responded to questions.
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 133.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 133.
CHARLES KOPP, Chief
Kenai Police Department (KPD)
City of Kenai
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06:28 PM. Representatives Coghill,
Samuels, Lynn, Holmes, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gruenberg and Dahlstrom arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 133 - ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER
1:06:46 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to requiring electronic
monitoring as a special condition of probation for offenders
whose offense was related to a criminal street gang." [In
members' packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
133, Version 25-LS0465\E, Luckhaupt, 2/20/07.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he supports HB 133.
1:08:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 133 addresses a problem documented by the
Anchorage Police Department (APD) wherein convicted gang members
continue to engage in gang-related activity when released on
probation, and it does so by requiring those convicted of
violent, gang-related crimes - crimes proven in a court of law
to be gang-related - to wear an electronic monitoring device as
a condition of probation; this will provide law enforcement
agencies with a tool for monitoring gang activity and putting a
stop to it. He assured the committee that HB 133 will not
provide law enforcement agencies with the authority to simply
round up every kid who has a tattoo, for example.
1:12:47 PM
RICK SVOBODNY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in
response to questions, noted that the bill will only apply to
someone who has been convicted, has had an aggravating factor
pertaining to gang-related activity applied to his/her sentence,
has served his/her sentence, and is now eligible for probation.
He indicated that if someone to whom the bill applies doesn't
show up for a probation appointment, for example, the electronic
monitoring device would be used by the probation officer as a
tool for locating the person and determining whether he/she is
complying with the conditions of probations, such as a condition
that required him/her to live in a particular location, or that
precluded him/her from being in a certain location. He
mentioned that law enforcement officials could better address
questions regarding the practical aspect of using electronic
monitoring devices.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to questions, explained that for
sentencing purposes, under the ruling in the Alaska Supreme
Court case, Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (U.S., 2004),
when the DOL is trying to prove that an aggravating factor
exists, it must do so beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury;
essentially, there will first be a trial addressing whether
someone has committed a crime, and then, for the purpose of
sentencing, there will be another trial, with the same jury,
addressing whether any aggravating factors exist. Under the
bill, in the latter trial, the DOL will bring forth evidence in
an attempt to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that
an aggravating factor does exist [and thus the defendant will be
required to submit to electronic monitoring as a condition of
probation].
1:16:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 133, Version 25-LS0465\E, Luckhaupt,
2/20/07, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to more questions, reiterated his
previous comments, and explained that once the aggravating
factor has been proven, HB 133 will require that if conditions
of probation are imposed at sentencing, that one of the
conditions shall be that the defendant submit to electronic
monitoring via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to questions regarding the bill's
impact on the departments, suggested that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) might be impacted with regard to those that
monitor the probationers, and that the Alaska Court System (ACS)
might be impacted if electronic monitoring increases the number
of court cases related to probation violations. Also, it might
be that people will be less likely to enter into a plea
agreement if they view having to submit to electronic monitoring
as being onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the language on page 1,
line 5, which says in part, "While on probation and as a special
condition of probation", and questioned whether that language
could be used to have electronic monitoring be set as an
additional condition of probation on those who've already been
sentenced.
MR. SVOBODNY relayed that if such were the intent of that
language the DOL would have a concern because of a double
jeopardy problem. Furthermore, if electronic monitoring is
viewed as a penalty, there could be a problem, but not if it is
viewed simply as a safety mechanism. He offered his belief that
the bill does not have a retroactive effect.
1:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred. He then referred to the
language in Section 1 that says "A defendant subject to
electronic monitoring under this subsection is not entitled to a
credit for time served while on probation", and sought
confirmation that the words, "under this subsection" wouldn't
cause a problem in implementing the intent of the bill.
MR. SVOBODNY confirmed that that language would not cause such a
problem. In response to a question regarding the phrase, "is
not entitled to a credit for time served while on probation", he
relayed that both the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court
of Appeals have interpreted conditions of probation that have
factors which are substantially similar to incarceration as
giving a person credit for time served in jail. For example, if
a probation officer required a person to go to an alcohol
treatment program that was the functional equivalent of
incarceration - the person couldn't leave, he/she was monitored,
and there were sanctions for violating the rules - and then the
person violated the conditions of his/her probation, the court
could give the person credit for the time he/she spent in the
alcohol treatment program. However, being subject to electronic
monitoring is not the functional equivalent of incarceration,
and so this last sentence in Section 1 is designed to stipulate
that the courts won't be giving credit for any time the person
spent being subject to electronic monitoring.
MR. SVOBODNY explained that a very recent Alaska Court of
Appeals case, Matthew v. State, has held that electronic
monitoring is not the functional equivalent of being in jail.
However, Matthew pertained to a pre-sentence situation, and
because the DOL wants to ensure that post-sentence situations
will be treated in the same fashion, the aforementioned language
has been included in Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that that language is
meant to follow Matthew rather than overrule it. He also
surmised that the words, "time served" as used in the last
sentence of Section 1 refer to time served in prison.
MR. SVOBODNY concurred, but noted that in a prior House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting the commissioner of the DOC
made a distinction between prisons and jails.
1:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether language should be added
to clarify what is meant.
MR. SVOBODNY said he thinks people will know what is meant by
the existing words, but acknowledged that perhaps the words, "in
a correctional facility" could be added to further clarify the
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that at some point the
committee should alter the last sentence in Section 1 to read in
part, "not entitled to a credit for time served in a
correctional facility while the defendant is on probation".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed concern over what would be
considered a correctional facility.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether current law addresses the
electronic monitoring of minors, and whether those laws would
still apply if a minor is waived into adult court. She also
questioned whether in some situations it might actually be
appropriate to grant a credit for the time a person is subject
to electronic monitoring.
MR. SVOBODNY explained that when a minor is waived into adult
court, legally he/she is no longer considered a minor, and so
he/she would be subject to the same conditions of probation that
an adult would be subject to. With regard to the question of
whether it might be appropriate to grant credit for the time a
person is subject to electronic monitoring, he indicated that in
situations where the judge has the discretion to suspend all the
jail time that he/she imposes and put the person on probation
for that period of time instead, the judge could require
electronic monitoring as a condition of that probation.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to a question, relayed that a
"criminal street gang" is defined in AS 11.81.900(13):
(13) "criminal street gang" means a group of
three or more persons
(A) who have in common a name or identifying
sign, symbol, tattoo or other physical marking, style
of dress, or use of hand signs; and
(B) who, individually, jointly, or in
combination, have committed or attempted to commit,
within the preceding three years, for the benefit of,
at the direction of, or in association with the group,
two or more offenses under any of, or any combination
of, the following:
(i) AS 11.41;
(ii) AS 11.46; or
(iii) a felony offense;
MR. SVOBODNY noted that AS 11.41 pertains to offenses against a
person, and that AS 11.46 pertains to offenses against property.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that to a certain extent the bill would
apply mostly to those living in the Anchorage vicinity. He
relayed that his home [in Fairbanks] was brutally vandalized by
a group of youth that were not part of a criminal street gang
but that were known to commit burglaries in the neighborhood.
So his concern, he relayed, is with the phrase, "criminal street
gang" as used in the title of the bill and the distinction it
makes between a criminal street gang and groups like the ones in
the Fairbanks area that have vandalized homes or committed
burglaries or assaulted people - in some cases even kicking
people to death - because he is not sure that such groups would
fit under the statutory definition of a criminal street gang.
Furthermore, he queried, how will the bill provide protection
for other communities in Alaska wherein groups of youth that
don't fit that statutory definition of a criminal street gang
are causing problems.
1:40:12 PM
MR. SVOBODNY noted that other legislators have struggled with
creating a general definition that would apply to what [law
enforcement] is currently witnessing in Anchorage. He
acknowledged that the current statutory definition probably
wouldn't include the group the vandalized Chair Ramras's home,
adding that although HB 133 may not be the vehicle, the
legislature may wish to broaden [the aggravator] statute to
apply to such groups.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked why criminal street gangs are being singled
out under the bill's requirement of "shall", but not other
groups of people [who cause just as much damage].
MR. SVOBODNY noted that a court already may, if it can show a
nexus between a condition of probation [and the crime], require
electronic monitoring as a condition of probation, so perhaps
the legislature may wish to simply spell that authority out in
another section of statute - that the court has the authority to
require electronic monitoring as a condition of probation.
Under the bill, the court would not have any discretion in the
matter; instead, the court would have to require electronic
monitoring as a condition of probation.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to questions, relayed that the courts
have ruled that the State may not hide the fact that there is an
aggravating factor; that the State must prove an aggravating
factor beyond a reasonable doubt; that the court could require
the defendant to submit to electronic monitoring even if there
is no aggravating factor; that the bill is not retroactive, and
the state couldn't, at a later date, simply bring up the issue
of an aggravating factor; and that the court has the discretion
to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of probation, and
although that authority is not currently located in statute, as
long as there is a nexus between the offense committed and the
goal of that sentencing, the court can impose electronic
monitoring.
MR. SVOBODNY offered his belief that an appellate court will be
more concerned about electronic monitoring than other conditions
of probation because the courts have been conservative in
allowing conditions of probation that have geographic
restrictions - the courts have been reluctant to say that there
is a nexus between a crime and a whole geographic area, and GPS
monitoring comes close to triggering that same concern of the
courts. In response to a question, he offered to research
whether it is currently a crime to tamper with an electronic
monitoring device. In response to another question, he pointed
out that there is no statutory provision stating that the court
"may" impose electronic monitoring as a condition of probation,
and that earlier he'd merely been saying that it wouldn't hurt
to remind everyone, by spelling that authority out in another
section of statute, that the court indeed may impose such a
condition; the court has this authority because it is tasked
with setting reasonable conditions of probation to protect the
community.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked why they should deem a criminal street gang
to be a greater threat than any other, perhaps less organized,
group.
MR. SVOBODNY said that as a practical matter, when a group of
people gather together with the intention of committing crimes,
they become greater than the group's individual parts. With
such groups, not only are they engaging in criminal conduct, but
they also have a greater ability to keep evidence away from law
enforcement and to intimidate witnesses - for example, in a
recent murder case in Anchorage, the defendant kidnapped all of
the witnesses and threatened to kill them if they testified.
People who are organized into criminal street gangs tend to be
substantially more violent and tend to be more able, by grouping
together, to intimidate witnesses, and to engage in other types
of criminal activity that people perceive, and rightly so, as
being more dangerous.
1:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that the problem of street gangs
in Alaska is a very serious problem; in his district gangs
commit a lot of crimes and are a "high menace" to those that
live and work there. Past legislatures have dealt with the
issue by enacting, separately, a series of laws. For example,
AS 12.55.137, which is referenced in HB 133, raises the level of
certain crimes - from a class B misdemeanor to a class A
misdemeanor, and from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony
- if those crimes are committed by members of a criminal street
gang. The legislature has already made the determination that
members of criminal street gangs are a much higher risk to
society than people acting alone.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the term "correctional
facility" is defined in AS 33.30.901(4) as:
(4) "correctional facility" or "facility" means a
prison, jail, camp, farm, half-way house, group home,
or other placement designated by the commissioner for
the custody, care, and discipline of prisoners; a
"state correctional facility" means a correctional
facility owned or run by the state;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether it would be necessary to
reference that statute in the alternative language he'd
suggested earlier.
MR. SVOBODNY said that doing so would be more precise.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agrees with Chair Ramras's point
about groups of people that commit crimes but that don't fit
into the definition of AS 11.81.900(13)(A). He relayed,
however, that in Anchorage, the existence of criminal street
gangs is a problem and one that can't be avoided; while
campaigning, he said, he found that the biggest concern of the
people in his district was that they feared to leave their homes
after dark. He suggested, therefore, that the bill be expanded
to include anybody that would fit the description currently
outlined in AS 11.81.900(13)(B). Such a change would address
his and Chair Ramras's concern, Representative Samuels remarked.
MR. SVOBODNY expressed agreement, acknowledging that gangs in
Alaska are less likely to have the type of rigid gang structure
that can be found in gangs in the Lower 48. On a different
point, he noted that conceivably, under the bill - and its
requirement that a person submit to electronic monitoring while
on probation - a judge who might ordinarily put someone
convicted of a gang-related crime on probation for five years
might instead put that person on probation for only two years.
2:01:18 PM
GARDNER COBB, Captain, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that he oversees the
APD's gang response, and that he was instrumental in
establishing the APD's "Intel Unit" database. He said that the
APD is in favor of HB 133, and views electronic monitoring
technology as promising. According to the vendor, law
enforcement can have secure Internet access to all data in a
timely manner; it's easy and quick to set up inclusion zones and
exclusion zones; law enforcement will receive "real-time"
notification if a person wearing an electronic monitoring device
violates an inclusion or exclusion zone - in such instances, the
APD will be able to investigate the violation; and the database
can detail where a monitored person was at any given time - for
example, if a shooting occurs, the APD would be able to
determine if the monitored person was at the location of the
shooting during the time it occurred.
MR. COBB pointed out that gang-related violence is particularly
disturbing to Anchorage residents because it can happen anytime,
anywhere, and anyone can become a victim. He opined that one of
the reasons that criminal street gangs are being singled out in
this legislation is that gang culture involves violence and the
use of weapons, weapons of an increasingly lethal nature;
furthermore, criminal street gangs have a propensity to exchange
multiple rounds in their altercations. In response to
questions, he indicated that he would be in favor of having the
bill apply to sex offenders as well, but acknowledged that as
currently written, the bill only addresses gang-motivated crime,
and the APD uses the definition of gang-motivated crime provided
by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ):
A gang motivated crime is a crime in which suspects,
victims, or participants are identified as gang
members or associates, and the offender committed the
crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in
association with a gang, with the specific intent to
promote further or help criminal conduct by gang
members.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered hypothetical examples, one in which a 21-
year-old person in a car shoots at another vehicle, and one in
which a 15-year-old person who is a member of a gang throws a
rock through a window. He said that the way he is reading the
bill, it would only apply to the 15-year-old because he is a
gang member and the 21-year-old is not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that the 15-year-
old who was just throwing a rock would be treated as a juvenile.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that requiring electronic
monitoring will simply increase the caseloads of probation
officers, and that the bill doesn't make a distinction regarding
the severity of the crimes committed by gang members.
MR. COBB said he'd like to see more resources allocated to the
state's criminal justice system (CJS), because currently too
many offenders with a likelihood of re-offending are simply
being put back on the street. The APD attempts to track gang-
related activities so as to better understand the chaos that
those involved in a gang-member lifestyle are creating within
the community. Gang-motivated crime is a significant problem in
the Anchorage community; the APD, in 2006, reported 122 gang-
related cases, but that number just pertains to people who've
been identified as gang members or gang associates, and so that
number should probably more like 300. Because of limited
resources, the Intel Unit has not yet identified all the gang
members and gang associates in Anchorage; he offered his belief
that the real numbers of such individuals is probably far in
excess of what the APD knows about so far.
2:14:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned Mr. Cobb about the current and potential
future caseloads of probation officers.
MR. COBB said he doesn't know that information, but suspects
that as currently written, the number of people the bill will
apply to will be limited; he added his belief that the cost of
electronic monitoring won't be that significant. He opined that
HB 133 will be a good first step, and that it will allow the APD
to develop the infrastructure which could then lead to perhaps
expanding the types of probationers that would be required to
submit to electronic monitoring. In response to questions, he
reiterated his comments, adding that perhaps a representative
from the DOC could better describe how electronic monitoring
devices are currently being used, that a representative from the
DOL could better address the issue of whether the word "shall"
in HB 133 should be changed to "may", and that he would like
electronic monitoring to be required for all violent criminals
and people or groups that evince patterns of violence.
2:19:30 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services
(DHSS), in response to comments, clarified that HB 133 would not
apply to juvenile offenders - such as the 15-year-old in Chair
Ramras's hypothetical example - unless they have been waived
into adult court, because the sentencing provisions of Title 12
apply only to adult offenders. In response to questions, he
relayed that the DJJ already makes use of electronic monitoring
in some situations; that he would research the age of the
youngest person to be subject to electronic monitoring; that the
DJJ has seen kids that belong to marauding groups of people that
don't fit the definition of criminal street gang; and that the
DJJ has not researched whether there is a difference between the
recidivism rates of kids in informal groups and of kids in
formal gangs.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether, in instances where
a crime is committed by a juvenile that's a member of a criminal
street gang, a judge might be encouraged to waive the juvenile
into adult court.
MR. NEWMAN surmised that such might be the case.
2:30:19 PM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner
- Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC), in response to
questions, said that he anticipates that there will need to be 1
parole officer for every 15 people subject to electronic
monitoring under the bill; that this more intense supervision
will be required for this type of offender; that currently the
DOC doesn't have enough probation officers to deal with the
caseload that will be generated by HB 133; that the DOC
experiences a constant turnover in probation officer personnel;
and that he would provide the committee with the DOC's probation
officer staffing levels in various areas of the state.
MR. PEEPLES relayed that the DOC's fiscal note is forthcoming
because the DOC does not yet have an estimate of how many people
might be sentenced under the aggravating factors outlined in the
bill, though currently there are 96 individuals on probation
that have case notes which demonstrate an association with gang
members; however, this doesn't mean that those individuals could
have been sentenced under the aggravating factors outlined in HB
133. He suggested that once the statute is adopted, it could
become an incentive for prosecutors to try to prove the
aggravating factors in gang-related incidents.
MR. PEEPLES, in response to further questions, explained that
under the bill, the people on probation will be monitored all
the time for the length of the probation period; the DOC will
set up exclusion and inclusion zones so that when someone
violates those zones, the electronic monitoring device will send
an electronic message to the probation officer, and the person
would be remanded back to prison. This will increase the
pressure on the current DOC system, and increase the costs
associated with probation officers and correctional facilities.
2:38:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned what the recidivism rates are
for people who commit crimes as part of a group that doesn't fit
the definition of a criminal street gang.
MR. PEEPLES offered to research that issue from the perspective
of the adult justice system. In response to questions, he
relayed that once a person subject to electronic monitoring has
violated an exclusion or inclusion zone, the device notifies the
parole officer, then he/she would verify that fact and then
contact law enforcement officers, who would in turn apprehend
the person. He said he does not know at what point the DOC's
probation system would be overrun, but the population that the
bill would apply to would be an intensive group to manage. He
noted that the problem of gangs in DOC facilities has not been a
great issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that electronic monitoring can
act as a deterrent on the offender because he/she will know that
violations of probation are more likely to be detected and
prosecuted.
MR. PEEPLES concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized HB 133 as acting somewhat
like a pilot project, and noted that 22 AAC 05.620 in part
stipulates that the offender will be assessed a fee of $12 a day
to pay for the cost of the electronic monitoring though that fee
could be waived if paying that cost creates an undue hardship.
He offered his understanding that with electronic monitoring
technology, a person can be monitored regarding alcohol
consumption, for example, if not consuming alcohol is a
condition of probation.
MR. PEEPLES said that under the bill a person would be monitored
to ensure that he/she is not violating any of his/her conditions
of probation or parole, and this could include associating with
fellow gang members.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking on the low cost of
electronic monitoring devices, asked what the comparative cost
for incarcerating a person is.
MR. PEEPLES said that the average federally negotiated rate to
incarcerate someone is $123 per day per person, and clarified
that the daily rate for an electronic monitoring device is
$9.60, but this cost doesn't include the cost of the DOC staff
to monitor probationers. Again remarking that the DOC's fiscal
analysis is not yet complete, he estimated that the personnel
services alone could be approximately $75,000, and then there
would also be equipment costs to consider.
2:46:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that a person could be
required to assign his/her permanent fund dividend (PFD) over in
order to pay for the cost.
MR. PEEPLES concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that under existing statute,
the DOC already stands in line for that money right along with
other groups that might be entitled to it.
MR. PEEPLES, in response to a question, estimated that had the
bill been passed three years ago, there might currently be
between 50-150 people subject to its provisions.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked that the DOC's fiscal note reflect both the
bill as currently written and as it might perhaps be broadened
to include people that don't fit into the definition of a
criminal street gang member.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Version E.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Version E was adopted as the work
draft.
2:50:11 PM
CHARLES KOPP, Chief, Kenai Police Department (KPD), City of
Kenai, mentioned that he is also the appointed representative to
the Anti-Gang & Youth Violence Policy Team, and is a member of
its law enforcement subcommittee. He noted that violent crime
is already defined in the Uniform Crime Reports which are
published yearly by the DOJ, and suggested that this legal
definition could be used to more narrowly define the types of
offenses to which the bill would apply. He opined that
electronic monitoring would allow for more vigorous enforcement
with regard to ensuring that probationers are complying with
their conditions of probation, and would allow for the positive
reinforcement of pro-social behavior, particularly given the age
groups of people involved in criminal street gang activity.
MR. KOPP said that with electronic monitoring, a probation
officer can see whether a probationer is following curfews, is
staying in the appropriate areas, is maintaining an appropriate
routine, and is keeping appointments. It is a monitoring tool
that's been proven to be very effective and more cost- and time-
effective than requiring numerous in-person visits with a
probation officer. He mentioned that as part of the Anti-Gang &
Youth Violence Policy Team, the KPD is supportive of HB 133,
though it does recognize that electronic monitoring resources
are finite. He suggested, therefore, that the use of electronic
monitoring devices be prioritized for the most serious menaces
to public safety such as criminal street gangs, particularly
given the explosion of gang violence in the Anchorage area.
MR. KOPP relayed that gangs are making strong efforts to get
organized in the Kenai and Matanuska-Susitna regions, and it is
taking a lot of active effort collectively by the affected
communities to keep gangs out. "We want to do whatever we can,
both from a public policy perspective and [as] ... a grassroots
community organization, to eliminate the problem in Anchorage,
and we think this [is] a very effective tool," he concluded.
2:54:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, in conclusion, said that one of the reasons
that the bill is narrowly focused is because there has been an
escalation of gang-related violence in Anchorage, and he wanted
to address that problem in particular. Keeping the focus of the
bill narrow will assist in keeping the fiscal impact narrow as
well. According to research, electronic monitoring is a very
effective tool, and Anchorage is experiencing its second decade
of a serious problem that has escalated to the point where those
in his neighborhood have been affected. House Bill 133 proposes
a way of dealing with the problem in a manner that may later be
expanded upon.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that one point the committee will consider
is whether the bill can be applied in all areas of the state -
applied to all marauding groups regardless of whether they
actually fit the definition of a criminal street gang. He
suggested that the sponsor give thought to making the proposal
in the bill discretionary rather than mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the words, "While
on probation and" located on page 1, line 5, could be deleted;
subsection (f) would then begin with the words, "As a special
condition of probation ...".
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a question, asked that the changes
that have been suggested at this meeting be incorporated into a
new CS, and that the sponsor consider some of the other issues
that have been raised during the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said he appreciates the committee's help and
support, adding, "Let's get something going that addresses a
specific problem for a community that needs some help."
[HB 133, Version E, was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|