02/01/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB291 | |
| HB296 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2012
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act relating to the posting of notices at United States post
offices; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 291 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act relating to service of process on prisoners; relating to
the crime of escape; relating to the definition of 'correctional
facility'; amending Rule 4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 291
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC NOTICES POSTED AT POST OFFICES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
01/20/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/12 (H) JUD
02/01/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 296
SHORT TITLE: CRIME OF ESCAPE/DEF. OF CORRECT. FACILITY
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
01/25/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/12 (H) JUD, FIN
02/01/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the revisor of statutes, presented
HB 291 on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor
by request of Legislative Council.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 269.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 296, expressed
concerns with Section 4.
LESLIE HOUSTON, Director
Central Office
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 269.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:35 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Keller,
Pruitt, and Thompson were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 291 - PUBLIC NOTICES POSTED AT POST OFFICES
1:05:17 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 291, "An Act relating to the posting of notices
at United States post offices; and providing for an effective
date."
1:05:31 PM
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), explained that HB 291 would delete four statutory
references to posting certain notices at post offices - thereby
addressing the fact that since 2007, the federal government
hasn't allowed the posting of such notices at post offices - but
would not delete the statutory requirement to post those notices
altogether. The four specific statutes HB 291 is proposing to
alter are AS 03.35.030, which pertains to petitions concerning
controlled livestock districts; AS 34.35.175(d), which pertains
to personal property lien sales; AS 34.45.050(b), which pertains
to consignee and bailee lien sales; and AS 43.20.270(d)(2),
which pertains to tax lien sales. These proposed changes -
mirroring one made in 2010 to AS 09.35.140, which pertains to
sales on execution - aren't being included in a revisor's bill
in case the committee wishes to address the issue in some other
fashion.
MS. FINLEY, in response to questions and comments, offered her
belief that HB 291 wouldn't have any negative effects, but would
help people who currently can't comply with the aforementioned
state laws simply because those laws conflict with a federal
restriction; mentioned that members' packets include a copy of
that federal restriction; surmised that because the proposed
changes aren't being included in a revisor's bill, HB 291 would
probably be subject to the legislature's "single subject" rule;
and relayed that she knows of no other issues that could also be
addressed via HB 291. In response to a further question, she
said she didn't know why the federal government changed its
policy regarding posting notices at post offices.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 291.
1:14:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 291 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 291 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:16 p.m.
HB 296 - CRIME OF ESCAPE/DEF. OF CORRECT. FACILITY
1:16:57 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 296, "An Act relating to service of process on
prisoners; relating to the crime of escape; relating to the
definition of 'correctional facility'; amending Rule 4, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, to introduce HB 296, which was
sponsored by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, explained
that HB 296 was introduced in order to address issues that arose
in two court cases: Hertz v. Carothers, 225 P.3d 571 (Alaska
2010); and Bridge v. State, 258 P.3d 923 (Alaska App. 2011). In
Hertz, the Alaska Supreme Court held that prison officials were
not considered peace officers for purposes of [serving legal
summons and complaints on incarcerated prisoners, and so
Section 1 of HB 296 - by adding a new subsection (c) to
AS 09.05.050 specifying that the term "correctional facility" as
used in AS 09.05.050 has the meaning given in AS 33.30.310] -
would allow prison officials to be designated by the facility
superintendent to serve legal summons and complaints on
incarcerated prisoners. In Bridge, the Alaska Court of Appeals
held that under AS 11.56.310(a)(1)(A), a person may not be
convicted of escape in the second degree if he/she escapes from
a facility that isn't secure, and so [Sections 2, 3, and 4 - by
clarifying what constitutes the crime of escape in the second
degree under AS 11.56.310(a)(1)(A), what constitutes a "secure
correctional facility" under a proposed new subsection (c) to
AS 11.56.310, and what constitutes a "correctional facility"
under AS 11.81.900(b)(9), respectively] - would codify the
court's ruling. [Section 5 would specify in uncodified law that
AS 09.05.050, including Section 1's proposed change to it,]
constitutes an indirect court rule change to Rule 4 of the
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
1:21:23 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), referred to
an amendment labeled 27-LS1199\D.2, Gardner, 1/28/12, [which
later became known as Amendment 1 and] which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "'correctional facility';"
Insert "deleting the repeal of a provision
relating to electronic monitoring as a special
condition of probation and parole for offenders whose
offense was related to a criminal street gang;"
Page 2, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. Section 3, ch. 27, SLA 2007, is
repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 would repeal
the sunset on a law allowing a judge, as a condition of
[probation/parole], to require a gang member to wear an
electronic monitoring device. In response to a question, he
indicated that the sunset was added to that law simply to
satisfy a concern of the then-committee chair.
1:24:28 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), referring to
Section 4 of HB 296, cautioned that attempting to codify the
court's ruling in Bridge could result in the very unintended
consequences that the court warned about, that of broadening the
definition of what constitutes a correctional facility to the
point where it could potentially impact a lot of other criminal
statutes. For example, currently the statutes [prohibiting]
contraband in [correctional facilities] don't address behavior
occurring in camps, halfway houses, group homes, and other
placements, but under Section 4's proposed definition of what
constitutes a correctional facility, those contraband statutes
might be applied, possibly resulting in criminal prosecutions
for things like bringing tobacco into a group home. And there
might also be other impacts to the criminal code, he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking that that isn't the
sponsor's intent, indicated that if Section 4 is retained at
all, it would be narrowed so that its proposed definition
wouldn't apply to the entire criminal code, thereby addressing
Mr. Steiner's concern. Furthermore, consideration is being
given to possibly including a "purposes" section in the bill, or
providing a letter of intent, in order to clarify that the
bill's intended purpose is to codify the Bridge decision.
MS. CARPENETI said HB 296 does clarify the Bridge case, and
mentioned that the DOL agrees that providing a letter of intent
specifying that point would be a good idea. However, the DOL
shares Mr. Steiner's concern with Section 4's proposal to change
the definition of "correctional facility" as that term is used
in Title 11, to something similar to the broader definition of
that term as it's used in Title 33. "We really need to make
sure that there aren't consequences that ... we don't like or
we're not expecting ...," she opined, adding that a search of
the term, "correctional facilities" in Alaska's statutes
resulted in four pages worth of references to that term, and
that each of those references should be scrutinized.
Furthermore, Section 3's proposed definition of the term,
"secure correctional facility" should also be scrutinized and
perhaps amended, she opined, because although it reflects what
the court said in Bridge, as currently written it might be
construed to mean that simply having a lock on the front door
would suffice to render a correctional facility secure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a preference for adding a
"purposes" section to HB 296, rather than merely providing a
letter of intent, which might never be seen.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, said the DOL doesn't
have a problem with Amendment 1, and relayed that the DOL would
like some time to research how [the Bridge decision and the
bill's proposed definition changes] might impact the statutes
pertaining to "good time" credit.
1:35:14 PM
LESLIE HOUSTON, Director, Central Office, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Corrections (DOC), in
response to questions, indicated that the DOC is supportive of
HB 296; characterized the use of community residential centers
as a fairly critical component of the reentry process; and said
the DOC doesn't have a problem with Amendment 1.
1:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1
[text provided previously]. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 296 [as amended] would be held over.
1:44:56 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 291 Request Revisor of Statutes.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB0291A.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB 291 Department of Law.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB 291 USPS Depositing Literature.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB291-LAW-CIV-01-27-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 291 |
| HB 296A.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296-LAW-CRIM-01-27-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Supporting Document - Bridge v State.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Supporting Document - Hertz v Carothers.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Gruenberg amendment.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB296-DOC-OC-01-30-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Sponsor statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |