03/14/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB50 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB359 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2012
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 50
"An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic beverages at a
club and to access by certain persons under 21 years of age to a
club's licensed premises when alcoholic beverages are present."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones
by minors when driving motor vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 128(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to conspiracy to commit human trafficking in
the first degree or sex trafficking in the first degree;
relating to the crime of furnishing indecent material to minors,
the crime of online enticement of a minor, the crime of
prostitution, and the crime of sex trafficking; relating to
forfeiture of property used in prostitution offenses; relating
to sex offender registration; relating to testimony by video
conference; adding Rule 38.3, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 50
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO LICENSED PREMISES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SADDLER
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) L&C, JUD
04/04/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/04/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/05/11 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 2NR
04/05/11 (H) DP: CHENAULT, THOMPSON, SADDLER,
JOHNSON, OLSON
04/05/11 (H) NR: HOLMES, MILLER
03/14/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARDNER
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) TRA, JUD
03/01/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/16/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/12 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/01/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/12 (H) Moved CSHB 128(TRA) Out of Committee
03/01/12 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/02/12 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 2DNP 1NR 1AM
03/02/12 (H) DP: MUNOZ, GRUENBERG
03/02/12 (H) DNP: JOHNSON, PRUITT
03/02/12 (H) NR: PETERSEN
03/02/12 (H) AM: P.WILSON
03/14/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) JUD, FIN
03/05/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/05/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 50.
SHIRLEY GIFFORD, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board")
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 50.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 128.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 128.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the presenter, responded to questions
during discussion of HB 359.
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 359.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 359.
DAVID SCHADE, Director
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 359.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:33 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Keller,
Gruenberg, Lynn, and Hawker (alternate) were present at the call
to order. Representatives Pruitt and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 50 - ACCESS TO LICENSED PREMISES
1:02:53 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 50, "An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic
beverages at a club and to access by certain persons under 21
years of age to a club's licensed premises when alcoholic
beverages are present."
1:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
referred to HB 50 as an "access" bill, and assured the committee
that the bill wouldn't allow anyone under age 21 to consume
alcohol legally. [Section 1 of] HB 50, he proffered, would make
it easier for military personnel to "enjoy companionship in the
clubhouses of service and patriotic organizations" by removing
the language in AS 04.11.110(d) which stipulates that active-
duty military personnel may purchase alcoholic beverages sold
under a club license only on special occasions when extended the
privilege by patriotic organizations; specifically, Section 1
would delete the phrase, "upon special occasions" from
AS 04.11.110(d)(3). He indicated a belief that this provision
would only apply to those active-duty military personnel "who
are over the age of 21." [Section 2 of] HB 50, he proffered,
would allow active-duty military personnel under age 21 to
access the premises of patriotic organizations licensed as clubs
under AS 04.11.110 if such personnel are guests or members of
the club; specifically, Section 2 would delete from
AS 04.11.110(g) the [exclusionary] reference to AS 04.16.049,
and would add to AS 04.11.110(g)(2) the words, "is a guest or
member of the club and". He indicated a belief that this
provision would not allow [underage] active-duty military
personnel to consume alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that excluding
underage active-duty military personnel from such clubs can
erode "unit" cohesion and reduce morale. In conclusion, he
reiterated that HB 50 won't allow underage active-duty military
personnel to consume alcohol legally, additionally offering his
belief that the bill simply clarifies that active-duty military
personnel "over 21" don't have to wait for a special occasion
[to purchase alcohol served under the club license], and that
underage active-duty military personnel can visit patriotic
clubs if they are members or guests.
1:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to questions, said that a
person must be at least 17 years of age to enlist in the
military, and, if not yet 18 years of age, must also obtain
permission from his/her parent or guardian; and that under
Alaska law, anyone under the age of 21 may enter and remain in a
licensed premises if accompanied by a parent, a guardian, [or a
spouse who is at least 21 years of age].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why Section 2 of the bill is
proposing to delete from AS 04.11.110(g) the [exclusionary]
reference to AS 04.16.049; noted that the bill doesn't address
spouses of active-duty military personnel; and suggested that
the bill be changed to also apply to such spouses.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER replied:
Much of the justification for this, as presented to me
by the [Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)], was for the
purpose of allowing younger-aged soldiers to attend
clubs, meetings, that were unit based, and that
basically [were] an off-duty kind of unit call. I had
not considered whether spouses would be included in
that, or whether it would be important for them to
attend privately. ... I would be glad to entertain
that kind of amendment ....
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - with regard to Section 2's proposal to
delete from AS 04.11.110(g) the [exclusionary] reference to
AS 04.16.049 - explained that doing so is necessary because
Section 3 of HB 50 is proposing to add to AS 04.16.049(a) a new
paragraph (4) specifying that a person under 21 years of age may
enter or remain in a licensed premises if he/she is permitted to
do so under AS 04.11.110(g), which, again, under the bill, is
being altered to provide just such an allowance for underage
active-duty military personnel who are guests or members of the
club.
1:10:41 PM
SHIRLEY GIFFORD, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
("ABC Board"), Department of Public Safety (DPS), said she
understands the desire to maintain relations between military
personnel, and, having been "pretty much raised up in a
paramilitary organization," how important having the ability to
socialize with other members is to camaraderie. However, she
warned, HB 50 would be very, very difficult to enforce. And
although the bill wouldn't allow underage persons to drink
alcohol legally, exposing them to an environment [in which
everyone else is drinking] could result in them drinking too
regardless that doing so would be illegal. Alaska has over 80
clubs of the type addressed by the bill, but the ABC Board has
only 5 investigators, and sometimes obtaining access to such
clubs for purposes of inspection/enforcement is difficult. On
that issue, she noted that a couple of years ago she had
suggested that the ABC Board be issued a card granting it access
to such clubs for inspection purposes - to ensure that underage
persons are not being provided alcohol - but the suggestion was
turned down. In conclusion, she said, "I think that this is
going to be very difficult, I think it exposes underage persons
to a dangerous product - a legal product, but a dangerous one
nonetheless - and I am in opposition of this bill."
CHAIR GATTO acknowledged that perhaps underage military
personnel could be provided alcohol in such a club, but pointed
out that if the changes proposed by HB 50 don't work out, then
the law could be changed again later.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disclosed that he is a member of a couple
such clubs, and characterized their environments as being
"pretty darn good."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that in such clubs, non-members are not allowed to
order anything.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed that he, too, is a member of
such a club.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to questions and comments,
explained that although the bill is not specific with regard to
the location of any such clubs, it is proposing changes to the
language in both AS 04.11.110(d)(3) and AS 04.11.110(g)(2) that
specifically addresses patriotic organizations which sell
alcohol under a club license. He added that existing
AS 04.11.110(b) specifies what types of entities could obtain
such a club license.
1:20:14 PM
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 50.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER characterized Ms. Gifford's comments as
offensive.
MS. GIFFORD, in response to questions, relayed that
AS 04.11.110(b) reads in part:
(b) A club license may only be issued to a club,
fraternal organization, patriotic organization, or
social organization that has been (1) chartered by a
state or national organization for a period of two
consecutive years before application for a license
under this section; or (2) chartered by a national
organization and the national organization has
maintained a chartered club or organization within the
state for a period of at least 20 years.
MS. GIFFORD added that that statute does not differentiate with
regard to such a club's physical location, and reiterated that
there are 80 such clubs in Alaska. In response to a further
question, she noted that AS 04.11.250 pertains to two-year
conditional contractors' permits, which address the sale of beer
and wine on military and naval reservations.
1:25:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment, "to expand the bill to include the spouses of active-
duty military personnel if they meet the other requirements
here, and that would mean that they must be accompanying the
military personnel and be a guest of the member of the club."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments and questions,
indicated that he would be withdrawing his conceptual amendment
until it could be drafted properly; pointed out that Section 1's
proposed AS 04.11.110(d) doesn't currently address the spouses
of guests of club members; and clarified that he wants the
permissions that HB 50 would grant to active-duty military
personnel to also be granted to their spouses when accompanying
them.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 50 would be held over.
HB 128 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
1:30:02 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of
cellular telephones by minors when driving motor vehicles; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 128(TRA).]
1:30:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 128 would make it illegal for a person under
18 years of age to use a cellular telephone ("cell phone") while
driving a motor vehicle [on a highway or vehicular way or area];
in terms of enforcement, the bill does not provide an exemption
for the use of "hands-free" cell phone technology, and a
violation would be a secondary offense [resulting in an
infraction punishable under AS 28.90.010]. The hope with this
legislation, she indicated, is to ban cell phone use by the very
youngest of Alaska's drivers, those who - statistically - are
the least experienced, are more easily distracted, and are "most
commonly" involved in motor vehicle accidents that result in
serious physical injury or death. Members' packets include a
letter from the lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Companies -
Lessmeier & Winters, LLC - that posits passage of HB 128 would
result in an immediate saving of lives and prevention of
injuries; insurance companies, she surmised, keep current with
regard to what factors increase the risks of driving so as to be
able to set their insurance rates accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that according to that letter,
drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times more likely
to be involved in a motor vehicle accident; one in five of all
automobile deaths is attributed to "teen driving"; the leading
causes of "teen accidents" include inexperience and distraction;
and a recent study indicates that nine out of ten teenagers
[report that "teen use" of cell phones while driving was
common], and that seven out of ten teenagers say they have
observed other teenagers driving and using a cell phone while
being emotionally upset. Fiscal notes from the Department of
Law (DOL) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) state that
HB 128 would have no fiscal impact. Regardless that some would
argue common sense can't be legislated, and regardless that that
might be true, the point is that drivers who are distracted pose
a danger to others on the road. In conclusion, acknowledging
that there is not yet support for a ban on cell phone use while
driving for all drivers, she expressed her hope that HB 128's
proposed ban for Alaska's youngest drivers would be supported.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER added that in her household, she, as a
parent, banned the use of cell phones while driving, surmising
that other parents might appreciate being able to tell their
children that the law forbids such behavior.
1:34:25 PM
CHAIR GATTO characterized passing HB 128 as the right thing to
do, and pointed out that the behavior of driving while using a
cell phone doesn't just impact the driver - such behavior
instead impacts everyone on the road. He expressed his hope,
however, that the proposed ban wouldn't at some point be
expanded to include the use of all cell phones by all drivers
while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that as currently written, the
bill is targeting a group of drivers that have a higher rate of
accidents than other groups, but expressed concern that if the
bill is passed, other groups of people would eventually be added
to the list of those who would be precluded from using a cell
phone while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated a concern with precluding the
use of cell phones while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to comments, pointed out
that teenagers, disproportionately, use cellphones more and do
so more often while driving, and are therefore dying at higher
rates because of it. She offered her understanding that
statistics included in members' packets illustrate that the
crash fatality rate is highest for 16- and 17-year-olds; that
the crash fatality rate for 16- to 20-year-olds is twice as high
as that for other ages; that approximately two-thirds of motor
vehicle accidents resulting in the death of a passenger involved
a teenage driver; and that the overwhelming majority of crashes
involving teenage drivers were due to the driver's failure to
employ safe driving practices, failure to recognize risk, and
deliberate risk-taking. Other information in members' packets
indicates that ever since California, in 2008, banned the use of
"hand-held" cell phones while driving, there has been a 47
percent decrease in the number of fatal motor-vehicle accidents
resulting from the use of a cell phone.
1:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the argument that having a
conversation with someone in the car can also be distracting,
pointed out that at least the person in the car can help the
driver become aware of potentially dangerous situations.
Furthermore, [studies] indicate that a person's brain is engaged
in a different manner when speaking to someone over the phone
than it is when speaking to someone face-to-face.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she supports HB 128.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to questions, indicated that
the terms, "highway" and "vehicular way or area" as those terms
are used in HB 128 are both already defined in statute under
AS 28.90.990(a)(13) and (30); those provisions, respectively,
read:
(13) "highway" means the entire width between the
boundary lines of every way that is publicly
maintained when a part of it is open to the public for
purposes of vehicular travel, including but not
limited to every street and the Alaska state marine
highway system but not vehicular ways or areas;
(30) "vehicular way or area" means a way, path,
or area, other than a highway or private property,
that is designated by official traffic control devices
or customary usage and that is open to the public for
purposes of pedestrian or vehicular travel, and which
way or area may be restricted in use to pedestrians,
bicycles, or other specific types of vehicles as
determined by the Department of Public Safety or other
agency having jurisdiction over the way, path, or
area.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - in response to questions and comments
regarding CSHB 128(TRA)'s specific effective date of July 1,
2012 - noted that bills proposing to change Alaska's [criminal
statutes] generally contain a specific effective date of July 1.
1:44:43 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), in response to a question, explained that under HB 128 as
currently written, if law enforcement officers were to witness a
minor using a cell phone while driving, because it would only be
a secondary offense, they could either look for a primary
offense for which to pull the driver over, or they could contact
the driver later on and inform him/her that he/she was engaging
in illegal behavior. He warned that the ability of law
enforcement officers to enforce the bill could be limited if it
remains a secondary offense. In response to other questions, he
explained that the penalties for infractions are generally set
by the court, and could involve a fine of up to $300; and
indicated that providing for a specific effective date can be
helpful in terms of giving the administration adequate time to
inform the public about changes in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to another question,
expressed a preference for retaining the bill's specific
effective date of July 1, 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to an additional question,
relayed that although she would be amenable to providing for an
even later specific effective date, any such delay could result
in more children being killed than if the proposed law goes into
effect as soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER sought clarification that the bill's
proposed ban would only apply in situations involving moving
vehicles, not stationary ones.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that's correct.
LIEUTENANT DIAL concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reported that approximately 80 percent of
his constituents that responded to a district survey he sent out
were in favor of restricting cell phone use while driving, and
thus he would be voting in favor of HB 128 regardless of his
personal feelings about it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the bill be clarified
with regard to whether it also applies to the use a cell phone
while stopped at a stop sign/light; and questioned whether they
should amend the bill to address future technology, perhaps by
adding the phrase, "or similar device" wherever the bill uses
the term, "cellular telephone".
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, on the latter point, expressed disfavor
with changing the bill in that fashion.
2:01:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report CSHB 128(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes.
CHAIR GATTO said, "I'm sure there is an objection."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Holmes,
Hawker (alternate), and Gatto voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Lynn, Keller, and Pruitt voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 128(TRA) was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
HB 359 - SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
2:02:30 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to conspiracy to commit
human trafficking in the first degree or sex trafficking in the
first degree; relating to the crime of furnishing indecent
material to minors, the crime of online enticement of a minor,
the crime of prostitution, and the crime of sex trafficking;
relating to forfeiture of property used in prostitution
offenses; relating to sex offender registration; relating to
testimony by video conference; adding Rule 38.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
2:04:17 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), noted that
she'd described the provisions of HB 359 during its last
hearing, and, in response to a question, explained that
AS 11.66.110 - currently addressing the crime of promoting
prostitution in the first degree, and which Sections 7 and 8 of
the bill would change to instead address the crime of sex
trafficking in the first degree - stipulates that a reasonable
mistake as to the age of the victim is not a defense; and that
this is similar to the stipulation provided in Section 6 -
proposing to add a new subsection (c) to AS 11.66.100, which
addresses the crime of prostitution - that the age of the victim
is not a circumstance that requires proof of a culpable mental
state. She mentioned that the [Alaska] Court of Appeals - in
Bell v. State - recently upheld the stipulation in AS 11.66.110.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER mentioned that questions he'd had
regarding the differences between the proposed statutory
references in Section 12's proposed AS 11.66.140 and those in
Section 13's proposed AS 11.66.145 have since been addressed.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, clarified that under
the changes proposed by [Sections 5 and 6] to AS 11.66.100 -
again, addressing the crime of prostitution - it would be a
class C felony to be the "patron" of a prostitute who is under
18 years of age if the "patron" is at least three years older
than his/her victim, and, again, the prostitute's age wouldn't
be a circumstance that requires proof of a culpable mental
state, meaning that it wouldn't matter what age the "patron"
thinks his/her victim is; furthermore, that statute - both
existing and as proposed under the bill - does not currently
provide for an affirmative defense based on a reasonable mistake
as to the age of the victim. Under the bill, if the prostitute
- the victim - is instead 18 years of age or older, a violation
of that statute would remain a class B misdemeanor, though
comments received from the Public Defender Agency (PDA) indicate
that Section 6 ought to be changed in order to clarify that the
proposed increase in penalty to a class C felony only applies to
the "patron," not the victim. In addition to reiterating that
AS 11.66.110 stipulates that a reasonable mistake as to the age
of the victim is not a defense, she also mentioned that with
regard to Alaska's sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor
crimes, AS 11.41.445(b) states:
(b) In a prosecution under AS 11.41.410 -
11.41.440, whenever a provision of law defining an
offense depends upon a victim's being under a certain
age, it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of
the alleged offense, the defendant
(1) reasonably believed the victim to be that age
or older; and
(2) undertook reasonable measures to verify that
the victim was that age or older.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to further questions, indicated that
she would be amenable to perhaps adding similar affirmative-
defense language to the bill's proposed AS 11.66.100, though
another option, she ventured, would perhaps be to instead add a
culpable mental state of criminal negligence to that provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern with that provision's
current lack of an affirmative defense for the perpetrator.
2:12:35 PM
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that when a perpetrator makes an
assumption with regard to his/her victim's age, the perpetrator
is taking a pretty big risk; and expressed disfavor with the
[oft-heard] excuse, "Well, I had no idea she was that young."
MS. CARPENETI, in response to further comments and questions,
explained that the purpose of the bill's proposed changes to
AS 11.66.100 is to protect children who are being victimized by
persons promoting prostitution - or, the crime of sex
trafficking, as that activity would be called after passage of
the bill; the statutes pertaining to that crime embody a
different societal interest than those pertaining to sexual
assault and sexual abuse of a minor crimes. She again noted
that the statute pertaining to the first degree crime - AS
11.66.110, violations of which are [either a class A felony or]
an unclassified felony - does not provide for an affirmative
defense based on a reasonable mistake as to the age of the
victim; and that she would be amenable to perhaps adding
affirmative-defense language to the bill's proposed
AS 11.66.100. Again, the goal of Sections 5 and 6 is to protect
children from adults who would victimize them.
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that another option - if the committee
is not in favor of the changes currently provided by Sections 5
and 6, or of adding affirmative-defense language - could be to
perhaps instead add a culpable mental state to the bill's
proposed AS 11.66.100, thereby requiring the state to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the "patron" acted with criminal
negligence - or with some other culpable mental state as the
committee prefers - with regard to the age of the victim. In
response to comments, she confirmed that providing for an
affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the defendant,
whereas providing for a culpable mental state would keep the
burden on the state; and reiterated that under the changes
currently proposed by [Sections 5 and 6] to AS 11.66.100, it
would be a class C felony to be the "patron" of a prostitute who
is under 18 years of age if the "patron" is at least three years
older than his/her victim, but otherwise violations of that
statute would remain a class B misdemeanor.
CHAIR GATTO surmised that a mistake as to age will always be
offered as a defense by people who get caught having sex with
children.
2:18:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT opined that it's important to understand
the rationale for making it a felony to be the "patron" of a
prostitute who is under 18 years of age, that being that
generally such children have not become prostitutes of their own
free will but have instead been forced into it by people engaged
in sex trafficking. This has become a huge problem in rural
Alaska, in that children from the villages, after being
presented with "an opportunity" to come to the big city, are
then being forced into becoming sex slaves once they arrive.
The changes proposed by Sections 5 and 6 of the bill are
intended to address this problem, and serve as a deterrent. In
conclusion, he indicated disfavor with providing for an
affirmative defense based on a mistake as to the age of the
victim, because the goal is to protect children from having
their lives ruined by being turned into sex slaves.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued to express concern with the
lack of an affirmative defense based on a reasonable mistake as
to the age of the victim, and offered a hypothetical example
involving a member of the military who pays a child to have sex
with him.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT again remarked on the potential for the
bill's proposed changes to AS 11.66.100 to serve as a deterrent
to such people.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that in Representative
Gruenberg's hypothetical example, the military member is still a
predator. He expressed favor with making such behavior a
class C felony as Sections 5 and 6 - as currently written - are
proposing to do.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, explained that the
maximum sentence for a class C felony is five years. She
concurred that in Representative Gruenberg's hypothetical
example, the military member is a predator. The governor, in
proposing these changes to AS 11.66.100, she relayed, is trying
to address the problem described by Representative Pruitt,
trying to get at those who are willing to take the risk that the
person they are paying to have sex with is a child.
2:24:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to delete Section 20 in its entirety and renumber
the remaining sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Section 20 is proposing to
add to AS 12.63.100(6) - which defines the term, "sex offense"
for purposes of requiring a person in Alaska to register as a
sex offender or child kidnapper - a new subparagraph (D) that
would additionally define a sex offense as being a crime in
another jurisdiction that requires the person to register as a
sex offender or child kidnapper in that other jurisdiction. The
rationale for deleting Section 20, she relayed, is that other
jurisdictions that maintain a sex offender registry sometimes
criminalize behavior that isn't illegal in Alaska, and thus
under Section 20, the Alaska State Legislature's authority to
decide what behavior should or shouldn't constitute a
registrable offense would be delegated to all those other
jurisdictions. That doesn't quite seem right, she concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER expressed favor with Amendment 1, adding
that he thinks it's wrong for the legislature to abdicate its
responsibility as a law-making body. He mentioned, though, that
he would be amenable to perhaps adding certain specific offenses
to AS 12.63.100(6).
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER also mentioned that if Conceptual
Amendment 1 is adopted, he would be offering an additional
amendment to "zero out" the Department of Public Safety's
(DPS's) fiscal note of $124,200, because it's based solely on
the anticipated fiscal impact Section 20 would have on the
department. In response to a question, he drew members'
attention to the indeterminate fiscal notes accompanying HB 359.
CHAIR GATTO observed that a letter from the American Civil
Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska) in members' packets
indicates opposition to Section 20, with page 6 of that letter
stating in part, "Section 20 Is Unwise; It Shackles Alaska's
Policy to Every Other Jurisdiction".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that if someone is convicted
of a registrable offense in another jurisdiction, and that
offense is similar to a registrable offense in Alaska, then
[under existing AS 12.63.100(6)] the person would still be
required to register in Alaska; this would not change under
Conceptual Amendment 1. In comparison, the language Section 20
is proposing to add doesn't' specify that the offense in that
other jurisdiction has to be one that is similar to a
registrable offense under Alaska law.
2:32:33 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), in response to questions, after noting that she is
responsible for managing Alaska's sex offender registry,
mentioned that the courts have already addressed the issue of
who may be required to register as a sex offender, and that
sometimes other jurisdictions do notify Alaska when someone who
formerly had to register in Alaska then registers in their
jurisdiction; acknowledged that perhaps some sex offenders leave
Alaska in search of a jurisdiction in which they won't have to
register; and indicated that to the DPS's knowledge, that isn't
a widespread problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he was going to remove his objection
to adopting Conceptual Amendment 1, expressed agreement with the
ACLU of Alaska's aforementioned point regarding Section 20, and
asked Ms. Carpeneti to comment.
MS. CARPENETI said that the other side of the argument is that
if sex offenders from other states are able to avoid registering
in their "home" state simply by coming to Alaska, then Alaska
will become the place where sex offenders move to in order to
avoid having to register as sex offenders. This is a public
safety issue for the legislature to make a decision about, but
the DOL's position, hence the inclusion of Section 20's proposed
change to 12.63.100(6), is that it is in the public interest not
to have Alaska become a state where people who have to register
in other states come because they won't have to register here.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER acknowledged that point, but offered his
understanding that there are already other ways of keeping track
of people who move to Alaska with a criminal record.
MS. CARPENETI said she is not familiar with any such procedure.
Only when a person who's moved to Alaska commits a crime in
Alaska is the state then able to take steps to research the
person's criminal record.
2:37:25 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), concurred - absent such a person voluntarily contacting
the state, law enforcement officers would have no way of knowing
of his/her presence in the state until they have a specific
reason to contact him/her and investigate his/her background.
CHAIR GATTO remarked that the objection was removed, ascertained
that there were no further objections, and announced that
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:40:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER made a motion [to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to adopt a zero fiscal note in place of fiscal note
number 6 from the Department of Public Safety]. He again
offered his understanding that that fiscal note's estimated
impact on the DPS is based solely on Section 20, which has been
deleted.
2:40:57 PM
DAVID SCHADE, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), confirmed Representative
Hawker's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [although no objection had been stated]
removed his objection.
CHAIR GATTO ascertained that there were no objections, and
announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that HB 359 requires
further work.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 359 [as amended] would be held over.
2:42:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 128 (TRA) Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 (TRA) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 (TRA).pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Crash Data.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Letter of Support Allstate.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB50 ver A.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 4/4/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB50 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 4/4/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB50 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 4/4/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| CSHB 128 Letter of Support APDEA.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Letter of Support APOA HB 15.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Letter of Support NSC HB 15.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Letter of Support State Farm.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| CSHB 128 Studies and Articles.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB0128-2-2-030212-DPS-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB0128-1-2-030212-LAW-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 50 support documents - emails.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50 fiscal note.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 359 ACLU Review 2012 03 04 (2).pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| Bell v State.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |