Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/16/2016 12:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
12:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to conditions of release; relating to community
work service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic monitoring;
relating to the restoration under certain circumstances of an
administratively revoked driver's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the
influence; relating to termination of a revocation of a driver's
license; relating to restoration of a driver's license; relating
to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time deductions for
prisoners; relating to early termination of probation and
reduction of probation for good conduct; relating to the rights
of crime victims; relating to the disqualification of persons
convicted of certain felony drug offenses from participation in
the food stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to treatment
programs for prisoners; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
04/17/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/15 (H) JUD, FIN
03/11/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/16 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/14/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/16/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 presented
pretrial policies regarding Version H.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 explained the
effects of the proposed bill on the Alaska Court System.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 offered
testimony and answered questions.
DAVID HANSON, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 discussed
Sections 42-45 and answered questions.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Legal Services Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 discussed
technical issues and answered questions.
SHERRIE DAIGLE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 advised that
the Department of Corrections is available for questions.
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director
Appellate Division
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 discussed
Section 61
MARY GEDDES, Staff Attorney
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 offered
testimony and answered questions.
BRENDA STANFILL, Commissioner
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 discussed
victims' rights.
APRIL WILKERSON
Director
Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205 discussed
potential pretrial services.
ACTION NARRATIVE
12:34:09 PM
CHAIR MS. GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meting to order at 12:34 p.m. Representatives Claman,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Foster, Keller, Lynn, Millett, and LeDoux were
present at the call to order.
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
12:35:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the focus today is on pretrial policy,
citation versus arrest, risk-based release, and pretrial
supervision of higher-risk defendants.
12:35:52 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, pointed to the Pretrial segment of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission Recommendations with regard to
Version H, and turned to a power point slide, "Citation vs.
Arrest, Recommendation One," and noted that the intention is to
reduce the number of people in pretrial status in jail, reduce
costs, and incarcerate those individuals posing the largest
public safety risk. The recommendation, she explained, is to
encourage citations as much as possible with the obvious
priority of protecting public safety. Sections 42-45 address
the following issues: law enforcement's presumption to cite in
cases where there is little to zero public safety risk as
opposed to arresting an offender; civil protection for officers;
and the notice to appear requirements. She reiterated that the
commission recommended expanding the use of citations in lower
level non-violent offense, such as class C non-violent felonies,
non-domestic violence, sexual assault or related to a sexual
offense, and misdemeanor offenses. Yet, continuing to allow a
broad discretion for officers, the experts in the field, to
arrest when a person presents a danger to themselves or others,
presents a flight risk, or harm to property. She said, a
specific carve-out is for arson when it doesn't present a harm
directly to someone's safety but a harm to property, which is a
serious offense. She advised that 76 percent of pretrial
admissions to prison are misdemeanor charges, and 56 percent of
those pretrial admissions to prison are for non-violent
misdemeanor charges, but public safety is still the priority.
12:40:02 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Risk-Based Release Decision-Making,
Recommendation Two," and advised that some of the important
parts of this recommendation include considering the person's
ability to pay [Sec. 48]. She further advised that a
significant amount of incarcerated pretrial people are
incarcerated due to their inability to pay a small portion or
any amount of bail. This section limits judicial discretion to
detain low and moderate-risk pretrial defendants with non-
violent, non-driving while intoxicated (DUI) misdemeanors, or
class C felony [Sec. 51}. It allows pretrial services officers
to arrest for violating a court order and violating conditions
of their release pretrial such as, searching for alcohol, drugs,
or performing drug tests in the event that is a condition of
release [Sec. 54]. Other sections limit third-party custodians
as they must be the most responsible and most likely to ensure
pretrial success [Sec. 56-57], and refer to PFD garnishment in
cases of pretrial failure [Secs. 63 and 141].
12:42:01 PM
MS. ABBOTT [page 4, top slide] advised there has been an 81
percent growth in pretrial inmate population, 56 percent of
those admissions are due to non-violent misdemeanor charges and
the pie chart offers a sense of the prison population by status.
She said that 56 percent of those in the state's prisons have
been sentenced, and 28 percent of those are pretrial, at a cost
of approximately $142 per day, and the chart points out the
length of time defendants are incarcerated for pretrial. She
referred to [page 5, top slide] the fact that monetary bail
leads to a significant amount of detention, as follows: $2,500
or more - 66 percent unable to post bond; $1,000-$2,499 - 62
percent; $500-$999 - 57 percent; under $500 - 36 percent. The
commission recommended judges use a risk assessment tool in
release decisions to assess someone's risk in order to provide
better pretrial success and lower the amount of people
incarcerated. Currently, the decision is a judge's own
discretion, and the risk assessment tool information would be
based upon the work of pretrial services officers, an actuarial
tool previously discussed. Secured bond at this point is
ordered in a majority of cases and, she said, release is often
linked to a person's ability to pay rather than the person's
actual risk of pretrial failure.
12:46:13 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to [page 6, top slide] "Pretrial Supervision
of Higher Risk Defendants Released Pending Trial,
Recommendations Three and Four," said it creates the pretrial
services division and pretrial services officers under the
Department of Corrections (DOC), and described it as a new
concept in Alaska, to [employ] people providing this level of
supervision and risk assessment before people are sentenced.
Currently, a certain amount of supervision is available during
parole or probation, but this is a new and exciting opportunity.
Sec. 152, touches the court system and its ability to provide
hearing reminders for defendants and, she advised, the data
shows that it is an effective and simple tool to assist people
in attending their hearings.
MS. ABBOTT turned to [page 7, top slide] "Implement Pretrial
Supervision," and explained that it could include a spectrum of
minimal supervision that could include: a court date reminder;
basic supervision for in-office appointments, phone calls, and
field visits; and enhanced supervision for those most likely to
fail pretrial including, higher frequency contacts, drug and
alcohol testing, and electronic monitoring.
12:48:43 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
clarified that she is not a commissioner on the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission and that she attended almost all of the
meetings as a spectator. She said she would like to clearly
state on the record that the court system is neutral on the
actual provisions in this bill, and the court system is
supportive of the process because as required by 2014 Senate
Bill 64, the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court did
appoint three of the commissioners. Ms. Meade remarked that
currently the judges make bail decisions based upon public
safety and the threat to victims and the community, which is
balanced against the defendant's constitutional right to bail.
The prosecutor and public defender each make a recommendation
for a bail amount and the conditions are then determined and
ordered by the judge. Sec. 51, she described as the main change
for the Alaska Court System, and advised that judges would have
differing levels of discretion with respect to releasing
defendants dependent upon the defendant's risk assessment, and
the risk assessment would be provided to the judge by the new
pretrial services office within the DOC. That section carefully
sets out what the judge can do, must do, and where the
discretion lies. Under the new provisions in Title 33 when
someone is arrested, the DOC pretrial services office will
perform an assessment of that individual within 24 hours. She
opined that the assessment will be performed without a personal
interview, but rather based upon records and information
available to the pretrial services office regarding the person's
criminal history, background, and perhaps evidence of drugs or
alcohol. There are different questions to be asked of the risk
assessment, and the person's risk and assessment score report is
then forwarded to the court. The score will be added to the
tool on a grid, and she described, "You go down a certain number
and across for the current charge, and you figure out where the
judge's discretion lies."
12:51:52 PM
MS. MEADE explained that the entire chart idea is reflected to
some extent in Sec. 51, and in subsection (a) the judge will not
have discretion and must release a person on their own
recognizance (OR). The statute continues to say what conditions
the judge has the discretion to put on the person who is
released. In the event there is clear and convincing evidence
of an increased risk to the public, the judge can consider
releasing with more conditions put on the person and, she noted,
there are certain things the judge has absolute discretion to
do, perhaps with the more serious felonies. She opined that the
court system will be able to do this, although, Sec. 51 does
contains drafting issues that must be clarified so all of the
parties and the courts know exactly what that statute requires.
Also, she pointed out, there are changes in the bill as to what
bail hearings a defendant is entitled to have. Currently, a
defendant whose cannot make bail is entitled to ask for a bail
review hearing if they have new information, and that new
information can't be ... "Well, I just can't pay." Under this
bill, the inability to pay allows the defendant one bail hearing
to be reviewed by a judicial officer. Other than that, she
said, all of the pretrial provisions are something the court can
handle, and some of the details are still to be worked out
regarding how the pretrial services office will perform the
assessments. She added that these provisions will not be
effective for another year and will allow the pretrial services
office to get off the ground and provide those reports to the
court system for the bail reviews.
12:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that currently there is an
extensive form the court fills out for different findings before
releasing on bail. He opined, with passage of this bill, the
court system will prepare a new bail form to be certain the
judge is following the different requirements.
MS. MEADE responded that when this bill passes, one of the big
things the court administrative staff does is determine all of
the changes necessary in response to any piece of legislation,
and they will have a meeting with the court's forms attorney to
determine changes there. Yes, she said, many forms will be
updated, including updated training materials for judges, and
the judges will be provided with "Bench Book" materials so they
have exactly what the new laws say at their fingertips.
12:56:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the state will have bail for people
who can pay.
MS. MEADE responded yes, some people charged with a certain
crime with a certain risk assessment score, according to the
grid and to the statute, will be released on their own
recognizance (OR), meaning no monetary bail. They can still
have many other conditions, subsection (b) has 17 or 18
conditions that can be imposed on a person even if released OR.
Also, she said, there can be unsecured performance and
appearance bonds wherein they don't have to put the full amount
of a bond upfront, but if they then do not appear or perform,
they owe that money to the state.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to a defendant who is able to pay the bail
with a low risk assessment, and asked the reason for charging
that defendant a monetary bail when they are a considered a low
risk assessment. She pointed out that, "Simply because somebody
can pay, would you make them pay if the payment isn't necessary
to assure anything. I mean, what's the whole purpose of the
bail?"
12:56:44 PM
MS. MEADE replied that the ability to pay is not initially
weighed into the bail decisions. In the event someone on the
risk assessment score is low-risk and a class A misdemeanor,
under subsection (a) they would be released OR as there is not a
further delving into the person's ability to pay. She explained
that the ability to pay can best be explained as "an
underpinning" for the recommendation that perhaps the bail
decision should be set in some other way. Currently, those
without the ability to pay are retained in jail even when their
bail is low. She further explained that the judges are not
really considering ability to pay, they are following what will
become a statute should this become law, and releasing more
people and, hopefully, that will assist those with an inability
to pay. She extended that they are not saying, "You have money
and; therefore, you will have a high bail amount."
12:57:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that she agrees with the idea of not
requiring a person, without the ability to pay, to pay when the
court believes the person will return without paying bail.
Although, she asked, would that person be required to pay if
they have the financial ability to pay and, it is believed they
will return to court.
MS. MEADE opined that the courts will not make them pay and
further opined that she doesn't think the courts will be aware
of a person's ability to pay. She explained that initially, the
judge will look at "subsection (a) if you're within this risk
assessment score, and this is your current charge, you will be
released OR. It doesn't matter if you are Bill Gates or
somebody with no money at all." She further explained that
subsection (b) sets out the conditions that can be imposed on
that person in order to protect the public and the victim,
regardless of ability to pay. She pointed out that regardless
of ability to pay, the risk assessment score, as recommended by
the [potentially new] pretrial services office, coupled with the
current charges will determine the release conditions.
12:59:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed that make sense, and asked whether bail will
be a thing of the past.
MS. MEADE responded not necessarily, as there are certain crimes
that allow the judge the same discretion as they have now.
Currently, for example, when there is an unclassified felony or
a class A felony such as murder, the judge would be inclined to
set a $20,000 or $50,000 bail amount. She explained, there are
not specific recommendations to the judge that the person must
be, must have certain conditions, or ought to have certain
conditions, or certain conditions won't be recommended. Those
are on the grid that the commission was always looking at,
unshaded areas is what we've been thinking of. Those are areas
where the court retains its discretion to set conditions and
bail amounts as it deems appropriate for that individual, she
explained.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned, why set money as a condition knowing
that some people can pay the money and others cannot pay the
money. She further questioned, why money is a consideration at
all, for anything.
MS. MEADE related that, traditionally, in all bail decisions
money is a tool that causes people to comply knowing they will
lose the money if they do not appear, and also to ensure the
conditions under bail are performed. She remarked that money
can still be used in certain conditions the judge deems
appropriate.
1:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN used the example of someone arrested for
criminal mischief, a relatively low-level misdemeanor, with no
prior record, and asked whether that person, under the bill,
would be released on their own recognizance (OR) regardless of
whether they were a multimillionaire or a pauper.
MS. MEADE agreed, and she pointed out that if the person falls
within subsection (a) low-risk, low-level non-violent crime, it
would be an OR release. Although, she said, the judge could
have conditions but not monetary bail on that person.
1:01:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to a person with a similar crime
but has more of a record and the grid determines that the person
should have a $250 bail, but they are a pauper. He asked
whether that person could come back into court and explain that
their prior record was not great and that they cannot post bail,
could the judge could then decide whether to let them out
without posting the $250 bail recognizing their financial
circumstances.
MS. MEADE agreed and said that the person can receive one
additional hearing for inability to pay. She pointed out that
this bill provides the judge additional tools, the unsecured
performance and appearance bond, and the judge may require 10
percent of the $250 and only if they "no show" or violate their
terms would they owe the remainder of the $250.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that a person, whether pauper or
a millionaire, charged with murder would likely have bail set at
$50,000 or more, and their ability to pay would play little or
no part because it is a violent crime against a person, and the
person would have bail set before ever getting out of jail.
MS. MEADE replied that his statement was generally correct.
1:04:01 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said he is the
Public Defender for the State of Alaska, and a member of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission who participated in the
meetings and in the subgroups that discussed each one of these
policies. He related that a goal was to save money, and the
entire time the commission paid attention to being certain the
policies the commission supported also maintained and enhanced
public safety, and reducing recidivism was part of the
deliberations. During those deliberations, the commission
looked at and took in the perspectives and concerns of law
enforcement, victims' advocates, and the prosecutor's office to
ensure that what the commission was doing, based upon data,
actually had its intended effect. Obviously, he remarked,
reinvestment is an important part but many of the initiatives
are positive in their own right and will help reduce recidivism,
and in particular pretrial bail release. The data revealed that
pretrial detention was in itself causing increased recidivism,
and that it is in fact a criminogenic factor causing further
crime in the future. Therefore, pretrial detention was a
significant consideration that drove this. Also, he advised,
monetary bail, itself, doesn't have a meaningful effect on what
it is intended to do, which is bring someone back to court and
cause them not to commit any crimes in the future. He described
monetary bail as being no better than an unsecured bond in terms
of those two factors which drove the grid previously discussed,
and that ability to pay is not a factor in the section of the
grid that will release with a bail bond. He pointed out that
when a person is at a higher level of offense, high-risk, high-
level, then the ability to pay does become a factor in setting
that bond. Therefore, he offered, in those higher level cases
it has the prospect of ensuring return and preventing future
crime. Data revealed that for the low-level and mid-range
offenses ability to pay had no effect and was actually counter-
productive, and that was a primary concern, he related.
1:07:38 PM
MR. STEINER referred to Sec. 61, [AS 12.55.027(d), page 36,
lines 2-4], which read:
(d) A court may grant credit of not more than 120
days against the total term [A SENTENCE] of
imprisonment imposed following conviction for an
offense for time spent under electronic monitoring
that complies with AS 33.30.011(10),
MR. STEINER stressed that limiting electronic monitoring credit
to 120 days was not part of the commission's recommendations in
this bill, and that it came in elsewhere. The commission
reviewed data and found that long jail sentences are not more
effective in changing behavior than short jail sentences and, in
fact, in some cases even short jail sentences were counter-
productive. The sections for electronic monitoring credit was
not part of the commission's recommendation and, he pointed out
that it will limit the option for non-jail detention for
individuals capped at 120 days. Currently, electronic
monitoring credit would be available for a longer period of
time.
1:09:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the origin of the 120 day
restriction, and to elaborate as to why 120 days is restrictive.
MR. STEINER responded that the concern as expressed to him was
that if it was not limited it would create no incentive to
resolve the case, and that someone in the defendant's position
would have no incentive. Whereas, after the 120 days the case
would be pushed forward because the defendant would no longer
receive credit, he said.
MR. STEINER extended that he does not know where the decision to
limit to 120 days came from. He reiterated that it was
expressed to him that there would be no incentive, without a cap
to resolve the case, and delay would occur. He noted that the
judge sets the trial date, and continuances may be at the
defendant's request but the defendant must have a reason for
their request to delay the case, which is ruled on by the judge.
There are benefits to having someone on electronic monitoring
credit beyond just saving money because once a person is in jail
they are separated from their job, support network, and any work
they may be doing on rehabilitation.
1:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he found any
pushback from the commission's work relating to electronic
monitoring credit.
MR. STEINER advised that he came after the commission's report
was released and he wasn't part of the discussion where that was
added to the bill. He noted that the commission has not met and
discussed the bill in a session-sense, and that he was
commenting both as a public defender and as a commissioner that
the commission did not recommend the 120 days.
1:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that under existing law a person on
pretrial electronic monitoring could get credit for more than
120 days.
MR. STEINER answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that Criminal Rule 45 and the
constitutional right to a speedy trial is interpreted as 120
days. There are substantial structures within the system that
force cases to get to trial within 120 days, and the defendant
has to waive their speedy trial rights to not have the case come
to trial in 120 days. He asked the frequency of people waiving
their speedy trial rights past 120 days, and when this has come
into play.
MR. STEINER advised that most cases and trials go beyond 120
days except misdemeanors, and opined that not many felonies go
to trial within 120 days. He said that waiving time under
Criminal Rule 45 is common, it starts from the beginning and
often results in a waiver pre-indictment during the negotiation
process. Filing motions is tolled during that period and it
will often be waived to investigate or prepare defense. He
opined that some misdemeanors do get to trial within that period
of time, but he wouldn't say that a lot go to trial because they
are resolved earlier by plea, and noted it takes more time to go
to trial. He opined that that is why the 120 day number was
picked, but he was not part of that discussion so wasn't sure.
He stressed his concern is that it will have an impact and
undermine the broader underlying premise of the commission's
report and recommendations because it simply runs counter to it.
1:14:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he has the sense that
defense attorneys are using electronic monitoring as a mechanism
to put the case off longer, and longer, and never go to trial.
He said he understands waiving Criminal Rule 45 in preparation
for trial and if a deal can be cut they usually want it to occur
sooner rather than later. He asked whether incidents of someone
pushing the trial back longer because they are carrying on their
"merry way" on the electronic monitor is a real problem.
MR. STEINER answered that when a defense lawyer requests a
continuance, they must explain the reason and the judge rules on
it. It could be that defense wants more time because the
defendant is working on classes, a program, or has something
else going on that merits delay, he suggested. The judge, and
everyone in the courtroom, would be aware the defendant was on
electronic monitoring credit resulting in credit for defendant.
He stressed that it would be unethical for a defense lawyer to
mislead a court about the reason for the delay and that it
should be discussed and on the table. He cannot say how often
things are delayed for the reason of working on a program, he
said.
1:16:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to the public defender world, and
asked how many people statewide are released pretrial on
electronic monitoring, and whether it is a real issue.
MR. STEINER, in response to Representative Claman, said that
public defender clients are being released on electronic
monitoring and it is not an insignificant number.
1:17:16 PM
MR. STEINER advised that the above-policy was a concern he
wanted to raise to the committee as he believes it is worth the
committee's deliberation as to whether or not to move forward.
Broadly speaking, he said, normally he does not take positions
on bills. As a commissioner he does support the bill and the
initiatives and the recommendations of the [commission] because
they are well thought out, well discussed, and are based upon
sound data.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that this bill has more people out of jail
prior to trial, generally. She questioned whether this is a
change in present law that would allow less people out of jail
prior to trial.
MR. STEINER responded that it would provide less credit for the
time a person is out on electronic monitoring such that, if a
person was out on electronic monitoring for 150 days, they would
only receive credit for 120 days. It may not necessarily result
in someone going back to jail as it is a matter of credit.
Although, he noted, it would result in someone going back to
jail if they then received a 150 days sentence and were out on
electronic monitoring for 150 days, they would then have to go
back and do the extra time.
1:18:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted this is a change from present law in that
present law would give credit for the entire time a person is
out [on electronic monitoring].
MR. STEINER answered correct, if the person was under a court
order and followed the conditions of bail, [this provision]
scales back what a person can have credit for.
1:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said, "If it ain't broke don't fix it,"
and with regard to this particular [provision] asked Mr. Steiner
to identify any instances in which a person has been out on
electronic monitoring, and it appears has abused the system by
getting two years of electronic monitoring by delaying their
trial for two years, thereby, never serving a day in jail.
MR. STEINER replied he has heard of cases being lengthy, but the
question is whether or not it is appropriate that it went on
that long, and whether or not someone wants to have credit. The
premise of the report and the recommendations were that jail
itself was a negative thing in many instances for low- to
moderate-risk individuals because the jail sentence itself had a
criminogenic impact and increased recidivism. In the event the
availability of electronic monitoring credit is reduced some
people will spend time in jail when they otherwise would not.
The appropriateness of it is something that should be balanced
by the committee, it is something the judge should weigh in on
when a continuance is requested and, he reiterated, the reasons
should be on the table and discussed. He said he can't answer
the question but he does know that it occurs and people receive
a fair amount of credit.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN observed that Mr. Steiner has no instances
of when this situation has been abused.
1:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested Mr. Steiner to offer language
the committee could consider as an option to the 120 days for
the credit. She offered a scenario of, through no fault of the
defendant, the court calendar is full and in lieu of going back
to prison and becoming a life-long prisoner, and asked for
suggestions that would cover that.
MR. STEINER extended that he has been mulling it over and he
does not have an adequate response now, but he would continue to
work on it. Currently, he opined, the primary safety valve is
judicial discretion and going forward when the case is prepared
and it is time to go forward. It is possible, he noted, that
language could be generated to limit it in certain high level
cases where the implication of jail time increasing recidivism
isn't as strong, would be one approach.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Mr. Steiner to discuss putting
pretrial people in prison, completing their jail time, and that
when they come out they are more likely to commit a crime again
due to the portion of time spent incarcerated prior to trial.
She asked, within Mr. Steiner experience, the length of time in
[jail] pretrial that begins creating worse criminals.
MR. STEINER stressed, "24 hours for low-risk individuals. Even
a single day in jail can increase recidivism." One of the
issues the state has been working on is the Probation
Accountability and Certain Enforcement (PACE) model that is
based upon the idea that short and swift sanctions for high-risk
individuals is appropriate. He opined that Hawaii has found
that someone being arrested in the morning on a probation
violation, have their hearing that day, and released that
evening, has as much of an impact as being booked-in and
spending 24 hours. He offered that he cannot say what the
length of jail time is for higher-risk individuals, "but for
low-risk individuals it is even a single day."
1:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Mr. Steiner to reiterate one more
time in trying to keep people out of prison in pretrial. She
stated that one of the stunning things she saw was that once an
individual is in jail they become hardened or worse criminals
than the offense that they originally committed. The influence
within that time spent in jail makes people criminals and it is
pretty scary, she expressed.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed that it is not a good environment.
MR. STEINER followed up that that was in conjunction with the
low amount of monetary bail that would result in someone's
detention was surprising even to him. More than 50 percent of
people with $1,000 or less bail were unable to bail out which,
he described, was a low amount of money. He opined that no one
would ever expect that that would have a real influence on
behavior but that is what the data bore out, the state was
holding low-risk individuals merely because they were poor.
1:25:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Mr. Steiner's comment
regarding a low-risk individual, that the potential for
criminality is enhanced whether they spend as little as 24- or
even 8 hours in jail, and asked what the data shows for higher
risk, and whether the higher-risk individual has the potential
to become even more of a criminal and go up another rung on the
ladder.
MR. STEINER recollected that for high-risk individuals and high-
level offenses jail did not enhance recidivism, but he may be
wrong. He stressed that the data was clear that for the low-
risk it was criminogenic.
1:27:29 PM
MS. ABBOTT advised that the recommendation Mr. Steiner spoke to
is outside of the commission's recommendations, and it was
included in the bill through discussions of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee's legislative intent behind a bill passed
last year, regarding good time served on electronic monitoring.
The thought being, she said, that this conformed to legislative
intent, that an entire sentence was not served on electronic
monitoring, but "it was simply good time that could be applied
pretrial." She referred to the previous scenario of a person's
sentence being 150 days, having served the 120 days, and said it
was still within the purview of the court to determine whether
that person had served their entire sentence. Obviously, she
said, this is a policy call, and the data and argument of Mr.
Steiner is compelling and within the committee's purview as to
whether it remains in the bill.
1:28:59 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX, in response to Representative Claman, advised that
last year's bill belonged to Tammie Wilson and it was debated
extensively in this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN observed that the committee is in a good
position to state its intention.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that there is no committee better to
interpret our intent.
1:29:40 PM
DAVID HANSON, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, advised that he has been with the Alaska State
Troopers for 22 years, and he is currently the Deputy Commander
of the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol, as well as the Alaska
State Trooper Division's legislative liaison. He paraphrased
from written testimony, as follows:
Over the past several weeks I have been reviewing both
Senate Bill 91, and House Bill 205, and have become
familiar with the changes in the subsequent versions.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission for the extensive
research and work that's been done to arrive at the
conclusions on the criminal justice reform and
reinvestment. And, I'd also like to thank and
recognize the diligent work of the law makers and
sponsors of this bill without whom none of this would
have been possible.
Today I'd like to address, specifically Sections 42-
45, and in particular Section 42 which essentially
deals with the arrest versus cite issue for
defendants. This version of AS 12.25.180, as
reflected in Section 42, appears to contain a number
of compromises that will still allow law enforcement
to take control of a situation as needed. But also
allows for citations to be issued when appropriate. I
think we can all agree that the main concern is still
public safety, which includes the safety of the
officer, the defendant, and the community. And
oftentimes when certain types of crimes have been
committed issuing a citation to appear in court is, or
can be, an appropriate solution to the problem. This
is similar to how a trooper would issue a ticket or
summons to a driver for operating a vehicle with a
suspended license instead of physically arresting them
provided another driver is available to take the
vehicle, of course. So, in essence, Section 42
establishes a presumption to cite and summons to court
for a non-violent misdemeanors and class C felonies
with exceptions including significant danger to self
or others, and certain specified crimes. For
infractions or violations, it provides that a peace
officer may bring the person before a judge if the
violation is: 1. for a violation of conditions of
release; or 2. for disorderly conduct.
1:32:03 PM
In urban areas where the local court system is easily
accessible the burden that is created by citing a
defendant into court is minimal, or non-existent in
most cases. The defendant would simply need to make
sure that they find a way to court during the normal
course of their day, and at worst might need to secure
a ride from a friend or via public transportation.
But a more significant issue would arise when troopers
and officers in rural communities issue a citation for
a defendant to appear but the nearest court is in
another community or a significant distance away.
Troopers in Western Alaska frequently experience cases
where defendants who are issued a summons or citation
to appear in court, fail to show up. This is a result
of a variety of factors, but regardless of the reason
and however justifiable that reason might be, it
requires that a warrant be issued and a second
response to the rural community by law enforcement is
required to serve the warrant. But according to
Criminal Rule 38.1, defendants are allowed to appear
telephonically for a variety of hearings. If this
mechanism is in place and utilized by the defendant, I
believe it would solve a number of the concerns law
enforcement has regarding multiple trips to take care
of a single issue.
1:33:15 PM
These concerns are best illustrated when considering
law enforcement responses to communities that present
logistical challenges in simply arriving, such as
Gamble, and Savoonga, the Pribilof Islands, Little
Diomede, and communities toward the end of the
Aleutian Chain. Allowing for telephonic court
appearances for all hearings where it is reasonable
for that to occur would be one of the best solutions
available. Regarding Criminal Rule 38.1, I believe
Ms. Kaci Schroeder, with the Department of Law, is
present in the courtroom -- in the room there as well
and might be able to speak to that with more knowledge
as necessary. With that being said, the current
version of House Bill 205, Version H, appears to
provide enough leeway for law enforcement to
effectively provide a balance between public safety
and the need for defendants to be held responsible for
their actions.
1:34:02 PM
The other main concern that DPS had regarding these
changes revolved around the ability of law enforcement
to arrest an individual for violating conditions of
release, particularly with cases involving domestic
violence. While this might be drifting away a bit
from Section 42, I believe the issue is closely enough
related to the arrest versus cite conversation that it
bears briefly mentioning again. But this appears to
be covered in Section 25, the language in AS
11.56.757(a) regarding violating conditions of release
is amended to conform to the reclassification of the
crime to a violation. But it is answered in Section
42, on page 23, where the new law allows a peace
officer to arrest a person if probable cause exists,
that the person violated conditions of release.
DPS would also like to commend the sponsors of the
bill for adding back in the provisions in AS
12.25.180(b)(4), the very next line, where arrest
authority remains if a person is committing the crime
of disorderly conduct. While this crime is relatively
minor in comparison to all others, it allowed the
officer the ability to solve an immediate problem
which oftentimes means removing an unreasonably loud
person who is causing a disturbance while others are
trying to sleep.
So, with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions
the committee might have.
1:36:09 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Legal Services Section, Department of Law, referred to Ms.
Meade's excellent explanation of what the pretrial sections do,
and said she has nothing to add. She then explained that the
pretrial sections for the Department of Law (DOL) do not
substantially change how DOL would do business and that the
provisions basically give the department additional tools when
making bail arguments due to a risk based analysis. She offered
to point out technical issues and referred to Sec. 42, [AS
12.25.180(a)(5)(B)] page 23, lines 8-9, which read:
(B) "sexual offense" means an offense
defined in AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.470;
MS. SCHROEDER explained that is a limited definition of sexual
offense, and within every other section of the bill the
definition used is found in AS 12.63.100, which is a somewhat
broader definition. Crimes covered in AS 12.63 would be crimes,
such as child pornography that are not necessarily covered in
what is there.
1:37:41 PM
MS. SCHROEDER, in response to Representatives Claman and
Millett, responded that typically the definition DOL would use
for sexual offense is AS 12.63.100.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that it is Section 11 here, and Ms.
Schroeder is recommending that it is Section 12, and asked
whether she knows how that happened.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that she does not know how it happened, it
appears to be fluke because everywhere else the choice has been
the definition in Title 12.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted it could be a drafting error and
she will have Ms. Abbott check.
1:38:26 PM
MS. SCHROEDER then pointed to Sec. 48, [AS 12.30.006(d)(3)],
page 25, lines 6-8, which read:
(3) at least seven days have elapsed between
the previous review and the time set for the requested
review; however, a person may only receive one bail
review hearing for inability to pay.
MS. SCHROEDER advised that, initially, DOL was concerned that
defendants would be able to use that reason over and over and
over; therefore, there would be bail review hearings about every
seven days. She remarked that the bill language on page 25,
appears to have addressed that concern but she wanted to be
certain the committee was aware that it was a concern.
1:39:20 PM
MS. SCHROEDER referred to Secs. 51 and 52, beginning page 25
through the next several pages, and advised that the provisions
are the readjustment of the bail sections to incorporate the
risk based assessment. She noted that a number of crimes are
listed as exclusions, for example, if a person is charged with
failure to appear or charged with failing conditions of release
then the person does not receive the benefit of some of these
presumptions for OR release. She offered that the committee may
want to consider adding to that list as there are some crimes,
for instance, terroristic threatening, possession of child
pornography, escape, and unlawful evasion, crimes that may be
indicative of a higher risk or not willing to appear or abide by
court orders. She reiterated that the committee may want to
consider adding other crimes there.
MS. SCHROEDER, in response to Representative Millett, advised
she would provide the committee a list.
1:40:29 PM
MS. SCHROEDER referred to Mr. Steiner's testimony regarding Sec.
61. [AS 12.55.027(d), page 36, lines 2-4], which read:
(d) A court may grant credit of not more than 120
days against the total term [A SENTENCE]of
imprisonment imposed following conviction for an
offense for time spent under electronic monitoring
that complies with AS 33.30.011(10),
MS. SCHROEDER noted that the bill before the House Judiciary
Standing Committee last year has only been effective as of this
summer. She explained that the section only addresses credit
for pretrial electronic monitoring; therefore, potentially a
defendant would still be eligible for electronic monitoring
after sentencing and once they are under DOC custody. To be
clear, she explained, there is not a bar once a person is
sentenced on receiving credit for electronic monitoring, it is
only the pretrial portion.
1:41:17 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to disorderly conduct, and said she
understands why [law enforcement] would want to remove someone
immediately from the place they were being disorderly. She
asked whether there could be a place other than prison that the
person could be placed, because disorderly conduct usually isn't
more than just being a loud jerk in the wrong place.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Chair LeDoux whether she was
suggesting a sleep off center for jerks.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she was asking for suggestions due to
the vast testimony regarding the many problems of putting low-
level people into jail, even for as much as 8 hours. She said,
and now there is an exception for disorderly conduct which, on
the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, disorderly conduct
appears to be a one rather than a ten. Unfortunately, the state
will arrest these people and put them in jail where they may
become hardened criminals and she asked for a suggested
solution.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested putting Lieutenant Hanson back
on the line.
MS. SCHROEDER advised that DOL is not prepared to address that
right now, although, she understands the concern. The new
commissioner for the Department of Corrections (DOC) mentioned
Title 47 holds, and it is definitely on their minds, she said.
1:43:28 PM
LIEUTENANT HANSON answered Chair LeDoux's question by stating
that allowing law enforcement to retain the ability to arrest
someone for the crime of disorderly conduct, basically allows
law enforcement to solve an immediate concern for the night. He
opined there is a misconception in that if a trooper responds to
a disorderly conduct the first course of action taken would be
arrest, and that is not the case. Often times, he advised,
troopers ask whether the person has a place to sleep it off, a
friend's house, and/or offers the person a ride somewhere. The
instances of keeping law enforcement's ability to arrest the
person, he explained, is where the level of belligerence is so
high and the problem cannot otherwise be resolved. In this
case, if law enforcement leaves without any other course of
action and simply cites the person, the problem will continue
and the law enforcement agency would keep returning again, and
again, and again. Therefore, he advised, this would be viewed
as a last resort option, but still an ultimate solution which
would provide peace to the neighborhood for the night.
1:45:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that when law enforcement takes
an inebriated person to a sleep off center they cannot be under
arrest and they cannot cause physical harm to themselves or
others. In the event the person is belligerent and causing a
disturbance but is not willing go to a sleep off center whether
in that case law enforcement would be forced to make the arrest
and take them to jail, she asked.
LIEUTENANT HANSON opined that that instance was assessed
correctly, although he does not like to speak with such a broad
brush or that it applies to all situations. It is not the
intent of law enforcement's to simply charge someone for the
sake of charging them, and the Anchorage Police Department
Downtown has a sleep off center which would certainly be the
option law enforcement would prefer over charging someone
criminally.
1:46:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that he sees the disorderly conduct
provision about the 24 hours, as one of many tools law
enforcement has in the toolbox. Particularly, he pointed out,
in rural Alaska with a disorderly conduct scenario not involving
alcohol, and law enforcement tries to separate people and have a
cooling off period. A tool the officer may have is to tell the
person they are going to go home until they've cooled off, and
the ability to tell the person if they don't want to go home the
officer can take them to jail becomes a tool the officer can
use. He said he sees this particular statute as a range of
tools in the officer's tool chest.
LIEUTENANT HANSON agreed, as it is the desire of the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) to retain the ability to arrest. He
noted that over the course of time this isn't a charge that is
anywhere near one of the most common charges that come up. He
described this as a last resort wherein there is a problem in a
community or neighborhood and if the officer doesn't take some
sort of action, and the person is not impaired and doesn't have
somewhere else to go, then what does DPS do with them. The
Department of Public Safety (DPS) is not necessarily interested
in the person spending that time in jail, he noted, and that DPS
agrees with the fact that it was brought down from a 10 day to a
24 hour period in the recent rewrite.
1:49:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that in a reverse situation where
the person is extremely intoxicated the officer would have a
choice to take them to the sleep off center, under Title 47, or
if they did not cooperate another option would be to arrest as a
last resort.
LIEUTENANT HANSON agreed, although he could speak to all areas
of the state whether they have a sleep off center. The troopers
operate often in Western Alaska and when something is going on
in the community where there is not a sleep off center,
disorderly conduct might be the only resolution to that.
However, he advised, many of the jails, if there's a high level
of inebriation in someone or other impairment it would require
them going to the hospital to be checked out to be certain they
are healthy enough to be put in jail. He said there are a few
forks in the road that would still apply depending upon the
community and the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested having someone from the
Anchorage Police Department available because there are specific
rules regarding the sleep off center and not causing harm to
themselves or to another.
1:51:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Ms. Schroeder's comments
regarding Sec. 61, with regard to pre-sentence electronic
monitoring and asked whether last year the committee did not try
to create a structure for good time credit for pretrial release
because it opened a much bigger can of worms that was too
complicated to try to fix. Therefore, electronic monitoring is
for day-for-day credit whereas post-trial the person is on a
good time credit and they get one-third off, he said.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that under current law even when someone
is on DOC electronic monitoring they are not eligible for good
time and this bill would change that. She said, the specific
section would be later in the bill within the Title 33
provisions. She opined that, initially, the bill did have some
good time language in it, and then within one of the early
iterations the good time language was taken out.
1:53:45 PM
SHERRY DAIGLE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, advised the Department of Corrections
is available for questions.
CHAIR LEDOUX listed the names of people available for general
questions, and asked whether any of the witnesses available had
any background or expertise on this section that hasn't been
addressed, or would like to comment on any of the pretrial
provisions.
1:56:04 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director, Appellate Division, Central
Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of
Administration (DOA), referred to Mr. Steiner's earlier
testimony regarding Sec. 61, and said she would like to make one
further point. There has been a lot of discussion that the
purpose behind that provision may potentially allow abuse or
delay by people on pretrial electronic monitoring. As
supervisor of the Appeals Section, there are also people on
electronic monitoring pending appeal and it appears that the
provision, as written, would limit credit for the time people
spend on bail pending appeal even when that rationale has
evaporated. Also, she explained, the bill is structured to
allow credit for people released on electronic monitoring
pending a Petition to Revoke Probation and that rationale would
fall away also. In the event the provision is not entirely
removed, she suggested that there may be a way to put limits on
it addressing those concerns.
1:57:49 PM
MARY GEDDES, Staff Attorney, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
said that Commissioner Stanfill sent her a text advising that
she would like to offer commentary except her line has been
muted. She advised Representative Millett that a memorandum is
available to her regarding the extent to which someone held
pretrial in a community residential center (CRC) or private
treatment program is eligible for a time served credit against a
person sentenced later imposed.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the memorandum is on everyone's desk.
1:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the memorandum, dated today,
regarding credit for time served in a treatment program and
asked whether that is what is commonly referred to as Nygren v.
State of Alaska, 658 P.2d 141 (1983) credit.
MS. GEDDES agreed that Nygren was effectively superseded by a
statute, and yes that is what she is referring to.
1:59:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the portion of the
memorandum regarding risk factors, which he testified read in
part, "We look at factors that are predictive, the weight of
each risk factor varies by jurisdiction," and he said it further
notes that variations based on differences in statutes, data
quality, et cetra. He asked for the quality of data in Alaska.
MS. GEDDES related that the answer is long and she will follow-
up with a written memorandum, if that would be helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is a short
answer or a sense of how Alaska's data stacks up relative to
other states that have calculated risk-based data.
MS. GEDDES reiterated that there is certainly data the
commission collected and analyzed, and is in the process of
being analyzed for the purposes of a "results first project,"
and it will evaluate cost effective measures being employed here
compared to elsewhere. In terms of answering the specific
question about risk assessment, she explained that she would
have to get into the details of each of those states' programs
to compare it to Alaska, which is why it is a long-winded
response and is better responded to in a written document.
2:01:37 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Commissioner, Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, advised she is testifying as a commissioner on the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission in the area of victims'
rights and how victims are represented in the pretrial piece.
She expressed that there has been an ongoing dialogue to be
certain that victims' rights are not lost and that they have an
ability to speak at the hearings. She stressed that when
someone is released pretrial on OR that does not mean that when
a victim comes in and testifies regarding their safety,
feelings, or different things, that it is not weighed in the
judge's decision and the victim's voice is very much
represented. For example, she said, a person is arrested for
the low-level crime of destroying someone's mailbox and the
victim testifies that, although this is the first time he called
law enforcement, this has happened eight different times and
they fear the intent is to steal their mail. The judge may
decide to let the person out OR; however, conditions will be put
in place to protect the victim. She stressed that there has
been confusion regarding victims' rights being lost and
expressed that throughout the process the commission's intent
was, first and foremost, that victims' rights are not lost.
Throughout her years of working with victims, she said her
biggest complaint is that victims are lost once they are turned
over to the criminal justice system and become a "kind of by-
product." She opined that the commission is trying to do things
a little smarter in this area.
2:04:21 PM
MS. STANFILL referred to the question of whether third-party
custodians were effective and stated that for the most part
third-party custodians are not effective. Usually, she pointed
out it is someone that cares about the defendant and is possibly
making excuses for their behavior. Oftentimes, the third-party
custodian does not call law enforcement when the defendant has
done something wrong or left their presence. However, from her
victims' services hat, she opined that within a few instances
the third-party custodian can be helpful, such as, sexual abuse
against a minor where the concern is about where the defendant
is, and who is with the defendant. She further opined that that
set of eyes is important and was unsure whether the supervision
piece could do the whole thing, and from a victims' standpoint
it is still being reviewed. The citation policy does have carve
out for the domestic violence including those that are not
assault but have a domestic violence mark. House Bill 205
offers avenues to put more things in place through pretrial
supervision. Ms. Stanfill referred to the story, last week,
wherein a woman was raped, got away, the man found her and
abducted her, and luckily someone looked out the window and saw
it happening. She offered that had the person been on
electronic monitoring it most likely would not have occurred and
that having more tools in the toolbox for pretrial will make
people much safer with the assurance that a risk assessment is
prior to release. Currently, she explained, a risk assessment
is not performed and if a person has enough money to get out of
jail, they get out of jail. It will take a bit of time to get
all the bumps out, she acknowledged, but victims will fare
better under what has been proposed.
CHAIR LEDOUX thanked Ms. Stanfill for all of her services on
behalf of victims.
2:07:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that with regard to third-party
custodians Ms. Stanfill agrees with the broad recommendation of
the commission that the criminal justice system is over-using
third-party custodians. Although, it doesn't mean to do away
with it entirely in cases such as, sexual abuse of a minor where
it is appropriate. He further surmised that she believes there
are many other cases where the criminal justice system should
stop using third-party custodians because it is not helping.
MS. STANFILL agreed, especially in domestic violence cases or
cases where, for example, someone is on a third-party due to
someone being injured in a traffic incident that has to do with
drinking. The court puts a lot of responsibility on the third-
party custodian who may love and care for the defendant
requiring that they turn the defendant in which results in a re-
arrest and continuing problems and, she pointed out, it is
difficult to find a neutral party. Many mothers of men/women
accused of battering behavior come into her agency to perform
community service and work off the crime they committed as a
third-party custodian by not turning their son/daughter in.
Therefore, it results in what is believed to be safety and
really no one is safe in those circumstances, she stated.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Wilkerson to explain what pretrial
supervision would look like.
2:09:21 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, Director, Administrative Services, Department
of Corrections, advised that the Department of Corrections is
currently in the development process to determine and identify
how pretrial supervision will look and operate. They are
reviewing other states that have implemented pretrial and plan,
within the first year, to continue to work with the PEW
Charitable Trust, the Department of Law, and the Alaska Court
System to actually define the program.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked when DOC expects to have more definition.
MS. WILKERSON responded that DOC hopes, in coordinating with the
DOC's new commissioner, to have a better picture and better
handle within the next few weeks.
2:11:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that before the bill is passed the
legislature will know what pretrial supervision will actually
look like.
MS. WILKERSON replied yes, she is confident that prior to the
legislation being passed DOC would be in a better place to
define pretrial supervision.
MS. WILKERSON, in response to Chair LeDoux, answered that they
can define the report or provide an outline of what the program
or what DOC envisions the program looking like as it develops.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that her office will be in touch to determine
the best way to do it.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether DOC will be able to provide the risk
assessments, which this bill refers to, in time for the first
appearance before a judge.
MS. WILKERSON responded that DOC does anticipate being able to
meet that, and the fiscal note is high on the staffing that
would be needed to ensure that DOC is in compliance with the
assessment requirement.
2:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that he has questions for Susanne
DiPietro.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Ms. DiPietro was not on line.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether third-party custodians are
currently being used as a replacement for money bond.
2:14:00 PM
MS. GEDDES responded that the Alaska Judicial Council
participated with the PEW Charitable Trust, Justice Reinvestment
Initiative, in conducting a study last year of pretrial release
information from five different courts in Alaska. The
information, she advised, was drawn from offenders who had been
released from Alaska's prisons in July and December, 2014, and
said there is a hand review of these court cases for bail
information. She opined that one of the most interesting
results of that survey was that third-party custodians were
originally thought of as an alternative to orders for cash bail
being posted, and that the experience as reflected in these
records is very different in these five court locations.
Twenty-three percent of the sample defendants had a third-party
custodian requirement, she explained, but they also had a
corresponding money bail condition so it was an additional
condition beyond the money bail that was imposed in those cases.
Perhaps, she commented, unsurprisingly three-fourths of the
defendants with a third-party custodian requirement were not
released before trial.
2:16:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that having money bail and a
third-party custodian actually made it even less likely that the
defendant would get out of jail.
MS. GEDDES agreed, and said that it was a reasonable take away
from the study.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to releasing someone on a secured
versus an unsecured bond, and asked whether it has any impact on
their likely return for court on the scheduled court date.
MS. GEDDES opined that the studies bear out in terms of the risk
of failure to appear, non-compliance with orders, or new
criminal offenses, and the relative value of release on secured
bond versus unsecured bond. She related there have been a
couple of studies addressing that specific question and she will
summarize them, or send the studies themselves to the committee.
2:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Geddes to summarize the studies,
and the committee would be interested in seeing the studies.
MS. GEDDES offered those studies reflect that the requirement of
money bail is no greater guarantee of compliance with bail
orders in that they are equally effective or ineffective.
[HB 205 was held over.]
2:18:45 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Trial Presentation 03.16.16.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Memo - RE Committee Questions from 03.14.16.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |