Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/2000 10:16 AM Senate 067
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB 67
April 26, 2000
10:16 a.m
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Rokeberg, Co-Chair
Senator Taylor, Co-Chair
Representative Murkowski
Representative Kerttula
Senator Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to release of certain persons alleged to have
committed certain sexual offenses."
- MOVED CCS HB 67 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: BAIL HEARING FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/25/99 81 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/25/99 81 (H) JUD, FIN
2/12/99 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
2/24/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
2/24/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/24/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/03/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/03/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/15/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/15/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 67(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/15/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/16/99 839 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP
4/16/99 840 (H) DP: GREEN, KOTT, JAMES, ROKEBERG,
4/16/99 840 (H) KERTTULA
4/16/99 840 (H) 2 INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTES (ADM,
COR)
4/26/99 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/26/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 67(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/26/99 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
4/27/99 1023 (H) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2NR
4/27/99 1023 (H) DP: THERRIAULT, BUNDE, KOHRING,
DAVIES,
4/27/99 1023 (H) GRUSSENDORF; NR: DAVIS, WILLIAMS
4/27/99 1023 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (COR)
4/16/99
5/04/99 1169 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/21/00 2252 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/21/00
2/21/00 2252 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
2/21/00 2253 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/21/00 2253 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR)
2/21/00 2253 (H) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
2/21/00 2253 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 2/23
CALENDAR
2/23/00 2285 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME CSHB 67(JUD)
2/23/00 2285 (H) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
2/23/00 2285 (H) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
2/23/00 2286 (H) PASSED Y36 E3 A1
2/23/00 2288 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT, HARRIS, HALCRO,
2/23/00 2288 (H) MURKOWSKI
2/23/00 2289 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
2/24/00 2404 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/24/00 2404 (S) JUD
2/28/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
2/28/00 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/01/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/01/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/01/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/20/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/20/00 (S) Moved SCS(Jud) Out of Committee
3/20/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/22/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/22/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/22/00 2691 (S) JUD RPT SCS 2DP 2NR SAME TITLE
3/22/00 2691 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD; NR: TORGERSON,
3/22/00 2691 (S) ELLIS
3/22/00 2691 (S) (H) INDETERMINATE FN (ADM)
3/22/00 2691 (S) (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR)
4/18/00 3224 (S) INDETERMINATE FN (COR)
4/18/00 3224 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 4/18/00
4/18/00 3231 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/18/00 3231 (S) JUD SCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/18/00 3231 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/18/00 3231 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SCS CSHB 67(JUD)
4/18/00 3231 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
4/18/00 3256 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) AS AMENDED
4/19/00 3287 (H) HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4/19/00 3334 (H) CONSIDER SENATE MESSAGE WITHDRAWN
4/21/00 3425 (H) FAILED CONCUR (S) AM Y3 N28 A9
4/21/00 3426 (H) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/21/00 3426 (H) *ROKEBERG, MURKOWSKI, KERTTULA
4/24/00 3448 (S) FAILED RECEDE (S) AM Y- N20
4/24/00 3449 (S) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/24/00 3449 (S) *TAYLOR, DONLEY, ELLIS
4/24/00 3459 (H) H LIMITED POWER FREE CONFERENCE
GRANTED
4/25/00 3491 (S) (S)LIMITED POWER FREE CONFERENCE
GRANTED
4/26/00 (H) 067 AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska State Court System
820 West 4th Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99501-2005
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that the [Alaska State Court System]
does not have any problems with the proposed language, save the
fact that electronic monitoring is not available statewide.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 209
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns that this legislation
would result in more people being released versus incarcerated.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification on the fiscal notes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-1, SIDE A
HB 67 - BAIL HEARING FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR called the Conference Committee on HB 67 meeting
to order at 10:16 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Rokeberg, Murkowski and Kerttula and Senators
Taylor and Ellis. Before the committee is CSHB 67(JUD)am, the
version passed by the House, and SCS CSHB 67(JUD), the version
passed by the Senate.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt the proposed
Conference committee substitute (CCS) for HB 67 labeled LS0197\V,
Luckhaupt, 4/25/00.
SENATOR ELLIS objected.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that the CCS removes Section 2 from
SCS CSHB 67(JUD) and inserts a new Section 2. He pointed out
that the bill packet contains two memorandums from Gerald
Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services.
Mr. Luckhaupt's memorandum [dated April 20, 2000] indicates that
there are difficulties regarding the unclassified felonies of
[AS] 11.41.410 and 11.41.434, which were included in subsection
(1) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD). [Subsection] (1) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD) is
in conflict with subsection (3) of the SCS CSHB 67(JUD). Mr.
Luckhaupt's memorandum [dated April 19, 2000] indicates that
although Section 2(b) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD) is constitutional, it
is awkward. Co-Chair Rokeberg suggested that the new language in
Section 2 of the proposed CCS would demand that [electronic
monitoring] be reviewed as a condition of release, although it
doesn't demand that it be done.
Number 0232
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR referred to page 1, line 11, subsection (b) of
the CCS. That subsection references AS 11.41.410, which has been
deleted from the granting of bail provisions. Co-Chair Taylor
said that section is a complete rewrite of the existing law. He
inquired as to why AS 11.41.410 would be included [in subsection
(b)] if that person is not allowed to have bail.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he did not have an answer to
that.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR remarked that perhaps he could answer the
question. He explained that Section 1 of CCS addresses release
before trial.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this was brought to his attention by
a situation in which the alleged violator plead no'lo
[conten'dere] and was released. Therefore, the violator went
from alleged to convicted due to his plea.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected that AS 11.41.410 is not
included in Section 2 because that section addresses mandatory
nonrelease.
Number 0395
SENATOR ELLIS asked if [the cimmittee would hear] other comments
from the Department of Corrections or the courts.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he had talked with Candace Brower,
Parole Board Officer, Parole Board, Department of Corrections
[DOC], who had offered to be present. However, Co-Chair Rokeberg
offered to review [DOC's] two points of concern with this
legislation. First, DOC is concerned that utilizing electronic
monitoring may create an unlevel applicability because that type
of monitoring is not available in certain areas of the state. In
regard to that concern, Co-Chair Rokeberg indicated that the
legislature [should be able] to expand that service where
applicable.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG informed the committee that DOC's second area
of concern is in regard to the [fact] that the department, per
its current policy, doesn't release high risk offenders with
electronic monitoring. However, Co-Chair Rokeberg pointed out
that without providing the courts with this ability, they could
release these [high risk offenders] without [any monitoring]. He
related his belief that this would actually help monitor [a high
risk offender's] activities rather than hinder, especially when
the offender would have otherwise been released.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked, "I think the good thing here is that
this expands, by legislative policy call, the electronic
monitoring program." He believes that to be appropriate.
Furthermore, as a six-year member to the House Finance
subcommittee, he noted that it has been like pulling teeth to get
DOC to adopt this program.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the courts had any comments.
Number 0549
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska State Court
System, stated that the court has no problems with the proposed
language other than the aforementioned concern that this [type of
monitoring] is not available in all areas of the state. In
response to Co-Chair Taylor, Mr. Wooliver noted that he had a
conversation with Justice Carpeneti yesterday and to Justice
Carpeneti's knowledge he didn't believe electronic monitoring is
available in Southeast Alaska. However, Justice Carpeneti was
not certain and thus Mr. Wooliver offered to check again.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR informed the committee of a gentleman in
Petersburg, who was convicted under the federal system and wore
an ankle bracelet for about seven or eight months. Therefore, he
questioned why the federal government could do electronic
monitoring in such a remote location and the state could not. He
pointed out that electronic monitoring is done through private
enterprise not the police department; the police department
merely receives the automatic alert if the person wonders outside
the specified parameters. Co-Chair Taylor reiterated his
disbelief as to why this would not be applicable statewide; if
the same satellite works in Anchorage, why wouldn't it work in
Kotzebue, Ketchikan, et cetera.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that he thought Ms. Brower mentioned
Juneau [as one of the areas that has electronic monitoring].
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR commented that at least the amendment relieves a
major portion of the fiscal note, which was of concern for the
House.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to the new language on page 2, lines
25-28, of CCSHB 67 and asked if his prior interpretation was
correct. In other words, does the language merely mean that the
court shall consider requiring participation, but the court does
not have to do that.
MR. WOOLIVER agreed that is how he would read that language.
Number 0735
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), turned to the discussion regarding not
wanting to make it easier to release people. She asked if the
courts can already consider giving electronic monitoring. She
referred to page 2, lines 19-20, and questioned whether providing
this opportunity to use electronic monitoring would result in the
feeling that these individuals can safely be released with the
use of the electronic monitor. Therefore, she asked if, due to
the availability of electronic monitoring, these individuals
would be more likely to get released or less likely. She pointed
out that AS 11.41.420 is sexual assault in the second degree, a
class B felony that is a serious crime, and thus the desire would
be to have such an offender to stay [incarcerated] versus having
this opportunity to be released. Ms. Hugonin clarified her
concern, "If they aren't already able to offer the electronic
monitoring, and we're putting in statute that now they have to
consider it, if that in fact wouldn't release more people than
keep more people in jail."
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it is a good question, but he
couldn't speculate as to the results of this legislation. He
related his belief that this legislation illustrates the
difficult job of the judge in reviewing the fact patterns and
alternatives in each case.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR informed Ms. Hugonin that currently, the courts
are releasing people under that condition [electronic
monitoring]. He explained that this legislation was intended to
tighten up those categories of crimes and conditions of release
in order that there would be more people serving [jail time] not
less and the time would be served earlier. The Senate added a
provision, which was part of the original bill, that caused a
fiscal note from the Department of Corrections. He remarked that
the he believes the only way that the department could have an
honest fiscal note is if the department believes more people will
be [held in custody]. Therefore, the attempt has been to reach a
compromise. Co-Chair Taylor related his belief that what will
happen is that some of those people may still be released, but
they will only be released with an electronic monitoring device.
However, prior to this legislation those individuals probably
would have been released to third party custody or another
arrangement that is difficult to enforce. Co-Chair Taylor stated
that it is his intent for this to enhance the overall level of
surveillance and monitoring, while those that reside in areas
that don't have access to electronic monitoring will remain
incarcerated. He further remarked that [with the electronic
monitoring] he believes more people are being put in or are
being placed in a more secure program.
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted her agreement [with Co-Chair
Taylor]. She commented that the class B felonies could be
excluded, although those felons are rarely going to be released
anyway.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG said, "To put something down there to
effectuate Ms. Hugonin's concern would be a little bit
gratuitous; wouldn't it? I mean, if we gave directions to the
court here in the statute, 'Don't let them out, you weren't going
to let them out anyway.'"
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR replied, "Well, in essence you've done that. All
this is just directions to the court ...." Co-Chair Taylor noted
that the Senate only received powers of free conference on
Sections 2 and 3. He asked if there was further discussion or
comments. There being none, he announced that the chair would
entertain a motion.
Number 1077
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved that the committee [report] CCS HB
67 labeled LS0197\V, Luckhaupt, 4/25/00, [out of committee with
individual recommendations]. There being no objection, it was so
ordered. Therefore, CCS HB 67 was reported out of committee.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR pointed out that the committee needs to determine
which fiscal note will be forwarded along with the CCS.
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Rokeberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the House had two fiscal notes from
two different departments, both of which were indeterminate,
while the Senate had only one fiscal note. It was determined
that both the House and the Senate had a fiscal note from the
Department of Corrections, but only the House had a fiscal note
from the Public Defender's Office; it was indicated that all
fiscal notes were indeterminate.
CO-CHAIR TAYLOR asked if there was any objection to adopting the
Senate's Department of Corrections fiscal note. There being
none, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Conference Committee
on HB 67, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|