Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/02/2016 10:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2016
10:48 a.m.
10:48:54 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 10:48 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jordan Schilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Sponsor;
Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Kaci Schroeder, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General
Counsel, Alaska Court System; John Skidmore, Director,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Senator John Coghill,
Sponsor; Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Chuck Kopp, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche; Denise
Liccioli, Staff, Senator Donnie Olson; Tracy Wollenberg,
Public Defender Office, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Doug Gardner, Legislative Legal, Juneau; Tony Piper, ASAP
Program Manager, Division of Behavioral Services,
Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage; Seneca
Theno, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage; Jeff Edwards,
Executive Director, Parole Board, Anchorage; Gary Folger,
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; Alan Adair,
Detective, Anchorage Police Department, Anchorage; Sean
O'Brien, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Juneau.
SUMMARY
SB 91 OMNIBUS CRIM LAW and PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to protective orders; 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 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
Rules 32 and 35(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
10:49:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked the Legislative Legal team and
the other departments to prepare for the start of the
amendment process. She announced that Hillary Martin and
Doug Gardner were awake until 1am the previous night,
working to draft the amendments for the day's meeting. She
hoped that there would be a committee substitute drafted by
Monday morning, so fiscal notes could be ready to attach to
the bill. She stated that she hoped to move the bill out of
committee on Tuesday. She announced all the individuals'
names available online and in the room for testimony.
10:53:21 AM
JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR,
explained Amendment 1. He stated that the Municipality of
Anchorage, the Anchorage Police Department, and other law
enforcement agencies had worked to address the arrest
provisions in the bill. The intent of the amendment was not
to make any substantive policy changes, rather to structure
a more readable arrest provision. He stressed that the
amendment was not drafted properly, so it would be
addressed at a later date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was a way to provide
the amendment drafters with technical instructions to fix
the amendment. Mr. Shilling replied that there was not yet
a submission for revision to the amendment drafters.
10:54:21 AM
AT EASE
10:54:37 AM
RECONVENED
10:55:02 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried any recommendations to
Legislative Legal to address the issues with Amendment 1.
10:55:06 AM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, replied that the commission's
recommendation was to create a presumption of citation for
misdemeanors and Class C felonies, with exceptions. He
stated that the rewrite included exceptions, but had
changed the order from the statute. He stated that
compulsory citations did not include any reference to
misdemeanors or the Class C felony presumption. As a
result, the presumption was missing, so everything
defaulted to "may arrest." The specifics were not an
infraction or citation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried feedback from the Municipality
of Anchorage on Amendment 1. Mr. Shilling replied that he
did not know if they had seen the amendment. He announced
that the proposal was vetted by the Department of Law
(DOL).
10:56:57 AM
AT EASE
10:57:57 AM
RECONVENED
10:58:06 AM
DOUG GARDNER, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the drafting of a technical
amendment. Mr. Gardner replied that the technical amendment
could be ready for later in the meeting. He stated that the
rewriting of the amendment would begin in the next five
minutes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a restatement of the public
defender's issues to ensure clarification of the amendment.
Mr. Gardner responded that Mr. Steiner wanted to return to
a different version of the arrest paradigm.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if that statement was correct.
Mr. Steiner replied that he did not want to return to a
particular version. He stated that there was a version
vetted that contained unclear language that the burden
remained. He shared that he could send the exact language
to the amendment drafters.
Mr. Gardner requested a call from the public defender so a
proper amendment could be drafted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 29-
LS0541\S.31, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained the Amendment 2. He stated that it
was a rewrite of a commission recommendation. The
commission recommended that Alaska move to a risk-based
release decision framework in the pre-trial phase. The
amendment did not make any substantive policy changes to
the how the commission recommended that the release
framework be structured. It simply repealed and reenacted
the bail statute to provide clarity to magistrates and
judges that would need to apply the statutes statewide. The
amendment was a result of the combined work of the Public
Defenders and the Department of Law (DOL). He stated that
they agreed on the new restructuring, because it was easier
to apply.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the will of the committee.
Senator Olson wondered if the committee could speak
directly to the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would speak
directly to the amendment.
11:03:25 AM
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, wondered if she should offer the difference between
the amendment and the current language in the bill.
Senator Bishop asked if DOL and the public defender were in
concurrence over the amendment. Ms. Schroeder replied in
the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to ensure that DOL, the public
defender, and the administration were all in support of the
amendment. She wondered if there was any significant change
that the public should be aware. She announced that the
amendment rewrote and restated current law. Ms. Schroeder
agreed.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
introduced herself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the amendment had been
reviewed. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. She stated
that she had worked with DOL and the public defender, and
she had no objection to Amendment 2.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 29-
LS0541\S.30, Martin, 3/31/16 (copy on file):
Page 98, lines 23 - 26:
Delete all material and insert:
* Sec. 152. AS 47.38.020 is amended to read:
Sec. 47.38.020. Alcohol and substance abuse monitoring
program. (a) The commissioner, in cooperation with the
commissioner of corrections, shall establish a program
using a competitive procurement process for certain
persons with release conditions ordered as provided
under AS 12.30, or offenders with conditions of
probation, that include not consuming controlled
substances or alcoholic beverages.
(b) The commissioner shall adopt regulations to
implement the program. The regulations must include
regulations regarding products and services that
provide alcohol and substance abuse monitoring.
(c) The commissioner shall include in the program
(1) a requirement for twice-a-day testing, either
remotely or in person [IF PRACTICABLE], for alcoholic
beverage use and random testing for controlled
substances;
(2) a means to provide the probation officer,
prosecutor's office, or local law enforcement agency
with notice within 24 hours, so that a complaint may
be filed alleging a violation of AS 11.56.757, a
petition may be filed with the court seeking
appropriate sanctions and may be scheduled by the
court for a prompt hearing, or an arrest warrant may
be issued for the person on release or offender with
conditions of probation provided in this subsection,
if the person or offender
(A) fails to appear for an appointment or fails to
complete a test through the use of remote alcohol or
substance abuse monitoring technology as required by
the program requirements; or
(B) tests positive for the use of controlled
substances or alcoholic beverages; and
(3) a requirement that the person or offender pay,
based on the person's or offenders ability under
financial guidelines established by the commissioner,
for the cost of participating the program.
(d) The department shall contract with one or more
vendors using a competitive procurement process in
accordance with AS 36.30 to provide or conduct the
testing required under (c) of this section.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 3. He explained that the
24/7 Sobriety programming was created in SB 64 [legislation
from a previous legislative session]. The implementation of
the program revealed some concerns that a competitive
procurement process was not used in contracting with
private providers to administer the program. The amendment
required that the commissioner, when establishing the
program, shall use a competitive procurement process in the
future.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 29-
LS0541\S.43, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file):
Page 33, line 19, following "credit":
Insert "of not more than 120 days"
Page 33, line 3l:
Delete "new subsections"
Insert "a new subsection"
Page 34, lines 1 - 9:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 102, line 31:
Delete "AS 12.55.027(g)"
Insert "AS 12.55.027(1)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 4. He stated that the
amendment returned to an original version of the bill. He
stated that there was a provision that limited the amount
of pre-trial credit an individual could receive. He stated
that it limited the pre-trial and electronic monitoring to
120 days, which was a cap that applied to all offenses. He
stated that the provision was included at the request of
the Office of Victims' Rights. He stated that the Senate
Judiciary Committee made the 120 cap to apply to certain
offenses. He stated that, as a response to the Office of
Victims' Rights, the amendment applied the 120 cap firmly
across the board to all defendants, regardless of crime.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Senator Dunleavy wanted to
speak to that amendment. Senator Dunleavy felt that Mr.
Schilling provided an accurate description.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the percentage of people who
were in pre-trial for more than 120 days. Mr. Shilling
replied that the individuals were not in a Department of
Corrections (DOC) facility, but rather on electronic
monitoring. He stated that he did not know the average
length of time for a case to be disposed. He shared that
felony cases could take over a year to dispose.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that the amendment would limit
the credit to 120 days. He stated that it was possible that
there would be a possible longer period of electronic
monitoring, based on the seriousness of the crime. Mr.
Shilling replied in the affirmative, and explained that
there could be delays and continuances. He stated that
there were be no credit beyond the 120-day mark.
11:08:54 AM
AT EASE
11:10:26 AM
RECONVENED
11:10:31 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a restatement of the motion.
Vice-Chair Micciche restated the motion to adopt Amendment
4.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 29-
LS0541\S.6, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 5. He stated that it would
revert back to an original version of the bill. He
explained that the felony theft threshold was $750, which
was defined in statute to divide between a Class C felony
theft, and a Class A misdemeanor theft. The commission
recommended increasing the felony theft threshold to $2000,
to account for inflation. He stated that the first
committee of referral, the theft threshold was increased
for multiple property crimes. The first committee of
referral reduced the threshold to $50 for the crime of
"fraudulent use of an access device." The amendment would
bring the threshold for that conduct to $2000. The first
committee of referral chose not to increase the threshold
for vehicle theft. The vehicle theft threshold remained at
$750, but the amendment would bring that threshold from
$750 to $2000 in accordance with the commission's
recommendations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried an example of the devices and a
real life example of the changes. Mr. Shilling explained
that currently, if the value of the stolen vehicle was
under $750 it would be a Class A misdemeanor. If the value
of the stolen vehicle was over $750 it would be a Class C
felony. The amendment changed $750 to $2000.
11:13:24 AM
AT EASE
11:14:27 AM
RECONVENED
11:14:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the access device was a
credit card. Mr. Shilling replied in the affirmative. He
stated that the amendment addressed credit theft and use.
He explained that in the early 2000s, the threshold for
fraudulent use of an access device was $500. There was a
bill at the time, which reduced the threshold to $50. He
stated that the amendment raised the threshold to $2000 as
recommended by the commission.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that Amendment 5 would be set
aside. She wondered if any departments had any comments.
Senator Bishop shared that there was public testimony
addressing access devices.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that some felt that raising the
threshold would make it so perpetrators of the crime were
not held accountable. Mr. Shilling agreed that some people
had expressed that concern.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the various ways the public
would be affected by the change in threshold offered in the
amendment.
11:17:48 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, explained that access device was defined by AS
11.81.900, "a card, credit card, plate, code, account
number, logarithm, identification number, including social
security number, electronic serial number, or password that
was capable of being used alone, or in conjunction with
another access device or identification document to obtain
property, services, or that can be used to initiate a
transfer of property." He stated that it was simply
referred to as "identity theft." He remarked that it was
the concept that each citizen had various accounts or
numbers that were assigned to us, and someone could
impersonate us using the funds for that purpose. The
amendment would say that the amount of damage caused
financially must be at least $2000 for it to be considered
a felony. He stressed that it was still a crime below
$2000, but the difference was merely the level of the crime
that it occurred.
Senator Dunleavy remarked that it was difficult to
calculate a person's damages. He stressed that there were
other financial factors outside of the direct impact from
the theft.
11:20:12 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the consequence to the fiscal
note in lowering the threshold from $750 to $50. She
stressed that the threshold limits were placed based on the
ability to respond. She remarked that the current threshold
was $750. The current bill suggested $50. She felt that
there would be many more cases. Mr. Skidmore replied that
the number of cases did not change, because it was a
criminal offense regardless of the theft. He stated that
the difference was the classification of the crime. He
stated that felonies often had additional due processes. A
felony required a grand jury proceeding, and a jury of 12
instead of a jury of 6 people. He stated that there were
other sentencing requirements. He stated that there was a
greater fiscal impact in making more crimes felonies, but
he could not quantify that fiscal impact.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried how the number of years that
the threshold was at $750. Mr. Skidmore replied that he
believed that the adjustment to $750 was made within the
prior two years.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if it was increased from $500
to $750. Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Shilling clarified the history of the bill. He
explained that the threshold was set for this crime at $500
in the 1970s; was reduced to $50 in the mid-2000s; raised
to $750 in 2014; and was currently raised to $2000.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that there was a dependence on
the method for valuation. He shared that his district had
recently seen an increase in property crimes in his
district. He stated that a family's business was
essentially destroyed, because the valuation of the crime
was based solely on the property. He felt that the number
was not necessarily as important as the method of
valuation. Mr. Skidmore replied that the valuation of
property offenses was controlled by AS 11.46.980, "we use
the market value of the property." He understood that there
could be other consequences, but it was not measured in
current criminal law. He stated that the legislature must
change that statute in order to address the change in the
method of valuation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there was an issue with the
valuation method.
Co-Chair MacKinnon set aside Amendment 5.
11:25:44 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 29-
LS0541\S.5, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission recommended
increasing the felony theft threshold from $250 to $2000.
The amendment would go beyond the commission's
recommendations to increase the threshold for property
crimes to $2500.
Co-Chair MacKinnon set aside Amendment 6
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 29-
LS0541\S.28, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained that the amendment increased the
threshold, which was reduced in the first committee of
referral for vehicle theft in the first degree and
fraudulent use of an access device. It also provided that
the felony theft threshold would be adjusted for inflation
every five years, to account for possible increase in the
consumer price index (CPI). He stated that the provision
was removed in the first committee of referral.
Co-Chair MacKinnon set aside Amendment 7.
11:27:38 AM
AT EASE
11:29:08 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested feedback for Amendments 5, 6,
and 7.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR explained that Amendment 7
provided the calculation for inflation. He felt that it was
better than the previous plan of a one-year calculation,
which he felt would be too costly. He stated that the plan
was a five-year calculation, and asked the commission to
notify those on a five-year basis. He remarked that it was
a new concept, and he did not know if any other entity in
the United States had integrated the concept. He reiterated
that it was a request from the commission. He expressed
reluctance to the change, because the valuation was
important, but he was not in favor of indexing the costs.
Senator Olson understood that even though other states may
not have adopted the CPI, they had conversations about the
CPI integration. He queried another method to adjust the
rates so there was a comparable entity to deal with a
valuation. Senator Coghill responded that there would be
language in the bill that would require a review and report
by the Judicial Council and the commission. He remarked
that there were many ways that accountability was changed,
so he was not comfortable indexing. He shared that there
was a report and review methodology in place, and he would
probably rely on the current methodology.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the $2000 would increase,
should the CPI was enacted. He queried the logic of the
increase from $750 to $2000. Senator Coghill replied that
there had been changes to the value of felonies in many
ways. He explained that the changes in society had
consequences to felonies for the rest of the felon's life.
He stated that restitution was difficult, and a felony had
not proven to be a good restitution methodology. He
stressed that there was an attempt to use the misdemeanors
for better restitution, and he felt that property crimes
could be better served in that area. He shared that
valuation was somewhat arbitrary. He stated that in the
1970s, the threshold was set at $500, and the inflation was
the justification for the increase to $2000. He restated
that he was "not a fan" of indexing. He felt that it was an
issue that must be continually addressed.
11:34:34 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the assumptions in the
bill was about rehabilitating individuals. He stressed that
there were some people who spent time perpetrating property
crimes against others. He queried the ultimate effect of
increasing the limit. Mr. Skidmore replied the bill was
focused on attempting to adjust the process by which crimes
were addressed in the state. The commission consisted of
stakeholders from across the criminal justice system. They
tried to examine the problems, and address the issues at a
lower cost without sacrificing public safety. The increase
in the threshold on theft crimes was based on inflation.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if access device theft
remained a first degree impersonation Class B felony. He
wondered if there was a threshold for that crime. Mr.
Skidmore replied that AS 11.46.565, which was "Criminal
Impersonation in the First Degree." He detailed the
elements of the crime. He stated that there was a
distinction between the use of an access device and the
impersonation was when there was an impact on the credit
rating.
Vice-Chair Micciche looked at the property crime issue. He
wondered if the increase in the threshold maintained a
lower level offender from being put in jail. Mr. Skidmore
replied that changing the levels of value did not impact
the habitual offender statutes. He did not believe that the
legislation eliminated the habitual offenses, but may have
adjusted the value under the habitual offenses to be
consistent.
11:42:28 AM
Senator Bishop wondered if the bail matrix would greater,
because of the repeating offense. Mr. Shilling replied in
the affirmative.
Mr. Skidmore furthered that the bill addressed the
development of a risk assessment tool. He stressed that
there was a hope that the structure would work as planned,
but noted that the tool was not yet in place.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that, with the absence of the
risk assessment tool, the judge had the ability to consider
the repeat offender. Mr. Skidmore agreed. He stated that
there were statutes that impacted bail based on repeat
offenses.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that Amendment 7 was before the
committee, which provided inflation proofing on the value.
Mr. Shilling agreed. He stated that the amendment increased
the felony theft threshold every five years in accordance
with the CPI.
Co-Chair Kelly disagreed with inflation proofing. He felt
that the committee may miss an opportunity to raise the
threshold. He recommended a division of the ideas.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the amendment was
inflation proofing only for whatever number was selected in
other amendments or current state statute.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that the amendment did both, but
the other two amendments addressed the increase.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered what the amendment addressed.
Mr. Shilling clarified that the amendment would revert to
the two increases in the first committee of referral, plus
inflation proofing. He clarified that the amendment only
inflation proofed, and then reverted to the State Affairs
Committee amendments.
11:47:04 AM
AT EASE
11:49:20 AM
RECONVENED
11:49:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that Amendments 5, 6, and 7 each
address a threshold limit.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the impact of Amendment 5. Mr.
Shilling explained that Amendment 5 would revert to the two
changes in the State Affairs Committee.
11:50:26 AM
AT EASE
11:51:42 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to Amendment 5.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bishop, Hoffman, Micciche, Olson, Kelly
OPPOSED: Dunleavy, Mackinnon
The MOTION PASSED (5/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
11:52:24 AM
AT EASE
11:52:55 AM
RECONVENED
11:53:15 AM
Mr. Shilling explained that Amendment 6 was an increase of
the felony theft threshold from $2000 to $2500.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the commission recommended
the threshold be $2000, but Amendment 6 increased it to
$2500. Mr. Shilling indicated in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to Amendment 6.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: None
OPPOSED: Dunleavy, Hoffman, Micciche, Olson, Bishop,
MacKinnon, Kelly
The MOTION to FAILED (0/7). Amendment 6 FAILED to be
adopted.
Mr. Shilling explained that Amendment 7 would take the
$2000 threshold, and link it to the CPI adjustment every
five years.
Senator Olson shared that increasing the threshold did not
lead to higher property crime rates. He stated that 23
states raised their felony theft thresholds from 2001 to
2011, and none saw a corresponding increase in property
crime.
Vice-Chair Micciche did not feel comfortable adjusting to
the CPI, until he could see the result of the threshold
increase. Mr. Shilling shared that the commission felt
there should be oversight, and tracking the outcomes of the
reform in the out years and report to the legislature with
the results.
11:56:34 AM
AT EASE
11:56:50 AM
RECONVENED
11:56:55 AM
Senator Olson remarked that the commission would publish a
report related to the amendment that included several
issues related to the numbers discussed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to Amendment 7.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hoffman, Olson, MacKinnon
OPPOSED: Micciche, Bishop, Dunleavy, Kelly
The MOTION FAILED (3/4). Amendment 7 FAILED to be adopted.
11:57:52 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8, 29-
LS0541\S.15, Martin/Gardner, 3/28/16 (copy on file):
Page 82, line 24, through page 83, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9l, line 23:
Delete "length of stay, and the number of offenders
earning a good time deduction under AS 33.20.010(d)"
Insert "and length of stay"
Page l03 ,line 8:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 147"
Page 104, line 9, following "Act;":
Insert "and"
Page lO4, linesl0-ll:
Delete "; and"
(9) AS 33.20.010(d), enacted by sec. 134 of this Act"
Page 106, line 8:
Delete "secs. 156 - 158"
Insert "secs. 155 - 157"
Page 106, line 9:
Delete "156 - 158"
Insert "155- 157"
Page 106, line26:
Delete "sec. 141"
Insert 'sec. 140"
Page 106, line 30:
Delete "sec. 146"
Insert "sec. 155"
Page 107, line 1:
Delete "sec. 160(a)"
Insert "sec. 159(a)"
Page 107, line 4:
Delete "sec. 160(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(h)"
Page 107, line 7:
Delete "sec. 160(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(b)"
Page 107, line 10:
Delete "sec. 160(c)"
Insert "sec. 159(c)"
Page 107, line 13:
Delete "sec. 160(d)"
Insert "sec. 159(d)"
Page 107, line 16:
Delete "sec. 160(e)"
Page 107, line 19:
Delete "sec. 160(f)"
Insert "sec. 159(f)"
Page 107, lines 22 -23:
Delete "142- 151, and 159"
Insert "141 - 150, and 158"
Page 107, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "134- 139"
Insert "134- 138"
Page 107, line 27:
Delete "sec. 156"
Insert "sec. 155"
Page 107, line 29:
Delete "141, 156- 158, and 160(f)"
Insert "140, 155- 157, and 159(f)"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
11:58:00 AM
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 8. He stated that the
amendment would delete the provision of the bill that
awarded a credit to a sex offender who completed sex
offender treatment. The commission recommended that, upon
completion of sex offender treatment, a sex offender should
receive one-third reduction in the sentence. He stated that
the credit was reduced from one-third to one-fifth in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. The amendment would remove the
policy completely.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that the amendment provided
zero credit for completion. Mr. Shilling agreed.
11:58:56 AM
AT EASE
12:01:45 PM
RECONVENED
12:01:51 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon was attempting to ensure that the
description of the amendment was accurate. Mr. Shilling
explained that, currently, first time Class C and Class B
felony sex offenders received "good time." The credit
recommendation by the commission was for the higher level
sex offenders. He stated that the credit applied to the
"worst sex offenders." He remarked that the removal of the
credit would only apply to the lower level sex offenders.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the committee needed
clarification about the levels of sex offenders.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that a summary of the difference
between the levels of offenses. Mr. Skidmore explained that
high level sex offenses (unclassified or Class A sex
offenses) were sexual assault in the first degree. He
stated that sexual assault in the first degree was sexual
penetration without consent; sexual abuse of a minor in the
first degree. He wanted to ensure that sexual abuse of a
minor was sexual penetration for individuals of a certain
age with someone below a certain age, and was considered
the most serious.
12:04:21 PM
AT EASE
12:06:54 PM
RECONVENED
12:07:03 PM
Mr. Skidmore explained that there were various tiers of
sexual abuse of a minor. The elements in evaluation the
criminality was the age of the offender; the age of the
victim; the difference in the age range; whether or not
there was a position of authority; and whether or not there
was sexual contact versus sexual penetration. He stated
that sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,
considered the most serious, was when the offender was over
the age of 16 and the victim was under the age of 13. He
stated that was also when the offender was over the age of
18 and was related to the victim as a parent, step-parent,
adopted parent, or legal guardian. He also stated that
there was a section which separated the age from 18 to 16
in the same household in a position of authority. He
stressed that sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree
was sexual penetration, and could be the "classic
definition of statutory rape." The lower levels of sexual
abuse of a minor were about a closer age between the
offender and the victim; or if it was contact as opposed to
penetration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was adopted.
12:09:30 PM
AT EASE
12:38:26 PM
RECONVENED
12:38:54 PM
Senator Dunleavy MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10, 29-
LS0541\S.23, Gardner, 3/30/16 (copy on file):
Page 45, line 14, following "victim':
Insert "(i)"
Page 45, following line 15:
Insert a new subsubparagraph to read:
"(ii) was 16 years of age or older, one to two years;"
Page 64, line 28, through page 65, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 33.16.089. Eligibility for administrative
parole. (a) A prisoner who has been convicted of
a class B or C felony that is not a sex offense
as defined in AS 12.63.100 or criminally
negligent homicide under AS 11.41.130, has not
been previously convicted of a felony in this or
another jurisdiction, and has been sentenced to
an active term of imprisonment of at least 181
days shall he released on administrative parole
by the board without a hearing if'
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 10. The commission
recommended that presumptive sentencing ranges for Class A,
B, and C felonies be reduced. He stated that criminally
negligent homicide was a Class B felony that caused the
death of someone. He stated that, rather than reducing the
range for that conduct, the amendment maintained the
conduct at its existing range, which was one to three
years. He stated that the amendment also removed that crime
from the administrative parole policy in the legislation.
Senator Hoffman wondered if the issue was addressed by the
commission. Mr. Shilling responded that the commission
recommended reducing the presumptive range for all Class B
felonies, including criminally negligent homicide. The
amendment was in response to meetings with the Office of
Victim's Rights.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 10 was adopted.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that Amendments 11 and 12 would
not be offered.
12:41:51 PM
AT EASE
12:43:10 PM
RECONVENED
12:43:19 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 24, 29-
LS0541\S.54, Martin/Gardner, 4/2/16 (copy on file):
Page 106, following line 26:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(o) AS 33.20.0lO(c), as amended by sec. 133 of this
Act, applies to sentences imposed before, on, or after
the effective date of sec. 133 of this Act, for
offenses committed before, on, or after the effective
date of sec. 133 of this Act, for time served on
electronic monitoring on or after the effect date of
sec. 13 3 of this Act."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained that Amendment 24 changed the
applicability of the good time on electronic monitoring. He
stated that the amendment stated that, upon passage of the
bill, those that were on electronic monitoring at that
point would begin accruing good time for good behavior.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how quickly DOC could
calculated the time. Mr. Shilling replied that the third
credit was the same type of credit in the facility. He
deferred to DOC.
12:44:31 PM
AT EASE
12:45:09 PM
RECONVENED
12:45:20 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
announced that he had reviewed the amendment, and
understood its importance. He stated that DOC was able to
follow the guidelines.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 24 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13, 29-
LS0541\S.36, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file):
Page 98, lines 11-13 Delete all material and insert:
"(A) screenings are conducted using a validated risk
tool
and
(B) monitoring of participants is appropriate to the
risk of reoffense of the participant as determined by
the screening."
Page 98, lines 20 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) screening of eligible persons to determine the
risk of the person to reoffend and the criminal risk
factors that are contributing to the risk; and
(2) monitoring of participants based on the risk to
reoffend as determined by the screening."
Page 107, lines 22 23:
Delete "142-15]"
Insert "142 - 149"
Page 107, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec. 167. Sections 150 and 151 of this Act take
effect January 1, 2017."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling stated that the commission recommended that
referrals to the ASAP program be limited to those that were
statutorily required, so that ASAP could return to its
original core-intended purpose to provide screenings and
assessments to DUI offenders. The amendment was a technical
change requested by the administration and ASAP to clarify
the level of expected supervision and screening. He stated
that the Division of Behavioral Health felt that they would
need to provide a higher level of service at a greater cost
than the vision and intent of the commission.
12:47:46 PM
TONY PIPER, ASAP PROGRAM MANAGER, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether Mr. Piper had reviewed
Amendment 13. Mr. Piper replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried a position on Amendment 13. Mr.
Piper replied that he was in support of the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 13 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14, 29-
LS0541\S.18, Martin/Gardner, 3/28/16 (copy on file):
Page 58, line 18:
Delete "probationers"
Insert "offenders on probation for a felony offense"
Page 18, line 12:
Delete "parolees"
Insert "offenders on parole for a felony offense"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 14. He stated that the
commission recommended a system of earned compliance
credits for probationers who remained in compliance with
their conditions of probation or parole. He stated that the
earned compliance credit currently in the bill applied to
both felons and misdemeanants. He shared that the
Municipality of Anchorage had revealed that the policy
should not apply to misdemeanants, because they were not
under active supervision.
12:50:08 PM
SENECA THENO, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), introduced herself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on the amendment. Ms.
Theno replied that she had not reviewed the specific
language of the amendment, but shared that she supported
Mr. Shillings' statements about the intent of the
amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if DOL had any issue with the
amendment. Mr. Skidmore replied that DOL had no issue with
the amendment. He stated that he had reviewed the
amendments, and Mr. Shillings' comments accurately
reflected the amendment's impact.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 14 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15, 29-
LS0541\S.19, Martin/Gardner, 3/28/16 (copy on file):
Page 38, lines 29-31:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) has not been convicted of
(A) an unclassified felony offense under AS 11;
(B) a sexual felony as defined by AS 12.55.185;
(C) a crime involving domestic violence as defined by
AS 18.66.990; or
(D) a misdemeanor."
Page 78, lines 25-27
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) have not been convicted of
(A) an unclassified felony offense under AS 11;
(B) a sexual felony as defined by AS 12.55.185;
(C) a crime involving domestic violence as defined by
AS 18.66.990; or
(D) a misdemeanor."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
12:51:28 PM
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 15. He stated that the
justification for the amendment was similar to Amendment
14. He stated that the commission had recommended an early
discharge policy in the following acknowledgement: the data
shows that if an individual completes one year on probation
without any violations, the individual was highly unlikely
to violate in the out years. He stressed that it was an
intuitive policy, however, because misdemeanants were not
actively supervised by DOC there was no way to verify that
they were compliant with their provisions, therefore it was
odd to extend the provision to misdemeanants. The amendment
removed misdemeanants from the early discharge policy
recommended by the commission.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if DOL had any objections to
Amendment 15. Mr. Skidmore indicated in the negative.
Mr. Skidmore announced that DOL had no objections to the
amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments. Mr. Skidmore stated
that he had no comments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 15 was adopted.
12:53:44 PM
AT EASE
12:54:24 PM
RECONVENED
12:54:29 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16, 29-
LS0541\S.10, Gardner, 3/29/16 (copy on file):
Page 37, line 24, through page 38, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"*Sec. 63. AS 12.55.090(c) is amended to read:
(c) The period of probation, together with any
extension, may not exceed
(1) 15[25] years for a felony sex offense; [OR]
(2) 10 years for an unclassified felony under AS 11;
(3) five years for a felony offense not listed in (1)
or (2) of this subsection;
(4) three years for an offense under AS 11.41.230;
(5) two years for a misdemeanor offense under AS
28.35.030 or 28.35.032, if the person has previously
been convicted of an offense under AS 28.35.030 or
28.35.032, or a similar law or ordinance of this or
another jurisdiction; or
(6) one year for an offense not listed in (1) -(5) of
this subsection
[ANY OTHER OFFENSE]
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 16. He stated that the
amendment consolidated all assaults into the same maximum
term of probation of 3 years. The amendment, most
importantly, increased the maximum term of probation that
the court could impose for felony sex offense. The bill
currently had the maximum term of probation imposed for a
felony sex offense was ten years. The amendment raised the
maximum term to 15 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the amendment was specific
to all sex offenders, or was it only the higher level of
sex offense. Mr. Shilling replied that the felony sex
offense referred to all unclassified felonies A, B, and C
felonies.
Co-Chair MacKinnon set Amendment 16 aside.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17, 29-
LS0541\S.13, Gardner, 3/30/16 (copy on file):
Page 42, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) Notwithstanding (c) of this section, a court may
not find a technical violation under this section id a
person convicted of a sex offense, as described in AS
12.63.100(e), that is reasonably related to the
person's sex offense, that endangers the public, or
that diminishes the rehabilitative goals of
probation."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 79, following line 27:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the board
may not find a technical violation under this section
if a person convicted of a sex offense, as described
in AS 12.63.100, violates a condition of parole,
including AS 33.16.150(a)(13), that is reasonably
related to the person's sex offense, that endangers
the public, or that diminishes the rehabilitative
goals of parole."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 105, line 2:
Delete "AS 12.55.110(c) - (g)"
Insert "AS 12.55.110(c) - (h)"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 17. He stated that the
commission acknowledged that probation violations had
varying degrees of severity. The commission recommended
excluding incompletion of sex offender treatment and
batters intervention programming. The amendment specified
that there were some special conditions of probation that
could be imposed on a sex offender, like preventing a sex
offender from owning a computer or requiring that a sex
offender stay a certain number of feet away from schools.
The amendment stated that those types of violations were
not technical, and the individual could be incarcerated for
the remainder of the suspended sentence.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on Amendment 17.
12:57:58 PM
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAROLE BOARD, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), replied in the negative. He wondered
if the amendment was applicable to the Parole Board or
through the Court System. He stressed that the amendment
was a policy decision.
Mr. Shilling stated that the amendment applied to the
Parole Board and the Court System.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the amendment applied to
the Parole Board. Mr. Edwards replied he had no direct
comments. He stressed that the Parole Board took the
violations seriously. He understood that the amendment
would expand the ability for the Parole Board to increase
the sanctions for the serious sex offender violations. He
reiterated that it was a policy for the committee to
consider, and the board would support the legislature's
decision.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if unlawful contact was a
technical contact. Mr. Shilling replied that unlawful
contact would be considered a new crime.
12:59:33 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that the Court System did not have any objection to the
amendment. She shared that there may be a question as to
the interpretation of the provision. She suspected that a
judge may believe that all conditions of probations were
reasonably related to that person's offense. There may be
some disagreement in the courtroom as to which violations
were technical and which were not.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was a way to clarify
that issue. She understood that the technical violations
may be perceived as a direct violation because it related
to their underlying offense. Ms. Meade pointed out that
most judgments included conditions of probations, both
general conditions of probation and special conditions of
probation. The general conditions of probation were used
for most felonies. The special conditions were related to a
specific crime. She remarked that that the provisions
specifically related to the sexual aspect of the felony
offense would be considered "special conditions."
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed that the special conditions were
the focus of the amendment.
Senator Hoffman wondered if the issue was addressed by the
commission. Mr. Shilling replied that the commission
acknowledged that there was some requirements that a sexual
offenders may have that should not be considered
"technical." He stated that there were not specific
details. He remarked that the committee made some high
level recommendations with the expectation that the
legislature would identify the details.
Senator Dunleavy asked for a repeat of the request.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the amendments addressed
special conditions for the parole. Ms. Meade replied that
the conditions of probation were often general and special.
The special conditions would relate specifically to the
fact that it was a condition of a sexual offense. She
understood that it was the committee's intent that
violation of those conditions specific to a sexual offense
should not be considered technical violations.
Mr. Gardner remarked that he was listening to the
testimony. He pointed out that the amendment covered
violations to a condition of probation, which would include
general and other special conditions. He furthered that the
amendment addressed the specific probation conditions in AS
12.55.10(e) on line 6 of the amendment. It specifically
referred to sex offenders, such as requiring periodic
polygraph examinations; address changes; internet site use;
communicating with children; possessing or using a
computer; residing within 500 of a school; etc. He stressed
that the amendment appeared to address all probation
conditions - special, general, and statutory - that a court
may impose on a sex offender. She felt that the amendment
addressed the concerns from Ms. Meade.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried a response. Ms. Meade agreed
with Mr. Gardner. She felt that the committee may not want
to cover all conditions for all sex offenders. She
understood that the intent was to "carve out" only the
conditions of probation that related to the sexual aspect
of the offense.
1:06:29 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered whether lines 6 and 7
separated the conditions. Mr. Gardner replied that, because
of the different kinds of conditions, he felt that the
language attempted to focus the court on whether or not the
conditions had a nexus to the sex offense and whether or
not they were related to the rehabilitative goals.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if that explanation satisfied
Ms. Meade's concerns. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative.
1:08:25 PM
AT EASE
1:10:37 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche WITHDREW Amendment 17.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that there would be an
amendment drafted with better clarity.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18, 29-
LS0541\S.34, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file):
Page 12, lines 3-7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) [UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PROSCRIBED UNDER AS
11.71.020(a)(2) -(6),] manufactures or delivers, [ANY
AMOUNT OF A SCHEDULE IIA or IIIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE]
or possesses [ANY AMOUNT OF A SCHEDULE IIA OR IIIA
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE] with intent to manufacture or
deliver,
(A) one more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or
substances of an aggregate weight of one gram or more
containing a schedule IA controlled substance;
(B) 25 or more tablets, ampules, or syrettes
containing a schedule IA controlled substance;
(C) one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or
substances of an aggregate weight of 2.5 grams or more
containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance; or
(D) 50 or more tablets, ampules, or syrettes
containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance;"
Page 16, lines 25-27:
Delete all material and insert:
"(11) manufactures or delivers, or possesses with the
intent to manufacture or deliver,
(A) one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or
substances of an aggregate weight of less than one
gram containing a schedule IA controlled substance;
(B) less than 25 tablets, ampules, or syrettes
containing a schedule IA controlled substance;
(C) one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or
substances of an aggregate weight of less than 2.5
grams containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance; or
(D) less than 50 tablets, ampules, or syrettes
containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Vice-Chair Micciche invited Mr. Kopp to explain the
amendment.
1:11:34 PM
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, explained
Amendment 18. He stated that the amendment addressed a
section of the bill that included the descriptive language
on drug volumes, which allowed prosecution for the total
weight of a possessed substance. The language was
increasingly important, because the law formerly
criminalized any amount of a controlled substance-even a
size that fit on the head of a pin. He stressed that there
was now a focus on volume amounts. He stated that the
amendment recognized that there was an "explosion" in
opioid deaths. He announced that there were over 5500
fentanyl fatalities. He shared that law enforcement had
expressed concern that the substance on page 12, lines 3
through 7. That portion of the bill kept schedule 1A, 2A,
and 3A drugs in the same Class B felony for trafficking a
controlled substance or possessing with intent to
manufacture or deliver. He stressed that the Class A drug,
fentanyl was approximately 50 times more heroin and 100
times more powerful than morphine. The fentanyl overdoses
were occurring at an alarming enough rate that the Center
for Disease Control was asking state post-mortem
toxicologists to look for fentanyl in their testing in
order to submit public health alerts to watch for the
substance. He stated that the amendment would separate the
Class 1A drugs from the 2A and 3A drugs. He noted that the
amendment language recognized 1A alone, and incorporated a
dosage amount, because there are many drugs that were not
conducive to total volume weight but rather were
distributed in dosage. He looked at lines 8 through 12 of
the amendment, which increased the Class B felony to 1.5
grams of a 1A substance. He stated that one gram was
approximately 100 hits of heroin, and one hit of heroin was
approximately 10 milligrams. He stressed that someone who
was selling that amount of heroin would be creating many
additional addicts. He noted that lines 11 and 12 of the
amendment established 25 or more tablets as a 1A schedule.
He stated that the 2A and 3A substances remained at 2.5
grams, or 50 or more tablets in a dosage amount to be
prosecuted as a Class B felony. He explained that the
second part of the amendment recognized the Class C felony.
He looked at page 16, lines 25 through 27, and remarked the
change.
1:16:32 PM
Senator Bishop remarked that the amendment was aimed at the
dealer. Mr. Kopp agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the amendment affected the
marijuana legislation. Mr. Kopp replied that it did not
affect the marijuana legislation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that the protections offered in
the citizen's initiative was not altered by the amendment.
Mr. Kopp agreed.
1:17:33 PM
GARY FOLGER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments related to the quantity
of the controlled substance in the amendment. Commissioner
Folger replied that he would support the amendment, if the
focus was at the dealer level. He furthered that the
schedule was originally 5 grams, and was reduced to 2.5
grams. He shared that he strongly supported the context of
the dealer delivery scope.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on Amendment 18. Ms.
Theno replied that she had worked on the amendment to
account for the variety of forms of the drugs. She
supported the amendment.
1:19:24 PM
ALAN ADAIR, DETECTIVE, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), echoed Mr. Kopp's
statements.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the amendment was intended
to contemplate the purity of the actual weight of the
substance. Mr. Kopp responded that most drugs were never
seen in a pure form.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on Amendment 18. Mr.
Skidmore replied that he had no comments on the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the amendment affected the
marijuana citizen's initiative. Mr. Skidmore replied "no."
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried closing comments on the
amendment. Mr. Shilling responded that Mr. Kopp accurately
described the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 18 was adopted.
1:21:37 PM
AT EASE
1:23:24 PM
RECONVENED
1:23:27 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19, 29-
LS0541\S.24, Martin/Gardner, 3/30/16 (copy on file):
Page 1, lines 10 11:
Delete "and other public assistance programs"
Page 93, line 15, through page 94, line 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 147"
Page 106, line 8:
Delete "secs. 156 - 158"
Insert "secs. 155 - 157"
Page l06,line 9:
Delete "156- 158"
19 Insert "155 - 157"
Page 107, line 1:
Delete "sec. 160(a)"
Insert "sec. 159(a)"
Page 107, line 4:
Delete "sec. 160(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(b)"
Page 107, line 7T-
Delete "sec. 160(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(b)"
Page 107, line 10:
Delete "sec. 160(c)"
Insert 'sec. 159(c)"
Page 107, line 13:
Delete "sec. 160(d)"
Insert "sec. 159(d)"
Page 107, line 16:
Delete "sec. 160(e)"
Insert "sec. 159(e)"
Page 107, line 19:
Delete "sec. 160(1)"
Insert "sec. 159(1)"
Page 107, lines 22 - 23:
Delete"142- 151, and 159"
Insert "142- 150, and 158"
Page 107, line 27:
Delete "sec. 156"
Insert s1e1c. 155
Page 107, Iine29:
Delete "156 - 158, and 160(t)"
Insert "155 - 157, and 159(f)"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 19. He stated that there
was a provision, which entered the bill in the first
committee of referral. It required that those convicted of
a felony drug offense undergo random quarterly drug testing
in order to receive public assistance. The amendment would
remove that provision.
Senator Dunleavy queried the fiscal impact of the
amendment. Mr. Shilling replied that the provision in the
bill received fiscal notes. He stated that the removal of
the provision would eliminate the cost and savings
reflected in the fiscal notes.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the adoption of the
amendment would reduce the fiscal note. Mr. Shilling
replied that the fiscal notes showed that the cost of the
drug testing exceeded the savings that the state would
receive in not paying out the public assistance. He stated
that removing the provision would reduce the cost.
1:25:02 PM
AT EASE
1:32:31 PM
RECONVENED
1:32:44 PM
Senator Olson explained that there were some complications
related the issue, and the financial consequences.
1:33:02 PM
DENISE LICCIOLI, STAFF, SENATOR DONNIE OLSON, explained
that the amendment would save the state money, because the
amendment that included the provision for drug testing said
that it would cost $247,100 to implement the program. She
noted that there were three other fiscal notes that stated
that amounts that totaled $80,300 that the state would save
by denying the benefits to those who failed the drug tests.
He stated that the $80,300 was mostly federal money, and
all of the $247,100 was general funds.
1:34:22 PM
SEAN O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), stated that the adoption of
the amendment would save the state approximately $180,000
per year of general funds.
Vice-Chair Micciche agreed with the approximation of
savings. He stressed that there would be additional cost
avoidance of approximately $368,000 from the federal SNAP
program.
Senator Coghill stated that the reason for the provision
was an incentive and a public safety component. He remarked
that the commission did not recommend the provision. He
stated that there were various problems with the drug
testing. He remarked that many people had to go through
various drug treatment programs before they succeed. He
shared that the incentives to treatment must be in place
for the public safety component. He stressed that there
were many people who must undergo drug testing, but he
understood that there were many issues with this provision.
He supported the State Affairs Committee action.
Senator Olson wondered if Senator Coghill agreed that there
would be a savings of $180,000. Senator Coghill agreed with
the assessment from Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS). He furthered that there would be cost end
savings.
1:38:47 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche understood the philosophy behind the
provision. He remarked that there should be a question of
whether state funds should be used to support a destructive
lifestyle. He expressed support of the amendment.
Senator Bishop stressed that nutrition was a step in the
right direction to becoming healthy.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the benefits were bartered by
those addicted to drugs. Senator Coghill replied that there
was no discussion regarding that issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION on Amendment
19.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Micciche, Olson, Bishop, Dunleavy, Hoffman
OPPOSED: MacKinnon, Kelly
The MOTION PASSED (5/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 19 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20, 29-
LS0541\S.32, Gardner, 3/31/16 (copy on file):
Page 86, line 14:
Delete "and"
Page 86, line 15, following "appropriate":
Insert "; and
(4) a partnership with one or more nonprofit
organizations to allow access to a prisoner before the
prisoner's discharge, release, or furlough to assist
the prisoner with the prisoner's application for
Medicaid, social Security benefits, public assistance
under AS 47.25, and a state identification card into
the community, promote rehabilitation, and reduce
recidivism."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 20. He stated that the
amendment was offered by Partners for Progress, which was a
nonprofit organization that provided reentry services. He
shared that there were some nonprofit organizations that
wanted to help inmates who were close to reentering into
society to apply for benefits and other assistance.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled that she had asked a question
on the topic, and it was stated that the proposal was
already possible. She shared that she had been notified
that it was an intermittent process. The current
administration was receptive to the partnership. She wanted
the committee to consider whether the proposal should be
consistent, or allow the administration to continue current
practices. She queried an outline of their recent
conversation. Mr. Shilling shared that, currently, DOC was
working with organization to complete the work. He felt
that outlining the process in statute ensured the practice
in the future.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried any concerns with the amendment.
Commissioner Williams replied that he was in support of
Amendment 20.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on the amendment. Mr.
Skidmore replied that he did not have any comment on the
amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that she wanted to address any
possible concerns.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 20 was adopted.
1:45:53 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21, 29-
LS0541\S.38, Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file):
Page 66, line 19:
Delete "AS 12.55.125(i)(1WC) - (F)'
Insert "AS 12.55J25(i)(1) and (2)"
Page 66, line 24:
Delete "AS 12.55.125(i)(1)(C) - (F)"
Insert "AS 12.55.125(i)"
Page 68, line 4, following "crime":
Insert ";
(8) to a single sentence under AS 12.55.125(i)(3) and
(4), and has not been allowed by the three-judge panel
under AS 12.55.175 to be considered for discretionary
parole release, may not be released on discretionary
parole until the prisoner has served, after a
deduction for good time earned under AS 33.20.010,
one-half of the active term of imprisonment imposed"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 21. He stated that the
amendment would accomplish two things. The commission
recommended expanding eligibility for discretionary parole
to all sex offenders, except for repeat Class A and
unclassified sex offenders. The amendment would exclude
unclassified sex offenders from the policy, so they would
not be eligible for discretionary parole. He stated that
unclassified sex offenders included sexual abuse of a minor
in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree.
He stressed that it was already existing law to exclude
those offenders from discretionary parole. He stated that
the amendment took the remaining lower level felony sex
offenders (Class B and C), and moved the point at which
they became eligible for discretionary parole. He stated
that the bill currently allowed those offenders to be
eligible for a hearing to consider discretionary parole
upon serving one-third of their sentence. The amendment
would require that offender to serve one-half of their
sentence before becoming eligible for a hearing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 21 was adopted.
1:47:48 PM
AT EASE
1:53:15 PM
RECONVENED
1:53:19 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22, 29-
LS0541\S.33, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained the amendment public defender and
DOL had been meticulous in identifying slight changes that
were necessary to make the provisions of the bill work upon
passage. The amendment was a continuance of the effort to
address the technical changes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the expected timeline of the
bill in committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there were policy decisions
contained in the amendment.
Ms. Meade explained that the changes in the amendment were
wholly technical. She did not believe that there were any
policy changes in the amendment.
1:58:26 PM
TRACY WOLLENBERG, PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, JUNEAU, looked at
page 1, line 10 of the amendment, which related to a
provision in law AS 12.30.006(b). It allowed, at a first
appearance before a judicial officer for a person who has
been charged with a felony to be detained for an additional
48 hours for the prosecuting authority to demonstrate that
release of the person would not reasonable assure safety of
the public. This technical amendment would excludes from
the ability to further detain the person. The section of
the bail statute that required release for low-risk
individuals charged with a Class C felony. She remarked
that cross-reference may need to be updated, because of the
adoption of Amendment 2. She looked at page 1, line 19,
which addressed the need to move forward with a hearing
notwithstanding the unavailability of a pre-trial services
report and risk assessment. She stressed that there was
needed direction to judges about how to set bail in the
limited instances where the pre-trial risk assessment may
not be available at the time of the bail hearing. The
courts shall impose the least restrictive condition or
conditions that would reasonably ensure the appearance of
the person and the safety of the victim, if the pre-trial
risk assessment was unavailable. She looked at page 2, line
8, which was intended to conform to changes in the bill.
The law, AS 12.55.055(a) dealt with the ability to order
community work service as condition of probation. She
stated that current law allowed judges to do so, with
regard to suspended imposition of sentence. The change
added suspended entry of judgment to the list of instances
in which a judge could order community work service,
because it was a new concept under the bill. She looked at
page 2, line 16, which also dealt with suspended entry of
judgment. It made clear that the period of probation that
could be imposed on a suspended entry of judgment could not
exceed the maximum periods of probation that were being set
for all types of offenses under AS 12.55.090(c). The reason
for the change was to ensure that periods of probation
being set for suspended entries of judgment, which were
given to people who were seen as significantly
rehabilitatable, were not potentially longer than the
periods of probation that were set generally for other
people.
2:02:09 PM
Ms. Wollenberg looked at page 2, line 22, which dealt with
the early discharge from probation. She explained that,
under the early discharge program, a probation officer was
required to recommend a person for early discharge if the
person met certain conditions. Currently, the bill stated
that it required a person who was recommended for early
discharge to have been in compliance with all conditions of
probation for at least one year. The amendment changed the
language to say that the person was not found in violation
of conditions of probation by the court for at least a
year. It should not inadvertently include someone who may
have missed an appointment, and had an administrative
sanction by the probation officer unconnected to their
rehabilitation. She looked at page 3, line 8, which was a
technical amendment to say that the probation was completed
when granted early discharge. She looked at page 4, line
12, which were errors in the bill. She addressed page 4,
line 22, which was a provision to deal with the information
sent to victims of certain offenses when they're requested
notice of a discretionary parole hearing. She stated that,
under current law, the victim was to be sent notice of the
hearing accompanied by an application for parole submitted
by the applicant. She recalled that the application process
for discretionary parole was eliminated, so there needed to
be a substitute for the application. She understood that
the Parole Board still intended to solicit the same
information, but it would be called an "inmate parole
plan." That plan would contain the same information as the
application: why the person was seeking parole; the
treatment programs and work they had participated in since
sentencing; and their release plan including any residence,
employment, and treatment programs upon release. She
stressed that substituting an inmate parole plan preserves
the information currently sent to the victim who requested
notice of a hearing, and preserved confidentiality for the
inmate. The pre-parole report in the current version of the
bill contained confidential information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was a large number of
inmates who qualified for parole, but only a few applied
for parole. She wondered if the amendment would create a
barrier to those who may be eligible for parole. Mr.
Shilling replied that there were approximately 450 inmates
that were eligible for discretionary parole, but were not
applying or receiving hearings. He stated that the
technical change did not change the process, but ensured
that the pre-parole report that was provided to the victim
did not contain confidential information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if that was an accurate
statement. Ms. Wollenberg replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether an administrative clerk or
the potential parolee who was providing the data. Ms.
Wollenberg looked at the bill, and stated that there was a
list of the contents of the pre-parole report in Section
107, page 69. She stated that DOC prepared the pre-sentence
report. The pre-sentence report could include information
from the person's family history, treatment history,
criminal history, and an evaluation from a probation
officer prior to sentencing. It could also have attachments
from prior pre-sentence reports. She stated that it could
also include juvenile history, which was statutorily
confidential. The pre-parole report also included the
prisoner's institutional conduct history; physical, mental,
and psychiatric examinations of the prisoner; and other
information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that the potential parolee was
required to create the report. Mr. Shilling replied that
the requirements to create the pre-parole report was found
under duties of the commissioner, so he felt that DOC would
be required to draft the report.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to ensure that the bill did not
create a barrier to the possibility for parole.
2:09:54 PM
Ms. Wollenberg continued to discuss the changes outlined in
the amendment. She looked at page 4, line 30. The section
currently stated that the commissioner or the
commissioner's designee shall furnish a copy of the pre-
parole reports. She stated that the bill did not make clear
to whom they should be furnished, so the amendment added
"to the prisoner." She looked at page 5, line 2, which was
similar to a previous change with regard to early discharge
on parole. It provided that a parolee's period of parole
was told from the data filing with the Parole Board of a
violation report for absconding, and the date of the
person's arrest. She noted that line 13 stated that the
time could be added to the end of the parole period.
2:11:51 PM
Mr. Skidmore shared that he had requested a few technical
amendments in the process. He looked at page 3, line 15,
and stated that under the new scheme for sentencing of
misdemeanors there was a presumptive range of 30 days for
all Class A misdemeanors. He stated that there were certain
exceptions to the 30 days, and one of the exceptions was
written to address those crimes for which there was a
mandatory minimum of 30 days. He stressed that the 30-day
provisions collided with each other, and made for an
absolute sentence of 30 days for minor offenses. He stated
that it should be considered a small technical change. He
looked at page 3, line 23, which addressed the aggravators
for the misdemeanors. He shared that it was the difference
between which aggravators had to be proved to a jury,
versus which aggravators needed to be proved to a judge. He
stated that he had reviewed the amendments, and achieved
the desire. He looked at page 3, line 31 through page 4,
lines 1 and 2. He stated that that portion addressed how to
count good time. The DOC calculation did not count months,
but rather the counts were days, so the amendment
substituted a 30-day portion for a one-month portion. He
looked at page 1, line 10, which addressed the Class C
felonies, and the suspects not being detained up to 48
hours to determine danger. He stated that he did not have
an objection to the amendment, but did not feel that it was
a technical change. He stated that it may be considered a
policy change. He also remarked that page 1, line 14
deleted material that was related to the first appearance.
He stated that it was consistent with a recommendation from
the commission, and removed the provision that allowed up
to 48 hours for an arraignment. He looked at page 2, line 7
of the amendment which dealt with a provision that
addressed DOL's ability to garnish a person's wages for
purposes of restitution. He stated that the referred
statute related to community work service, which he did not
feel belonged to the provision. He did not recall a
conversation about garnished wages.
2:17:35 PM
Ms. Meade explained that the she had discussed the
garnished wages portion of the bill, because she felt it
was potentially confusing. She stated that DOL already,
under other statutes, had the clear ability to garnish
wages to collect restitution. She felt that duplicating the
provision in another statute could be unnecessary and
potentially confusing.
Mr. Shilling furthered that the commission specifically
addressed the DOL ability to garnish funds, but it was
duplicitous.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried further comments. Mr. Gardner
did not have a comment on the amendment, and did not
disagree with the explanation of the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to ensure that the statutes were
accurate in the amendment.
2:19:32 PM
AT EASE
2:21:11 PM
RECONVENED
2:21:21 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 1, line 10, and noted a
possible cross-reference error. She wondered if the
reference should be AS 12.30.011(c1). She wondered if there
was a conceptual amendment required. Mr. Gardner replied
that it would be fixed after the adoption of the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed Legislative Legal to make the
technical and conforming changes. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 22.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 22 was adopted.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23, 29-
LS0541\S.52, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16 (copy on file):
Page 106, following line 26:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(o) AS 33.05.020(h), enacted by sec. 93 of this Act,
applies to sentences imposed before, on, or after the
effective date of sec. 93 of this Act, for conduct
occurring before, on, or after the effective date of
sec. 93 of this Act, for time served on probation on
or after the effective date of sec. 93 of this Act."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 23. He stated that the
amendment referred to the earned compliance credit
recommended by the commission. He explained that earned
compliance was a policy where an individual who was in
compliance with all the conditions of probation for parole
was incentivized with additional credit for continued
compliance. The provision changed the applicability of the
policy to apply to those individuals who were on probation
or parole at the time of passage of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if DOL had any comments on the
amendment. Mr. Skidmore stated that he had no comments on
the amendment.
Co-Chair Kelly queried the sponsor's opinion of the
amendment. Mr. Shilling replied that the sponsor was in
support of the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the position of DOC.
Commissioner Williams replied that DOC was in support of
the amendment, if the sponsor was in support of the
amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there would be a delay in
compliance with the amendment, and would that delay cause
the state any liability. Commissioner Williams responded
that he was already concerned with the current time
accounting issue with the current bill. He stated that DOC
would be put in a difficult position, but he had the good
faith that DOC would be able to move forward. He stressed
that the time accountability was an issue with many of the
aspects of the bill.
2:26:44 PM
Mr. Shilling stated that the policy did not go into effect
until July 1, 2017.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she did not want to have a
paperwork issue to slow down the enactment of the
provision.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 23 was adopted.
2:27:46 PM
AT EASE
2:28:26 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there would be a recess
until 3:30pm.
2:29:34 PM
RECESSED
4:43:42 PM
RECONVENED
4:44:29 PM
Ms. Schroeder introduced herself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested an overview of Amendment 2.
Mr. Schilling explained that the amendment was a rewrite of
the current bail provision in SB 91. It was the risk-based
release decision making framework, based on a pretrial risk
assessment. He stated that there were mostly technical
changes, but also a couple of substantive policy changes.
He announced that there were no exclusions for weapons
misconduct, and deferred to the Department of Law for more
information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that Amendment 2 was 10 pages
long. She noted that the amendment repealed and reenacted
the risk-based release. She queried any changes that the
amendment made within the bill, and how it differed from
current statute. Ms. Schroeder replied that the amendment
would restructure the current language in the bill, and was
a departure from current law. She stated that the amendment
was an attempt to codify the recommendations from Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission. The commission adopted a grid,
which outlined bail determinations based on their risk
assessments. She stated that the amendment was an attempt
to imbed the grid into statute. She stated that the current
bill's language was difficult, so there was an attempt to
restructure.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED the OBJECTION on Amendment
16.
Mr. Shilling explained Amendment 16. He stated that the
amendment raised the maximum term of probations imposed by
the courts for a felony sex offense from 10 years to 15
years. He also stated that the amendment consolidated all
assault fours into a three-year maximum term of probation
that could be imposed by the courts.
4:49:14 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT to amend
Amendment 16:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "15"
Insert "10"
Vice-Chair Micciche OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. Mr. Shilling
explained that the conceptual amendment would bring the
maximum probation terms to the previous committee's terms.
The change made the amendment accomplish one difference:
the consolidation of all assault fours into sub-fours,
which was a maximum of three years on probation.
Senator Olson queried the position of the commission. Mr.
Shilling replied that the commission recommended that the
maximum term of probation imposed by the courts for a
felony sex offense be five years.
Senator Olson surmised that the amendment was a compromise.
Mr. Shilling agreed.
Vice-Chair Micciche WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the
conceptual amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 16 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION for Amendment 16.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 16 was adopted as
amended.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25, 29-
LS0541\S.58, Martin/Gardner, 4/2/16 (copy on file):
Page 42, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) Notwithstanding (c) of this section, a court may
not find a technical violation under this section if a
person convicted of a sex offense, as described in AS
12.63.100, violates a condition of probation provided
in AS 12.55.lOO(e)."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 79, following line 27:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the board
may not find a technical violation under this section
if a person convicted of a sex offense, as described
in AS 12.63.100, violates a special condition of
parole imposed under AS 33.16.150(a)(l3) or a
condition under AS 33.16.150(b) that is reasonably
related to the person's sex offense, that endangers
the public, or that diminishes the rehabilitative
goals of parole."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 105, line 2:
Delete "AS 12.55.1 l0(c) - (g)"
Insert "AS 12.55.1 (c) - (h)"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered a CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT to amend
Amendment 25:
Page 1, delete lines 11-16
Insert
(e) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the board may
not find a technical violation under this section if a
person convicted of a sex offense, as described in AS
12.63.100, violates a special condition of parole that
is similar to a probation condition described in AS
12.55.100(e).
Senator Dunleavy OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained the conceptual amendment.
Senator Dunleavy WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Mr. Gardner shared that he had noted the conceptual
amendments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comment on the conceptual
amendments. Mr. Gardner replied that he had no comment on
the conceptual amendments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the language, as amended,
was acceptable to the Department of Law. Mr. Skidmore
replied in the affirmative.
4:54:53 PM
AT EASE
4:57:47 PM
RECONVENED
4:58:07 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was further objection to
the conceptual amendment. There being NO OBJECTION,
conceptual amendment was adopted.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 25.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 26, 29-
LS0541\S.57, Martin/Gardner, 4/2/16 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Mr. Shilling explained the amendment. He stated that it
implemented the commission's recommendation to make
"failure to appear" a violation, unless the individual had
absconded for 30 or more days. He deferred to Mr. Skidmore
for more information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the impact of Amendment 26. Mr.
Skidmore replied that he could describe how Amendment 26
would change from current law, and he furthered that he
could also address how it would change the bill. In current
law, an individual who had failed to appear for court would
be charged with a crime called, "failure to appear." He
stated that there were some affirmative defenses, which he
would not address. He explained that, if the underlying
crime for which you failed to appear was a misdemeanor,
then the failure to appear was also a misdemeanor. The same
held true for a felony crime. He stated that the amendment
for SB 91 allowed for a 30-day grace period. A person could
"fail to appear", but it would be considered a violation in
the first thirty days. After the thirty days, it would be a
misdemeanor or felony, based on the underlying crime.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried how the amendment would affect
SB 91. Mr. Skidmore explained that, in SB 91 the "failure
to appear" was considered a misdemeanor, regardless of
whether the underlying offense was a misdemeanor or a
felony.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the 30 day time clock within
the amendment. Mr. Skidmore looked at page 2, line of the
amendment, which addressed the Class C felony, "does not
make contact with court or judicial officer within 30
days." He also noted line 23 of the same page, which was
the same paragraph repeated but addressed underlying
misdemeanor offenses.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 26 was adopted.
5:03:13 PM
AT EASE
5:16:11 PM
RECONVENED
5:16:20 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that Amendment 26 replaced
Amendment 11.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission had recommended
a presumption of citations, rather than make an arrest-
unless the individual was dangerous, a flight risk, no
identification, and a number of other exceptions. He stated
that he had worked with Municipality of Anchorage to make
it easier to implement for law enforcement officers. He
stated that Amendment 27 was an attempt to make that occur,
and felt that the committee may want to hear a newer
version of the amendment at a later meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she would not offer
Amendment 27.
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed gratitude for the Legislative
Legal drafters. She requested a committee substitute on
Monday. Mr. Gardner replied that there was a plan to move
forward, which was consistent with the schedule.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
Mr. Gardner stated that he was willing to work to draft a
new Amendment 27.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the schedule.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
5:22:07 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 Amendment 2 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 3 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 4 Dunleavy.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 5 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 23 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 21 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 20 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 19 Olson.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 18 Micciche.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 16 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 14 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 13 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 10 Dunleavy.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 8 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 24 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Schedule of Drugs - Micciche.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 25 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 26 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/2/2016 10:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |