Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/2017 09:00 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 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2017
9:05 a.m.
9:05:15 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill; John Skidmore, Director, Criminal
Division, Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeff Edwards, Executive Director, Parole Board, Department
of Corrections.
SUMMARY
SB 54 CRIME AND SENTENCING
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 55 OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS
SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
probation; relating to the pretrial services program;
and providing for an effective date."
9:05:45 AM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, relayed that SB 54 was born
as the result of necessary corrections to SB 91. He
explained that SB 91 had been a broad and sweeping bill
that encompassed many areas of the criminal justice system.
He said that there had been both pushback and feedback from
the passage of SB 91. He stated that the Criminal Justice
Commission had been tasked to study the feedback and supply
recommendations to the legislature. He noted that the
commission had made recommendations in January 2017, which
had been included in both SB 54 and SB 55. He explained
that SB 54 would be the vehicle for policy, while SB 55
would focus on more technical issues. He described the
context of SB 54, which was that the commission had been
asked to craft recommendations based on data based, data
driven research, and across a variety of disciplines in the
criminal justice system. He said that in the process if
feedback it had been discovered that public safety and
public condemnation had not been addressed to the degree
that the public felt that it should have been. The
commission had taken public testimony, which had informed
some of the recommendations. He related that the commission
had presented the recommendations in February 2017, which
was when the bills had been drafted. He stated that SB 54
dealt with the 4 major issues of penalties for C felonies,
4th degree theft, violations of conditions of release, and
citation law.
9:10:12 AM
Senator Coghill stated that as the commission considered
the drivers, there had been political tension and
consternation. He lamented that the opioid epidemic in the
state was a heavy burden for the people of Alaska. He felt
that the epidemic was resulting in increased theft, and a
vigilante pushback from residents. He opined that the
budget crisis had made it more difficult to put more police
on the streets both at the state and local levels. he said
that there were fewer prosecutors that could take cases
expeditiously, or even at all. He noted that the Alaska
Court System had changed the bail schedule. He stressed
that the people of Alaska had lost confidence in reform due
to the previously mentioned reasons.
Senator Coghill stated that the recommendations in SB 54
would change major policy decisions that were geared toward
anecdotal testimony from police and the public. He said
that the policy changes would give police the tools to deal
with everything from the violations of conditions of
release, C felonies, and other citation law. He relayed
that the Department of Law had testified in front of the
commission about the violations of conditions of release,
4th degree theft, and C felonies. He shared that the
commission had not accepted the totality of the
recommendation for the department. He related that after
the commission released their report the department
approached the Senate Judiciary Committee with a strong
case that the penalty for C felonies should be
significantly increased, and that a better tiered system
should exist for 4th degree theft. He admitted that there
had been tension over whether to offer behavior changing
methodologies to criminals or punishment.
9:14:45 AM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, discussed the
presentation "Senate Bill 54 - An Overview," (copy on
file).
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 2, "SB 91":
· Implements an evidence-based pretrial system.
· Focuses prison space on serious and violent
offenders.
· Strengthens probation and parole supervision.
· Improves reentry programming.
· Ensures oversight and accountability.
· Reinvests in programs proven to reduce recidivism
and protect public safety.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the SB 91 under
discussion had been passed during the 29th legislative
session.
9:15:58 AM
Mr. Shilling turned to Slide 3, " SB 91 (cont.)":
Reforms expected to reduce the prison population by
13% over 10 years. Projected to save $380 million.
Reinvests $99 million over 6 years into pretrial
supervision, victims' services, violence prevention,
substance abuse treatment, and re-entry services.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the projected savings over 10
years included capital costs.
Mr. Shilling clarified that the $380 million was premised
on sending inmates out-of-state, which would be an
operating cost.
9:17:29 AM
Senator von Imhof asked whether a particular inmate
demographic was being targeted for reduction.
Mr. Shilling stated that SB 91 had focused largely on non-
violent offenders, and that there were a number of
exceptions to the policies that excluded violent and
serious offenders from being eligible for certain
provisions of the bill.
9:18:20 AM
Mr. Shilling displayed Slide 4, "AK Crime Rates
(1987 - 2016)," which showed 6 graphs detailing the crime
rates per 100,000 in Alaska from 1986 to 2015, in the
following categories:
· All Crime
· Violent Crime
· Rape
· Homicide
· Aggravated Assault
· Robbery
Mr. Shilling contended that the perception that crime had
increased in the state because of SB 91 was not supported
by data. He argued that crime began increasing in the state
in 2015, before the introduction of SB 91, but coinciding
with the rise of the opioid epidemic in the state, mixed
with the economic recession.
9:19:11 AM
Mr. Shilling spoke to Slide 5, "SB 54 Summary":
1. Violation of Conditions of Release (VCOR)
2. Sex Trafficking
3. C-Felony Sentencing
4. Sex Offender Probation
5. A-Misdemeanor Sentencing
6. B-Misdemeanor Sentencing (Theft 4)
7. No Valid Operator's License (NVOL)
8. Municipal Authority
9. Pretrial Risk Assessments
9:19:49 AM
Mr. Shilling reviewed Slide 6, "Violation of Conditions of
Release (VCOR) (Sections 1, 2, 9)":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Reclassify VCOR as an arrestable, detainable
violation, rather than a misdemeanor.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Return VCOR to a misdemeanor punishable by 0-5 days
active imprisonment.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation.
Mr. Shilling expanded that in 2015 the commission had
recommended that VCOR be downgraded to a violation, which
had been enacted through SB 91, but would be returned to a
misdemeanor under SB 54. He said that the change would
ensure that offenders were held in jail awaiting a bail
review hearing in the underlying offence.
9:21:17 AM
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 7, "Sex Trafficking
(Sections 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 18)":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
N/A
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Repeal loophole created by HB 349 and address over-
broadness of sex trafficking statutes.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation.
Mr. Shilling noted that the changes that were made to sex
trafficking laws under SB 91 had not been recommendation of
the commission but were inserted by the house in 2016. He
lamented that the insertion of the language had created a
loophole in statute whereby a sex-trafficker could avoid
prosecution. He said that SB 54 would repeal the loophole
created through in insertion of HB 348 into SB 91, while
striking the balance originally intended by SB 91.
9:23:05 AM
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 8, "C-Felony
Section 6":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Establish a presumptive range of 0-18 months suspended
imprisonment for first-time felony offenders.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Establish a presumptive range of 0-90 days active
imprisonment for first-felony offenders.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Establishes presumptive range of 0-365 days active
imprisonment for first-felony offenders.
Mr. Shilling related that the purpose for the original
recommendation had been to provide community supervision,
allow the offender to maintain ties to their community, and
to assure that the offender would be complying with the
conditions of release. He said that the commission heard
numerous reports during the interim that the provision did
not effectively express community condemnation.
9:24:36 AM
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 9, "Sex Offender Probation
Section 7":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Establish a maximum probation term length of 5 years
for felony sex offenders.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Require sex offenders serve a period of probation as
part of their sentence.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Establishes mandatory minimum probation term lengths
for felony sex offenders:
· 15 years for an unclassified felony
· 10 years for an A or B felony
· 5 years for a C felony
Mr. Shilling said that SB 54 established minimums, which
had not been reinstated by the previous legislature.
9:26:19 AM
Mr. Shilling spoke to Slide 10, "Class A Misdemeanors
Sections 8, 11, 12":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Establish 0-30 day presumptive sentencing range,
allowing 0-1 year for aggravators, including repeat
criminal history.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Add an aggravating factor for class A misdemeanors
that allows a 0-60 day sentence for defendants with
one prior similar conviction and 0-1 year for third or
subsequent convictions.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation with the addition of a 5-
year "look back" period.
Mr. Shilling elaborated that prosecutors had expressed
concern that the escalation in sentencing would occur on
the third, rather than the second conviction, which had led
to the 2017 commission recommendation.
9:27:55 AM
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 11, "Theft 4
(Section 10)":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Reduce first- and second-time theft offenses under
$250 to non-jailable misdemeanors, and 0-5 days
suspended imprisonment for third or subsequent
offenses.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Provide for 0-10 days active imprisonment for third or
subsequent offenses.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Provides for 0-5 days active imprisonment for a second
offense, and 0-10 days active imprisonment for third
or subsequent offense.
Mr. Shilling relayed that in 2015 the commission had found
that more than half of the theft 4 offenders stole items
values at around $50, mostly alcohol and toiletries, and
served an average of 23 days in prison - post conviction.
Considering research on low-level offenders, and the desire
to redirect low-level offenders to other alternatives than
prison, the commission made the 2015 recommendation. The
commission received feedback that asserted that offenders
had become emboldened by the provision in SB 91, which led
to the revised 2017 recommendation, and eventually the
Senate Judiciary CS of SB 54.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there had been discussion
regarding job loss and loss of housing for offenders who
were incarcerated.
Mr. Shilling recalled that there had been research done on
the destabilizing and mildly criminogenic effects of
detaining low-level, non-violent offenders beyond 24 hours.
he noted that the research had been specific to drug
offenses. He believed that the latest policy was intended
to express community condemnation and to provide a
deterrence effect to theft.
9:31:07 AM
Mr. Shilling spoke to Slide 12, "No Valid Operator's
License(NVOL) (Section 15)":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Reclassify driving with a suspended license (DWLS) to
a violation when the underlying suspension is not
related to DUI.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Reclassify driving without a valid license to an
infraction.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation.
9:32:13 AM
Mr. Shilling discussed Slide 13, "Municipal Authority
Section 16":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Restrict municipalities from incarcerating beyond the
penalty that can be imposed under state law.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Clarify that the restriction does not apply to non-
criminal offenses.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation.
Mr. Shilling shared that there had been some confusion in
Anchorage about the recommendation; the 2017 recommendation
clarification made clear the restriction.
9:33:06 AM
Mr. Shilling viewed Slide 14, " Pretrial Risk Assessments
Section 17":
ACJC Recommendation (2015)
Assess each defendant for risk prior to a pretrial
release decision.
ACJC Recommendation (2017)
Limit assessment requirement to only defendants in
custody after arrest.
SB 54 (Senate Judiciary CS)
Per ACJC 2017 recommendation.
9:34:06 AM
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 15, " SB 54 Summary":
1. Violation of Conditions of Release (VCOR)
2. Sex Trafficking
3. C-Felony Sentencing
4. Sex Offender Probation
5. A-Misdemeanor Sentencing
6. B-Misdemeanor Sentencing (Theft 4)
7. No Valid Operator's License (NVOL)
8. Municipal Authority
9. Pretrial Risk Assessments
Senator Olson asked whether there had been sufficient time
to observe the effects of SB 91. He suggested that making
changes before the effects of SB 91 had been fully realized
might be premature.
Senator Coghill stated that the matter was under ongoing
discussion. He said that the commission was conducting
ongoing reports. He notes that there were parts of SB 91
that had yet to be implemented. He relayed that public
confidence was driving the current desire for change to SB
91.
9:35:31 AM
Senator Olson Thought that it could be wasteful to spend
money changing legislation that was still in its infancy,
although he understood the drive for increased public
safety.
Senator Coghill stated that incarceration levels would
likely increase under SB 54, in varying ranges. He lamented
the tension between scofflaw and public confidence in the
law, and the ability to deter offenders and rehabilitate
them through programmatic change.
9:37:28 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked to review Slide 3. He wondered what
had contributed to the apparent crime surge in 1995.
Mr. Shilling replied that he had not examined the spike in
crime for that time. He detailed that the data on the slide
was broken into two reports, separated by property offences
and violent offences. He offered to provide additional
details at a later date.
Senator Dunleavy noted that there was a spike in crime
happening around 2012 or 2013 as well. He asked whether Mr.
Shilling had any information on the crime surge during that
timeframe.
Mr. Shilling responded that he did not have any thoughts to
offer but would research the matter and provide detail at a
later date.
9:39:18 AM
Senator Micciche referred to Article 1, Section 12 of the
Alaska Constitution:
Section 12. Criminal Administration
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted. Criminal administration
shall be based upon the following: the need for
protecting the public, community condemnation of
the offender, the rights of victims of crime,
restitution from the offender, and the principle
of reformation.
Senator Micciche noted that the section did not provide a
minimum dollar amount. He thought the changed that had been
made in SB 91 no longer followed constitutional
expectation. He thought that the changes proposed in SB 54
were necessary.
Senator Coghill agreed that Article 1 applied to the
conversation surrounding public confidence, which he
believed was important for public safety. He opined that a
lack of prosecutors and law enforcement had also posed a
challenge to public confidence. He said that the crux of
the problem was how to rehabilitate offenders while still
expressing public condemnation and holding people
accountable for their actions.
9:42:40 AM
Senator Micciche wondered how the law could be effectively
and clearly presented to law enforcement so that they
understood all the tools available to them for public
safety.
Senator Coghill considered that the courts, the police, and
the public were observing the committee's work and any
changes that might be made to policy. He spoke of support
for the police and the need for an intolerance for laxity
in the law. He believed in the practice of a deliberative
and democratic legislative process. He lamented that he had
battled people that had targeted SB 91, and had
misinformation, but that there were people working in order
to craft the best possible policy. He emphasized that
Alaska could not afford an increase in prisons, troopers,
or prosecutors. He hoped that a comprehensive fiscal plan
put forth by the legislature would enable the state to meet
constitutionally required responsibilities.
9:45:40 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to the third bullet point on
Slide 2
· Strengthens probation and parole supervision.
Senator von Imhof said that she had heard that parole had
changed for offenders that allowed for leniency; probation
for 1st degree murder had been lowered from 10 years to 2
years.
Mr. Shilling stated that there had been many misconceptions
about the parole changes made through SB 91. He clarified
that the point at which a convicted murderer became parole
was after serving one-third of their sentence, which was
the practice before SB 91, and remained the current
practice. He furthered that upon serving one-third of their
sentence the offender would be eligible for a discretionary
parole hearing - the parole board would have the
opportunity to grant or deny the request. He explained that
a provision of case law allowed the parole board the
ability to delay the next discretionary parole hearing by
10 years. He suggested that the Department of Law could
provide further clarification. He shared that SB 91 made
available to offenders the ability to apply for
discretionary parole 2 years following a denial.
9:47:56 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested that the Department of Law
speak to the issue of misinformation concerning parole.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, stated that he had heard the issue discussed multiple
times during town hall meetings throughout the state. He
agreed that SB 91 had not changed when a person became
eligible for discretionary parole for murder in the first
degree. He explained that the change that had occurred in
SB 91 was to specify in statute how frequently an
individual was to have a discretionary parole hearing after
their initial hearing. He said that there had been no
requirement under previous statutory law.
9:50:28 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Jeff Edwards from the
parole board could speak to Senator von Imhof's question.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAROLE BOARD, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), did not have any
contrary information to offer, and stated that the board,
before SB 91, had a rule that applicants had to wait 10
years to reapply after denial. He relayed that SB 91
limited that wait time to 2 years, in which the person
could come back before the board to make their case.
Senator von Imhof queried the rationale behind the change
form 10 years to 2 years.
Mr. Shilling stated that AS 33.16.130, subsection c,
directed that the board "may" schedule a subsequent parole
hearing at the time of denial within 2 years after the
first parole eligibility.
Senator von Imhof felt that the change made the public
uncomfortable and hoped that some background on the
conversations that led to the change could be brought back
before the committee.
9:53:00 AM
Senator Micciche asked whether Mr. Skidmore would be
available later in the day to take questions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon answered in the affirmative. She
elaborated that he would be before the committee as invited
testimony during the 1:30 pm meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited further questions on the
legislation. She noted that public hearing would be taken
on the bill at 1:30 pm. She discussed further housekeeping.
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
sentencing; relating to the period of probation;
relating to revocation, termination, suspension,
cancellation, or restoration of a driver's license;
relating to parole; relating to the duties of the
Department of Corrections and the Department of Health
and Social Services; and providing for an effective
date."
9:54:01 AM
Senator Coghill offered a sponsor statement for SB 55:
Senate Bill 55 makes technical revisions to the
criminal justice reform package passed by the
legislature in 2016, pursuant to recommendations made
by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. Technical
revisions are necessary to provide clarity and improve
implementation.
9:54:58 AM
Mr. Shilling reviewed the document "Senate Bill 55
Sectional Summary - Omnibus Crime/Corrections":
Section 1
AS 11.46.280(d) - Issuing a bad check.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
Section 2
AS 11.46.285(b) - Fraudulent use of an access device.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
Section 3
AS 11.46.730(c) - Defrauding creditors.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
Section 4
AS 11.71.050(a) - Misconduct involving controlled
substances in the fourth degree
Eliminates penalty overlap for possession of less than
an ounce of a VIA controlled substance and excludes
two forms of felony possession of a controlled
substance from the offense of misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the fourth degree, to conform
to MICS 2 and 3.
Section 5
AS 12.55.011(b) - Victim and community involvement in
sentencing.
Clarifies that the court shall only provide the form
to the victim if practicable.
Section 6
AS 12.55.015(a) - Authorized sentences; forfeiture.
Provides explicit authority to the court to suspend an
entry of judgment.
Section 7
AS 12.55.045(l) - Restitution and compensation.
Ensures that a restitution order is not discharged and
remains enforceable when a proceeding is dismissed
under a suspended entry of judgment.
9:56:57 AM
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss the Sectional Summary:
Section 8
AS 12.55.078(a) - Suspended entry of judgment.
Clarifies that the court may not impose a sentence of
imprisonment in a suspended entry of judgment.
Section 9
AS 12.55.078(d) - Suspended entry of judgment.
Clarifies when the court shall discharge and dismiss
proceedings in a suspended entry of judgment and
clarifies that a person who has successfully completed
probation and the requirements of a suspended entry of
judgment is not convicted of a crime.
Section 10
AS 12.55.078(f) - Suspended entry of judgment.
Clarifies that the crimes for which SEJ may not be
used are the crimes currently charged, not prior
convictions.
Section 11
AS 12.55.090(c) - Granting of probation
Clarifies that the maximum probation term for a felony
sex offense is 15 years, while all other unclassified
felonies have a maximum probation term of 10 years.
Section 12
AS 18.65.865(b) - Service of process; forms for
petitions and orders; fees; warnings; notification;
and pending civil or criminal actions.
Updates the maximum fine that may be imposed under
this section to conform to an increase in the maximum
fine for a class A misdemeanor.
Section 13
AS 18.66.130(d) - Specific protective orders.
Updates the maximum fine that may be imposed under
this section to conform to an increase in the maximum
fine for a class A misdemeanor.
Section 14
AS 28.15.165(e) - Administrative revocations and
disqualifications resulting from chemical sobriety
tests and refusals to submit to tests.
Clarifies that the dismissal of all charges,
regardless of prejudice, serves to meet the
requirement of this section.
Section 15
AS 44.19.645(g) - Powers and duties of the commission
Requires the Department of Corrections to report
certain data to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
regarding earned compliance credits for parolees.
Section 16
AS 47.37.040 - Duties of the department.
Authorizes the Alcohol Safety Action Program to accept
referrals from the court for minor
consuming/possession and similar offenses.
Section 17
AS 33.16.120(h) - Rights of certain victims in
connection with parole.
Resolves a drafting error that requires the Department
of Corrections to provide notifications for hearings
that will not occur.
Section 18
Uncodified law - applicability
This section contains applicability provisions.
Section 19
Uncodified law - applicability
This section contains applicability provisions
clarifying that no decisions made by the Board of
Parole prior to January 1, 2017 that extended the
period of supervision beyond the maximum release date
are to be construed as invalidated by the passage of
SB 91 (2016).
There is further clarification that the earned
compliance credit for parolees does not apply to time
served prior to January 1, 2017.
Section 20
Uncodified law - effective date
This bill takes effect immediately.
9:59:43 AM
Senator von Imhof asked about Section 5 and wondered
whether the section referred to the form being provided to
victims at the beginning of the sentencing process, or
anytime during the process.
Mr. Shilling assumed that the provision pertained to the
time the sentence was imposed.
Senator von Imhof understood that there could be
circumstances where it would be difficult to contact
victims for notification. She wondered how a victim's
constitutional right to know about changes in an offender's
status would be upheld.
Mr. Shilling agreed that a victim did have the right to be
appraised of the status of their offender. He informed the
committee the Department of Corrections did notify victims
of a change in offender custody status through the Victim
Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) automated
system. He clarified that the section in question was a new
requirement under SB 91 for the court to provide the form
if practicable. He believed that the language was meant to
accommodate for the fact that many victims did not show up
to, or be any part of, sentencing hearings. He said that it
was not the primary function of the court system to keep
contact information for victims, which made providing the
form a challenge.
10:03:42 AM
Senator Micciche referred to Section 4, and relayed that
there had been complaints in his community of the increase
in drug related crime, which he understood had begun long
before the passage of SB 91. He noted that SB 91 was
designed to rely on treatment and reinvestment but wondered
how a person possessing a controlled substance could stand
before a judge and be offered treatment, without first
being arrested.
Mr. Shilling explained that SB 91 did not prevent a person
from being charged or convicted for misdemeanor drug
possession. He furthered active imprisonment was not
necessary for the court to impose a requirement that
someone go to treatment. He added that there were
mechanisms in place that allowed the court to require that
someone get treatment and have consequences if they did
not. He said that research had shown that enhancing
criminal penalties was not an effective way of addressing
drug epidemics.
10:05:39 AM
Senator Micciche clarified his statement as being about a
plan of action for dealing with the drug epidemic in the
state. He stated that people being caught with small
quantities of drugs should be offered treatment because it
was only a matter of time before they turned to crime to
support their addiction.
10:06:49 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited further questions.
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal notes for SB 55.
There was a new fiscal note from the Judiciary (OMB
component 768), which was a zero-fiscal note. He reviewed
additional zero fiscal notes: FN1 from the Department of
Public Safety, FN 2 from the Department of Corrections, FN
3 from the Department of Administration, FN 4 from the
Department of Health and Social Services, FN 5 from the
Department of Administration, FN 6 from the Department of
Administration, and FN 7 from the Department of Law.
SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:09:38 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 55 - Sectional Summary (ver. N).pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 55 |
| SB 54 Senate Bill 54 Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |