03/07/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB136 | |
| SCR2 | |
| SB128 | |
| SJR22 | |
| SB66 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SJR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2014
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donald Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to unmanned aircraft systems; and relating to
images captured by an unmanned aircraft system."
- MOVED CSSB 136(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Urging the governor to acquire land in the Tongass National
Forest from the United States government by purchase or
negotiation or by seeking amendment to the Alaska Statehood Act.
- MOVED CSSCR 2(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to the crime of harassment."
- MOVED CSSB 128(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Opposing the warrantless collection of telephone call data by
the National Security Agency.
- MOVED SJR 22 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to imitation controlled substances; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 66(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 136
SHORT TITLE: UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
01/24/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/14 (S) JUD
02/21/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/21/14 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/26/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/26/14 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/28/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/14 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SCR 2
SHORT TITLE: ACQUIRE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST LAND
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEDMAN
03/28/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/13 (S) JUD
04/05/13 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/05/13 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/13 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/14 (S) Heard & Held
02/17/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/19/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/19/14 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
BILL: SB 128
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC BULLYING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MEYER
01/22/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/14 (S) JUD
02/17/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/14 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/19/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/19/14 (S) Heard & Held
02/19/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/03/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SJR 22
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE WARRANTLESS DATA COLLECTION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
02/14/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/14 (S) JUD
03/07/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 66
SHORT TITLE: IMITATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) EGAN
02/27/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/13 (S) JUD
02/21/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/21/14 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/07/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff
Representative Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 136 on behalf of the sponsor.
CHRISTIE JAMIESON, Staff
Senator Bert Stedman, Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described the changes found in Version U of
SCR 2.
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff
Senator Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 128 on behalf of the sponsor.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Legal Services Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 66.
JANE CONWAY, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 22 on behalf of the sponsor.
ALIDA BUS, Staff
Senator Dennis Egan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 66.
TRACY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director
Appellate Division
Public Defender Agency
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the CS for SB 66 was an
improvement.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:44 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dyson, Olson, and Chair Coghill.
SB 136-UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
1:34:16 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 136. "An Act
relating to unmanned aircraft systems; and relating to images
captured by an unmanned aircraft system." He noted the proposed
committee substitute (CS).
1:34:31 PM
SENATOR OLSON moved to adopt CS for SB 136, labeled 28-LS1316\U,
as the working document. There was no objection and Version U
was adopted.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the changes between
versions A and U.
SENATOR OLSON summarized that SB 136 is the result of
recommendations by the Legislative Task Force on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems. The bill allows the University of Alaska to
establish a training program for the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems and speaks to law enforcement uses and privacy
issues. He noted that the bill works with an accompanying
resolution to extend the task force for three years. The CS
clarifies the parameters for the use of unmanned aircraft
systems by law enforcement agencies.
1:37:11 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if the CS added the language that requires
law enforcement to obtain a warrant before doing an aerial
survey.
SENATOR OLSON answered yes; the intention was to protect the
privacy of individuals.
SENATOR DYSON commented on monitoring utility bills to locate
marijuana growing operations and asked if the Department of Law
was available.
SENATOR OLSON suggested the committee hear from Ms. Blaisdell
who was working on companion legislation.
1:39:03 PM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, reported
that she also helped staff Legislative Task Force on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems that Representative Hughes and Senator Olson
co-chaired. SB 136 addresses the items that the task force
identified that could be specifically addressed in a bill. She
clarified that a separate piece of legislation that is not in
this committee extends the task force and expands the duties.
MS. BLAISDELL explained that the CS makes two significant
changes. On page 2, line 26, Sec. 18.65.902 talks about the use
of an unmanned aircraft by a law enforcement agency. The
original language said an unmanned aircraft could only be used
in a criminal investigation. That left out the positive uses for
things like search and rescue and amber alerts. The amended
language eliminates the reference to criminal investigation so
it can sweep in those search and rescue type of events by a law
enforcement agency. In that section, paragraph (1) talks about
gathering evidence in a criminal investigation under the terms
of a search warrant. Paragraph (2) in that section addresses the
use in situations that don't involve a criminal investigation.
It must be for a public purpose and must not constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The second change, found on page 3, Sec. 18.65.903, basically
says that images cannot be retained. Other areas of existing law
specifically describe to law enforcement when and for how long
images must be retained.
SENATOR DYSON indicated he didn't need to speak to the
Department of Law before the bill was reported from committee.
1:44:09 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report CS for SB 136, Version U, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection, CSSB 136(JUD)
passed out of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:44:41 PM
At Ease
SCR 2-ACQUIRE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST LAND
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SCR 2. "Urging the United States Congress to
act on the request of the governor to acquire for the state
additional land in the Tongass National Forest from the United
States government by purchase or negotiation or by seeking
amendment to the Alaska Statehood Act." This was the third
hearing and there was a new committee substitute (CS).
1:46:02 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to adopt CS for SCR 2, labeled 28-LS0676\N,
as the working document.
CHAIR COGHILL objected for purposes of an explanation.
1:46:53 PM
CHRISTIE JAMIESON, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the changes found in
Version U of SCR 2 were agreed upon with DNR. She noted that the
Alaska Forest Association and legislative research helped
prepare answers to nine questions the Senate Judiciary Committee
asked and they were provided to the committee on 2/17/14.
She described the changes found in Version N.
· Page 1, lines 1-4, urge the U.S. Congress to act on the
request of the governor to acquire for the state additional
land in the Tongass National Forest.
· Page 2, line 1, the language following the word "Act" was
amended and now reads "have not yet been conveyed".
· Page 3, lines 2-3, the language following "Southeast
Alaska," was amended and now reads "it is time for the
United States Congress to act on the governor's request to
acquire additional land in the Tongass National Forest".
· Page 3, line 8, the language following "400,000 acres" was
amended and now reads "with the intention of preserving
timber for federal long-term sales".
· Page 3, line 12, the word "select" was replaced with the
word "acquire".
· Page 3, line 13, following "forest" the words "without
being limited to using that land for recreation and
community expansion" was deleted.
· Page 3, lines 16-17, the words "governor to either" was
deleted and language was inserted that reads "United States
Congress to Act [sic] on the governor's request to".
· Page 3, line 19, the phrase "state fails to acquire" was
replaced with "United States Congress fails to convey".
· Page 3, line 26, the name "Ken Salazar" was replaced with
"Sally Jewell".
· Page 3, line 27, following "Interior;" insert "the
Honorable Tom Vilsack".
1:53:01 PM
CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection and Version N was adopted.
1:53:34 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report CS for SCR 2, Version N, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection CSSCR 2(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:54:26 PM
At Ease
SB 128-ELECTRONIC BULLYING
1:55:13 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 128. "An Act relating to the crime of
harassment." This was the third hearing and there was a new
committee substitute (CS).
1:55:51 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to adopt CS for SB 128, labeled 28-LS1001\I,
as the working document.
1:56:08 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 128, said the changes
found in the CS are designed to address the concerns brought
forward in the last two hearings. On page 2, lines 3-6, the
language in paragraph (7) now reads:
(7) repeatedly sends or publishes an electronic
communication that insults, taunts, challenges, or
intimidates a person under 18 years of age in a manner
that places the person in reasonable fear of physical
injury.
The term "repeatedly" was inserted to show the act was
deliberate and "or publishes" was added to include postings to
social media sites. This version does not talk about severe
mental or emotional injury or significant damage to the person's
property (found in previous versions A and P) because the limit
was ambiguous. It could be a pencil, a school locker, or car. It
could also overlap with a criminal mischief statute.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Carpeneti to provide the Department of
Law's perspective.
1:59:03 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Legal Services Section, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, said
this version is an improvement although it probably will be
challenged if it's used in a prosecution.
SENATOR DYSON asked if [Sec. 11.61.120] applies to minors.
MS. CARPENETI clarified that the harassment statute applies to
all victims, but the new paragraph (7) would apply specifically
to minor victims.
2:00:50 PM
SENATOR DYSON noted that he asked the sponsor about having this
also apply to people with disabilities.
MS. MORLEDGE responded that the drafting attorney issued an
opinion that the harassment, stalking, and theft statutes do not
specifically protect people with disabilities, but the
vulnerability of the victim will likely be a consideration in
sentencing. She noted that the legal memo was in the packets.
SENATOR DYSON asked the sequence of events that would lead to a
prosecution under the new [paragraph (7)].
MS. CARPENETI said she imagines it would be a call to the police
or a complaint reported in school.
SENATOR DYSON asked if a child could make a report directly.
MS. CARPENETI said they could.
SENATOR DYSON commented that he wasn't sure this was the best
approach because there could be spurious reports. He surmised
that if there was a suicide, an investigating officer would look
at electronic communications even if there hadn't been a
complaint.
MS. CARPENETI agreed.
SENATOR DYSON suspected that these cases would be difficult to
prove.
MS. CARPENETI agreed and noted that the harassment statute had
been used successfully in other circumstances since the criminal
code was adopted in the late 1970s.
CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection and Version I was adopted.
2:05:17 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report CS for SB 128, Version I, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
2:05:44 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection CSSB 128(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:05:51 PM
At Ease
SJR 22-OPPOSE WARRANTLESS DATA COLLECTION
2:07:01 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SJR 22. "Opposing the warrantless collection of
telephone call data by the National Security Agency." This was
the first hearing.
2:07:25 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SJR 22, stated that SJR 22 addresses another form of
federal overreach called warrantless data collection. This is
the National Security Agency (NSA) executing a dragnet over
telephone calls made by private citizens, which is akin to the
thought police in 1984 and an invasion of privacy. She deferred
further introduction to Ms. Conway.
2:08:40 PM
JANE CONWAY, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, introduced SJR 22 on
behalf of the sponsor, reading the following into the record:
In a day and age where private citizens, business, and
even our local and federal governments rely on digital
and telecommunication, there is something a bit
chilling in realizing that those communications may
not be secure or private.
We have all seen and heard the news stories about the
National Security Agency (NSA) and their massive data
collection program. United States District Court
Judge Richard Leon ruled that the NSA's program, bulk
collection, and querying of telephone record metadata
is likely unconstitutional and violates privacy
rights.
Judge Leon said, "I cannot imagine a more
indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this
systematic and high-tech collection and retention of
personal data on virtually every citizen for purpose
of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial
approval. Surely, such a program infringes on "that
degree of privacy" that the Founders enshrined in the
Fourth Amendment."
The NSA was founded in 1952, with a strict focus on
overseas rather than domestic surveillance. Unchecked
and unrestrained, this agency has grown into the
nation's largest intelligence agency and has broken
privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority
thousands of times each year since Congress granted
the agency broad new powers in 2008.
An internal audit, dated May 2012, counted 2,776
incidents (in just 12 months) of unauthorized
collection, storage, access to or distribution of
legally protected communications. While most of these
incidents were unintended, many involved failures of
due diligence or violations of standard operating
procedure.
The most serious incidents included a violation of a
court order and unauthorized use of data of more than
3,000 Americans and green-card holders. As well as an
incident in February 2012, that involved the unlawful
retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court
had ordered the NSA to destroy, in these files were an
undisclosed number of telephone call records. Despite
quadrupling of the NSA's oversight staff after a
series of significant violations in 2009, the rate of
infractions increased in the following years.
From the number of recorded compliance issues, there
is no reliable way to calculate how many Americans
have had their communications improperly collected,
stored, or distributed by the NSA.
The Constitution of the United States protects
individuals against the abuse of government authority
and the Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable
searches and seizure and lays out specific requirement
for warrants. The Fifth Amendment requires that
individuals may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.
These NSA activities are a violation of the
Constitution and strip Alaskans and Americans of their
liberty. SJR 22 urges the Federal Government to end
the mass telephone call data collection program and to
eliminate all stored metadata.
It urges the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
to declassify past opinions and urges future opinions
to be released to the public.
Finally, SJR 22 finds the NSA's activities a troubling
example of federal overreach and this Legislature will
in no way assist the NSA in facilitating their
unconstitutional programs.
2:12:39 PM
MS. CONWAY noted that the packets contain articles on NSA
activities over the last year, and today she sent the committee
aide the prerecorded testimony from Edward Snowden to the
European Parliament.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if she was aware of recent court cases
challenging NSA activities.
MS. CONWAY said she was aware of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Senator
Rand Paul from Kentucky and another that was filed by Microsoft,
Facebook, Yahoo, and Google.
CHAIR COGHILL described SJR 22 as a worthwhile request dealing
with the privacy of citizens of the U.S. and Alaska.
2:17:13 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SJR 22 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection, SJR 22 moved
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:17:52 PM
At Ease
SB 66-IMITATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
2:18:57 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 66. "An Act relating to imitation controlled
substances; and providing for an effective date." He noted this
was the second meeting and there was a new committee substitute
(CS).
2:19:39 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to adopt CS for SB 66, labeled LS-280427\U,
as the working document.
CHAIR COGHILL objected for purposes of an explanation.
2:20:09 PM
SENATOR EGAN stated that the CS reflects the comments that were
voiced during the initial hearing. Under the current law,
possession of oregano with intent to sell as a drug is a class C
felony, whereas the possession of marijuana with intent to sell
is class A misdemeanor. The CS reduces the penalties for first
time offenders for all violations under the imitation controlled
substance law, AS 11.73. The penalty for repeat offenders is
much stricter.
ALIDA BUS, Staff, Senator Dennis Egan, was available to answer
questions.
SENATOR DYSON disagreed that the sale of sheetrock dust as a
controlled substance should be a class C felony and suggested
that it should carry a fraud charge. He indicated he didn't
support the bill in its present form.
CHAIR COGHILL opened public testimony.
2:24:40 PM
TRACY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director, Appellate Division, Public
Defender Agency, Anchorage, Alaska, said she was happy to see
some reduction in the level of offense in response to the
concerns voiced about SB 66 at the 2/21/14 hearing. A remaining
concern is that the bill is too broad and may capture conduct it
is not intended to capture. A specific example is a person who
doesn't intend to deceive someone into thinking the substance is
a controlled substance. The memo from Legislative Legal
discusses Morrow v. State and the hypothetical situation where
someone, without any intent to deceive, gives caffeine diet
pills to someone indicating that they are as effective for
weight loss as any prescription medicine. In Morrow, the court
of appeals recognized that the statute would conceivably cover
that hypothetical. The statutory definition has changed in
recent years, but the concern remains that activity that isn't
intended to deceive would still be captured under the broad
language of the statute. That's because the statute is written
in a way that captures situations where the recipient reasonably
believes that the substance is controlled, even though the
distributor did not intend for the recipient to think that. In
part, the reason is that the definition of "representations" is
so broad and inclusive.
MS. WOLLENBERG suggested that a potential fix is to narrow the
statute by building an intent to deceive mens rea directly into
the crimes that are written under AS 11.73.010, .030, and .040.
It should include that the crime is complete only if the person
intends to deceive when they manufacture, deliver, or possess
with intent to deliver an imitation controlled substance. That
change wouldn't make the seller's motivation part of the offense
but it would make the seller's intent to deceive the recipient
an element of the offense. This would still capture the person
who sells imitation drugs to an undercover police officer
because in that instance it's clearly the person's intent to
deceive another into thinking the substance is controlled.
2:29:07 PM
SENATOR DYSON questioned how knowingly selling a phony drug
would rise to the level of a drug crime when the person clearly
has intent to defraud the other person and misadvertise. He
asked for help understanding how the mens rea on fraud should be
in the drug code.
MS. WOLLENBERG explained that to capture the concept of fraud,
it ought to be spelled out explicitly in the crime as one of the
elements that the state needs to prove. If it isn't built in,
the statute will default to the knowingly mens rea and that
might not capture the fraud aspect. Somebody could knowingly
deliver substances and have no intent for the other person to
think that those substances are controlled.
SENATOR DYSON said he would be more supportive if the phony
substance was actually dangerous.
2:32:42 PM
MS. BUS respectfully reminded that the target of the bill is to
get to drug dealers who are suspicious of a sting and are
trading phony drugs to law enforcement officers. Theoretically
these people are involved in drug dealing and they deal salt
rather than meth, for example.
SENATOR DYSON questioned how the legislation makes it clear
about evidence tampering.
MS. BUS addressed the question of intentional misrepresentation
pointing to Morrow v. State. The state said, "We believe the
statute can be interpreted by us to apply to those situations
involving an intentional misrepresentation that an imitation
controlled drug is a controlled drug." The opinion goes on to
say that the language of the ordinance is so vague that
arbitrary enforcement is likely. She deferred further
explanation to the Department of Law.
2:35:07 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Legal Services Section, Department of Law, said that Ms. Bus was
referring to the fact that, in addition to the mens rea in the
substantive chapter, there is also a culpable mental state in
the definition. In Morrow, the only appellate decision under
these statutes, the court limited the meaning of
"representation" to the "intentional misrepresentation that an
imitation drug is a controlled substance." That imports the mens
rea of a person trying to cheat or defraud someone and the
concern is that that would be another mens rea for the state to
prosecute. She offered to redraft the provision so the culpable
mental state isn't in the definition section.
SENATOR DYSON said that still misses his point, which is that
the mens rea is fraud. It is not to sell somebody drugs. It's
too large a leap to think that the seller had the culpable
mental state to sell drugs just because the customer thought
he/she was buying drugs, he said.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that the supervisor of the drug unit in
Anchorage has said that when they can prove that the seller knew
that it was an imitation drug, they charge and prosecute under
the theft statutes.
2:39:44 PM
SENATOR DYSON voiced support for charging under the theft
statute in that circumstance, and concern that it was
discretionary. He restated that he didn't want selling a phony
drug twice in ten years to be a class C felony. He maintained
that it wasn't the same classification as running a house of
prostitution or molesting kids.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized his understanding of the repeat offense
addressed in paragraph (2).
2:41:57 PM
MS. BUS clarified that the repeat offense relates to offenses of
the controlled substance law or imitation controlled substance
law. To meet the class C felony threshold, a person could have
been convicted of two misrepresentations or one actual drug
offense and one misrepresentation.
SENATOR DYSON drew an analogy with firearms and commented that
he wasn't willing to make somebody a felon for fleecing fools.
He further offered that somebody who is selling a bad product
will see their market share go down and perhaps their physical
comfort will decrease as well.
2:44:35 PM
CHAIR COGHILL summarized his understanding of Ms. Wollenberg's
concern. The public defender would like the bill to be more
specific about the intent to deceive because the court case
doesn't do that.
MS. CARPENETI said she wasn't sure of her position on the Morrow
decision and its interpretation of the term "representation."
SENATOR DYSON said he wasn't willing to impose a class C felony
on people that haven't harmed anyone. They've defrauded somebody
of money.
CHAIR COGHILL said it would be a significant event if the person
has been convicted two or more times in the last 10 years of a
crime under AS 11.71. He asked Ms. Carpeneti to add clarity.
MS. CARPENETI said that according to the Morrow interpretation
of these statutes, the person would have to intentionally
misrepresent a non-controlled substance to the buyer as a
controlled substance. She noted that marijuana related offenses
are class A misdemeanors but most drug offenses are felonies.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if a conviction under this bill would be in
any of the range of drug offenses.
MS. CARPENETI said that's correct.
MS. BUS clarified that the CS reduces the current class C felony
penalties for imitation controlled substance crimes to a class A
misdemeanor for the first offense.
SENATOR DYSON acknowledged the point.
SENATOR DYSON commented that the bill was an improvement over
current law.
2:50:31 PM
At Ease
2:52:03 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and moved to report CS for
SB 66 from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s). He asked for objections or comments.
SENATOR DYSON said he wouldn't hold the bill up but his
preference in AS 11.73.010(b) was a class B misdemeanor in
paragraph (1), a class A misdemeanor in paragraph (2), and 5
years instead of 10 in paragraph (2).
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection, CSSB 66(JUD) is
reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:54:06 PM
At ease
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and discussed the schedule
for Monday.
2:56:47 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 22 - ABA Journal.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| SJR 22 - ADN Article #2.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| SJR 22 - ADN Article.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| SJR 22 - CNN Article.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| SJR 22 - NYT Article.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| SJR 22 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 22 |
| CSSB 66 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SB66 Letter of Support - Chiefs of Police.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SCR 2 Questions and Answers Posed 021714 by Senate Judiciary.PDF |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 2 |
| CSSB 66.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
CSSB 66 |
| SB66 Answers to Committee Questions.docx |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SB 128 CS Version I Summary of Changes.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |