Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/14/1994 01:44 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE February 14, 1994 1:44 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator George Jacko Senator Suzanne Little MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Dave Donley COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 276 "An Act relating to criminal justice information; providing procedural requirements for obtaining certain criminal justice information; and providing for an effective date." SENATE BILL NO. 278 "An Act relating to sobriety checkpoints; and providing for an effective date." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 276 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION. SB 278 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION. WITNESS REGISTER Dean Guaneli, Chief Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 276. Ken Bischoff, Director Division of Administrative Services Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 276. Chip Toma Marineview Apartments Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 276. William T. Cotten, Executive Director Alaska Judicial Council 1029 W. Third Avenue, Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1917 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 276. Edward McNally, Deputy Attorney General Criminal Division Department of Law 310 K Street POSITION STATEMENT: Supports 278. Lorn Campbell, Executive Director Highway Safety Planning Agency Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 11120 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 278. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-10, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:44 p.m. SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 276 (CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION) sponsored by request of the Governor and invited DEAN GUANELI, Chief of the Criminal Division for the Department of Law to testify. MR. GUANELI gave some previous history, explaining in 1972 the voters amended the constitution by providing a Right to Privacy statute, prompted by implementation of the Alaska Justice Information System (AJIS). He explained it frightened some people that a large computer system would be used to keep track of the criminal records of Alaskan citizens. He said the fears engendered by the AJIS has never come to pass, and the system is now used all over the United States. MR. GUANELI said the promise of AJIS has not really come to pass, because it has not been fully used nor has it been completely accurate. He explained the AJIS, known as the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) primarily keeps records of convictions. He further explained these records are used for sentencing by judges, for a records check for licensing of those admitted to the Alaska Bar Association, and is used for the purpose of licensing foster parents, day care operators, teachers, and others working with children. Number 061 MR. GUANELI described the computer systems developed by other agencies such as the Department Corrections and the Department of Law. He reviewed the provisions in AS 12.62, now over 20 year old, that provide oversight for some of the systems, but the provisions are tied to federal funding, which has diminished. He claimed there was no effective use of the system in statute or regulation, and he outlined the provisions SB 276 seeks to correct. MR. GUANELI explained the legislation would create a board, the Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, made up of executive branch agencies plus a member of the supreme court to give over- sight and direction to criminal justice recommendations to the governor and the legislature. Presently, he said there was no statutory requirement to link these records to a fingerprint, which is the most accurate identifier, and this legislation would mandate fingerprints be taken by all police agencies upon arrest. In fact, he said there is presently no statutory requirement that finger- prints be taken at all. MR. GUANELI explained the legislation would allow a person to review their own records and to make an application to correct their records, if they believe they are inaccurate. Number 116 MR. GUANELI said the other major purpose of the legislation is to establish rules for the use of the records and who might use them. Presently, he explained each agency does this on their own, but MR. GUANELI thought there should be some statutory guidance as well. MR. GUANELI discussed the difficulty for agencies to get access to records of conviction in other jurisdictions is Alaska, but SB 276 would propose conviction records be generally available to ordinary citizens for any purpose. He said it would completely open the records, and he explained the Department of Safety contracted with a nationally known consulting organization, which disclosed it was a trend for many states to open up their records. MR. GUANELI explained how this would make complete records on prospective day care workers available through the legislation. MR. GUANELI reviewed the limitation as suggested in the statute, which would not allow records to be disseminated to the public more than ten years after the person's release from state supervision, thus closing the records. He concluded by describing SB 276 as a long and complex bill, and reviewed the pertinent provisions. Number 170 SENATOR JACKO questioned the use of data entry with so many rural, remote locations and a possible backlog of information. MR. GUANELI explained the court system would send records to the Department of Public Safety, where the data would be entered as soon as possible, centrally in Juneau and Anchorage. He said, at present, there was some delay and some backlog in getting the information entered into the system. SENATOR JACKO asked if more data would be entered, and SENATOR TAYLOR said there would be. MR. GUANELI said there was a provision to permit the Department of Public Safety to ask agencies to submit a larger amount of data than currently entered, and the legislation would allow the agency to adopt regulations to include that information, only to the extent of their funding. He explained the selective nature of the present data entry system, essentially conviction information and ongoing court proceedings, also tied to fingerprints to maintain accuracy. As they have the ability, he said the records will include additional information. SENATOR JACKO asked how SB 276 related to the Brady Bill. MR. GUANELI said there was no direct connection between the bill and the Brady Bill, but would guarantee information reviewed under the Brady Bill is accurate. It would provide a greater level of confidence in the review process effected by the Brady Bill, and MR. GUANELI described the role and purpose of the Brady Bill. He noted the FBI had adopted national standards for all states to try to meet, and these have been reflected in SB 276. Number 225 SENATOR JACKO suggested the legislation would allow just the collection of the information, but would not require the system be put in place. He asked what it would cost and suggested the fiscal note must not include all of the costs. MR. GUANELI explained the ASPIN system currently collects information about convictions, and the Department of Public Safety is set up to collect the information, with a computer system in place, but they are not accurately linked to fingerprints. He further explained there was no oversight of that system beyond Public Safety, which has no board to review their policies and give them consultation. The fiscal note indicates the computers are in place, but not yet connected to the fingerprinting. SENATOR JACKO said there was a whole list of new information to collect, and he thought there would be a price tag in terms of staff to do data entry, and he referred to pages 4 and 5. He asked when they would know the fiscal impact of collecting and processing the new information. MR. GUANELI referred SENATOR JACKO to page 4, line 13 which would permit the commissioner of Public Safety, by regulation and after consultation with the new advisory board, to begin to collect a larger amount of information than currently collected. He said the collecting would take place after the technology has improved and the funding has been increased. Number 263 SENATOR JACKO asked if there was any idea what the framework was going to cost. MR. GUANELI suggested that KEN BISCHOFF, Director of the Division of Administrative Services for the Department of Public Safety discuss their fiscal note. MR. BISCHOFF explained the legislation, by itself, does not require anything because the legislation, as drafted, does not take effect until the adoption of the regulations. In the Public Safety fiscal note, he said much of the information required by SB 276 is already being captured by some agency, and nation wide the information needs to be reported centrally. To answer SENATOR JACKO's question about cost, MR. BISCHOFF said, to minimize the cost, they will write electronic interfaces with the Department of Law, with Corrections, and the court systems, when they become automated. He explained this would preclude manual data entry, but only the cost of writing the program. MR. BISCHOFF reiterated the capture methods presently in use, and explained the police agencies are not being required to do anything differently. He reviewed the arrest, booking, and fingerprinting of those arrested for criminal offenses. He stressed there will be no additional finger printing, but will provide the framework to show the legislature recognizes the need for linkages between the various criminal justice agency information systems. MR. BISCHOFF outlined the process of working out the fiscal note with the advisory group and the criminal justice work group to identify those areas. He did think the agencies were doing about 75% of all that is required by the legislation now, but he said they need to implement the tracking number and get all agencies to use the person identifiers in all systems. If additional funds are needed, he explained it would be worked through regulation process as well as the normal budget process, which would be submitted for legislative review. Number 320 SENATOR JACKO asked if the legislature would ever really know until sometime in the future whether the fiscal impact would appear as an increment. MR. BISCHOFF replied SENATOR JACKO was nearly correct, but he explained it in context of the criminal justice budget of about $300 million, using the presumptive sentencing law as a reason to have the data base complete. Without the correct information the presumptive sentencing law would be nullified. He listed those persons who require a background check before employment, and the problems when there is not complete, correct information. SENATOR JACKO expressed appreciation for their accomplishments, but he was still concerned the actual costs would never be known. SENATOR LITTLE asked for some idea of the mechanisms that would be needed in rural areas, and how the fingerprinting would be linked to records. In answer to her question, MR. BISCHOFF first explained virtually all criminal cases are prosecuted by the Department of Law, and in order to get a criminal case accepted, the arresting officer needs to complete a Department of Law criminal case intake disposition form. He further explained the Department of Law modified the form to allow a unique arrest tracking number on the form which ends up on the fingerprint card in Public Safety. He then explained how all of the identifiers culminate in being accepted by the court system as a number on their judgement forms. MR. BISCHOFF maintained all of these processes needed to be in place to make fingerprint identification work properly. Number 367 SENATOR TAYLOR rephrased SENATOR LITTLE'S question by asking what happens in the remote community, and he quoted MR. BISCHOFF'S answer about the booking procedure and the assignment of a tracking number. MR. BISCHOFF answered the tracking number would already be on the form the arresting officer would fill out. SENATOR TAYLOR returned to SENATOR JACKO'S fiscal note question and said, in reference to page 5, line 14, he could see an extension into areas of privacy. He remembered objections to similar legislation several years ago by the Chiefs of Police, who were concerned at the additional paper work for their personnel, and he listed several questions from those objecting to overhead. Number 392 MR. BISCHOFF explained currently the chiefs are represented on the criminal justice working group and supported the need for this type of legislation. He further explained his department has not waited for passage of the legislation before trying to implement some of the processes, using existing procedures to the extent possible. The Department of Law criminal case intake disposition forms, which are familiar to the chiefs, is the vehicle for the implementation. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BISCHOFF if he had any additional details. MR. BISCHOFF summarized by suggesting those interested in the captured information should look at the spreadsheet in the bill packet entitled CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD REPOSITORY OVERVIEW, dated 2/24/94. He explained there were eighteen data elements listed which are already in place. On the national level, he said there were approximately 53 million records, with 500 thousand of those in Alaska, and 150 thousand currently indexed with the FBI system. MR. BISCHOFF explained Alaska should enter into compacts because Alaska has such a small share of the total criminal history record population. In the South 48, most of the crimes involve going across state lines, and he explained how Alaska would benefit by being able to access these systems. He further explained Alaska will be held to the same standards as the rest of the states in terms of indexing criminal records, and he gave some examples where it would have helped if Alaska had access to records from other states. MR. BISCHOFF quoted two thirds of arrests in Alaska are from repeat offenders, and he used this to stress the importance of good clear fingerprint cards. He explained how the identity can be known or verified from fingerprints, and gave some examples of how the process would enable police to be more efficient and effective in their jobs. He thought this would offset any increase in cost. SENATOR LITTLE asked if he was talking about an automatized fingerprint and whether it was currently used. MR. BISCHOFF said they were, and SENATOR LITTLE asked if it was a paper fingerprint, but not computerized. MR. BISCHOFF explained Alaska has an automated fingerprint identification system, which also networks with approximately eight other Western States, with a combined access of about 12 million fingerprint records. SENATOR LITTLE asked if there was a central Alaska location for the access, and MR. BISCHOFF explained there was currently two points of contact in Anchorage. Number 448 SENATOR LITTLE asked MR. BISCHOFF if the network would be expanded with the implementation of SB 276. MR. BISCHOFF explained SB 276 would not be the direct basis for expansion, but as more criminals are added to any system, the more the records in the system will grow. This would include persons who apply for employments or need a background check for any reason and would also be added to the data base. SENATOR TAYLOR expressed amazement at the speed the State of Washington dispatchers could respond to an officer who had called in a license plate number or even a vague description of a car, even from another state. He was also amazed at the amount of information that could be given on the individual driving the vehicle, including a description of the person. He hoped Alaska would have a system that good. MR. BISCHOFF assured SENATOR TAYLOR that Alaska uses the same system as the State of Washington along with the rest of the United States and Canada, and is known as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which allows message traffic from all of those states and Canada. SENATOR TAYLOR described the arrest of persons in Alaska for innocuous offenses, only to find they are wanted elsewhere, and he recalled some experiences in this respect when records were not readily available for law enforcement. MR. BISCHOFF described the innovations in technology and explained currently a low-cost pilot program was being implemented on two live scans, one of which will be placed the 6th Avenue jail, which will allow for the remote printing of fingerprint cards at Tudor Road to be sent to his PROMIS staff for verification while the person is being detained at the correction facility. MR. BISCHOFF thought the success of this program might be a future subject for a capital appropriation, to more fully implement the live-scan and remote verification from corrections booking locations across the State. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked CHIP TOMA for waiting and invited him to testify on SB 276. MR. TOMA testified in support of SB 276, and he gave some history on the guidelines for obtaining certain criminal information and the right of privacy in public safety records. Number 502 MR. TOMA explained all of the bills and previous research were generated by the lack of statutes and regulations concerning the privacy, security, access, and importantly - the release of criminal records and the need for control to prevent the misuse of those records. He thought SB 276 addressed the deficiencies in state law, which he noted are in federal law. Despite his support, MR. TOMA claimed SB 276 has been remiss in providing adequate protection, and he said the door was still open to the abuse of records, both state and federal. He asked the committee to consider some minor, but substantive, amendments to the legislation. Specifically on page 7, line 1, after the word maintained, he asked that the words or released be added, and that hat an be substituted for the before agency in the same line. He explained why he thought there should be an account of the records released, which he said would clear up the problem of the abuse of records. SENATOR TAYLOR discussed his proposed changes with MR. TOMA to give a clear understanding of the changes. Additionally, MR. TOMA referred to page 9, line 23, to suggest that after records, the following should be inserted, and maintains for or at least three years the name of the person or agency that is to receive the information, the date the information was released, the e purpose of the request, and the nature of the information; and.... .. He explained both of these additions tie the release of information to the audit procedures envisioned under page 6, line 29 of this legislation, and he said the purpose of the request was on page 9, line 27, where it addresses the purpose. SENATOR TAYLOR checked to be sure he had noted the wording, and MR. TOMA reiterated his proposed changes, which he said would tie it to the audit procedures, which are envisioned under the paragraph (3) beginning on page 6, line 29. SENATOR TAYLOR urged MR. TOMA to continue. MR. TOMA directed attention to page 3, lines 7 through 9, and asked that may be substituted for the word shall. MR. TOMA thought the he clause was too strong, should not be mandatory, and he explained his reasoning. He thought using the word shall would postpone the e regulations. MR. TOMA reiterated his support for SB 276, and SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. GUANELI to comment on the recommended amendments, which he tagged as Amendments #1, #2, and #3, beginning with the first amendment on page 7, line 1. Number 557 MR. GUANELI said he would have to consult with Public Safety on the suggestion to keep track of released information, to determine the feasibility of the suggestion, and he reviewed the present release procedures, which is usually done by phone. He considered the cost of keeping track of each time an officer in the field calls into a dispatcher, who checks the computer and releases the information to the officer. MR. GUANELI was directed to Amendment #2 on page 9, which would be to maintain the record information for three years, and to include the purpose of the request. He in turn directed the committee to the number of provisions on page 7, beginning on line 14 and going all the way to page 9, line 27, and he discussed the thirteen specific categories of people or agencies to whom information maybe released. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. GUANELI to comment separately on two different changes, the first being, the legislation as drafted would require the department to record the name of the person or agency to receive the information, and MR. TOMA asked that the record be kept by the department for three years. MR. GUANELI had no problem with that change. SENATOR TAYLOR noted that as Part A. SENATOR TAYLOR directed MR. GUANELI'S attention to Part B, which included the words dealing with the purpose of the request. Number 585 MR. GUANELI clarified the statutory authority under Sec. 12.62.170 subsection (b) paragraph (1) through (13) to conditionally approve of MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, but thought it might be inappropriate to ask the person seeking the information to state a specific purpose. He suggested it might be released under the stipulation of Sec. 12.62.170 subsection (b) paragraph (10), which addresses current offender information in prison or under supervision. He thought requiring a criminal justice agency to state with a lot of specificity ... TAPE 94-10, SIDE B Number 001 ... may be inappropriate, but suggested it could be released under Sec. 12.62.170 subsection (b) paragraph (4), which includes a broad category. SENATOR TAYLOR concluded with MR. TOMA'S Amendment #3 on page 3, line 8, which substitutes may for shall. MR. GUANELI indicated no problem with the proposed change in words, but the Department of Corrections had requested the specific word shall, and he quoted the department as being worried about the fiscal implications of regulations that might impact them. SENATOR JACKO asked about the effect indicated by MR. TOMA if shall l was left in the sentence. MR. GUANELI thought, because the advisory board was going to be composed of a number of commissioners, including the commissioners of Corrections and Public Safety, the agency concerns would be met, and whether it is may or shall probably won't make any difference. ce. He didn't have a problem either way. SENATOR TAYLOR thought it was because the commissioner was mandated to consult, but not necessarily listen. SENATOR TAYLOR invited WILLIAM COTTEN, Executive Director for the Alaska Judicial Council to comment on the bill. MR. COTTEN quoted the Alaska Judicial Council as supporting this important legislation to assist the council in working better and more efficiently, and he reviewed the letter presented by the judicial council to SENATOR TAYLOR and the Judiciary Committee, as well as the letter submitted to the governor on behalf of the Criminal Justice Working Group. He said the working group decided unanimously SB 276 was important legislation, and he was amazed the public defenders, the prosecutors, the local police chiefs, and representatives from Corrections and Public Safety all agreed on the legislation. MR COTTEN referenced his letter of 2/11/94 to quote, "The Judicial Council has an independent interest in this legislation stemming from the legislative directive to the Council last year to work with the criminal justice agencies to develop a plan to coordinate the various criminal justice computer information systems." MR. COTTEN explained the Council has hired a consultant who agreed with the remainder of the paragraph that, "Accurate and fingerprint backed criminal history is an absolute pre-requisite to coordinate systems. Information cannot be shared ... unless the systems can accurately identify offenders and tie them to their criminal history." SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. COTTEN to comment on the changes as suggested by the Judicial Council. Number 047 MR. COTTEN referenced page 3, line 30, five working days and it was as suggested by the consultant it should be shortened to one working day. He used an argument given by SENATOR TAYLOR to minimize the situation where someone is released from custody before the identification has been made. MR. COTTEN said the other change would be to include the Judicial Council on the Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, as referenced on page 1, line 6, Sec. 12.62.100. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the Judicial Council needed information to conduct studies on sentencing. MR. COTTEN explained the Judicial Council in the past several years has had some experience and perspective on the criminal justice system as a whole in trying to get the various computer parts of the system to work together, and he gave some background on his reasons. Included in these was their formation of the Computer Coordination Policy Group, which includes representatives from all the same departments, but without a public member. SENATOR TAYLOR referred to page 2, line 8, and suggested it would be new paragraph (9), and he asked MR. COTTEN, whom he would like to see represented on the Advisory Board. MR. COTTEN said there should be someone representing the Judicial Council, the executive director or a designee. SENATOR TAYLOR moved Judicial Council Amendment #1 on page 3 changing the word five to the word one. He discussed with SENATOR TOR LITTLE the use of qualifier, but it was decided none was needed. The amendment was adopted with no objections. SENATOR TAYLOR moved Judicial Council Amendment #2 on page 2, line 7, following board insert (9) the Executive Director of the Alaska ka Judicial Council or the executive director's designee. The amendment was adopted with no objections. Number 101 SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #1, on page 7, line 1, which would insert or released after maintained, and replace the the word the with an in the same sentence. He was not sure he would d support the amendment. SENATOR JACKO asked SENATOR TAYLOR why he objected to the amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR quoted MR. GUANELI who suggested the dispatchers would have to record a release of information, which might cause a recording problem. He also thought it was covered in Amendment #2. SENATOR JACKO and SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the ramifications of the amendment. SENATOR LITTLE posed a hypothetical example, and suggested with computers it would easy to record the information using some kind of code. SENATOR TAYLOR said it might be a duplication of the next section, Sec. 12.62.170, which requires keeping a record of who received the information. MR. TOMA didn't think the two sections were mutually exclusive, but explained his amendment would tighten up the information release procedures. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BISCHOFF to assist in the discussion. MR. BISCHOFF outlined the exchange as to how long and what is maintained for audit purposes and said there were two elements plus some traditions involved in the information system. He described those persons and agencies with whom the system would enter into a written agreement as to the extent of the access and the rules and regulations to follow. He pointed out the penalties for violations including the termination of the agreement. MR. BISCHOFF then discussed who should receive the information, and said if it was a criminal justice agency, all pertinent information would be logged in a computer journal. He then explained the dissemination process for such agencies as HESS and DFYS. SENATOR TAYLOR said all he discussed was presently required, and he returned the discussion as to how MR. TOMA'S recommended amendment might change or disrupt the system. MR. BISCHOFF misunderstood the question and there ensued a discussion of what was required of the question from SENATOR TAYLOR. Number 153 MR. BISCHOFF explained the amendment would add to the information dissemination, which SENATOR TAYLOR said was covered in the next section. MR. BISCHOFF said the goal, in terms of maintaining the criminal history data base, is to keep the records complete, accurate, and timely available to legitimate user. He paraphrased the intent of MR. TOMA'S amendment to keep the records for three years and indicate who, where, and why. SENATOR TAYLOR said he was correct. MR. BISCHOFF explained currently he assumed the information was for criminal justice purposes, and he further explained the data base has approximately 50 thousand queries and updates a month, making about 600 thousand transactions per year. He discussed the data entry impact and the need for a purpose code in the system, or else to provide a description line in the log. Number 202 SENATOR TAYLOR explained the proposed legislation, SB 276 in Sec. 12.62.170, would include the request made by MR. TOMA in his Amendment #1. After some discussion and no objection from the committee, SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his previous motion. SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, Part A, on page 9, line 23, after the word records, to insert the words and maintains ns for at least three years. He noted that MR. GUANELI and MR. BISCHOFF had no objections to the amendment, and there being no objections from the committee, Amendment #2, Part A carried. SENATOR TAYLOR moved MR. TOMA'S Amendment #2, Part B, on page 9, line 24, following released, but before the , the words, the purpose of the request. He said MR. GUANELI had an objection, because he couldn't figure out what the purpose might be, and he asked MR. BISCHOFF if he had any objections. MR. BISCHOFF was concerned that since it would be secondary information, it might incur some additional costs. MR. TOMA defended his amendment saying it tied into the word purpose on page ge 9. line 27, and would strengthen paragraph (4). SENATOR TAYLOR said the word purpose was still undefined, but he had no objection to the amendment. He suggested this might be used in implementing the Brady Bill. MR. GUANELI proposed instead of language about the purpose of the request, that the request be supported by statutory authority which permits release of the information. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if would be pursuant to ... and MR. GUANELI gave some suggested language. SENATOR LITTLE questioned whether it would explain any particulars about requests for the information. Number 258 MR. GUANELI gave an example of a reporter requesting information on a convict and said the language would not tell the reason for the request. SENATOR TAYLOR explained it would be more of a recording procedure. SENATOR TAYLOR rescinded his previous motion and proposed an amendment to page 9, line 25, following the ; to insert and the e statutory authority that permits such release; and. He asked MR. TOMA if he understood the amendment, and he had no objections. SENATOR TAYLOR restated the motion for SENATOR LITTLE, reading the amended paragraph (4). There were no further objections to the amendment. SENATOR JACKO questioned page 9, lines 18 through 21, requiring fingerprint identification. MR. GUANELI said there was a commentary accompanying SB 276 on sexual analysis, which would explain some of these provisions. He said fingerprint comparison is going to be the preferred method of identification, but in some cases the name and date of birth will be sufficient identification. There was a general discussion to clarify the use of fingerprints, such as for day care operators and their employees. Number 309 MR. GUANELI and MR. BISCHOFF both stressed the need for accurate records and positive identification, and MR. BISCHOFF gave an example of an inmate in Corrections with twenty four aliases for one set of fingerprints. He said, on the national level, finger- prints are the only reliable source of identification. SENATOR TAYLOR introduced MR. TOMA'S Amendment #3 on page 3, line 8 to replace shall with may. There were no objections to the amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 276 as amended (CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION) from committee with individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 278 (SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS) to the committee at the request of the Governor and asked EDWARD MCNALLY on teleconference from Anchorage to testify. Number 363 MR. MCNALLY said he would be a resource person, and he explained he had assisted the Alaska State Troopers in operating sobriety check- points in 1991. He offered to make a presentation as originally proposed by the Department of Public Safety, but he thought their representative was at the meeting to testify. SENATOR TAYLOR said LORN CAMPBELL, Executive Director for the Highway Safety Planning Agency, was present. He asked MR. MCNALLY to stand by for possible questions. He also thought the committee members were familiar with sobriety check points, but suggested they might be interested in a history of the legal decisions on the invasion of privacy, fishing expeditions, and other arguments lodged by the opponents of sobriety checkpoints. SENATOR TAYLOR expressed some concern about crafting legislation to withstand constitutional challenges. MR. CAMPBELL explained his agency as well as the Department of Public Safety supports the passage of SB 278, to authorize law enforcement officials to establish and operate sobriety check- points under a court order authorizing the checkpoint. He further explained impaired driving and crashes constitutes one of the nation's leading causes of death, passing homicides. MR. CAMPBELL said the impact of drinking and driving was especially severe among young people, ages fifteen to twenty four, where impaired driving is the leading cause of death. He declared this is a major threat to the safety and well being of the public, and should be weighed against the cost and inconvenience associated with efforts to reduce the driving deaths. MR. CAMPBELL claimed Alaska is no exception to this problem as alcohol continues to be the major contributor to traffic deaths in the State, and he quoted statistics that in 1992, driving impaired people accounted for 57.3% of all fatal crashes. Of the 108 people killed in Alaska, he said 47.2% were impaired by alcohol or alcohol combined with another drug, while three of the young people were under the influence of drugs alone. Alaska's young people are more likely than their elders to drink and drive. Number 415 MR. CAMPBELL continued to give some disturbing statistics on the youth of Alaska who had blood alcohol levels of well over .10, and he explained these were youth who could not legally purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. Despite a rising tide of public indignation and stiffer penalties that include mandatory jail time and administrative license revocation, drunk drivers continue to account for more than half of all traffic deaths in Alaska. MR. CAMPBELL explained less intrusive methods for detecting drunk drivers does not produce very good statistics on apprehending the impaired drivers. He described the use of the sobriety checkpoints throughout the United States in an effort to deter drunk driving, and he outlined the change from checking only the suspicious drivers, to stopping all drivers traveling through the checkpoint. Because there is no probable cause for the stops, MR. CAMPBELL said sobriety checkpoints have been challenged as violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and various state constitutions. In 1990 the United States Supreme Court held that a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint does not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure. MR. CAMPBELL explained SB 278 would allow a law enforcement official to establish and operate sobriety checkpoints under court order to authorize the checkpoint, and he further explained the legal procedure to establish the checkpoint, while protecting the privacy of the drivers. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. CAMPBELL for his excellent presentation and for patiently waiting to give his report to the committee. SENATOR LITTLE referred to the fiscal note from the Alaska State Trooper requiring 2.5 positions, and to the analysis anticipating that Federal Highway Funds through the Highway Safety Planning Agency will be available to offset these costs and to ask if any state funds would be needed to implement the bill. MR. CAMPBELL said she was correct and explained that since check- points are a priority area, the State would receive 410 and 402 funds to fund the checkpoint program within the State. He also explained the program could be paid through a grant to the Highway Safety Planning Agency. Number 472 SENATOR LITTLE noted she had received a call from a constituent, who had been traveling in Europe and had encountered the check- points on a regular basis. In Denmark, he was told they only have about two to five drunk driving arrests a year and consider it a national tragedy. She thought this legislation would improve the sobriety of the drivers on Alaskan highways. SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 278 (SOBRIETY CHECK- POINTS) from committee with individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned by SENATOR TAYLOR.