Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205

04/03/2008 08:00 AM JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 1:30 pm --
Moved SCS CSHB 65(JUD) Out of Committee
Moved SCS CSHB 307(JUD) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
Moved SCS CSHB 88(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
              SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 3, 2008                                                                                          
                           8:08 a.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Senator Hollis French, Chair                                                                                                    
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair                                                                                             
Senator Lesil McGuire                                                                                                           
Senator Bill Wielechowski                                                                                                       
Senator Gene Therriault                                                                                                         
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 65(FIN)                                                                                                   
"An  Act  relating to  breaches  of  security involving  personal                                                               
information,  credit report  and credit  score security  freezes,                                                               
protection of social security numbers,  care of records, disposal                                                               
of records,  identity theft, credit  cards, and debit  cards, and                                                               
to  the jurisdiction  of the  office of  administrative hearings;                                                               
amending Rules  60 and 82,  Alaska Rules of Civil  Procedure; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
     MOVED SCS CSHB 65(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 307(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An  Act  relating  to penalizing  certain  misdemeanor  domestic                                                               
violence assaults as felonies."                                                                                                 
     MOVED SCS CSHB 307(JUD)                                                                                                    
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 88(FIN)                                                                                                   
"An Act  relating to  televisions, monitors,  portable computers,                                                               
and  similar   devices  in  motor   vehicles;  relating   to  the                                                               
definition  of physical  injury  for the  Alaska Uniform  Vehicle                                                               
Code; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                     
     MOVED SCS CSHB 88(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 359(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An Act relating  to the term of probation  for persons convicted                                                               
of  minor consuming  or in  possession or  control of  alcohol or                                                               
repeat minor  consuming or in  possession or control  of alcohol;                                                               
and  relating to  termination of  probation  for certain  persons                                                               
convicted  of minor  consuming  or in  possession  or control  of                                                               
alcohol or repeat minor consuming or in possession or control of                                                                
     HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                             
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
BILL: HB  65                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL, GARA                                                                                     
01/16/07       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07                                                                                
01/16/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/07       (H)       L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
01/31/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
01/31/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/28/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
03/28/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/28/07       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/04/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/04/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
04/16/07       (H)       L&C AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17                                                                             
04/16/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
04/20/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/20/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/20/07       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/23/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/23/07       (H)       Moved CSHB  65(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/23/07       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/24/07       (H)       L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 3NR 1AM                                                                            
04/24/07       (H)       DP: GATTO, NEUMAN                                                                                      
04/24/07       (H)       NR: BUCH, LEDOUX, OLSON                                                                                
04/24/07       (H)       AM: GARDNER                                                                                            
05/02/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
05/02/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
05/02/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
05/05/07       (H)       JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
05/05/07       (H)       Moved CSHB  65(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
05/05/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
05/07/07       (H)       JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 2AM                                                                             
05/07/07       (H)       DP: HOLMES, LYNN, COGHILL, RAMRAS                                                                      
05/07/07       (H)       AM: DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS                                                                                 
01/23/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
01/23/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/23/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
02/13/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
02/13/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/13/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
02/18/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
02/18/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/18/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
02/19/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
02/19/08       (H)       Moved CSHB  65(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/19/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
02/21/08       (H)       FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 5NR                                                                             
02/21/08       (H)       DP: HAWKER, CRAWFORD, GARA, NELSON                                                                     
02/21/08       (H)       NR: KELLY, THOMAS, STOLTZE, MEYER,                                                                     
02/27/08       (H)       TRANSMITTED TO (S)                                                                                     
02/27/08       (H)       VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN)                                                                                  
02/29/08       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/29/08       (S)       L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
03/04/08       (S)       L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/04/08       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/04/08       (S)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/13/08       (S)       L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/13/08       (S)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/15/08       (S)       L&C AT 4:00 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/15/08       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/15/08       (S)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/18/08       (S)       L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/18/08       (S)       Moved CSHB  65(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/18/08       (S)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/19/08       (S)       L&C RPT SCS  4DP    SAME TITLE                                                                         
03/19/08       (S)       DP: ELLIS, BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS                                                                       
03/29/08       (S)       JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/29/08       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/29/08       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/31/08       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/31/08       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/31/08       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/03/08       (S)       JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
BILL: HB 307                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES                                                                                         
SPONSOR(s):    REPRESENTATIVE(s)    HOLMES,   GARA,    DAHLSTROM,                                                               
FAIRCLOUGH, JOHNSON, BUCH, HARRIS, DOLL                                                                                         
01/11/08       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08                                                                               
01/15/08       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/15/08       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/08/08       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/08/08       (H)       Moved Out of Committee                                                                                 
02/08/08       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/11/08       (H)       JUD RPT 5DP 1AM                                                                                        
02/11/08       (H)       DP: DOOGAN, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS, HOLMES,                                                                
02/11/08       (H)       AM: COGHILL                                                                                            
02/20/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
02/20/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/20/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
02/28/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
02/28/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/28/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/14/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
03/14/08       (H)       Moved CSHB 307(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/14/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/18/08       (H)       FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 5NR 1AM                                                                         
03/18/08       (H)       DP: GARA, NELSON                                                                                       
03/18/08       (H)       NR: CRAWFORD, JOULE, THOMAS, STOLTZE,                                                                  
03/18/08       (H)       AM: HAWKER                                                                                             
03/26/08       (H)       TRANSMITTED TO (S)                                                                                     
03/26/08       (H)       VERSION: CSHB 307(FIN)                                                                                 
03/27/08       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/27/08       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/02/08       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
04/02/08       (S)       PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING                                                                          
04/03/08       (S)       JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
BILL: HB  88                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO, GRUENBERG                                                                                  
01/16/07       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07                                                                               
01/16/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/07       (H)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
01/29/07       (H)       BILL REPRINTED 1/29/07                                                                                 
02/08/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/08/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
02/13/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/13/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/13/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/15/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/15/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/15/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/20/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/20/07       (H)       Moved CSHB  88(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/20/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/21/07       (H)       STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP 1NR                                                                             
02/21/07       (H)       DP:     JOHNSON,    JOHANSEN,     ROSES,                                                               
                         GRUENBERG, DOLL, LYNN                                                                                  
02/21/07       (H)       NR: COGHILL                                                                                            
02/28/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/28/07       (H)       Moved CSHB  88(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/28/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/01/07       (H)       JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 4NR                                                                             
03/01/07       (H)       DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN                                                                                    
03/01/07       (H)       NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS, RAMRAS                                                                
04/18/07       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
04/18/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/20/07>                                                                    
04/20/07       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
04/20/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
04/23/07       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
04/23/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                               
04/25/07       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
04/25/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/25/07       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
05/04/07       (H)       FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
05/04/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
05/05/07       (H)       FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 5NR                                                                             
05/05/07       (H)       DP: GARA, NELSON, FOSTER, CRAWFORD                                                                     
05/05/07       (H)       NR: KELLY, JOULE, HAWKER, STOLTZE,                                                                     
05/05/07       (H)       FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
05/05/07       (H)       Moved CSHB  88(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                   
05/05/07       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
05/12/07       (H)       TRANSMITTED TO (S)                                                                                     
05/12/07       (H)       VERSION: CSHB 88(FIN)                                                                                  
05/12/07       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
05/12/07       (S)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/13/08       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/13/08       (S)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/19/08       (S)       STA RPT  3NR 1AM                                                                                       
03/19/08       (S)       NR: MCGUIRE, STEVENS, GREEN                                                                            
03/19/08       (S)       AM: FRENCH                                                                                             
03/19/08       (S)       STA AT 9:30 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/19/08       (S)       -- Continued from 03/18/08 --                                                                          
03/31/08       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/31/08       (S)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
04/03/08       (S)       JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
BILL: HB 359                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING                                                                                      
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY                                                                                                           
02/08/08       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/08/08       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/20/08       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/20/08       (H)       Moved CSHB 359(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/20/08       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/21/08       (H)       JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 3NR                                                                             
02/21/08       (H)       DP: GRUENBERG, RAMRAS                                                                                  
02/21/08       (H)       NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS                                                                        
03/04/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
03/04/08       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/05/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
03/05/08       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/05/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/13/08       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
03/13/08       (H)       Moved CSHB 359(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/13/08       (H)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/17/08       (H)       FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 6DP 2NR                                                                             
03/17/08       (H)       DP: HAWKER, GARA, CRAWFORD, THOMAS,                                                                    
                        MEYER, CHENAULT                                                                                         
03/17/08       (H)       NR: KELLY, HARRIS                                                                                      
03/26/08       (H)       TRANSMITTED TO (S)                                                                                     
03/26/08       (H)       VERSION: CSHB 359(FIN)                                                                                 
03/27/08       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/27/08       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/02/08       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
04/02/08       (S)       Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled                                                                       
04/03/08       (S)       JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211                                                                               
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL                                                                                                     
Alaska State Capitol                                                                                                            
Juneau, AK                                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 65.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES                                                                                                   
Alaska State Capitol                                                                                                            
Juneau, AK                                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 307.                                                                                        
RICK SVOBODNY Deputy Attorney General                                                                                           
Civil Division                                                                                                                  
Department of Law                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke in opposition to HB 307.                                                                           
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, AK                                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Highlighted problems associated with HB 307                                                              
and provided information on HB 359.                                                                                             
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                             
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Juneau, AK                                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided fiscal  information related  to HB                                                             
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney                                                                                       
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Juneau, AK                                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided information related to  HB 307 and                                                             
HB 359.                                                                                                                         
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant                                                                                                         
Alaska State Troopers                                                                                                           
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Ketchikan, AK                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:   Voiced concern with HB 307  and support for                                                             
HB 88.                                                                                                                          
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
CHAIR  HOLLIS   FRENCH  called  the  Senate   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting to order at 8:08:29  AM. Present at the call to                                                             
order  were Senators  French, Huggins,  Therriault, Wielechowski,                                                               
and McGuire.                                                                                                                    
         HB  65-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT                                                                      
CHAIR FRENCH announced  the consideration of HB 65  and asked for                                                               
a motion to adopt Version \W.                                                                                                   
8:09:06 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGGINS  moved to adopt  the Senate  committee substitute                                                               
(CS)  for  CSHB  65,  25-LS0311\W,   Bannister,  as  the  working                                                               
CHAIR  FRENCH  announced that  without  objection  Version \W  is                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for a brief explanation of the changes.                                                                
CHAIR  FRENCH  relayed  that Version  \W  incorporates  only  the                                                               
changes  the committee  made during  the previous  hearing. There                                                               
are four proposed amendments.                                                                                                   
8:10:07 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR McGUIRE joined the meeting.                                                                                             
CHAIR  FRENCH  asked for  a  motion  to  adopt Amendment  1,  25-                                                               
LS0311\T.9, Bannister.                                                                                                          
SENATOR McGUIRE moved Amendment 1.                                                                                              
                      A M E N D M E N T 1                                                                                   
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
          TO:  SCS CSHB 65(L&C)                                                                                                 
     Page 5, line 30, following "computer":                                                                                     
          Insert "or a radio frequency identification                                                                           
     Page 5, line 31, following "form;":                                                                                        
          Insert "in this subparagraph, "radio frequency                                                                        
     identification device" means an electronic tagging and                                                                     
    tracking    technology   that    wirelessly   transmits                                                                     
     identifying information to a remote reader;"                                                                               
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
SENATOR  McGUIRE explained  that  radio frequency  identification                                                               
devices (RFID)  transmit and store personal  information. She has                                                               
conferred with the sponsor and  this clarifies in the definitions                                                               
that RFID would  be covered. This is a rather  new technology and                                                               
as  with other  technology,  there is  potential  for abuse.  She                                                               
noted  that this  committee passed  her  more comprehensive  RFID                                                               
bill, but she  has decided to hold  that bill for now  due to the                                                               
considerable,  and she  feels unjustified,  concern about  how it                                                               
might impact  legitimate commerce.  She explained that  the kinds                                                               
of RFID  chips used to  move commerce and  be part of  the supply                                                               
chain  weren't meant  to be  impacted. She  doesn't believe  that                                                               
they were, and she'll work to  clarify that over the Interim. She                                                               
is  interested   in  protecting  information   containing  social                                                               
security   numbers,  names,   and  other   personal  information.                                                               
Amendment 1  defines RFID in  a way  that is consistent  with the                                                               
rubric of the bill.                                                                                                             
8:12:54 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor his view of Amendment 1.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHN  COGHILL,  sponsor  of HB  65,  agreed  with                                                               
Senator McGuire;  the amendment  clarifies, under  the definition                                                               
and  breach  of security  sections,  that  RFID is  included.  It                                                               
alerts  industry   that  when  they  begin   to  handle  personal                                                               
information, it will be safeguarded under the RFID issue.                                                                       
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  asked  if this  disallows  acquisition  of                                                               
personal information on RFID chips.                                                                                             
SENATOR McGUIRE  explained that the  amendment clarifies  that if                                                               
there is  a breach  of security on  consumer data,  the penalties                                                               
and disclosure would be the same as under this bill.                                                                            
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  posed the  hypothetical example  of someone                                                               
using a Fred Meyers card that has  an RFID chip, and asked if the                                                               
inappropriate release of that data  is what would fall under this                                                               
SENATOR McGUIRE replied that's correct.                                                                                         
CHAIR  FRENCH  withdrew  his objection  and  finding  no  further                                                               
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.                                                                               
CHAIR  FRENCH moved  Amendment 2,  25-LS0311\W.1, Bannister,  and                                                               
explained that it  follows up on the discussion about  what to do                                                               
when  an  information collector  decides  to  not disclose.  This                                                               
essentially says  that before someone  makes that  decision, they                                                               
must make an  investigation and send written  notification to Mr.                                                               
Sniffen  or  his  successor  [Commercial/Fair  Business  Section,                                                               
Department of Law].                                                                                                             
                      A M E N D M E N T 2                                                                                   
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                    BY SENATOR FRENCH                                                                 
          TO:  SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"                                                                              
     Page 2, lines 19 - 20:                                                                                                     
          Delete "consultation with relevant federal,                                                                           
          state, or local agencies responsible for law                                                                          
          Insert "written notification to the attorney                                                                          
     general of this state"                                                                                                     
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  asked if this would  significantly increase                                                               
the fiscal note.                                                                                                                
CHAIR FRENCH  replied he doesn't  know but  his sense is  that it                                                               
would reduce  the fiscal note  because all costs fall  on someone                                                               
outside  government.  He  understands  the  point  that  all  the                                                               
information  will  be  funneled  to a  state  employee,  but  Mr.                                                               
Sniffen indicated that  the burden would be light.  The bill next                                                               
goes before the finance committee.                                                                                              
8:16:50 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR THERRIAULT  said he supports the  amendment and reporting                                                               
to a  central location. "I  think this is  a very good  move," he                                                               
CHAIR  FRENCH announced  that without  objection, Amendment  2 is                                                               
CHAIR  FRENCH moved  Amendment  3,  25-LS0311\W.2, Banister,  and                                                               
objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                               
                      A M E N D M E N T 3                                                                                   
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
          TO:  SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"                                                                              
     Page 18, line 4, following "person":                                                                                       
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
     Page 18, line 7, following "person":                                                                                       
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
     Page 18, line 21, following "person":                                                                                      
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
     Page 18, line 24, following "person":                                                                                      
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
     Page 19, line 20, following "person":                                                                                      
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
     Page 19, line 24, following "person":                                                                                      
          Insert "subject to"                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  explained that  this deals  with industry                                                               
issues related  to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley  Act (GLBA) and  how to                                                               
craft  a means  for legitimate  business to  operate. This  talks                                                               
about a person  subject to GLBA in Sections .410,  .420, and .430                                                               
with regard  to those  who can  legitimately use  social security                                                               
numbers. The  idea is  to make  it so  that business  can operate                                                               
freely,  but  when  there  is  a  breach  there  are  significant                                                               
requirements. The  concern centered  on being  able to  deal with                                                               
people who  are subject  to GLBA. He  thought that  was answered,                                                               
but this makes it more explicit.                                                                                                
8:18:51 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  asked if his intention  is for each clause  to say,                                                               
"to a person subject to or  a transaction regulated by the Gramm-                                                               
Leach-Bliley   Financial   Modernization   Act  for   a   purpose                                                               
authorized  by  the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley  Financial  Modernization                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that's correct.                                                                                     
SENATOR THERRIAULT observed that  it ties everything very closely                                                               
to GLBA.                                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  agreed. The aim  is to allow  commerce to                                                               
operate freely,  but when  someone is  operating outside  the law                                                               
there are clear rules of accountability.                                                                                        
8:20:16 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whose problem this take care of.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  replied   this  addresses  the  concerns                                                               
ChoicePoint and LexisNexis articulated  in the last hearing. They                                                               
pointed  out that  although  they are  regulated  by GLBA,  their                                                               
customers may  not be. He tends  to agree and this  provides them                                                               
room to operate.                                                                                                                
CHAIR FRENCH relayed  that what GLBA says  about obligations with                                                               
respect to personal information is  that the subsection shall not                                                               
prevent a  financial institution,  which is what  ChoicePoint and                                                               
LexisNexis are,  from providing  non public  personal information                                                               
to a non  affiliated third party. ChoicePoint  and LexisNexis are                                                               
concerned that the bill might  undermine their freedom to operate                                                               
in the financial world.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that GLBA  and the FCRA are somewhat                                                               
different  in that  one has  express language  and the  other has                                                               
permitted language.  This seeks  to include  those laws  in their                                                               
disparate approach  and still allow  a good framework to  work in                                                               
Alaska. The addition  of the phrase "subject to"  smoothes it out                                                               
a bit.                                                                                                                          
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he's  comfortable with the amendment and if                                                               
he believes industry is as well.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said yes.                                                                                                
8:23:19 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the  word "person" refers to the data                                                               
brokerage company.                                                                                                              
CHAIR  FRENCH   clarified  that  it  applies   to  the  financial                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  added that it's the  corporate definition                                                               
of person.                                                                                                                      
CHAIR  FRENCH removed  his objection  and announced  that without                                                               
further objection, Amendment 3 is adopted.                                                                                      
CHAIR  FRENCH moved  Amendment 4,  25-LS0311\W.3, Bannister,  and                                                               
objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                               
                      A M E N D M E N T 4                                                                                   
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
          TO:  SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"                                                                              
     Page 20, line 20, following "information.":                                                                                
          Insert    "In   this    subsection,   "independent                                                                    
     contractor" includes a debt collector."                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL explained  that he  asked for  the phrase                                                               
"debt  collection" to  be removed  [from .410(b)(5)]  because the                                                               
exemption  under disclosure  of social  security numbers  was too                                                               
broad.  But this  allows it  for legitimate  business-to-business                                                               
transactions   where  there's   need  for   identification.  Debt                                                               
collection is one such example.  This allows that to happen under                                                               
exemptions  for employees,  agents, and  independent contractors.                                                               
He didn't  intend for it not  to be used for  debt collection; he                                                               
didn't want  it to  be the  general rule  so that  everyone could                                                               
demand  collection  of social  security  numbers  for nearly  any                                                               
purpose under the guise of debt collection.                                                                                     
CHAIR FRENCH announced that  without further objection, Amendment                                                               
4 is adopted.                                                                                                                   
8:25:58 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH found no further  amendments or discussion and asked                                                               
for a motion.                                                                                                                   
SENATOR  McGUIRE motioned  to report  Senate CS  for CSHB  65, as                                                               
amended,  and   attached  fiscal  note(s)  from   committee  with                                                               
individual recommendations.                                                                                                     
CHAIR FRENCH  announced that without objection,  SCS CSHB 65(JUD)                                                               
is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.                                                                                   
At ease 8:26:19 AM.                                                                                                           
               HB 307-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES                                                                            
8:27:36 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration  of HB 307 and asked for                                                               
a motion to adopt Version \O as the working document.                                                                           
SENATOR McGUIRE  moved the Senate  CS for CSHB  307, 25-LS1236\O,                                                               
Luckhaupt, as the working document.                                                                                             
8:27:58 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, Sponsor of  HB 307, said this bill                                                               
is known colloquially as a  three strikes domestic violence bill.                                                               
It responds  to the fact that  Alaska ranks at the  top on nearly                                                               
every  indicator for  violence  against women  and  first in  the                                                               
nation for  rape of female  victims killed by  male perpetrators.                                                               
In 2005 there were 6,000  reported cases of domestic violence. HB                                                               
307 is  not a  one-stop solution;  it tries to  chip away  at the                                                               
problem, but  education and a  change in attitude are  also vital                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  explained that  HB 307 seeks  an increased                                                               
penalty for  an offender  convicted of  a fourth  degree physical                                                               
assault   involving  domestic   violence,  who   has  two   prior                                                               
convictions in  the last ten  years. The predicate priors  can be                                                               
either a  fourth degree assault  or a list of  felonies including                                                               
sexual  assault,   stalking,  and  manslaughter.  Upon   a  third                                                               
conviction, a class  A misdemeanor crime is increased  to a class                                                               
C  felony. The  bill is  prospective so  all three  strikes would                                                               
have to  occur after the effective  date and within ten  years of                                                               
each other. She noted the letters of support.                                                                                   
8:30:12 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  explained that the Senate  CS [Version \O]                                                               
makes two  changes. The first  is the intent language  in Section                                                               
1. The intent  is that the bill is aimed  at perpetrators and not                                                               
innocent victims. It was brought  to the sponsors' attention that                                                               
the old intent  language required the court to  make a particular                                                               
finding that  would interfere with plea  agreements. The sponsors                                                               
understand that this new intent language fixes that problem.                                                                    
SENATOR THERRIAULT  questioned the  need for the  intent section.                                                               
"With  any of  our laws  we want  to get  the bad  guys, not  the                                                               
innocent victims so we don't need to say that."                                                                                 
CHAIR  FRENCH welcomed  the sponsor  to  the judiciary  committee                                                               
where  Senator Therriault  sits  and patiently  waits for  intent                                                               
language to come along.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  agreed that it's  not as important  as the                                                               
rest  of the  bill. She  explained that  it was  inserted at  the                                                               
request of provider communities and serves as a reminder.                                                                       
8:32:27 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  relayed that  the second  change addresses                                                               
proof of the  domestic violence element. Originally it  had to be                                                               
proved  on all  three strikes,  but she  has been  convinced that                                                               
that would  be too  unwieldy. Now  the domestic  violence element                                                               
needs only be proved on the third strike.                                                                                       
CHAIR FRENCH characterized the change as wise.                                                                                  
8:33:10 AM                                                                                                                    
RICK   SVOBODNY   Deputy   Attorney  General,   Civil   Division,                                                               
Department of Law , said he is  here to speak in opposition to HB                                                               
307. The Senate Judiciary Committee  has already heard and passed                                                               
SB 234,  and DOL views it  as a better approach  for dealing with                                                               
repeat assaultive domestic violence  offenders. This bill creates                                                               
unforeseen   consequences  that   can  be   detrimental  to   the                                                               
prosecution of domestic  violence cases and the  entire scheme of                                                               
domestic violence protective  laws in this state.  He agreed with                                                               
the sponsor that this is a  special problem in the state. And, he                                                               
said, it's a particular problem  because of its prevalent and the                                                               
inherent difficulties  in prosecuting domestic  violence assaults                                                               
that  don't  exist in  other  crimes.  Special problems  involved                                                               
include: emotions, relationships, the  prevalence of recanting by                                                               
the victim,  and the  need to  give immunity.  A huge  problem is                                                               
that  domestic violence  is  intergenerational;  kids learn  this                                                               
behavior. He  understands the sponsor's  commitment to  the issue                                                               
and he  agrees completely,  but in  his view SB  234 is  a better                                                               
approach for a number of reasons.                                                                                               
8:35:50 AM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SVOBODNY relayed  that this  body  has created  a system  of                                                               
intentional  laws. Title  18 has  protective  orders that  aren't                                                               
very expensive  to the  victim of  domestic violence,  they occur                                                               
fast, and lawyers generally aren't  involved. You've made arrests                                                               
mandatory and you've required the DOL  to look at the primary and                                                               
the initial aggressor  and you've dealt with  sentencing laws, he                                                               
said.  You've made  it  a  mandatory minimum  for  a second  time                                                               
misdemeanor offense  of 60 days  in jail, and for  felony matters                                                               
you've  made  two  aggravating  factors  to  allow  for  enhanced                                                               
sentencing if  the case is  domestic violence. If HB  307 passes,                                                               
those felony  aggravators go away  because the law  doesn't allow                                                               
two  bites at  the apple.  If a  crime is  enhanced because  it's                                                               
domestic violence,  the fact that domestic  violence was involved                                                               
won't allow, in a felony sentence, an enhanced sentence.                                                                        
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that you  never get to use an aggravator                                                               
on a misdemeanor assault.                                                                                                       
MR. SVOBODNY clarified that he's talking about felonies.                                                                        
CHAIR  FRENCH responded  that  he understands  that,  but HB  307                                                               
talks  about just  one kind  of felony,  a fourth  degree assault                                                               
that will become a felony.                                                                                                      
     Absent that aggravation, absent  that elevation, it's a                                                                    
     fourth   degree   assault.  It's   recklessly   causing                                                                    
     physical injury and you're  stuck in misdemeanor court.                                                                    
     We  frequently use  the  aggravators--we'll talk  about                                                                    
     the aggravators  in misdemeanor court  as a way  to get                                                                    
     the  judge to  impose a  little more  time--but legally                                                                    
     you've got  nothing on the  fourth degree  assault with                                                                    
     an aggravator.                                                                                                             
8:38:07 AM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SVOBODNY  said that's  correct,  but  this bill  makes  that                                                               
fourth degree assault, if it's the third time, a felony.                                                                        
CHAIR FRENCH said he understands  his point. If domestic violence                                                               
isn't an  element of the  crime, if  it's just three  strikes you                                                               
can use it. It's made a felony  by the fact that it's an assault,                                                               
but then this says that it's the aggravator.                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY  agreed. For repeat  domestic violence  offenders we                                                               
want to  be able to  go above the  zero to two  year [sentencing]                                                               
range, but under  this bill we won't have  the aggravating factor                                                               
that it was  a domestic violence case because it  was an element,                                                               
he said. That wasn't an issue in SB 234.                                                                                        
CHAIR  FRENCH asked  how many  aggravators potentially  apply and                                                               
Mr. Svobodny said there are two.                                                                                                
MR.  SVOBODNY continued  to articulate  his concern  with HB  307                                                               
explaining that the legislature has  also dealt with the criminal                                                               
laws  related  to  assaultive behavior,  violating  a  protective                                                               
order, and  interfering with a  report of domestic  violence. But                                                               
no Title  11 law requires  the state to  prove that any  of those                                                               
are  a domestic  violence  offense.  This is  a  new element  for                                                               
prosecutors  and there  is an  unintended  consequence. When  the                                                               
legislature  created  the  definition of  domestic  violence  the                                                               
intention was  to make  it as  broad as  possible because  it's a                                                               
civil matter  dealing with emergency situations  and protecting a                                                               
8:40:40 AM                                                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY highlighted  that his concern is that  the state has                                                               
never  had  to  deal  with  that  broad  definition  of  domestic                                                               
violence in  criminal cases  because it  isn't an  element. Twice                                                               
it's  come up  in  the court  of  appeals and  two  of the  three                                                               
justices clearly signaled there  is a constitutional problem with                                                               
using that  definition in  criminal cases.  Either it's  void for                                                               
vagueness or  it's over  broad. If  HB 307 passes  it will  be an                                                               
element of the  offense and those judges will have  to decide the                                                               
constitutionality  of that  definition. "I  am concerned  that an                                                               
unintended  consequence  is  that   the  definition  of  domestic                                                               
violence  is  going  to be  declared  unconstitutional  and  that                                                               
really has a huge problem  for the issues of obtaining protective                                                               
orders," he  said. That unintended  consequence doesn't  arise in                                                               
the  approach taken  in SB  234., because  it's not  necessary to                                                               
prove the element of domestic violence.                                                                                         
8:43:09 AM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SVOBODNY expressed  concern with  the core  drafting of  the                                                               
definition  of domestic  violence.  Under Section  3  it will  be                                                               
necessary  to  prove: two  or  more  predicate offenses;  that  a                                                               
person  recklessly  caused  physical   injury  or  with  criminal                                                               
negligence they  caused physical injury  by means of  a dangerous                                                               
instrument;  and domestic  violence. The  definition of  domestic                                                               
violence  is:   arson,  criminal  trespass,   criminal  mischief,                                                               
murder, and assaults  so the elements will be that  the state has                                                               
to prove  there was reckless  physical injury. Now the  state has                                                               
to again  prove recklessly  caused physical  injury and  then the                                                               
household relationship.  The point  is that it's  repetitious and                                                               
doesn't make logical sense, he said.                                                                                            
8:45:00 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it isn't  a question of a prosecutor having                                                               
to prove  that a husband  beat his wife  or a boyfriend  beat his                                                               
MR. SVOBODNY replied he absolutely believes that.                                                                               
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that it may  be a bit fuzzy when it's written                                                               
down, but when  a prosecutor says it's a  case involving domestic                                                               
violence that is a phrase that jurors understand.                                                                               
MR.  SVOBODNY agreed.  He understands  that the  actual proof  of                                                               
domestic violence  isn't going to  be that difficult, but  he has                                                               
some concern with things like what is a dating relationship.                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  responded that's something the  prosecutor makes in                                                               
every  case. You  don't, for  example, bring  a case  between two                                                               
guys on a crab boat and try to  make it a felony, he said. You'll                                                               
bring a case that looks like a husband, again, beat up his wife.                                                                
MR. SVOBODNY said that's correct.                                                                                               
ANNE  CARPENETI, Assistant  Attorney General,  Department of  Law                                                               
(DOL) said  it wouldn't be  difficult to prove  domestic violence                                                               
in the case  of a husband beating  his wife, but the  irony of HB                                                               
307  is that  in  the fringe  cases it  doesn't  help victims  of                                                               
domestic  violence as  much  as  SB 234.  It  will  be much  more                                                               
difficult  to  prove  domestic violence  in  cases  of  recanting                                                               
victims in  a dating or  sexual relationship because  there won't                                                               
be a victim,  there won't be a defendant and  nobody will testify                                                               
that they had a physical or dating relationship.                                                                                
8:47:03 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  asked if the administration  views domestic                                                               
violence abuse  as worse  from a  societal standpoint  than other                                                               
assaults, such as a bar fight.                                                                                                  
MR. SVOBODNY  said you can't  make that societal  distinction. If                                                               
you're the victim you're hurting  just like any other victim, but                                                               
domestic  violence  is  a  greater  problem  for  other  reasons.                                                               
Domestic violence  is done  in front of  children and  it teaches                                                               
that behavior. That  isn't the case in a  barroom fight. Domestic                                                               
violence  cases  aren't  public  so  they're  more  difficult  to                                                               
prosecute;  barroom  fights  generally have  witnesses.  Domestic                                                               
violence victims recant, barroom fight  victim are less likely to                                                               
later say  their black  eye was  the result  of running  into the                                                               
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed that the  victim won't care about the                                                               
type  of relationship  they have  with the  abuser. Unfortunately                                                               
though, he  said, ours is a  system that has great  cost attached                                                               
to putting  people in  jail. He  asked the  amount of  the fiscal                                                               
note on SB 234.                                                                                                                 
MR. SVOBODNY deferred to Mr. Peeples.                                                                                           
8:49:28 AM                                                                                                                    
DWAYNE  PEEPLES, Deputy  Commissioner, Department  of Corrections                                                               
(DOC), said  the last cost that  was projected to 2014  was $20.8                                                               
million.  It builds  up over  a period  of 5  years because  it's                                                               
CHAIR FRENCH  asked if DOC  had accounted for the  latest changes                                                               
in HB 307.                                                                                                                      
MR.  PEEPLES  replied  that  based on  the  most  recent  numbers                                                               
supplied the court  system, implementation at 2014  would be $8.9                                                               
million, rounded up.                                                                                                            
CHAIR  FRENCH  noted  that  that was  taking  into  account  only                                                               
domestic  violence priors  and this  version  takes into  account                                                               
nearly all assaults.                                                                                                            
8:50:54 AM                                                                                                                    
MR. PEEPLES said he'd have to  wait for an updated court analysis                                                               
before he could give new numbers.                                                                                               
8:51:07 AM                                                                                                                    
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER,  Administrative Attorney, Alaska  Court System,                                                               
relayed  that the  court has  been  running numbers  for all  the                                                               
various versions of both bills.  He received the current draft CS                                                               
yesterday and expects to have new numbers sometime today.                                                                       
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  commented that  the legislature  could make                                                               
the  policy choice  to spend  $20 million  or it  could make  the                                                               
policy choice to spend $8.9 million  to target a different set of                                                               
offenders. You understand that policy call, she said.                                                                           
MS.  CARPENETI  referred to  the  comment  about bar  fights  and                                                               
explained that  when those  are prosecuted  it's a  mutual combat                                                               
disorderly conduct  prosecution. It's a class  B misdemeanor that                                                               
carries a  maximum sentence of  10 days. We're not  talking about                                                               
bar  fights here;  we're talking  about  people who  aggressively                                                               
hurt  other  people, she  said.  Bar  fights  don't get  class  A                                                               
DOL continues to  believe that SB 234 is a  better protection for                                                               
domestic violence  victims in areas  where the  domestic violence                                                               
relationship isn't  as clear. Also,  once it's an element  of the                                                               
offense, it's lost as an  aggravating factor in sentencing at the                                                               
felony  level. If  cost  is  part of  the  concern, DOL  suggests                                                               
limiting  the look-back  or limiting  the  predicate offences  to                                                               
assault and stalking.  As a practical matter  homicide and sexual                                                               
offenses tend  to have very  long sentences anyway, so  it's less                                                               
likely that somebody  in 10 years would have  two predicates that                                                               
would include  sex offenses or homicide  offenses. She reiterated                                                               
that once you take away  the proof of domestic violence, domestic                                                               
violence victims have a lot more protection.                                                                                    
8:54:29 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR McGUIRE  asked what  the policy  was when  the governor's                                                               
bill was first introduced.                                                                                                      
MS. CARPENETI  relayed that the  policy in  SB 234 is  to address                                                               
bullies  who  repeatedly beat  up  people.  She reminded  members                                                               
about the crime summit testimony  that highlighted that there are                                                               
people  in Anchorage  who have  12 to  15 convictions  for fourth                                                               
degree  assault.   Those  crimes   are  repeatedly   charged  and                                                               
prosecuted  at the  class A  misdemeanor level.  SB 234  seeks to                                                               
stop that  chain of  violence at  a felony  level. The  tools are                                                               
better;  there's   a  five  year  maximum   sentence  and  felony                                                               
probation,  which is  actual supervised  probation. DOL's  intent                                                               
was to  get perpetrators of  domestic violence and  other people,                                                               
too,  who are  dangerous  and  hurt people  on  a  basis that  is                                                               
consistent enough to  qualify for the three  convictions and ten-                                                               
year look-back. Bar fights don't get class A misdemeanors.                                                                      
8:56:51 AM                                                                                                                    
RODNEY  DIAL, Lieutenant,  Alaska State  Troopers, Department  of                                                               
Public Safety  (DPS), echoed the  concerns expressed by  DOL with                                                               
respect to  HB 307.  DPS has  a goal to  put the  worst offenders                                                               
away for as long as possible.  We appreciate the intent of HB 307                                                               
and see the  need for enhanced penalties, but we  believe that it                                                               
could make  prosecutions and longer sentences  more difficult, he                                                               
said. We instead encourage support of SB 234.                                                                                   
CHAIR  FRENCH asked  if DOL  made this  same presentation  to the                                                               
other body.                                                                                                                     
MR. SVOBODNY replied yes and no.  The argument he did not make to                                                               
that body  was about the  unintended consequences. He  noted that                                                               
Peggy  Brown with  the Network  on Domestic  Violence and  Sexual                                                               
Assault  testified that  the domestic  violence community  wasn't                                                               
united  in support  or  opposition  to the  bill  because of  the                                                               
unintended consequences.                                                                                                        
CHAIR FRENCH  asked if  he has  a major  concern about  having to                                                               
prove domestic violence with each predicate prior.                                                                              
MR. SVOBODNY said yes; that becomes a huge problem.                                                                             
CHAIR  FRENCH observed  that Version  \O represents  a tremendous                                                               
change from  the original  bill. It gives  up all  those domestic                                                               
violence priors and makes the district attorney's job easier.                                                                   
9:00:22 AM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SVOBODNY  concluded  his comments  first  by  restating  the                                                               
suggestion about  potential cost  savings in  SB 234  by limiting                                                               
the  predicate crimes  and  reducing the  look  back. Second,  he                                                               
agreed with  the sponsor that  it's time-consuming for  judges to                                                               
make a  factual finding in  each case. Removing  that requirement                                                               
improves the bill.                                                                                                              
9:01:58 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR THERRIAULT  asked if DOL  was asked to hold  its concerns                                                               
until the bill was heard in this body.                                                                                          
MS. CARPENETI  replied that  is correct. She  added that  DOL has                                                               
worked cooperatively with  the sponsor so its  opposition isn't a                                                               
surprise to  anyone. The concern  about importing  civil language                                                               
into  criminal prosecution  language hasn't  been stated  because                                                               
DOL, too, is evolving in its understanding of the bill.                                                                         
SENATOR THERRIAULT  said that  if the  Network has  concerns with                                                               
the bill and the potential  for unintended consequences, he wants                                                               
to know about that.                                                                                                             
CHAIR FRENCH  noted that  no one  from the  Network signed  up to                                                               
testify, but there's another chance this afternoon.                                                                             
9:03:20 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH recessed the meeting until 1:30.                                                                                   
1:44:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  reconvened the  meeting and  asked the  sponsor her                                                               
view of the testimony she heard this morning.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES said  she took  exception to  a number  of                                                               
things  that  were  said  this  morning,  but  in  light  of  the                                                               
testimony and subsequent discussion there is an amendment.                                                                      
1:45:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR McGUIRE moved to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                                     
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE              BY SENATOR MCGUIRE                                                                      
          TO: SCS CSHB 307(JUD)(25-LS1236\O)                                                                                    
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "domestic violence"                                                                                            
     Page 2, line 18:                                                                                                           
          Delete: "involving domestic violence"                                                                                 
     Page 3, line 2-12:                                                                                                         
          Delete all material                                                                                                   
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
SENATOR McGUIRE  explained that  the amendment  deletes reference                                                               
to domestic violence because it  has been shown to be problematic                                                               
in this  bill. DOL  and DPS  have committed  to support  the bill                                                               
with this amendment.                                                                                                            
CHAIR  FRENCH  removed  his  objection  and  finding  no  further                                                               
objection, announced that Amendment 1  is adopted. Finding no one                                                               
else who wished to testify,  he closed public testimony. He noted                                                               
that a title change may be required.                                                                                            
1:47:04 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report  the amended Version \O Senate                                                               
CS  for CSHB  107 and  attached forthcoming  fiscal note(s)  from                                                               
committee with individual recommendations.                                                                                      
CHAIR FRENCH  announced that without objection  SCS CSHB 107(JUD)                                                               
is moved from committee.                                                                                                        
At ease from 1:47:28 PM to 1:48:23 PM.                                                                                      
SENATOR  McGUIRE motioned  to forward  a conforming  title change                                                               
resolution along with HB 307. There  being no objection it was so                                                               
              HB 359-PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING                                                                          
CHAIR FRENCH announced  the consideration of HB  359. [Before the                                                               
committee was CSHB 359 (FIN).]                                                                                                  
1:48:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS,  Sponsor of HB  359, said this  bill seeks                                                               
to  take  advantage  of the  greatest  vocational  rehabilitation                                                               
program in the nation by helping  minors on probation to join the                                                               
armed services. Current Alaska law  requires the court to place a                                                               
minor who  is convicted of  consuming on probation until  age 21.                                                               
"As long as the  State of Alaska has its thumb  on you, Uncle Sam                                                               
can't  own you,  which is  their  expectation when  you join  the                                                               
armed services," he said.                                                                                                       
1:50:19 PM                                                                                                                    
EMILY  BEATLEY, Staff  to Representative  Ramras, explained  that                                                               
under the current minor consuming  statute, the court is required                                                               
to place  a convicted person on  probation for one year  from the                                                               
date of  conviction or until  the person  reaches the age  of 21,                                                               
whichever is later.  For a 16 year old that  can mean a probation                                                               
term of 5 years  with no possibility for it to  be lifted. HB 359                                                               
adds a subsection to AS  04.16.050 giving courts the authority to                                                               
terminate  the probation  with the  exception  of habitual  minor                                                               
consuming. The bill also amends  the current statute establishing                                                               
new  probation terms  of  up to  one year  for  first and  second                                                               
violations. No  change is  made to  the habitual  minor consuming                                                               
probation term. HB  359 offers good young Alaskans  who have made                                                               
mistakes the  opportunity to learn,  to grow, and to  work toward                                                               
becoming more disciplined and law-abiding individuals.                                                                          
CHAIR  FRENCH  noted  that  alcohol  crimes  are  different  than                                                               
others.  It's possible  to be  convicted of  DWI at  age 16  even                                                               
though  for other  crimes  that same  person  would be  processed                                                               
through the juvenile system. He asked how this crime is treated.                                                                
MS. BEATLEY deferred to Ms.  Carpeneti with the Department of Law                                                               
1:52:35 PM                                                                                                                    
ANNE  CARPENETI, Assistant  Attorney General,  Criminal Division,                                                               
Department of  Law (DOL), explained  that Title 47  provides that                                                               
minor  consuming is  a  crime  that is  not  subject to  juvenile                                                               
jurisdiction. The  legislature made  that change in  1994. Before                                                               
that  it  was   considered  a  delinquent  act   over  which  the                                                               
Department of Health and Social Services had jurisdiction.                                                                      
CHAIR  FRENCH added  that it's  a charging  decision the  officer                                                               
makes  about whether  to write  a minor  consuming citation.  But                                                               
once the citation is written, it's an adult offense.                                                                            
MS. CARPENETI  agreed; officers do  use discretion  and sometimes                                                               
take the minor home. Sometimes,  though, it's better to write the                                                               
citation and have a consequence for the young person.                                                                           
CHAIR  FRENCH said  he imagines  that 13-15  year olds  often get                                                               
charged  with  minor  consuming  and  get  caught  up  under  the                                                               
probation provisions.                                                                                                           
MS. CARPENETI agreed.                                                                                                           
CHAIR FRENCH  said he understands that  for the last few  years a                                                               
15-year-old,  for example,  who is  convicted of  minor consuming                                                               
stays on probation until age 21.                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  explained  that  that  was  a  well-intended  but                                                               
unsuccessful  effort in  2001 to  deal with  the huge  problem of                                                               
underage drinking  in this state. The  unintended consequence was                                                               
that  young   people  can't  join   military  service   while  on                                                               
probation, and this bill intends to address that.                                                                               
1:54:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  asked what the state  can hold over a  youth who is                                                               
on probation.                                                                                                                   
MS.  CARPENETI   said  there's   no  probation   supervision  for                                                               
misdemeanors  in  our state,  but  the  statute mandates  certain                                                               
things that kids have to  do under these circumstances. Probation                                                               
would at least allow enforcement  of conditions, like going to an                                                               
alcohol information class.                                                                                                      
CHAIR FRENCH asked the maximum penalty for minor consuming.                                                                     
MS. CARPENETI said  that for the first and  second violation it's                                                               
a violation  and there's  no jail  time. A  third violation  is a                                                               
class B misdemeanor.                                                                                                            
CHAIR  FRENCH noted  that page  2, line  9, provides  a $200-$600                                                               
fine for the first violation.                                                                                                   
MS.  CARPENETI  added  that  for a  second  or  repeat  violation                                                               
there's a $1,000  fine, but the court has the  ability to suspend                                                               
half of the  fine. The third violation is a  B misdemeanor and as                                                               
such has many more options.                                                                                                     
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the cumulative penalties still apply.                                                                     
MS.  BEATLEY relayed  that subsection  (e) on  page 3,  says that                                                               
persons convicted under subsections (b)(2),  (c), or (d) shall be                                                               
placed  on probation.  Each is  an individual  violation and  the                                                               
probation periods are listed separately.                                                                                        
CHAIR  FRENCH asked  the  maximum probation  period  for a  first                                                               
offense, it this bill passes.                                                                                                   
MS. BEATLEY said for the first  and second offense it's up to one                                                               
year.  She  agreed  with Chair  French  that  habitual  consuming                                                               
hasn't been adjusted because it's a separate criminal violation.                                                                
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an explanation of Section 5.                                                                             
1:58:27 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  BEATLEY relayed  that that  was added  because there  was no                                                               
ability  to  make  a  motion  to  the  court  to  lift  probation                                                               
conditions.  This   section  allows  someone  who   has  met  the                                                               
conditions of  their probation to make  a motion to the  court to                                                               
have the balance of their probation period terminated.                                                                          
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if this section models any other statute.                                                                 
MS. BEATLEY said no, it comes from legislative drafters.                                                                        
SENATOR McGUIRE  asked the definition  of the phrase  "good faith                                                               
effort" on page 4, lines 1 and 7.                                                                                               
MS.  BEATLEY  said  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  added  that                                                               
phrase; it was to be at the court's discretion.                                                                                 
SENATOR  McGUIRE asked  if "good  faith  effort" is  meant to  be                                                               
something  beyond   entering  into  the  repayment   plan  that's                                                               
mentioned on line 2.                                                                                                            
MS.  BEATLEY relayed  her understanding  that the  repayment plan                                                               
would  be entered  into after  probation is  lifted so  the state                                                               
could continue to recover the  fines after the probation term was                                                               
2:01:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this  section applies prospectively or also                                                               
to those currently on probation.                                                                                                
MS.  BEATLEY  said  she  understands  it  would  apply  to  those                                                               
currently under  probation. The fiscal  note decreases  over time                                                               
reflecting the  3,500 folks that would  be able to motion  to the                                                               
court  for  their  probation  to   be  lifted.  Responding  to  a                                                               
question, she  explained that  3,500 folks  would come  under the                                                               
bill and the court assumes that  about 2,500 would be 17 years of                                                               
age  or  older  and  actually  motion  to  the  court  for  their                                                               
probation to be lifted.                                                                                                         
2:02:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  observed that  this should have  a positive                                                               
impact  on  the  state  treasury, but  the  fiscal  note  doesn't                                                               
reflect that.                                                                                                                   
MS. BEATLEY deferred to Mr. Wooliver.                                                                                           
CHAIR FRENCH  asked why  petitioning the  court shouldn't  be the                                                               
approach for all the probation terms.                                                                                           
MS. BEATLEY  explained that some House  Finance Committee members                                                               
thought the probation  periods were excessive and this  was a way                                                               
to address that.                                                                                                                
CHAIR FRENCH  commented that the  wise members of  that committee                                                               
picked a year of probation.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS  said he gladly accommodated  that point of                                                               
view  to  maintain  the  momentum,  but  he  shares  the  Chair's                                                               
interest in this particular provision.  There was some thoughtful                                                               
debate about  how to deal with  young people who did  "not really                                                               
doing anything that bad." The  conversation was tactful and there                                                               
were varying degrees  of tolerance for the  one-time offender who                                                               
gets caught  in the legal system  for up to four  years. We tried                                                               
to bring  some balance there  knowing that if the  Senate members                                                               
thought otherwise,  there would be  an opportunity to  remedy it,                                                               
he said.                                                                                                                        
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that it seems like a good idea.                                                                             
2:05:55 PM                                                                                                                    
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER,  Administrative Attorney, Alaska  Court System,                                                               
explained that the  fiscal note is based on the  number of people                                                               
under age  21 who are  currently on probation under  the existing                                                               
law. There  are about  3,500 people. He  assumed that  those most                                                               
likely to  petition the court  would be  age 17-21 and  there are                                                               
about 2,500  people in  that category  today. He  further assumed                                                               
that 25 percent of those would  petition the court. If 25 percent                                                               
of  the 3,500  people petition  in year  one, another  1,000 will                                                               
likely petition in  the second year and thereafter  the number of                                                               
people coming to the court doesn't warrant a fiscal note.                                                                       
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that you  expect a flurry of activity the                                                               
first year and a reduction thereafter. Mr. Wooliver agreed.                                                                     
2:07:29 PM                                                                                                                    
THOMAS CAPSAN, Brigadier General,  Army National Guard, said this                                                               
is an important bill and he  appreciates it more all the time. He                                                               
retired from the  Anchorage Police Department after  21 years and                                                               
during that  time he had to  enforce a similar law  for juveniles                                                               
drinking. When he retired he  joined the National Guard full time                                                               
and was  in charge of the  counter-drug unit. Now he's  in charge                                                               
of recruiting and  retention with the Alaska  Army National Guard                                                               
and he  sees kids  trying to  make good  choices, but  they can't                                                               
enter the  military because  they are screened  out due  to their                                                               
probation  status. This  bill is  critical to  provide a  pool of                                                               
people options  so they can continue  on the path of  making good                                                               
2:11:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH, finding  no one else who wished  to testify, closed                                                               
public testimony and announced he  would hold HB 359 overnight to                                                               
think about the policy choice in Section 5.                                                                                     
           HB  88-TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES                                                                        
2:11:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  announced the consideration  of HB 88.  [Before the                                                               
committee was CSHB 88(FIN).]                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  Sponsor or  HB  88,  said that  as  a                                                               
result  of  the  comments  in  the last  committee,  there  is  a                                                               
proposed amendment.  This legislation deals with  the distraction                                                               
of watching a  video display while driving.  This distraction may                                                               
have  caused several  fiery deaths  on Alaska  highways. If  it's                                                               
shown that  the driver was watching  a video display, or  that it                                                               
is  on  and in  a  position  to be  watch  while  the vehicle  is                                                               
underway,  the  punishment  is  negligent  homicide  if  a  death                                                               
results. It's  a class A misdemeanor  if the device is  on and no                                                               
wreck occurred. He has no objection to proposed amendment V.1.                                                                  
2:14:09 PM at ease.2:15:10 PM                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  referred  to   a  news  article  about                                                               
watching  movies on  cell phones  and  said that,  too, would  be                                                               
prohibited under the bill.                                                                                                      
CHAIR  FRENCH referred  to page  2,  line 8,  that exempts  audio                                                               
equipment information,  functions, and controls and  asked if, in                                                               
addition to radios, this is meant to also exempt IPods.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he understands that  you listen to                                                               
an IPod and that would be  exempt. "I don't have any problem with                                                               
people listening," he said.                                                                                                     
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that they're  now being used as portable car                                                               
stereos, but you have to look at the IPod to select the music.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that's okay;  it's the same as a                                                               
2:17:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  moved Amendment  1, 25-:LS0312\V.1,  Luckhaupt, and                                                               
objected  for discussion  purposes. The  idea is  to exempt  cell                                                               
phones, such as  an iphone, that display a picture  of the person                                                               
calling.  He doesn't  think  that  looking at  a  picture of  the                                                               
person  calling should  be  a crime.  He  acknowledged there  are                                                               
people who want to ban the  use of cell phones while driving, but                                                               
this bill doesn't do that.                                                                                                      
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
          TO: CSHB 88(FIN)                                                                                                      
     Page 2, line 6, following "communication":                                                                                 
          Insert "or displaying caller identification                                                                           
CHAIR  FRENCH  withdrew  his objection  and  finding  no  further                                                               
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.                                                                               
CHAIR  FRENCH asked  the sponsor  to describe  the core  activity                                                               
he's targeting.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  replied he's targeting those  who watch                                                               
movies or something similar while driving.                                                                                      
CHAIR  FRENCH   asked  him  to   explain  the   elevated  penalty                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  explained that 13 AAC  04.260 currently                                                               
makes it  an infraction for a  motor vehicle driven in  Alaska to                                                               
be equipped  with television-type receiving equipment  that is in                                                               
view of the  driver's seat. The punishment is a  small fine. This                                                               
bill raises  the penalty: to a  class A misdemeanor if  no injury                                                               
occurs, a  class C  felony if physical  injury to  another person                                                               
occurs, a class  B felony if serious physical  injury occurs, and                                                               
a class  A felony if a  death occurs. Serious physical  injury is                                                               
defined in Title 11.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG clarified  that his  staff pointed  out                                                               
that  he previously  was reading  from subsection  (a) of  13 AAC                                                               
04.260 and subsection (b) reads as follows:                                                                                     
     (b) A driver of a motor vehicle may not wear a                                                                             
     headset, headphones, or other headgear designed for                                                                        
     receiving sound and transmitting sound to the driver,                                                                      
     or wear ear plugs or a similar device which reduces                                                                        
     the driver's hearing ability while driving a vehicle.                                                                      
The bill  doesn't deal with  that, it will remain  an infraction,                                                               
he said. Subsection (c) provides the following exemption:                                                                       
     (c)  This   section  does  not  prohibit   the  use  of                                                                    
     television-type  or  headgear-receiving equipment  used                                                                    
     exclusively  for safety  or  law enforcement  purposes,                                                                    
     used  for and  designed to  improve a  driver's hearing                                                                    
     ability,  or   navigational  devices  such   as  Global                                                                    
     Positioning System (GPS) or Loran.                                                                                         
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  said  that's  a  good  point  because  GPS                                                               
screens are popular.  He asked if he's saying that  a GPS located                                                               
in the driver's view would not fall under this.                                                                                 
2:21:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes;  page 2, subsections (c)(2)(C)                                                               
and (c)(2)(D), exempt navigation  or global positioning equipment                                                               
and maps. That's essential, he said.                                                                                            
SENATOR  McGUIRE commented  that her  GPS displays  a warning  to                                                               
drivers that are using the equipment while operating a vehicle.                                                                 
2:22:00 PM                                                                                                                    
RODNEY  DIAL, Lieutenant,  Alaska State  Troopers, Department  of                                                               
Public Safety  (DPS), said  DPS supports HB  88 because  it helps                                                               
keep Alaska driving  laws current with changes  in technology. To                                                               
cite  someone  now, troopers  must  prove  two elements:  that  a                                                               
qualifying device  is installed,  and that  it's in  the driver's                                                               
view. The statute doesn't say the  equipment has to be turned on.                                                               
Under this bill four elements must  be proved: that the person is                                                               
driving, that the  qualifying device is present,  that the device                                                               
is in full view of the  driver, and that the display is operating                                                               
while the  vehicle is in  motion. An alternative element  is that                                                               
someone has  illegally installed or  altered a device so  that it                                                               
can be viewed  by the driver while the vehicle  is going down the                                                               
road. DPS sees this as a good change in law, he said.                                                                           
TROOPER  DIAL described  the accident  mentioned previously:  two                                                               
occupants were  killed, a vehicle  did cross the center  line, it                                                               
was alleged that  the driver was watching a movie  at the time, a                                                               
unit was  installed such that  it could  be viewed by  the driver                                                               
while  the vehicle  was moving.  "Had this  bill been  in effect,                                                               
that person could  have been charged with a  class A misdemeanor,                                                               
at a very minimum."                                                                                                             
2:24:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  FRENCH said  this is  an interesting  bill because  of the                                                               
convergence  of  communication,   entertainment,  and  scheduling                                                               
devices. Soon devices like the  Blackberry and the iPhone will be                                                               
all-in-one. In some instances they're  safe to use while driving,                                                               
but in other instances they wouldn't  be safe at all. His view is                                                               
that this  law will be tough  to enforce, but it's  a good policy                                                               
to hammer people that are doing things that aren't safe.                                                                        
LIEUTENANT  DIAL said  there will  be  mitigating instances,  but                                                               
this will help in certain situations.                                                                                           
2:26:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH found  no one else who wished to  testify and closed                                                               
public testimony.                                                                                                               
SENATOR McGUIRE  motioned to report  CS for HB 88  from committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).                                                                    
CHAIR FRENCH  announced that without  objection SCS  CSHB 88(JUD)                                                               
is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.                                                                                   
There being  no further  business to  come before  the committee,                                                               
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:26:33 PM.                                                                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects