Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

02/15/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
+= SB 12 ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENTENCING CREDIT TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+= SB 35 CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
+= SB 41 NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 41 Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
              SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                       February 15, 2019                                                                                        
                           1:33 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair                                                                                                   
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair                                                                                               
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator Mike Shower                                                                                                             
Senator Jesse Kiehl                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 41                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to the number  of superior court judges  in the                                                               
third judicial district; and providing for an effective date."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     MOVED SB 41 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 35                                                                                                              
"An Act  eliminating marriage as  a defense to certain  crimes of                                                               
sexual assault;  relating to enticement  of a minor;  relating to                                                               
harassment in  the first  degree; relating  to harassment  in the                                                               
second degree; relating to indecent  viewing or "production" of a                                                               
picture;  relating   to  the  definition  of   'sexual  contact';                                                               
relating   to  assault   in  the   second  degree;   relating  to                                                               
sentencing;  relating  to  prior  convictions;  relating  to  the                                                               
definition of  'most serious felony'; relating  to the definition                                                               
of 'sexual  felony'; relating to  the duty  of a sex  offender or                                                               
child  kidnapper   to  register;  relating  to   eligibility  for                                                               
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12                                                                                       
"An Act  relating to  crime and  criminal procedure;  relating to                                                               
assault and  sexual assault; relating to  harassment; relating to                                                               
credit  toward a  sentence of  imprisonment for  time spent  in a                                                               
treatment program or under electronic monitoring; and providing                                                                 
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  41                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES                                                                                    
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/30/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/30/19       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/11/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/11/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/11/19       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/15/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 35                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/23/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/19       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/13/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/13/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/13/19       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/15/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel                                                                                                    
Administrative Offices                                                                                                          
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on SB 41 on                                                              
behalf of the Alaska Court System.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General;                                                                                         
Director, Criminal Division                                                                                                     
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the                                                               
hearing on SB 35.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief                                                                                                         
Criminal Records & Identification Bureau                                                                                        
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during the  discussion of                                                             
SB 35.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:33:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHELLEY  HUGHES  called   the  Senate  Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting  to order at 1:33  p.m. Present at the  call to                                                               
order were  Senators Reinbold and Chair  Hughes. Senator Micciche                                                               
arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
             SB 41-NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:34:26 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
SENATE BILL  NO. 41, "An Act  relating to the number  of superior                                                               
court judges  in the third  judicial district; and  providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:35:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD said she liked the bill.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:35:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   said   she   had   questions   regarding   video                                                               
conferencing.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:36:00 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General  Counsel, Administrative  Offices,  Alaska                                                               
Court  System,  Anchorage,  stated  she  previously  spoke  about                                                               
judges traveling to other locations  to cover proceedings because                                                               
the  judges  assigned  to  those   locations  did  not  have  the                                                               
jurisdiction for  felonies. For  example, a superior  court judge                                                               
from Kenai  will travel  to Homer  to cover cases  that are  in a                                                               
superior court  judge's jurisdiction but beyond  the jurisdiction                                                               
of the  local court. She said  the ASC has tried  to address this                                                               
staffing  in  other   ways.  One  way  was   to  encourage  video                                                               
conferencing  between the  Kenai and  Homer courthouse  to reduce                                                               
travel.   A   question   arose    how   that   relates   to   the                                                               
videoconferencing being proposed in some of the criminal bills.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
She  clarified  that a  judge's  appearance  at a  proceeding  by                                                               
videoconference or "two-way contemporaneous  television" is up to                                                               
the judge.  The judge can  determine whether he/she needs  to see                                                               
the witnesses in  person. Those decisions are based  on the types                                                               
of things  such as the  number of other  cases, the gravity  of a                                                               
case,  or whether  it is  a criminal  matter. The  judge has  the                                                               
option  to appear  by video  for proceedings.  This is  different                                                               
from defendants  in criminal  cases who  need to  be, may  be, or                                                               
shall be  present in the  courtroom for certain  proceedings. She                                                               
said that  the videoconferencing she  is speaking to  has nothing                                                               
to with  those types of  proceedings. In fact, court  rules apply                                                               
and address when defendants must be  present or do not need to be                                                               
present.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said since  superior court  judges can  hear felony                                                               
cases  and district  court judges  cannot,  that having  superior                                                               
court judges at  these locations should reduce the  need for some                                                               
travel where videoconferencing is not appropriate.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered that is correct  and it will be more efficient                                                               
and give  flexibility in  how to cover  cases in  outlying places                                                               
such as  Valdez, Glennallen, Cordova,  Homer, Seward,  and Kenai.                                                               
The  more  video conferencing  the  less  travel, which  includes                                                               
criminal defendants who need to be transported, she said.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  queried whether felony  cases might be more  apt to                                                               
require the judge to be in person.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  responded that that  was generally true, but  it might                                                               
depend on  whether the  hearing was  a short,  routine scheduling                                                               
type of  hearing in a  felony case. She acknowledged  that judges                                                               
generally try to be present for the more important cases.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:40:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MEADE  said this bill would  authorize the court to  fill two                                                               
district court seats that are  currently vacant, or soon will be,                                                               
with superior court  judges since they can handle  all cases. She                                                               
explained that  district court  judges have  limited jurisdiction                                                               
and can  only handle misdemeanors.  They cannot  handle felonies,                                                               
probate cases,  including guardianships and mental  cases, child-                                                               
in-need-of-aid,  or  family  law  cases, such  as  child  custody                                                               
disputes and  divorces. This  would expand  the breadth  of cases                                                               
the  two judges  in  those  two districts  can  cover. This  will                                                               
reduce travel for the Kenai  judges traveling to cover the felony                                                               
or other cases  in Homer. It will prevent the  Palmer judges from                                                               
the necessity to  travel to Valdez. Further,  when judges travel,                                                               
it  means  they  cannot  handle   their  day-to-day  caseload  or                                                               
calendar in their own districts.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:42:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:42:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES said  that for  this enhanced  service, the  fiscal                                                               
note is a modest $63,000.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:43:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  stated that public testimony  was previously closed                                                               
on 2/11/19 for SB 41.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:43:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES moved  to report SB 41, work  order 31-LS038\A, from                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations  and attached  fiscal                                                               
note(s). There  being no objection,  SB 41 was reported  from the                                                               
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:43:45 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
           SB 35-CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:50:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting  and announced that the final                                                               
order  of  business  would  be   SENATE  BILL  NO.  35,  "An  Act                                                               
eliminating marriage  as a  defense to  certain crimes  of sexual                                                               
assault;  relating   to  enticement  of  a   minor;  relating  to                                                               
harassment in  the first  degree; relating  to harassment  in the                                                               
second degree;  relating to indecent  viewing or production  of a                                                               
picture;  relating   to  the  definition  of   'sexual  contact';                                                               
relating   to  assault   in  the   second  degree;   relating  to                                                               
sentencing;  relating  to  prior  convictions;  relating  to  the                                                               
definition of  'most serious felony'; relating  to the definition                                                               
of 'sexual  felony'; relating to  the duty  of a sex  offender or                                                               
child  kidnapper   to  register;  relating  to   eligibility  for                                                               
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:50:29 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  SKIDMORE,  Deputy   Attorney  General;  Director,  Criminal                                                               
Division,  Department  of  Law   began  reviewing  the  sectional                                                               
analysis  of  SB 35.  He  turned  to  Section  1, which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  1: Legislative  Intent and  Findings Expresses                                                                    
     intent  to overturn  Williams v.  State,  418 P.3d  870                                                                    
     (Alaska  App.  2018)  in   regards  to  counting  prior                                                                    
     felonies when  sentencing a person for  a sexual felony                                                                    
     and State, Department  of Public Safety v.  Doe, 425 P.                                                                    
     3d  115 (Alaska  2018) in  regards to  out-of-state sex                                                                    
     offenders registering  as a sex offender  when they are                                                                    
     present in Alaska.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
He  said that  SB  35  would address  sex  crimes and  sentencing                                                               
associated with those  crimes and Section 1  covers two different                                                               
cases that  the bill will  address. The legislative intent  is to                                                               
overturn Williams  v. State, a  2018 case related  to presumptive                                                               
sentencing  for sex  felonies. He  briefly explained  presumptive                                                               
sentencing, such that  if a person commits a  felony offense, the                                                               
sentencing  is based  on two  factors.  The first  factor is  the                                                               
level  of the  offense itself,  and  whether it  is classified  a                                                               
class A,  B, or  C felony  and the second  is the  person's prior                                                               
criminal history for  other felonies, he said.  Felonies for non-                                                               
sex felonies  must be  in a certain  timeframe; however,  no time                                                               
period  exists  to  exclude  sex felonies  and  all  sex  related                                                               
felonies are counted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said that  sex  felonies  are considered  slightly                                                               
differently  than  other  felonies  and to  determine  the  right                                                               
felony range for  sex felonies, an analysis is  done to determine                                                               
whether the prior felony was a sex  felony or if it was a non-sex                                                               
felony. The type  of prior conviction will  impact the sentencing                                                               
range available to  the court for this  particular offense. Under                                                               
Williams v.  State, the  court indicated  the statutes  were very                                                               
clear about  prior sex felonies.  However, the  court interpreted                                                               
the  statutes for  prior non-sex  felonies to  mean that  non-sex                                                               
felonies are  only counted if  the felony falls within  a 10-year                                                               
range.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
He stated that the original intent  of the legislature was not to                                                               
have a time  limitation. He recapped that Williams  v. State said                                                               
that the  old rule applies  to non-sex  felonies and SB  35 would                                                               
change it so  that time would not be applied.  He referred to the                                                               
legislative findings  and intent,  page 2, subsection  (a), which                                                               
read, "    and the  legislature does  not now intend  by enacting                                                               
this Act, to impose any  limitation on which previous convictions                                                               
may   be   considered  when   imposing   a   sentence  under   AS                                                               
12.55.125(i)."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:54:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  referred to intent  language on page  2, subsection                                                               
(b), "   to overturn the  decision in Williams v. State, 418 P.3d                                                               
870 7  (Alaska App. 2018) to  the extent that it  held that, when                                                               
imposing  a  sentence  under  8  AS  12.55.125(i),  prior  felony                                                               
convictions  should not  be considered  if 10  or more  years has                                                               
elapsed  between  the  date   of  the  defendant's  unconditional                                                               
discharge on the immediately preceding  offense and commission of                                                               
the  present  offense unless  the  prior  conviction was  for  an                                                               
unclassified or class A felony."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE referred  to page 2, to subsection  (c), which read,                                                               
"It  is the  intent  of  the legislature  that  all prior  felony                                                               
convictions  be  considered when  imposing  a  sentence under  AS                                                               
12.55.125(i)  regardless of  the  age of  those convictions."  He                                                               
said it  makes it abundantly clear  that it is the  intent of the                                                               
legislature  to consider  that all  prior  felony convictions  be                                                               
considered when imposing a sentence  regardless of the age of the                                                               
conviction.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:54:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE  explained  that  the second  part  of  the  intent                                                               
language  relates   to  the   sex  offender   registration  laws.                                                               
Currently,  an offender  is not  required  to register  as a  sex                                                               
offender for  an offense  committed in  another state  unless the                                                               
offense is  similar to  a felony  sex offense  in Alaska  law. He                                                               
said that offenders  who come to Alaska are  required to register                                                               
as sex offenders in their  home jurisdiction but are not required                                                               
to register  in Alaska for all  sex crime. He cited  [John Doe v.                                                               
State  of  Alaska], which  related  to  two instances  that  were                                                               
interpreted  as  similar.  However,  the court  did  not  find  a                                                               
similarity, and the persons were  not required to register as sex                                                               
offenders.  The  legislative  intent  [under  subsection  (d)(1)]                                                               
identifies the  purpose as a  means to protect the  public, which                                                               
is the state's primary interest,  by providing public information                                                               
in a more accessible way to the public, he said.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:56:38 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE related  that the  intent  language [in  subsection                                                               
(d)(2)] acknowledges the state's  transient population means that                                                               
sex offenders required  to register in the state  where they were                                                               
convicted  may  relocate  to  Alaska   for  various  reasons.  He                                                               
identified the transient population  includes seasonal workers in                                                               
the  oil,  fishing,  or  tourism industries,  as  well  as  other                                                               
industries.  He  offered  his  belief  that  the  state  must  be                                                               
meticulous  and broader  in terms  of its  current laws.  He said                                                               
that [paragraph]  3, indicates that the  narrow interpretation in                                                               
[John  Doe v.  State of  Alaska] hinders  the state's  ability to                                                               
protect  the public  from sex  offenders who  come to  this state                                                               
since  Alaska's  registry  does not  require  them  to  register.                                                               
Finally, the  intent language on  page 2, subsection  (e) relates                                                               
to reciprocity,  which states  that a  convicted offender  who is                                                               
registered in another state must register in Alaska.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:58:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  for clarification  on  the  reason  why                                                               
adopting reciprocity  for sex registry  is not sufficient  and if                                                               
the department has considered this approach.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE answered  that he  has  not considered  reciprocity                                                               
with all  states, but  he noted that  the logistical  problems of                                                               
requiring  offenders  from all  states  must  appear on  Alaska's                                                               
registry. Currently,  Alaska wants to capture  the information on                                                               
sex offenders from other states  who temporarily reside in Alaska                                                               
in its sex  offender registry. He reviewed the  process, that the                                                               
other state would  inform the person leaving  its jurisdiction to                                                               
register in  Alaska. He  recalled that  the Department  of Public                                                               
Safety  (DPS) previously  indicated  that  it receives  inquiries                                                               
from approximately 8-10 people a  month if they would be required                                                               
to register in Alaska. He  offered to comment more on reciprocity                                                               
if he could review proposed language.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:00:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE offered  his  belief the  state  would need  to                                                               
track the sex  offenders who are on other  states' registries for                                                               
compliance.  He said  that the  more effective  goal would  be to                                                               
have a national registry, or a gap will occur.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  agreed a national registry  would simplify matters.                                                               
Currently, when an  offender comes to Alaska  from another state,                                                               
the  sex  offender  is required  to  contact  Alaska's  registry.                                                               
However,  the  state  does  not actively  monitor  all  other  49                                                               
states'  registries to  determine which  offenders are  coming to                                                               
Alaska. Instead, Alaska relies on  other states to inform the DPS                                                               
that the offender is moving to  Alaska. This will ensure that the                                                               
person takes the  appropriate action, he said.  If offenders fail                                                               
to register, Alaska can take  the appropriate enforcement action,                                                               
he advised.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:02:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE related  his  understanding  that sex  offender                                                               
registrants are  required to do  many things to  meet compliance.                                                               
He offered  his belief that the  state would still have  the same                                                               
proportion of non-compliance.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE asked whether the  question is that some people will                                                               
not follow through with the  requirements and he agreed some will                                                               
not do  so. The state attempts  to track this through  the notice                                                               
it receives  from the other  jurisdiction that someone  is coming                                                               
to  Alaska. He  acknowledged that  some people  will slip  in and                                                               
when they are discovered the state prosecutes them, he said.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:03:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  echoed the same  concern. She wondered  if some                                                               
offenders simply  get on a plane  to Alaska and pose  a threat to                                                               
Alaskans.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  deferred to the  Department of Public  Safety (DPS)                                                               
to answer.  He reiterated the reporting  requirement. However, he                                                               
said he cannot  guarantee everyone adheres to  the requirement to                                                               
register as a sex offender in Alaska.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:04:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  was  unsure how  this  applies  to  foreigners                                                               
coming in from other countries.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE said  he was  unsure  if other  countries have  sex                                                               
offender registries.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD related  that Germany  is having  difficulties.                                                               
She expressed concern that some  people from other countries come                                                               
to Alaska to work in the commercial fishing industry.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:05:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  recalled a discussion  that if  SB 35 were  to pass                                                               
that  this  provision would  not  be  retroactive and  asked  for                                                               
further clarification.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  explained the constitutional  term, ex  post facto,                                                               
which  means that  the  state cannot  create a  law  to apply  to                                                               
activity that occurred prior to  passage of the law and prosecute                                                               
for it. He  said he would have to more  carefully review how this                                                               
law would  apply to people who  moved to Alaska and  still remain                                                               
in Alaska.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:06:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  whether he  would  research how  SB 35  will                                                               
affect  those individuals  who moved  to Alaska  and remained  in                                                               
Alaska and if they can be included.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said that  ex post  facto analysis  is not  easy to                                                               
perform, but he  offered to try to do so.  In response to Senator                                                               
Reinbold,  he said  the difference  between the  two concepts  is                                                               
that one could say that the  state wants someone to register, but                                                               
the question  is what enforcement  mechanism will be used  if the                                                               
person does not do so. The  registration itself is to provide for                                                               
public safety and  is not related to punishment.  If someone were                                                               
to fail to  register, the person would be committing  a crime and                                                               
would  be   subject  to  prosecution.   He  clarified   that  the                                                               
distinction is  the difference between stating  an obligation and                                                               
identifying  the consequences  if the  person does  not meet  the                                                               
obligation.  He  reiterated  that   the  consequences  cannot  be                                                               
applied retroactively.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  suggested the  Constitution  of  the State  of                                                               
Alaska states  that public  safety is  the most  important thing.                                                               
She expressed concern  about public safety and  the importance to                                                               
enforce the sex offender registry.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  acknowledged that Mr.  Skidmore will review  it and                                                               
try to find a solution.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:09:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  echoed  that   Mr.  Skidmore  understands  the                                                               
concern.  He  offered his  belief  that  the long-term  objective                                                               
should be to institute a national sex offender registry.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:09:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  whether Mr. Skidmore would  review Section 20                                                               
of the SB 35.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:10:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE referred  to pages 13-15 of SB 35  and to Section 20                                                               
of the sectional analysis, which read as follows:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section 20:  Adds indecent viewing  or production  of a                                                                    
     picture of  a person  under the age  of 16  or indecent                                                                    
     production  of a  picture of  an adult  to the  list of                                                                    
     registerable  sex offenses.  Also  adds requirement  to                                                                    
     register as  a sex  offender in  Alaska if  required to                                                                    
     register under the laws of another state.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
He  explained that  Section 20  defines  a sex  offense under  AS                                                               
12.63.100(6)(C)(xv).  He referred  to page  14,  line 30  through                                                               
page 15  line 1,  which would  add language  in [sub-subparagraph                                                               
(xv), as follows,  "(xv) AS 11.61.123 if the  offender is subject                                                           
to punishment  under AS 11.61.123(f)(1);"  and to page  15, lines                                                           
11-12,  which  read: "(E)  an  offense  in  which the  person  is                                                           
required to register as a sex  offender under the laws of another                                                           
jurisdiction;". He  added that this  is the provision  that would                                                           
require  someone  to  register  in  Alaska  if  the  offender  is                                                               
registered in another jurisdiction.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:11:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES said  that in  2007, the  Congress passed  the Adam                                                               
Walsh Child  Protection and Safety  Act, which required  all U.S.                                                               
jurisdictions  to  update their  sex  offender  registry laws  to                                                               
conform  to  it.  She  recalled  that  the  law  required  tiers,                                                               
including a  high-risk tier in  which the offender would  need to                                                               
register for  life and  must report quarterly,  whereas a  tier 1                                                               
offender, the  lowest level offender,  would only be  required to                                                               
register for  15 years and  report once a  year. She asked  how a                                                               
tiered system  would work in  Alaska. She expressed  concern that                                                               
someone  in   another  jurisdiction,   who  is  required   to  be                                                               
registered  for life,  could  slip  in and  only  be required  to                                                               
register for 15 years in Alaska.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  reported that Alaska  does have a tiered  system of                                                               
registry,   including   lifetime    registry   requirements.   He                                                               
acknowledged that  the administration has been  discussing how to                                                               
differentiate  between  lifetime  registry and  15-year  registry                                                               
requirements. He  anticipated that this distinction  would likely                                                               
be established by regulation.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES asked  Mr. Skidmore to report back  to the committee                                                               
with any future  updates on this issue since  the committee wants                                                               
the highest  level of public  protection. She further asked  if a                                                               
system is in  place for states to communicate  when sex offenders                                                               
relocate to Alaska.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to Ms. Monfreda.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:15:04 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHRYN  MONFREDA,  Chief,   Criminal  Records  &  Identification                                                               
Bureau, Department  of Public Safety  (DPS), stated  that manages                                                               
the Sex Offender Registry in Alaska.  Most states have a law that                                                               
requires  them  to  notify  another state  when  an  offender  is                                                               
relocating to that state. She  said two mechanisms to communicate                                                               
exist,  either  via message  to  the  National Crime  Information                                                               
Center (NCIC),  or via communication  established by  the federal                                                               
Sex  Offender  Registration  and Notification  Act  (SORNA).  She                                                               
explained that information and photographs can also be added.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:15:57 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  for further  clarification on  the follow-up                                                               
the DPS uses.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  said if the  SORNA portal  is used it  provides the                                                               
date  the person  is expected  to  arrive. The  state tracks  the                                                               
information and releases  names of anyone who fails  to comply to                                                               
the  Alaska  State  Troopers  and U.S.  Marshals  to  locate  and                                                               
enforce.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:16:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked  whether  Alaska has  a  law  requiring  sex                                                               
offenders leaving Alaska to report prior to their departure.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  said that AS  12.63 requires an offender  to notify                                                               
the state  when they  move to  another location  in Alaska  or if                                                               
they move out of state.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:16:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD asked  whether offenders who are  on vacation or                                                               
who  work temporary  jobs  in  Alaska must  register  on the  sex                                                               
offender registry.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA said the law  is silent for tourists. The department                                                               
has a form to allow offenders  to inform the state when and where                                                               
they will  be traveling.  However, if  the offender  is traveling                                                               
via a  cruise ship,  which is often  in and out  of ports  on the                                                               
same day, the  ship has often sailed prior  to notification being                                                               
received.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  offered  her  belief  that  this  might  be  a                                                               
significant loophole.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  responded that people working  in Alaska, including                                                               
fishermen  or North  Slope workers  are required  to register  in                                                               
Alaska. In  further response to  Senator Reinbold, she  said that                                                               
the law  requires sex offenders  must register if they  are going                                                               
to live,  work, or go  to school in Alaska,  but it is  silent on                                                               
travel.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said  Alaska   has  several  million  visitors                                                               
traveling to  Alaska. She  asked whether  the department  has any                                                               
recommendations  and   if  the   law  applies   to  international                                                               
travelers.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA answered  that the statute would need  to be changed                                                               
to  specifically  give  instructions  to sex  offenders  who  are                                                               
tourists.   In  terms   of  international   sex  offenders,   the                                                               
department has made some inquiries  on out of country registries;                                                               
however, Alaska has had difficulty  in obtaining documentation to                                                               
evaluate an offender's requirement to register.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:20:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  whether other  states have  requirements for                                                               
visitors who are sex offenders to register in their states.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MONFREDA  answered  yes,  that some  do,  but  each  state's                                                               
requirement  is  slightly  different.  She  pointed  out  that  a                                                               
national  law  exists,  and  Alaska   has  been  working  towards                                                               
compliance,  which includes  tiering. She  said that  some states                                                               
comply partially, including Alaska.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:21:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked her  to  provide  any model  legislation                                                               
related  to visitors  who are  sex offenders  because Alaska  has                                                               
between  1-2  million visitors  each  year  who vacation  in  the                                                               
state.  She emphasized  that  Alaska ranks  number  1 for  sexual                                                               
abuse  in  the  nation.  She asked  whether  Ms.  Monfreda  could                                                               
identify how many sex offenders were nonresidents.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA answered  that she did not have an  exact count, but                                                               
her  staff indicates  that  the state  has  approximately 15  new                                                               
registrants each  per month and  5 of  the 15 were  sex offenders                                                               
who offended in states outside of Alaska.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:22:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if a person  who is on Iowa's sex offender                                                               
registry but  subsequently moves to Alaska,  whether the offender                                                               
must continue to report to Iowa.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  said it is dependent  on the state. In  Alaska once                                                               
an offender leaves Alaska, the  offender is removed from Alaska's                                                               
sex offender registry.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE remarked  that if a person  chose carefully, the                                                               
person  could fall  off registries,  unless continuous  reporting                                                               
occurs.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  answered yes,  that it would  be possible  for some                                                               
people to do so by moving from state to state.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked  whether  it   is  possible  to  retain  the                                                               
information on  a sex  offender who leaves  Alaska and  place the                                                               
offender in dormant status on the list.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MONFREDA  answered that  Alaska  does  not destroy  the  sex                                                               
offender's record and it would retain the information.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:24:38 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  the  administration  to  comment  on  a                                                               
possible amendment  that would  require a person  to stay  on the                                                               
registry  after the  person leaves  the  state in  order for  the                                                               
state to lead the way on reporting.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:25:11 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  welcomed specific language  and offered  to consult                                                               
with  the other  departments before  he could  give a  definitive                                                               
position  on   it.  He  said   he  understood  the   concern  and                                                               
conceptually that it makes sense.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  said that  she supports  the concept.  She said                                                               
one reason  she thinks that  keeping sex offenders on  a registry                                                               
is very  important is  because people visit  Alaska, leave  for a                                                               
while, and then  return to Alaska. She remarked  that if Governor                                                               
Dunleavy wants  to make  Alaska safe, that  that state  must take                                                               
the lead and do things differently.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES said  that these  matters are  important. She  said                                                               
that Alaskans  are eager to  have these things resolved,  but the                                                               
committee needs to take the time to get it right.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:26:51 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  turned to  Section 2-3  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Sections  2-3:  Eliminates  marriage as  a  defense  to                                                                    
     sexual assault  in all cases  except when  both parties                                                                    
     consent and it  is the nature of  the relationship that                                                                    
     is  criminalized  (i.e. probation  officer/probationer,                                                                    
     peace officer/person  in custody, Division  of Juvenile                                                                    
     Justice  Officer/person   18  or   19  and   under  the                                                                    
     jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice).                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:28:20 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE stated that Section  2 references a provision of the                                                               
sexual assault statutes in [AS  11.41.410- 11.41.427], that it is                                                               
not  a  defense  if  the  victim was  the  legal  spouse  of  the                                                               
defendant. Section 3 would establish  that it will still remain a                                                               
defense  if both  parties consent  [under AS  41.425 (a)(2)-(5)].                                                               
For example, if  one person is a probation officer  and the other                                                               
person is on  probation, under current law the  parties could not                                                               
engage in sexual activity. However, it  is a legal defense if the                                                               
parties are married, so it would be acceptable.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:29:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES related  her understanding  that under  current law                                                               
marriage  can  be  used  as  a defense.  She  asked  for  further                                                               
clarification on how  this would apply to  a correctional officer                                                               
who supervises a person, but  the parties later marry. She wanted                                                               
to  clarify the  misconception that  marriage is  a defense  if a                                                               
sexual assault occurs.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE answered  that marriage  is  not a  defense if  the                                                               
victim does not  consent and a sexual assault  occurs. He related                                                               
a  scenario in  which two  adults  are married,  with one  person                                                               
serving as  a probation officer  and the other is  a probationer.                                                               
If the  probation officer  were charged  with sexual  assault and                                                               
the probationer did  not consent and was  sexually assaulted, the                                                               
probation  officer could  be charged  under another  provision in                                                               
law that  indicates sexual penetration or  sexual contact without                                                               
consent is  a criminal offense.  Marriage would not be  a defense                                                               
under those criminal provisions, he said.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:31:03 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE referred to page 3  to Sections 4-6 of the sectional                                                               
analysis, which read as follows:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Sections 4-6: Removes the word  "online" from the crime                                                                    
     of "online enticement"  criminalizing any enticement of                                                                    
     a  minor regardless  of whether  the enticement  occurs                                                                    
     "online."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said these provisions  relate to  online enticement                                                               
enacted to  address crimes in  which an individual was  trying to                                                               
entice a young person to  engage in sexual activity. This statute                                                               
was designed  to ensure that  conduct was  criminalized. However,                                                               
these provisions seem to be  restricted only to online enticement                                                               
and this broadens it to all other circumstances, he said.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:32:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  referred to  Section 7  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 7: Removes the word "semen" from the crime of                                                                      
     harassment in the first degree to conform with change                                                                      
     made in Section 13.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE said  that this  provision references  back to  the                                                               
Justin  Schneider   case  that  the  committee   previously  held                                                               
extensive discussions on during its hearings on SB 12.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE turned  to  Section 8  of  the sectional  analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 8:  Adds repeatedly sending unwanted  images of                                                                    
     genitalia  to the  crime of  harassment  in the  second                                                                    
     degree.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said Section 8  is found on page  4 of SB  35. Some                                                               
individuals  think   courtship  involves   sending  inappropriate                                                               
images, he said. He said that  the first time someone sends these                                                               
images is not criminalized. However,  if the person receiving the                                                               
images indicates he/she is not  interested in receiving them, but                                                               
the person continues  to send the images, it  would be considered                                                               
harassment and enforcement action could be taken.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:33:37 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the  victim must specifically indicate                                                               
not to send the images before this law could be applied.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE read  a portion  of proposed  Sec.8. AS  11.61.120,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (a) A  person commits  the crime  of harassment  in the                                                                    
     second  degree  if,  with intent  to  harass  or  annoy                                                                    
     another person,                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     (8) under circumstances not  proscribed in AS 11.41.455                                                                
     or  11.61.125, repeatedly  sends electronic  or printed                                                                
     photographs, pictures, or films  to another person that                                                                
     show the genitals of any person.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  explained  that that  the  prosecutor  must  prove                                                               
sending the  images is done  with the  intent to harass  or annoy                                                               
and proving  intent would  be difficult.  However, if  the person                                                               
requested the  person to not to  send any other images,  it would                                                               
allow prosecutors to  indicate the offender was told  not to send                                                               
more images, but  the person continued to do  so. He acknowledged                                                               
that he could  not guarantee the person would  be prosecuted, but                                                               
it would get the prosecutor closer  to proving an intent to annoy                                                               
or harass the victim.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:34:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding  that about 25 percent                                                               
of  kids   send  inappropriate  pictures  to   one  another.  She                                                               
described some activity that occurs  when photos have been shared                                                               
while dating, but  when the relationship ends one  of the parties                                                               
forwards  the images  to  other friends.  She  asked for  further                                                               
clarification on how that activity  would be addressed. She noted                                                               
that  this is  a significant  problem  in high  schools and  some                                                               
middle schools in her district.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE explained that this  language reads, "with intent to                                                               
harass or annoy another person,"  and he reread paragraph (8). He                                                               
said  that   this  language   is  designed   to  deal   with  the                                                               
circumstance  in which  one person  is receiving  images and  the                                                               
person sending them intends to harass  or annoy a person. He said                                                               
he is  very familiar with the  concept she is describing,  but he                                                               
was unsure whether this provision would address this issue.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES asked  whether a provision in law  exists that would                                                               
address the conduct described.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SKIDMORE   answered   that   it   depends   on   individual                                                               
circumstances   of  the   case.   He  indicated   he  could   not                                                               
specifically provide an answer today.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:36:32 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD suggested  potential  language  changes to  add                                                               
"embarrass" and indicated  the crime should apply  the first time                                                               
the  activity occurs,  and it  should not  require that  a person                                                               
indicate  not to  send the  images. She  offered her  belief that                                                               
this language needs to be stricter to curb this activity.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:37:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether Section  8, 11.61.120 (a)(6) would                                                               
specifically address that issue. The language read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     (6) except  as provided  in AS 11.61.116,  publishes or                                                                    
     distributes   electronic    or   printed   photographs,                                                                    
     pictures,  or films  that show  the genitals,  anus, or                                                                    
     female breast of  the other person or  show that person                                                                    
     engaged in a sexual act; [OR]                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  agreed  that  [paragraph]  (6)  would  apply,                                                                    
however, it also depends on  the specific facts of the case.                                                                    
In some instances, the images  would fall under the crime of                                                                    
child  pornography,   but  the  prosecutor  would   need  to                                                                    
evaluate the images.  He reiterated that it  would depend on                                                                    
the  specific  facts  of  the case.  He  offered  to  review                                                                    
applicable  statutes   to  determine   if  the   conduct  is                                                                    
addressed.  He  reiterated  that [paragraph]  (6)  seems  to                                                                    
address a number of situations previously described.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:38:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  related a scenario  in which teens  between the                                                               
ages 13-17 were in a  relationship, take photos, and forward them                                                               
[to each  other], but  the photos  are subsequently  forwarded to                                                               
other  people.  She asked  whether  the  law would  address  that                                                               
conduct.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:39:18 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  referred  to   AS  11.61.116(a),  which  would                                                               
specifically apply to that conduct.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  directed attention to AS  11.61.116(a), "Sending an                                                               
explicit image of a minor, which read:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (a)  A  person  commits   the  offense  of  sending  an                                                                    
     explicit image  of a minor  if the person,  with intent                                                                    
     to annoy  or humiliate  another person,  distributes an                                                                    
     electronic  photograph   or  video  that   depicts  the                                                                    
     genitals, anus,  or female breast of  that other person                                                                    
     taken when  that person was  a minor under 16  years of                                                                    
     age.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE said  the statute  goes on  to describe  some other                                                               
definitions and  the level  of the offense.  He agreed  that this                                                               
statute does appear to address the conduct.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:40:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  for further  clarification whether  this                                                               
statute referred to an adult sending  the explicit image or if it                                                               
applied to  a minor who is  sending images to another  minor. She                                                               
further  asked what  role school  administrators have  to address                                                               
this conduct. She reiterated that  this is a common practice from                                                               
middle  school  to  high  school   students.  She  asked  whether                                                               
administrators or other friends who  become aware of this conduct                                                               
would have a responsibility to report it.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  answered that this  does not  differentiate between                                                               
an image being sent  to an adult or a minor.  The crime becomes a                                                               
crime when an image  "of a minor" is sent. He  said he was unsure                                                               
of any obligation to report.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:41:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD asked  what crime the person can  be charged for                                                               
this conduct and whether it would be a misdemeanor.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  answered that the penalty  is a class B  or class A                                                               
misdemeanor.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:42:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE referred to existing statutory language                                                                        
that covers sending an explicit image of a minor:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
            (1) a class B misdemeanor if the person                                                                             
     distributes the image to another person;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
            (2) a class A misdemeanor if the person                                                                             
      distributes the image to an Internet website that is                                                                      
     accessible to the public.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE answered that is correct.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether schools have a duty to report.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:42:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  recalled that  he was  engaged in  the enabling                                                               
legislation  in 2011  when  this type  of  activity was  becoming                                                               
prevalent. He  offered his belief  that a class A  misdemeanor is                                                               
not  nearly  strict  enough for  information  distributed  on  an                                                               
Internet  website. He  said he  thinks this  type of  activity is                                                               
reportable   since   nearly   anything   related   to   materials                                                               
distributed in  schools is reportable.  However, he  suggested it                                                               
may need further research.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES offered to consult  with the Department of Education                                                               
and Early Development (DEED).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:43:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE stated  that the statute would  apply to someone                                                               
who is age 16  and under, which would be classified  as a class A                                                               
or  class  B  misdemeanor,  depending   on  how  the  images  are                                                               
distributed.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  said  that under  [paragraph  (7),  harassment in  the  first                                                               
degree  would apply  to someone  who,"    sends  or publishes  an                                                               
electronic  communication that  insults,  taunts, challenges,  or                                                               
intimidates a  person under 18    " He stated that  paragraph (6)                                                               
in  Section  8 would  appear  to  cover  anyone. He  asked  which                                                               
penalty  is more  serious  for harassment  and if  class  A or  B                                                               
misdemeanors were adequate classifications.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said  that  harassment in  the  second  degree  is                                                               
classified  as a  class B  misdemeanor.  He related  that in  [AS                                                               
11.61.116] would be either a class A or class B misdemeanor.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:44:30 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE said  that Sections  9-12  all relate  to the  same                                                               
crime. First,  these provisions revise the  statutes for clarity.                                                               
Second, these sections  review the penalties for  conduct that is                                                               
defined as  a sex  crime but  is not treated  as such  in current                                                               
statute, and it identifies the necessary conforming changes.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE turned  to the  chart in  members' packets,  titled                                                               
"Indecent  Viewing  or Production."  He  said  that "viewing"  is                                                               
different  than "production."  The  conduct  in these  provisions                                                               
relate to  viewing or producing  a photo of the  private exposure                                                               
of genitals,  anus, or a  female breast.  It is the  "viewing" or                                                               
"production"   of   that   private   exposure   that   is   under                                                               
consideration.  He said  that  the crime  is  broken out  further                                                               
depending on whether the victim is a child or an adult.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE   paraphrased  Sections   9-12  of   the  sectional                                                               
analysis, which read:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9: Separates  production from  viewing in  the                                                                    
     crime of indecent viewing or production of a picture.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  10:  Conforming  amendment. Changes  the  word                                                                    
     "photography" to "production of pictures."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  11:  Conforming  amendment. Changes  the  word                                                                    
     "photography" to "production of pictures."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  12: Classification  section. Makes  viewing or                                                                    
     production of  a picture of  a person under the  age of                                                                    
     16  a class  C felony  (which  will be  sentenced as  a                                                                    
     sexual felony,  see sec. 15).  Production of  a picture                                                                    
     of an  adult is  also a  class C  felony. Viewing  of a                                                                    
     picture of an adult is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:46:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  related that Section 12  gets to the heart  of what                                                               
the bill  intends to accomplish,  which is  increased sentencing.                                                               
Under  current law  when  the victim  is a  child,  the crime  is                                                               
punishable  as  a class  C  felony  offense,  but  not as  a  sex                                                               
offense.  If victim  is an  adult the  crime is  punishable as  a                                                               
class A misdemeanor, but not as a sex offense.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
He  explained  that  the  proposed language  in  Section  12  [AS                                                               
11.61.123(f) would  increase penalties for "viewing"  a child for                                                               
this crime to  a class C sex felony. Crimes  against children are                                                               
subject  to greater  sentencing and  additional requirements  for                                                               
sex offender registration and treatment.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He said  that "production" of a  picture would also be  a class C                                                               
sexual felony  when the victim is  a child, and again  be subject                                                               
to the same type of increased penalties.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said that  shifting to an  adult, the  "viewing" of                                                               
explicit   pictures   remains   a  class   A   misdemeanor,   but                                                               
"production"  of  the  explicit  picture of  an  adult  would  be                                                               
elevated to a class C felony.  This crime is not categorized as a                                                               
sexual felony with  a much higher classification  range since the                                                               
concept  is  to  try  to   provide  greater  punishment  for  the                                                               
protection of children and still  have significant punishment. It                                                               
would also require  offenders to register as  sex offenders, even                                                               
if  the  "production" of  a  picture  is  of an  adult.  However,                                                               
greater sentencing would  not be associated with it,  he said. He                                                               
related  that  this  provision  relates  to  the  taking  of  the                                                               
picture.  He noted  that what  happens to  the picture  and other                                                               
penalties that apply has been previously discussed.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:48:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES offered  her  belief that  if  someone produces  an                                                               
explicit  image or  video of  a child  in a  sexual way,  that it                                                               
seems  more  serious  that  indecent  viewing  of  a  child.  She                                                               
suggested that  forcing a child  to do different types  of things                                                               
seems like a more serious offense.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said that  "production"  cases  are situations  in                                                               
which a  person has installed a  small camera in a  bathroom or a                                                               
locker  room capturing  someone using  the facilities,  including                                                               
using the  toilet, taking  a shower,  or changing  clothes. These                                                               
provisions would not capture someone  engaged in sexual activity.                                                               
The  sexual activity  would fall  under child  pornography, which                                                               
carries  a much  higher penalty  than this  conduct. He  recapped                                                               
that it provides a more  tiered approach beginning with exposure,                                                               
but not engaging in sexual activity.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:50:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  for further  clarification on  "production."                                                               
She offered her  belief that the person  capturing these explicit                                                               
images on  film would be  indecent viewing, but the  person could                                                               
capture it  on film. If so,  the intent would  be to use it  at a                                                               
later  date.   She  suggested  that   it  seems  as   though  the                                                               
"production" should be considered at a higher level.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said that she is  correct. He related a  crime that                                                               
occurred a number of years ago,  in which a man installed a small                                                               
camera  in a  smoke  detector in  the changing  room  at a  local                                                               
swimming   pool.  That   was   connected   to  a   closed-circuit                                                               
television,  which could  have been  watched live,  but was  also                                                               
recorded. The  materials were discovered prior  to the recordings                                                               
being  viewed and  the person  was prosecuted  and convicted.  In                                                               
that context it captured private exposure.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
He  agreed  that  penalties  were  the  same  for  "viewing"  and                                                               
"production."  However, the  courts would  also have  a range  of                                                               
penalties  available between  2-12  years. The  court would  have                                                               
discretion to consider  the facts and circumstances  of the case.                                                               
He said both  instances consist of a violation of  privacy for an                                                               
individual.  He  acknowledged that  the  committee  many wish  to                                                               
elevate one  of the crimes,  which is within its  prerogative. He                                                               
related that  "viewing" and "production"  of explicit  images are                                                               
currently dealt  with on exactly the  same level for a  child and                                                               
for  an  adult.  This  bill   would  substantially  increase  the                                                               
penalties  for a  child  victim and  increase  the penalties  for                                                               
"production"  involving an  adult victim.  It would  also require                                                               
offenders to register,  he said. The department  would be willing                                                               
to discuss any amendments the committee would like to consider.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:53:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked for further clarification  on the penalty                                                               
provision on  the chart that  states "viewing"  explicit pictures                                                               
would be  a class  A misdemeanor  with 0-30 days  and a  one year                                                               
maximum.  It  further  lists  the  penalty  for  "production"  of                                                               
explicit images  of a child  as a class  C sexual felony,  with a                                                               
presumptive   penalty  range   between   2-12   years  and   with                                                               
aggravators could reach  a maximum of 99 years.  In addition, the                                                               
offender must register as a sex offender, he said.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  answered yes, that  the penalty was increased  to a                                                               
class  C  sex  felony  with  a  maximum  of  99  years,  and  the                                                               
presumptive range  for a  first offense  is 2-12  years. Further,                                                               
with prior  offenses the  presumptive range  would be  higher, he                                                               
said.  He  acknowledged that  aggravators  would  give the  court                                                               
greater discretion.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  offered his support  for the  dramatic increase                                                               
in penalties  for "production" of  explicit images. He  turned to                                                               
the knowledge  and consent provision,  on page  5, line 9,  of SB                                                               
35, which read:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     (A) the parent or guardian of the person shown in the                                                                      
     picture, if the person shown is under 16 years of age;                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
       (B) the person shown in the picture, if the person                                                                       
     shown is at least 13 years of age.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
He  related his  understanding that  a parent  or guardian  could                                                               
give permission for someone to  be shown in the explicit picture.                                                               
Further, the parent  and the child must also  give permission for                                                               
explicit  pictures   under  13  years   of  age.  He   asked  for                                                               
clarification  why  someone would  give  permission  for a  child                                                               
under the  age of 16  to be photographed in  such a way.  He said                                                               
that it seems absurd.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  provided an  example, such that  a parent  giving a                                                               
newborn baby a  bath who recorded the activity with  a picture or                                                               
a  video. The  potential  exists that  the  photograph or  video,                                                               
which  is intended  to be  viewed within  the family  and is  not                                                               
criminal in nature would be captured by the language.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:56:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE  acknowledged  his   point,  which  is  what  other                                                               
circumstances  would arise  that  explicit  photographs would  be                                                               
appropriate. He conceded  that the statute for a  child under the                                                               
age  of  16   would  assume  that  the   parents  are  exercising                                                               
appropriate  discretion  about  what  is best  for  their  child,                                                               
although he agreed  that sometimes that may not be  the case, but                                                               
until and unless the court  terminated someone's parental rights,                                                               
the state will  trust the parents to make the  best decisions for                                                               
their children.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:56:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   expressed   concern  about   "viewing"   and                                                               
"production." She asked how this  language would address students                                                               
receiving texts  that they  do not  want, but  who are  afraid to                                                               
stand  up  for  themselves.  She  said  she  would  cover  a  few                                                               
scenarios. For example,  what happens if people  obtain popups on                                                               
their computers, or  e-mails with images they  are not interested                                                               
in  receiving. She  asked for  further clarification  if the  law                                                               
acknowledges these  types of problems.  She said she  was shocked                                                               
that the state has only prosecuted one case of indecent viewing.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  recalled one case  that was  taken to the  court of                                                               
appeals,  who issued  an opinion  and published  it. He  recalled                                                               
that  three  or  four  other   cases  were  considered  as  MOJ's                                                               
(memorandum of  judgment], which  are unpublished cases  that are                                                               
from the  court of appeals. He  added that many cases  never make                                                               
it to the court of appeals.  His comment was related to the cases                                                               
that  make it  to the  court of  appeals, and  not the  number of                                                               
prosecutions, he said.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:58:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD directed attention  to the slide to "production"                                                               
of explicit images as a class  C sexual felony. She asked whether                                                               
this activity  would include taking pictures  and forwarding them                                                               
to friends.  She asked  if the person  who received  the unwanted                                                               
text [photo] could be charged and  need to be registered as a sex                                                               
offender.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE answered  no. He  said that  indecent "viewing"  or                                                               
"production"  relates   to  the  "production"  of   the  explicit                                                               
photograph, and  not what happens  to the photograph  since other                                                               
statutes  relate to  that aspect  and activity.  In terms  of the                                                               
person  receiving  the  explicit  photograph  and  what  type  of                                                               
penalties would  result, this goes  back to the concept  of "mens                                                               
rea" and  "actus reus" that must  apply to any crime.  That would                                                               
mean that the  person would need to have the  mental knowledge of                                                               
wrongdoing and  proof of  the physical act  of the  crime itself.                                                               
The person who  receives the explicit photo must  have the mental                                                               
state of  intent of  viewing the  picture as  a criminal  act. He                                                               
said  that both  concepts  must coexist.  However,  a person  who                                                               
opens an  e-mail or text  and does not  want to see  the material                                                               
has not committed a crime.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:01:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD said  that it  seemed subjective.  She wondered                                                               
how this  might apply if  a teenager gets  a photo, thinks  it is                                                               
funny,  and forwards  it to  another  person. She  said that  she                                                               
thinks that is a common practice.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated  that the taking of the  photo or viewing                                                               
it are  very different crimes. He  said what is being  amended in                                                               
SB 35 does not apply.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:01:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD  asked   whether  that   activity  should   be                                                               
addressed. She  reiterated that this activity  is common practice                                                               
in schools,  and it is  not appropriate.  She said it  has caused                                                               
significant  trauma. She  said that  people  do not  know how  to                                                               
address  it.  At  the  very  least,  she  said  she  thinks  that                                                               
mandatory  reporting requirements  should  be  instituted if  the                                                               
state wants to address these types of issues.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:02:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES remarked  that pornography  is prevalent.  She said                                                               
the average  age for  seeing images  is in  the second  and third                                                               
grade since  many children  have cell  phones. She  asked whether                                                               
there  is   a  correlation  in  the   increased  availability  of                                                               
pornography  and an  increase  in sexual  crimes  in Alaska.  She                                                               
could not recall the year that smart phones came out.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said he  was  unsure.  He  stated that  sex  crime                                                               
statistics have  been increasing. However,  he was unsure  if any                                                               
causation   or  correlation   with   smart   phones  occurs.   He                                                               
acknowledged that it is a concern  and steps should be taken, but                                                               
he  was not  prepared to  engage in  that discussion.  Some other                                                               
laws address this  issue. He offered to review them  to better be                                                               
able to hold a discussion.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES asked  if sex crimes involving minors  and by minors                                                               
has increased since smart phones have become mainstream.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:06:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that  a chart showing statutes related                                                               
to sexual  crimes would show  that a  number of issues  have been                                                               
addressed in  different sections  of law.  He offered  his belief                                                               
that some gaps exist and those  could be discussed outside of the                                                               
committee. He said  that Mr. Skidmore is an  amazing resource. He                                                               
asked  whether  Mr.  Skidmore  could  develop  a  cross-reference                                                               
chart, which would be very helpful.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[SB 35 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:06:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reviewed upcoming announcements.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:07:16 PM                                                                                                                    
There being  no further  business to  come before  the committee,                                                               
Chair Hughes  adjourned the  Senate Judiciary  Standing Committee                                                               
meeting at 3:07 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB35 - Version A.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 35 Transmittal Letter.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 35 Highlights.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 35 - Sex Offenses Sectional.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-IDO-FN.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-ParoleBd-FN.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB35-DPS-CJISP-FN.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB35-HSS-PS-FN.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB35-Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 12 - Version M.PDF SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 12
SB 12 Sponsor Statement.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 12
SB 12 Sectional Summary Version M.pdf SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB12 Supporting Documents KTUU Article.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 12
SB12 Supporting Documents KTVA Article.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 12
SB12 Supporting Documents Washington Post Article.pdf SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 12