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