02/15/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB269 | |
| HB107 | |
| SB240 | |
| SB249 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 269 | ||
| = | HB 107 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2006
8:40 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 240
"An Act relating to rights of crime victims."
MOVED SB 240 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 249
"An Act relating to criminal justice information."
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act relating to contribution actions relating to the release
of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCS HB 269(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 107(FIN)
"An Act relating to unlawful obstruction or hindrance of
hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game; and
amending Rule 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 508,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure."
MOVED SCS CSHB 107(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 240
SHORT TITLE: DRUG OFFENSES: NEIGHBORS AS CRIME VICTIMS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/17/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/09/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 249
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/23/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/06 (S) JUD
02/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASE LIABILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
04/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/05 (H) RES, JUD
04/22/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/25/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/25/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/25/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/05 (H) RES RPT 4DP 2NR
04/26/05 (H) DP: OLSON, LEDOUX, ELKINS, RAMRAS;
04/26/05 (H) NR: GATTO, CRAWFORD
04/27/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/27/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/27/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/05 (H) JUD RPT 6DP
04/28/05 (H) DP: KOTT, ANDERSON, DAHLSTROM, COGHILL,
GARA, MCGUIRE
04/30/05 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/30/05 (H) VERSION: HB 269
05/01/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/01/05 (S) RES, JUD
01/23/06 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/23/06 (S) Heard & Held
01/23/06 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/30/06 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/30/06 (S) Moved HB 269 Out of Committee
01/30/06 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/01/06 (S) RES RPT 5DP 2NR
02/01/06 (S) DP: WAGONER, ELTON, KOOKESH, DYSON,
STEVENS B
02/01/06 (S) NR: SEEKINS, STEDMAN
02/14/06 (S) JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
BILL: HB 107
SHORT TITLE: HUNTING/FISHING INTERFERENCE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/24/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/05 (H) RES, JUD
02/02/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/09/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/16/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/16/05 (H) Moved CSHB 107(RES) Out of Committee
02/16/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/18/05 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 3DP 1DNP 4NR
02/18/05 (H) DP: OLSON, ELKINS, RAMRAS;
02/18/05 (H) DNP: SEATON;
02/18/05 (H) NR: GATTO, LEDOUX, CRAWFORD, KAPSNER
02/18/05 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/02/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/04/05 (H) Moved CSHB 107(JUD) Out of Committee
03/04/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/07/05 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 3NR
03/07/05 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, ANDERSON, MCGUIRE;
03/07/05 (H) NR: DAHLSTROM, COGHILL, GARA
03/15/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/05 (H) Moved CSHB 107(FIN) Out of Committee
03/15/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/05 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 6NR
03/16/05 (H) DP: HAWKER, STOLTZE;
03/16/05 (H) NR: WEYHRAUCH, CROFT, MOSES, KELLY,
MEYER, CHENAULT
05/08/05 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/08/05 (H) VERSION: CSHB 107(FIN)
05/09/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/09/05 (S) RES, JUD
01/23/06 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/23/06 (S) Heard & Held
01/23/06 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/30/06 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/30/06 (S) Moved SCS CSHB 107(RES) Out of
Committee
01/30/06 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/01/06 (S) RES RPT SCS 3DP 4NR SAME TITLE
02/01/06 (S) DP: WAGONER, DYSON, STEVENS B
02/01/06 (S) NR: ELTON, KOOKESH, SEEKINS, STEDMAN
02/09/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/14/06 (S) JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/14/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
WITNESS REGISTER
Jane Pierson, Legislative Aide
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 269
Breck Tostivan, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 269
Jim Pound, Legislative Aide
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 107
Doug Wooliver, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
303 K St.
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 249
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:40:35 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Charlie Huggins, Gene Therriault, Gretchen Guess,
and Chair Ralph Seekins.
HB 269-HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASE LIABILITY
8:41:05 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced HB 269 to be up for consideration.
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, introduced the
bill. She explained that HB 269 is meant to address a United
States Supreme Court decision in the case of Cooper Industries
v. Aviall Services. The US Supreme Court found that a
responsible party who cleans up a contaminated property couldn't
bring a contribution action against another responsible party
until such time as it has been sued by the state or federal
government or has entered into a formal administrative
settlement of liability.
The Aviall decision puts into question the rights of Alaskans
who conduct voluntary cleanups on contaminated property against
other potentially responsible parties. Voluntary cleanups form
the majority of environmental cleanups and relieve a substantial
burden from the state.
8:42:49 AM
MS. PIERSON summarized the right to contribution actions
provides incentives for voluntary cleanups by allowing parties
to recover some of the costs from other responsible parties that
fail to assist with remediation. HB 269 would clarify language
in AS 46.03.822(j) thereby ensuring that responsible parties
that conduct voluntary cleanups may bring contributions actions
against other responsible parties.
8:43:51 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Pierson to summarize the
written decision of the US Supreme Court.
MS. PIERSON explained the decision stated that it was a timing
issue of when contribution claims could be started. The Court
said they couldn't be started until such time as the state or
federal government had formally sued. The problem is that
instead of bringing other responsible parties in from the
beginning, it is now uncertain when they can be brought into the
action.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whether other responsible parties could
be brought in voluntarily before a suit occurred.
MS. PIERSON said yes. The owner would pay to clean up the
property and the courts would get involved only if there was a
disagreement.
8:45:33 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH said he read several pages of the US
Supreme Court opinion in the Aviall case. It was a statutory
cause of action and because the statute didn't authorize a
contribution action before there was a lawsuit, there couldn't
be a contribution action unless there was a lawsuit and that
means there is no such thing as a voluntary agreement to clean
up a spill. It was a very narrow and legalistic view of what
Congress had done and because Congress didn't specify that two
parties could voluntarily get together and do the cleanup, a
party cannot sue to bring in another party, he explained.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for a definition of "contribution
action."
SENATOR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation of a gas station
owner who has a leaky tank and sells the business to a new
owner. The new owner is aware of the leaky tank and two years
later gets sued to clean it up. A "contribution action" is when
the new owner forces the help of the previous owner to do the
cleanup. The statute wouldn't allow the new owner to sue the
previous owner unless the new owner had been sued first. Because
the statute does not authorize it, the statute must be fixed to
allow for a voluntary contribution claim.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he understood it to be that a private party
that has not been sued under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) may not obtain
contribution from other liable parties.
8:51:24 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Pierson how the sponsor discovered the
need for the bill.
MS. PIERSON advised the committee that it came as a request from
the attorney general's office.
BRECK TOSTAVIN, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law (DOL), informed the committee that their interpretation of
the Aviall decision was correct. The concern with that decision
in regard to state law is that AS 46.03.822 is patterned after
CERCLA. That decision creates an uncertainty of whether the
Alaska Supreme Court would interpret a case in the same way that
the US Supreme Court did. The concern is that they could
interpret it to require the state to actually sue a responsible
party to allow that responsible party to bring in others for a
contribution action.
The voluntary cleanup process in Alaska occurs in a forward
process. When contamination is found, the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) sends out notifications to the
responsible parties who hire consultants and then engage in the
voluntary cleanup. They then seek to recover costs from other
responsible parties. HB 269 would keep the current process in
place. The Aviall decision conflicts with the Laidlaw decision
[Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Laidlaw Transit] where
the Alaska Supreme Court said that a lawsuit was not required
for a contribution action. The Court said a formal
administrative action initiated by the DEC was enough to trigger
rights to a contribution action. The bill clarifies that the
timing of the contribution right is triggered by the potential
liability determination by the DEC.
8:55:02 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS reiterated that a person could bring a
contribution action once that person receives a notice of
potential liability determination from the DEC. An
administrative action gives the authority to go after a
contribution action on another potentially responsible party.
MR. TOSTAVIN agreed. Once a party receives notification and
begins to incur expenses associated with the cleanup, they have
the contribution action right.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted there was no one else signed up to testify
and so he closed public testimony.
SENATOR FRENCH expressed support for the bill.
8:57:15 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt version G as the working document
before the committee. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee letter of intent. Hearing no objections, the motion
carried.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved SCS HB 269(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes and the
letter of intent. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 8:58:39 AM.
HB 107-HUNTING/FISHING INTERFERENCE
9:01:41 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS recognized Representative Jay Ramras and
announced CSHB 107(FIN) to be up for consideration.
MR. JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Ramras, introduced the
bill and advised the committee that his intent this day was to
follow up on a request by the committee for a definition of
"physically interfering."
9:05:07 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that all committee members had a copy of
the Legislative Legal Services memorandum regarding the
definition.
MR. POUND explained that "physically interfering" was a concern
that Senator Guess brought up regarding people who were combat
fishing. She was concerned that people would be able to sue each
other for perceived infractions, specifically if a person were
to accidentally cause another person to lose a fish that they
had hooked. He said the bill relates to cutting trap lines and
it would have no effect on sport fishing. In response to a
suggestion he received, he said the committee should add the
word "with" on page 2 line 4.
9:06:49 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT moved Amendment 1. Section 1, Paragraph
3, add the word "with" after "physically interfering." Hearing
no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked whether the question regarding
commercial fishing was resolved.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH said his staff contacted the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and they were not concerned with the
bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS moved SCS CSHB 107(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes.
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:08:35 AM.
SB 240-DRUG OFFENSES: NEIGHBORS AS CRIME VICTIMS
9:15:22 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 240 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, bill sponsor, introduced the bill. Drug
crimes are sometimes referred to as "victimless crimes" but
people who live next door to high volume drug houses would not
agree. SB 240 would allow neighbors who have lived through the
criminal phase of a drug house to stay informed about the
progress of the case as the matter moves through the court
system. The bill is narrowly tailored to apply only to felony
drug crimes that occur on adjacent property where the affected
neighbor makes a request to stay informed.
The need for the legislation was brought to his attention
through a constituent who was unable to get basic information
regarding the progress of a case involving a neighbor who
operated a drug house.
9:17:08 AM
SENATOR FRENCH referred to additional information in the bill
packet, such as news accounts and aerial maps of drug houses and
the surrounding neighborhoods. The maps highlight the amount of
people who could potentially be affected by the bill. It is
crafted so that it must be a felony drug crime and it must be an
instance where the adjacent neighbor would have to positively
contact the district attorney's office for the requested
information.
9:18:58 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked Senator French how citizens would
know that they are authorized to call and request information on
a case.
SENATOR FRENCH said it would more likely be an involved citizen
motivated to take the affirmative step to trigger the provisions
of the bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator French at what point in the case
would the person be able to obtain information and the type of
information that the district attorney's office would be allowed
to disclose.
SENATOR FRENCH advised the committee that AS 12.61.010 was the
statute being modified. Essentially it would allow the adjacent
property owner the right to be notified by the appropriate law
enforcement agency or the prosecuting attorney in the case. The
information to be disclosed would be the date of trial, the
sentencing, an appeal or any hearing in which the defendant's
release from custody is being considered.
9:21:38 AM
SENATOR FRENCH clarified for the Department of Law (DOL) that
the working definition of "adjacent" is out of Black's Law
Dictionary. The neighbor would have to be fairly close to the
drug house. It would be the neighbors on either side of the
house and, if close enough, the neighbor across the street and
possibly the one diagonal to the drug house.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether it could be all of the people living
in an apartment building if the drug house were actually an
apartment in the building.
SENATOR FRENCH said yes. The district attorney's office would
determine the "reasonable" amount of distance on a case-by-case
basis and only the neighbors who qualified could receive the
information.
CHAIR SEEKINS referred to the photo of a trailer park that was
provided in the bill packet and asked Senator French to provide
an example of a reasonable distance.
SENATOR FRENCH gave the example that if the committee were to
choose any one trailer in the park, it would be three or four
contiguous trailers that would qualify.
9:24:35 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked about apartment complexes where
there are several buildings together.
SENATOR FRENCH said in a two-block apartment building it would
be just the apartments next to the drug apartment. An apartment
at the other end of the building would not be considered
adjacent. The idea would be to have common sense apply and the
district attorney's office would have discretion as to who could
receive the requested information.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the remedy for people who, for one reason or
another, did not get the requested information.
SENATOR FRENCH said they would have the right to complain loudly
to the district attorney's office.
9:26:52 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted there was no one signed up to testify and so
he closed public testimony.
9:28:23 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said the bill was not intended to require the
police to leaflet a neighborhood. It was for citizens who take
the initiative to follow up on a case that affected them.
SENATOR GUESS moved SB 240 from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objections, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:29:08 AM.
SB 249-REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
9:37:23 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 249 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, bill sponsor, introduced the bill. SB 249
is designed to help continue to allow for effective integration
of law enforcement knowledge across the state by putting into
statute the ability to add bail conditions to the Alaska Public
Safety Information Network (APSIN).
He cited an incident where a swat team cordoned off an Anchorage
neighborhood in 2005. A man went to his former spouse's home and
held her hostage with a gun. Shots were fired between the man
and the Anchorage Police Department (APD) but no one was hurt.
The man went to jail but two weeks later was released on bail
and returned to the same house to continue the dispute. A
neighbor called the police but since the bail conditions were
not listed on APSIN the police could not determine whether he
was violating bail conditions and therefore were restricted from
pursuing any further action against him.
9:40:24 AM
Bail conditions frequently prohibit someone from doing something
that is otherwise lawful and the bill would let officers know
whether the person they are dealing with was or was not obeying
their conditions of bail.
9:41:26 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
said Senator French brought the issue to his attention. The
court system has a group called the MAJIC group, which stands
for multi-agency justice integration committee. It is chaired by
a member of the court and includes people from the Department of
Public Safety, (DPS) the APD, the chiefs of police, the
Department of Corrections (DOC), district attorneys and others
from the criminal justice system. They meet every other week and
they are working on this particular problem. Currently there is
no connection between the bail conditions and APSIM. The long-
term goal is to incorporate the bail conditions information in
the computer system, which is a fairly substantial change.
9:43:20 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether there was a fiscal note attached to
the bill.
MR. WOOLIVER reported there was no fiscal note. The court system
would estimate an indeterminate fiscal note. It is a long-range
project and may cost money in the future but not immediately.
9:45:35 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said that police often deal with people who are
on bail restrictions and the bill would offer a valuable service
for those situations with repeat offenders.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether conditions of probation should be
included in the computer for the officers as well.
MR. WOOLIVER said he believes a clerk at the DOC types
information for some offenses into the computer system by hand
so that it is available for responding officers. The MAJIC group
is addressing that issue and others such as letting officers
know that the person they are pulling over has not paid their
traffic tickets.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether a person convicted of a DUI loses
their license.
MR. WOOLIVER explained the officer that arrests the person would
take their driver's license and that information gets
transferred to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer
system.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the timeframe for transferring that
information.
MR. WOOLIVER said it depends. There is an administrative
revocation and a court adjudicated revocation. A court action
against a license is still all paper records. Those are sent to
the DMV and it takes them approximately two weeks to enter the
data into their system. Everything is done by hand, which is why
it takes so long. Finding an electronic solution is one of their
top priorities, he said.
9:54:38 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted the title of the bill seemed broad. He
suggested the committee hold the bill and research whether they
can add conditions of probation as well.
SENATOR FRENCH agreed and offered to incorporate conditions of
probation into the bill.
9:56:39 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 249 in committee.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:56:56 AM.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Seekins adjourned the meeting at 9:59:56 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|