Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
02/28/2025 01:30 PM Senate 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB100 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2025
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Löki Tobin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 100
SHORT TITLE: THEFT: ORGANIZED; MED. RECORDS; MAIL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/14/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/25 (S) JUD, FIN
02/28/25 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 100 on behalf of the
administration.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kiehl, Stevens, and Chair Claman.
SB 100-THEFT: ORGANIZED; MED. RECORDS; MAIL
1:31:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 100
"An Act relating to organized theft; relating to theft of
medical records and medical information; relating to mail theft;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN said this is the first hearing of SB 100 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He invited Mr. Skidmore to put
himself on record and begin his presentation.
1:32:21 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, said he supervises state prosecutors
statewide. He explained that he advises both the administration
and the legislature on criminal justice legislation and is
introducing SB 100 in that capacity, on behalf of the
administration. The introduction of the bill is paraphrased
below:
SB 100 is about organized retail theft. This is the
type of theft in which there is a coordinated effort
that occurs amongst multiple people to steal
merchandise. It is subsequently fenced or sold in some
capacity for dollars for the organization or the group
engaged in the theft itself. They typically sell those
items in online auction locations, flea markets, other
retailers, and fraudulent returns back to the stores
from which they stole them. They change barcodes in
the store itself or smash and grab," which is
sometimes sensationalized in news media coverage. They
also conceal the merchandise and just walk out, or
simply walk in, grab the item, and walk out without
any attempts to conceal it. These are all ways in
which they attempt to get money or attempt to make
money from those thefts.
I can tell you that, in 2023, the estimate is that
this type of theft resulted in $121 billion in profits
for those engaged in the theft. That's billion with a
"B." That's the amount of theft that is occurring to
retailers nationwide, both box stores and small
businesses. In fact, when small businesses have been
surveyed, the results indicate that 85 percent of
small businesses are hit and impacted by organized
retail theft. Sixty-five percent of those that are
impacted experience losses averaging $1,000 each and
every month.
1:34:27 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
This partly explains the reason for small business
closures. They simply cannot sustain those types of
losses. Each and every day, there are over 500,000
incidents of theft in our country, resulting in
approximately $45 million in losses each day.
Unfortunately, the numbers associated with this are
increasing. I know there are crime rates that indicate
theft is going down, that property offenses are down;
however, organized retail theft is increasing. It is
estimated that in 2025, the current calendar year,
instead of $121 billion, it will be at $145 billion.
That is approximately a 10- to 20-percent increase
that has occurred every year for the last five years
for this type of crime.
1:35:28 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
While I've provided you with national statistics, I
would be remiss if I didn't talk to you about the
Alaskan statistics. Here in Alaska, we have
approximately $202 million each and every year that is
stolen and lost from stores, as well as fraudulent
returns of approximately $220 million. Stores estimate
that they lose approximately $422 million each and
every year in Alaska. That's a significant dollar
figure given the population size that we support here
in the state. I've given you a lot of statistics that
talk about property; however, organized theft is not
simply a property crime.
If you talk to various box stores or businesses, and
you ask about their loss prevention officers, you
would hear that approximately 76 percent of loss
prevention staff have been injured within the last
year while attempting to stop someone engaging in this
type of theft. That is a 35 percent increase in the
violent or aggressive behavior exhibited by those who
are taking the merchandise. This is not just about
property. It is also about the stores and their
employees trying to stop people from taking all of
that merchandise and getting injured in the process.
1:36:54 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
This next point is not one that I would suggest is a
reason for the committee to take action necessarily.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the
fact that so many Alaskans seem frustrated about those
glass doors behind which retailers have started to put
a significant amount of merchandise to try to combat
organized retail theft. That is a sign, a symptom of
the problems that exist within the state when we see
our stores having to engage in that conduct. It costs
them money to put those security measures in place,
but that's okay. The stores won't be out that money.
They're just going to pass it on to each and every one
of us as consumers. That's the reason you should care,
not the inconvenience, but because of the higher
prices that our citizens will have to pay as a result
of this organized theft. I gave you some national
statistics, and I gave you some Alaskan statistics.
1:37:55 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
I can tell you that states all across the country are
looking at this issue and trying to take efforts to
combat it. To date, we at the Department of Law have
been able to identify 32 other states that have
already implemented or passed laws trying to address
organized theft. For the most part, these types of
laws focus on the idea of aggregating the value of
stolen property over a certain period of time. That's
an effort that I'm proud to tell you: you all passed
legislation back in 2019 to address aggregation. You
have already taken that step. However, there are other
steps that we can take as well. Aggregation is
currently found in AS 11.46.980(e) and can occur
between $750 and $25,000 within a six-month period.
The significance of the $750 and the $25,000 is that
they are the thresholds, the bottom and the upper
threshold, for theft in the second degree, which is a
Class C felony in our state. That aggregation has a
time limit of within the last six months.
1:39:07 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
What SB 100 does is it creates a new category of crime
called organized theft. In the state of Alaska, most
of our theft statutes simply look at the value of the
property or the type of property that was taken. For
example, in a Theft II, the item would have to be
valued above $750 or could involve the theft of a
firearm or an access device. An access device is
defined in statute and is like a credit card or other
item that has a unique code, granting access to a
particular account. Those types of theft are theft in
the second degree.
The organized theft that this bill proposes isn't
about a single instance of theft. Organized theft is a
pattern of behavior. For that reason, the crime
targets incidents that happen two or more times and
must have been at a felony level offense. Organized
theft is not about a single individual engaged in the
activity. It must involve multiple individuals, which
is why, in Section 1 of the bill, higher levels of
organized theft require three or more people to have
been involved. Does our state have something called
principal and accomplice liability, i.e., multiple
people working together? Yes, that is part of our
statutes. However, what separates this is that in
order to qualify for this particular offense, you are
required to have three people. So, there isn't a
principal and an accomplice per se, but rather, at
least three people must have been involved for it to
qualify at this level. Those additional requirements
are significant because what the bill proposes is to
take organized theft and classify it as a Class A
felony. There are no property crimes or theft crimes
at a Class A felony. The highest level of theft is
theft in the first degree, which involves amounts
exceeding $25,000, and that is a Class B felony. What
this does is it elevates it above that. Why? Because,
while we know crime rates have been falling, organized
theft is on the rise. It is impacting businesses so
severely that it is driving up costs for consumers,
and there is a relationship between that type of theft
and violent behavior where other people are harmed,
i.e., those loss prevention officers. So, that is
really what is focused on in the organized theft.
1:41:42 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
The second section of the bill talks about the theft
of medical records or information. This is not about
organized theft, but it is about trying to protect
citizens' privacy and prevent them from being targeted
by things such as identity theft. If you look at theft
in the second degree, currently, it is a Class C
felony if someone steals an identification document or
an access device. That's the type of information or
the type of material that can allow someone to steal
your identity. What is not included in it are your
medical records. We all know, having been to the
doctor and seen the records they generate about each
and every one of us, those records contain
personalized information, including your date of
birth, sometimes your Social Security number, and
other vital details that can be used to engage in
identity theft. But above and beyond that, it contains
your medical records. The type of information that
federal law protects is our medical records. There's a
law called HIPAA that states our medical providers
aren't supposed to discuss our medical treatment with
anyone else. Yet, our medical records themselves,
within the state of Alaska, wouldn't be classified as
having a particular dollar value, and so there really
isn't an appropriate crime associated with them.
However, the theft of medical records should be
classified at a higher level due to the sensitive
nature of the information within them.
1:43:09 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the introduction of SB 100:
Last but not least is Section 3, which is mail theft.
Mail theft is a concept that is brought to us by the
Anchorage Police Department. They came and talked to
us about the idea that a significant amount of mail
theft is occurring in the Anchorage area. Do I think
it is only in Anchorage? Absolutely not. This is
probably an issue that's affecting the entire state.
While theft of mail is a federal crime, I hate to
burst anyone's bubble, but the U.S. Attorney's Office
doesn't typically prosecute crimes unless they reach a
certain level of seriousness or value. For the average
person, when something is stolen from your mailbox,
I'm afraid the U.S. Attorney's Office doesn't have the
time or resources to get involved in those things.
Do I think that every time someone steals a Cabela's
catalog out of your mailbox, they should be charged
with a Class A misdemeanor for mail theft? Probably
not. However, mail does contain significant types of
information and materials that are of value. If we
find individuals engaged in a series of mail thefts,
that is something we ought to take action against.
Whether it is a campaign flyer, a Cabela's catalog,
another type of material, such as a letter from your
grandmother, a birthday card, a holiday greeting,
whatever it might be, those are the types of things
that we really shouldn't be saying there isn't any
real recourse for the individuals who took those items
from us. They remain important, and there ought to be
something in law that allows us to do this. I can tell
you that if the U.S. Attorney's Office decided that it
wanted to get involved, the good news is that we would
coordinate with that office. If the U.S. Attorney's
Office truly thought the case warranted their
attention, it's not something that we would be
prosecuting. However, if it's not something they're
interested in, while I can't guarantee that we will
prosecute every instance of it, it makes sense to have
something on the books that allows us to take action
in the appropriate cases.
That, in substance, is what is within the bill in
front of you. I'm happy to take any questions from
members of the committee.
1:45:15 PM
SENATOR STEVENS shared a brief story. Last summer, while his
wife went shopping at JCPenney in Anchorage, he waited outside
in a nearby coffee shop from where he could see the store
entrance. Suddenly, two young adults ran out carrying armfuls of
merchandise. No one pursued them, and they disappeared with what
he estimated to be hundreds of dollars' worth of coats and other
items. He asked what SB 100 would do to address situations like
that.
1:45:46 PM
MR. SKIDMORE replied that, in that instance, the question would
be whether those individuals had engaged in more than one theft.
1:45:54 PM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that he doubted it was their first time
and believed they knew what they were doing.
MR. SKIDMORE said he shared that doubt too, but emphasized that,
under the hypothetical, he could not assume or prove multiple
incidents without further investigation. If the incident
involved only that single occurrence, SB 100 would not apply.
However, if the investigation revealed that the same individuals
were involved in multiple thefts, the law could apply provided
at least three people were involved. He explained that the bill
requires a group of three or more participants, such as
individuals engaged in fencing or other aspects of the
operation. Two people running out of a store would not meet the
threshold for organized retail theft, though their conduct would
still qualify as theft under existing law. He said the intent of
SB 100 is to target groups of three or more who engage in
repeated thefts, so in answer to the question, it would depend
on what else the investigation revealed.
1:46:54 PM
SENATOR STEVENS surmised that video proof might show multiple
incidents and said the public bears the cost when such thefts
occur.
1:47:12 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the mail section of SB 100, noting
that mail theft is currently classified as theft in the third
degree. He asked how the proposed changes, particularly the
contents of the mail, its value, or whether it contains an
access device, would affect that classification.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that if the item stolen were, for example,
a check, the value would be based on the amount written on the
check. If that amount exceeded $750, the offense would be
prosecuted as a Class C felony. He clarified that it is not
about the fact they stole mail, rather it is about the fact they
stole an item of much more value.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that SB 100 categorizes mail theft as a
Class A misdemeanor without regard to dollar value, because some
mail may contain items that have significant personal value but
no clear monetary value. However, if the mail contains items of
identifiable value, that value would be used to determine
whether more serious charges are appropriate.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that some items, such as identification
documents or access devices, may not have a direct monetary
value but still qualify for higher-level charges. He said,
ultimately, it depends upon the contents to determine the
charge.
1:48:34 PM
SENATOR KIEHL continued the discussion on mail theft, asking
what the comparable federal threshold would be if the U.S.
Attorney's Office were to take interest in such a case.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not know the threshold the U.S.
Attorney's Office uses. He stated that, based on prior
discussions regarding other theft cases of significantly higher
value, the federal office typically does not pursue $750 or even
several thousand dollar cases. He said that he was unfamiliar
with their statutes on those thresholds and did not know their
policy.
1:49:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked permission of the chair to request that the
Department collect information on the comparable federal
thresholds and penalties and submit that information to the
committee.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he would be happy to conduct that
research and reach out to the U.S. Attorney's Office to
determine what information, if any, they would be willing to
share.
1:49:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the definition of "medical
information" and "medical records," noting that he did not see
either term defined in Title 11. He asked how those terms are
defined.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that neither term is defined in statute.
He explained that the Department would rely on the common
understanding of each term. "Medical records" refer to materials
containing information about a person's medical condition or
treatment received, as opposed to billing documents. "Medical
information" encompasses those records and includes billing or
other related materials; the intent is to capture both those
documents and communications between medical providers and
patients.
1:50:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged the intent behind defining provider
patient communications but noted that "medical information,if
interpreted too broadly, could include something as minor as
over-the-counter heartburn medication. He said that such
examples illustrate why the statute should be carefully limited
so that minor personal details are not inadvertently subject to
criminal prosecution.
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged the concern, reiterating there is no
definition at this time and the Department would consult
dictionary definitions for guidance. He stated that if the
committee has concerns or prefers a more targeted approach,
members could consider adding specific definitions.
1:51:16 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked how theft of medical records is currently
classified under statute.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that, absent a specific monetary value that
could be assigned to them, such theft would constitute theft in
the fourth degree, a Class B misdemeanor.
1:51:48 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked how easily law enforcement can identify and
apprehend individuals stealing mail, especially in rural areas
without surveillance.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that, in some areas, such as Chugiak,
residents have installed trail cameras to monitor community
mailboxes when thefts occur. In other cases, investigators may
identify suspects by finding significant amounts of mail
addressed to multiple individuals in the possession of someone
who is not a mail carrier. He said investigative methods vary,
but the idea of the legislation is to ensure that, when
sufficient evidence exists, prosecutors have a statute available
to pursue charges. He acknowledged that some investigations
would remain challenging. Passing a law will not immediately
stop theft; however, it will allow prosecutors to act when
evidence supports a case.
1:53:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what affect the "consolidation of value"
theft legislation, enacted in 2019, had on the kinds of theft
crimes discussed in this committee.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that many of the 32 other states that
enacted similar laws created aggregation statutes to strengthen
enforcement, but Alaska had already done so. He said the 2019
amendment originated from the chair of this committee, and it
proved helpful in addressing organized theft. However, he did
not have data available on its direct effect.
1:55:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he would be interested in reviewing data to
determine whether the 2019 legislation had worked, and whether
there is a prospect SB 100 will work.
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarification on whether the same three
individuals must commit multiple offenses together, or whether a
person who participates in different groups of three could still
qualify under SB 100.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the individual charged with
organized theft would likely be the person involved in three or
more coordinated thefts, even if others in those incidents
differed. Those additional participants could be charged as
principals or accomplices, but not with organized theft unless
they were also involved in multiple related offenses. He
expressed his belief that if investigators could establish
individuals in different groups overlapped across incidents, and
were working in coordination, all could be prosecuted together.
It depends on the evidence gathered during the investigation and
whether it demonstrated a pattern of organized, coordinated
activity.
1:56:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL questioned whether SB 100 is written effectively
for organized theft, or if it merely creates a Class A felony
for someone who commits theft a few times rather than only once.
MR. SKIDMORE addressed the group aspect of organized theft. He
also spoke about mens rea, the mental intent required to commit
theft.
1:58:57 PM
SENATOR MYERS continued the discussion on organized theft,
noting that loss prevention employees are often injured during
such theft incidents. He said that many larger corporations now
instruct their staff not to intervene when theft occurs. He drew
from his own experience in retail, stating employees are
typically told not to confront or detain thieves, but instead to
contact law enforcement. He asked how much of an impediment this
policy is to finding and prosecuting thieves.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the loss prevention efforts stores
take to stop someone, do not necessarily give prosecutors the
information they are most interested in. What matters most to
prosecutors is the evidence available for investigation, such as
surveillance footage or witness contact with the suspects. He
said multiple investigative techniques are used to track
offenders. He emphasized that while not every theft can be
prosecuted, having a clear statute in place allows prosecution
of the crime when evidence supports it. Ultimately, for
prosecutors, what matters is collectible evidence.
2:01:09 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for clarification about the three-person
requirement for the theft to qualify as organized. He asked
whether that could include a fence or pawn shop operator,
meaning there could be two individuals committing the theft and
a third person responsible for selling or converting the stolen
goods.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that is exactly the intent of the
legislation.
SENATOR STEVENS said that if he were a store employee, he would
not want to chase after criminals, emphasizing that injuries can
occur. He added that it is not fair to expect a retail clerk to
act as a law enforcement officer.
MR. SKIDMORE said that it is up to each business to determine.
He said prosecutors have pursued robbery charges in cases where
force was used to retain stolen property after an encounter with
loss prevention staff. Such cases are far more serious than
theft alone, though often difficult to prove, and they can
result in significant injuries to those employees.
2:02:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that, under existing law, three individuals
acting jointly who steal $5,000 worth of property across
multiple incidents would face second degree theft, Class C
felony charges. SB 100 proposes that same conduct would qualify
for Class A felony penalties because those individuals acted
together. He questioned why SB 100 does not differentiate by the
value of property stolen, noting that a group who steals
$100,000 is much different than a group who steals $5,000. He
asked why Section 1 does not distinguish between those
scenarios.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that differences in the total value of
property stolen would be addressed at sentencing, which allows
for a broad range of penalties. He explained that the concept of
SB 100 is to target individuals committing multiple felony-level
thefts, not misdemeanor thefts. The proposal is aimed at repeat,
organized theft rather than isolated or minor incidents.
2:04:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill requires multiple felony
incidents to reach the Class A threshold.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed, stating that the legislation focuses on
"repeated felony behavior." He said statistics suggest only
about two percent of individuals engaged in this conduct are
ever caught, underscoring the need for stronger deterrence. He
emphasized that the bill is not intended to punish minor thefts,
such as stealing a candy bar or sandwich, but rather organized,
repeated felony theft involving multiple people.
2:05:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN raised the question of sentencing, asking for
clarification on Class C, B, and A felonies and when jail time
becomes mandatory.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified Class C, B, and A felony sentencing:
Class C Felony
• For first-time offenders, meaning they have not committed a
previous felony in the last ten years.
• The presumptive range is zero to two years in prison.
• Though the statutory maximum is five years, courts cannot
impose more than two years without finding an aggravating
factor.
Class B Felony
• Theft in the first degree.
• It has a threshold of $25,000.
• Alaska Statutes currently set the threshold for presumptive
sentencing, not mandatory minimums.
• The presumptive range is one to three years for $25,000 or
more.
• The sentence may go above three years with aggravating
factors.
• The sentence may go below one year with mitigating factors.
• Statutory maximum of ten years.
Class A Felony
• First time offender presumptive range is four to seven years.
• The sentence may go above seven years with aggravating
factors.
• The sentence may go below four years with mitigating factors.
• Statutory maximum of 20 years.
2:07:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether a person convicted of a Class A
felony could ever receive a sentence below two years with
mitigating factors.
MR. SKIDMORE said the sentence could not be reduced below two
years. He stated, with some uncertainty, that the threshold is
two years. If the threshold is under two years, the sentence can
go all the way down to zero. He clarified that a Class B felony
can be mitigated down to zero because its lower-end presumptive
range is one year.
2:08:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that a Class B felony could be
mitigated below two years down to zero, but the Class A felony
could not.
MR. SKIDMORE replied correct, a Class A felony cannot drop below
two years. He explained that the lower end of a Class A felony's
presumptive range is four years, which is above the two-year
mark. He expressed his belief that mitigating factors could only
reduce the sentence by 50 percent and offered to verify the
precise statutory language for the committee.
2:08:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that he provide the committee with that
information.
2:08:54 PM
SENATOR MYERS expressed concern that only about 2 percent of
retail theft cases are prosecuted. This reflects how widespread
the problem is and how offenders are rarely caught. He
questioned how much of a deterrent the proposed legislation
could be if such a small percentage of offenders are prosecuted.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the two percent figure comes from
national studies, not Alaska specifically. He acknowledged that
not every instance of theft is detected or prosecuted but
explained that one way to address significant crime problems is
to increase penalties for those who are caught. The goal is to
create a deterrent. He noted that there is academic debate over
whether stronger penalties reduce crime, with differing opinions
on their effectiveness. He said, nonetheless, the Department
views the bill as a necessary step toward addressing a growing
problem. He welcomed any committee input or alternative ideas
for reducing organized theft, which he emphasized affects
everyone.
2:10:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed his belief that the court system has a
fiscal note and asked whether the Department of Law has one.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Department of Law has a zero
fiscal note.
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that the fence could be
included as one of the three.
MR. SKIDMORE answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the fence is the person that sells
the stolen goods later.
SENATOR KIEHL further explained that the fence is the person
that gives cash or drugs in exchange for the stolen goods.
2:11:50 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said if this proposed law gets used, it will get
used a huge amount. He explained that if a person with prior
theft convictions, acting in coordination with a group of at
least three individuals on three different incidents, steals
property valued at $251, that person could be charged with a
Class A felony. He surmised that this bill's structure could
result in a substantial number of repeat Class A felony
prosecutions. He noted that such cases would demand significant
prosecutorial resources, given that a Class A felony is among
Alaska's most serious offenses. He asked whether the Department
intends to actively use this proposed law.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Department plans to use it. He
addressed the math that showed the potential for a huge increase
in the number of repeat Class A felony prosecutions. He
explained that once a person is convicted using prior offenses
to reach the felony threshold, those prior offenses cannot be
reused to establish future charges for the same conduct. Double
jeopardy protects defendants from that. He explained that it
would therefore take more than three or four incidents to reach
the Class A felony threshold. The bill requires at least two
separate felony-level theft offenses to reach that level. He
suggested that the committee could amend the bill to address
concerns.
2:14:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN cited AS 11.46.130(a)(6), which defines theft in
the second degree as occurring when "the value of the property
is $250 or more but less than $750 and, within the preceding
five years, the person has been convicted and sentenced on two
or more separate occasions in this or another jurisdiction." He
stated that during discussions of this provision over the past
decade, he did not recall any suggestion that the same prior
convictions, if committed in the preceding five years, were
excluded from the count in future cases. He observed that the
enhanced classification appears to arise from subsection (a)(6)
and said he does not see how double jeopardy would apply in this
context.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he was not aware of any case law that
directly addresses this issue. However, when offenses are
"stacked" in this manner, it could present potential challenges
in the future. He conjectured that simply having four prior
offenses and then a fifth would not necessarily result in two
separate felony charges.
2:15:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he did not believe that would create two
felonies either. He explained that if a person has three prior
convictions, those priors are not being punished again but
rather used as the basis for an enhanced sentence. Once a person
has three priors within the last five years, any subsequent
theft involving more than $250 would constitute a felony because
of that prior record.
MR. SKIDMORE calculated that with three priors, the next
offense, the fourth, would elevate the charge to a felony. To
obtain a second felony, a fifth theft would be required.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that the first four prior
convictions count as predicates for the fifth offense, which
would elevate the charge to a felony.
MR. SKIDMORE said he understood the argument.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if he agreed with it.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed that is a way it could be done, cautioning
that stacking prior convictions could invite double jeopardy
challenges.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that the prosecution could
argue prior felonies constitute a defendant's status, not a new
penalty for the prior offenses. The prosecution's position would
be that they do not have to start counting again.
MR. SKIDMORE replied he does not think that is something that
has been litigated.
2:16:44 PM
MR. SKIDMORE referred to the question about fiscal notes,
stating that the conduct addressed in the bill is already
illegal. If the Department is already prosecuting a theft,
changing the offense level does not alter the resources or
effort required for prosecution. He envisioned that the
Department of Corrections, rather than the Department of Law,
might have a fiscal impact depending on whether the change
results in significantly longer jail sentences. He reiterated
that the investigative and prosecutorial effort does not change
whether the offense is charged as a Class B misdemeanor, a Class
A misdemeanor, a Class C felony, or a Class B felony.
2:17:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL remarked it is new testimony, from the Department,
that Class A felonies do not require more resources than Class C
felonies.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the increased severity of
unclassified or Class A felonies, such as homicide or sexual
assault, typically correlates with greater prosecutorial effort
and expense. The complexity demands of those cases require more
evidence, witnesses, time, effort, and money. However, in cases
of theft where the conduct is already criminalized, the
investigation remains consistent regardless of classification,
and it is not more difficult to prosecute. He acknowledged that
serious offenses generally require more resources; however, that
analogy does not apply to reclassifying theft offenses.
2:18:37 PM
SENATOR MYERS recalled Department testimony which indicated that
as penalties or offense levels increase, the likelihood that the
Criminal Division would prosecute those cases also increased
compared to lower-level crimes. He sought confirmation that even
if the overall number of crimes remains the same, the number of
prosecutions would rise based on that prioritization.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that perspective is correct from the
standpoint the Department prioritizes higher-level crimes over
lower-level ones when resources are limited. He said the
Department cannot pursue every case referred to it, noting that
has always been the case and likely will remain so.
MR. SKIDMORE said if the question pertains to prioritizing a
theft crime at a higher level because there is a more serious
concept associated with it, the answer is yes, the Criminal
Division might accept that case. He explained that lower-level
cases do not carry the same significance in terms of the State's
goals for society and the victims. He confirmed that the fiscal
impact remains a zero, but SB 100 could cause a shift in
priorities in terms of how the Department reviews some of the
cases.
2:20:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referenced existing sentencing aggravators and
presented a scenario involving coordinated group thefts
conducted over multiple occasions with an aggregate property
value of $5,000. He explained this would qualify as a felony. He
asked whether any aggravating factors could increase the
sentences under these specific circumstances, as opposed to
aggravating factors for a single individual who committed theft
of the same value.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that two aggravators come to mind but said
he would need to review the statutes to confirm their specific
elements. He believes some aggravators can allow higher
sentences; however, they cannot be stacked on top of an offense
when the aggravating factor relies on the same factual conduct
as the elements of the offense itself. For instance, prior theft
convictions cannot be used simultaneously to both elevate an
offense level and to serve as an aggravator. He answered that
there may potentially be aggravators that apply; however, the
effect would not carry the same impact as SB 100.
2:23:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a follow up on potential aggravating
factors that could apply in that scenario, noting he found a
couple that apply to group crimes. He said AS 12.55.155(b)(3)
applies when a defendant is the leader of a group of three or
more persons involved in the offense and subsection (b)(14)
applies to a group of five or more. He suggested an alternative
to a new Class A felony might be to create an aggravating factor
that addresses offenders who work together in coordinated
thefts. Such an approach could preserve sentencing flexibility
without overly elevating the offense level.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would go through all the aggravators and
provide a complete response.
2:25:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN raised a question regarding the scope of medical
records. He referenced the standard HIPAA acknowledgment form
that patients routinely sign when visiting medical providers. He
suggested that, technically, such a form could be considered a
medical record. He offered a personal example, explaining that
his late mother, who had epilepsy, might not have cared about
the privacy of a signed HIPAA form but would likely have felt
differently about the disclosure of her medical history itself.
He said this illustrates the wide range of documents that could
fall under the term "medical records," some of which contain
highly sensitive information and others that do not. He asked,
given the range of records that would qualify under SB 100, why
the bill does not make more of distinction among documents.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that SB 100 could absolutely include that
type of distinction. He clarified that the Department's intent
was to address records containing private medical details, such
as diagnoses, treatments, and related information, rather than
general administrative forms like HIPAA. He reiterated that
including a more specific definition could help narrow the scope
and makes sense if the committee is interested in that.
2:27:27 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to testimony on aggregation legislation
that Alaska had enacted and that 30-plus states had enacted
similar legislation. He asked how many states have adopted
comparable laws addressing organized theft.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not have information on how
many states have enacted organized theft statutes similar to
SB 100. He stated that while various states and Congress have
introduced legislation to increase penalties and address
organized theft, he was not aware of any state that had drafted
language identical to Alaska's proposal. He explained that
numerous efforts are underway nationwide, at the state and
federal levels, to combat organized retail theft.
2:28:34 PM
SENATOR KIEHL requested that, as the Department researches
states that have enacted organized theft legislation, he would
also identify the level of offense assigned to those crimes.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that to the extent possible, he would
report those classifications. He cautioned that states vary
widely in how they define and grade offenses. For example, New
York has seven felony levels. He said the Department would share
information where possible but did not want to overpromise,
noting that the amount of available data is extensive.
2:29:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the presenter, as expected, had
managed the discussion thoroughly and without needing any help.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that his colleague had handed him a statute
that corrected his testimony on sentencing. He explained that if
the low end of the [presumptive] sentence is four years or less,
the court may reduce the term all the way down to zero. However,
if it exceeds four years, the sentence can only be reduced by 50
percent. He acknowledged his earlier misstatement and the
corrected the threshold for the record. He concluded by saying
that the Department would follow up with responses to the
committee's remaining questions.
2:30:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 100 in committee.
2:30:32 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 100 Version A 2.14.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Transmittal Letter Version A 2.12.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Sectional Analysis Version A 2.14.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.24.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |