02/17/2011 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB26 | |
| SB61 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 61 | ||
| = | SB 26 | ||
| = | SB 30 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2011
9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan, Vice Chair
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Cathy Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 26
"An Act exempting vehicles fueled solely by electricity or
compressed natural gas from motor vehicle registration fees and
taxes; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 26(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 61
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 61(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 30
"An Act providing for the release of certain property in the
custody of a law enforcement agency to the owner under certain
conditions."
- MOVED CSSB 30(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 26
SHORT TITLE: FEE/TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, FIN
01/27/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
01/27/11 (S) Heard & Held
01/27/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 61
SHORT TITLE: 2011 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
01/24/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/11 (S) STA, JUD
02/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 30
SHORT TITLE: RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): DYSON
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, JUD
02/03/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/03/11 (S) Heard & Held
02/03/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GENEVIIVE WOJTUSIK, Staff to Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 26.
KATHERINE KURTZ, Assistant Revisor of Statutes
Legal Services
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented and explained the proposed
amendment to SB 61.
SENATOR DYSON, Sponsor of SB 30
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced proposed CS to SB 30.
CHUCK KOPP, Staff to Senator Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in CSSB 30 for the
sponsor.
VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director
Alaska Office of Victims Rights
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 30.
LES SYREN, Attorney
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 30.
DOUG WOLVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:02:26 AM
CHAIR BILL WIELECHOWSKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Paskvan, Giessel, Kookesh, and Chair
Wielechowski. Senator Meyer arrived soon thereafter.
SB 26-FEE/TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN VEHICLES
9:02:48 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced the first order of business would
be SB 26.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted the committee had previously adopted a
CS, making version X the working document. He explained the new
fiscal note has now arrived, and shows a cost to the state of
$2,000 for FY12 and an indeterminate change in revenues, because
it is impossible to project the number of vehicles that will
qualify. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) projects the
initial revenue loss to be small, but acknowledges it will grow
as alternative fueled vehicles gain in popularity. He also noted
the special fee for hybrids will sunset after three years, and
the special fee for vehicles fueled exclusively by alternative
fuels will sunset after seven years, so the revenue impacts
appear to be insignificant.
GENEVIIVE WOJTUSIK, staff to Senator McGuire, said the fiscal
note has not changed, because it is indeterminate how many
vehicles will be affected, but she said the DMV has no problem
with the bill going forward.
SENATOR Paskvan moved to report CS for SB 26, version X, from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that without objections, CSSB
26(STA) passed from the Senate State Affairs standing committee.
9:05:18 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced a brief at-ease.
SB 61-2011 REVISOR'S BILL
9:06:35 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced consideration of SB 61.
KATHERINE KURTZ, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Services,
said that after hearing questions from the committee and doing
additional research, she concluded that Section 3 of SB 61 is
unclear. It could represent a substantive change. She stated she
would prefer to pull the section out of the revisor's bill at
this point.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it is legal to do a substantive
change in a revisor's bill.
MS. KURTZ responded it is better to handle such a change in a
substantive bill.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI agreed that there are better vehicles for
that change. He noted the committee had a proposed amendment
before them, identified as [27-LS0152\B.1.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI offered Amendment 1, and objected for
discussion purposes
AMENDMENT 1
27-LS0152\B.1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SB 61
Page 2, lines 2 - 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
MS. KURTZ said the amendment removes Section 3 from the B draft
of the bill.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if the section will need to be put back in
later on.
MS.KURTZ answered that she would like to review the issue over
the interim.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if could there be a legal challenge
because of this section, if the bill is not changed.
MS. KURTZ responded it is conceivable.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if SB 61 has a referral to the judiciary.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said yes.
MS.KURTZ said it was her recommendation to take out Section 3.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI removed his objection to the amendment. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to report SB 61, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that without objection CSSB 61(STA)
moved from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:14:49 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced a brief at ease
SB 30-RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
9:16:03 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced consideration of SB 30.
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) to SB 30, labeled 27-LS-0344\M, as the working document.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor of SB 30, said the CS is a better
product. It includes provisions that clarify what kinds of
evidence are excluded from being returned. They have also
inserted the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) as the gate-keeper
for assistance in return of property.
CHUCK KOPP, staff to Senator Fred Dyson, explained that SB 30
provides property owners with a clearly identifiable process to
petition the court for recovery of their property which is being
held as evidence. The CS was drafted in response to concerns
that giving victims a direct voice in those situations may
result in too many requests for hearings. The OVR is willing to
assume an intermediary role in such requests. If a preponderance
of evidence shows that the victim does own the property, OVR
could contact the law enforcement agencies and see if they have
a claim on the property. If OVR believes the victim's claim
exceeds that of the law enforcement agency, it can request the
agency to ask for a hearing. Once that request is received, the
agency has ten days to request a hearing. If a criminal case is
already pending, the hearing will be before the court that has
jurisdiction. If no criminal case is pending, the hearing will
be before the district or superior court where the property is
physically located. The burden of proof is preponderance of
evidence, and the court may impose reasonable conditions on
return of property to the owner. Section 2 of the CS establishes
within Title 24, Chapter 65, the authority for the OVR to
request return of property from a law enforcement agency on
behalf of a victim. A victim is defined as any person who is the
owner of property in the custody of a law enforcement agency.
9:23:43 AM
VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director, Alaska Office of Victims'
Rights (OVR), said the OVR is ready to assist crime victims
attain a mechanism to ask the court for return of their
property. The OVR wants to work with others in a responsible
fashion. They also want to be sure that this proposed statute is
within the boundaries of law and ethics and does not present
challenges. He noted there has been concern this may impede
certain functions of law enforcement. Under the proposed
legislation, the crime victim would come to OVR, OVR would
investigate, and if they determine the victim has a valid claim,
they would ask the agency for a hearing on behalf of the victim.
If the agency fails to return the property, it has to file a
request with the court for a hearing.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said that was also his understanding.
9:26:15 AM
MR. KESTER said his main concern would be the volume of cases.
He believes the legislation is necessary, but if there is a high
volume of requests, a fiscal note might be needed later.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked about victim confidentiality.
MR. KESTER replied the proposed legislation would not alter the
existing broad confidentiality protections for crime victims.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked about potential concerns over fiscal
impacts.
MR. KESTER answered his preliminary assessment is that it would
not require additional staff. For example, 200 cases during a
fiscal year would have an impact, but he doesn't expect that
many cases. The problem is relatively rare. SB 61 would help
crime victims.
9:31:33 AM
LES SYREN, attorney, stated that his client owns a jewelry store
in Anchorage. In 2007, he received a phone call from the police
in the middle of the night and was asked to come to his store.
The police served a search warrant on the property, and removed
took about $5,000 worth of merchandise from the store, saying
they believed it might be stolen property. A few months later
the attorney asked for return of the property, but he never
heard back from the police. Years went by. His client was never
charged, never told that he was a suspect. This property was
merchandise, and some was actually on lay-away. When people came
in to get their merchandise, the store had to return their
money. Mr. Syren said wrote to the police chief again last week,
but he has not yet heard back. His client is suffering a
financial loss. He doesn't want to see frivolous requests for
return of property, but this one is not. His client has no
relief.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the agency has any evidence that the
property belonged to someone else.
MR. SYREN answered not that he knows, but he has heard nothing
from the police.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked when the police have taken property, does
this come within the definition of a crime victim.
MR. SYREN responded that is a very good question. The police
have taken his client's property without telling him why.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if his client can provide proof of
ownership.
MR. SYREN said he would be glad to.
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned whether this situation would fall
within the definition of a crime victim.
MR. KOPP responded that Section 2 of the committee substitute
says "crime victim" includes any person who is the owner of
property in the custody of a law enforcement agency.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is dispute over who owns the
property, could OVR be in the position of representing a
criminal.
MR. KOPP explained that vetting would happen during the initial
investigation. Sometimes it can take the police a while to sort
out what happened. These cases are vetted before they make it to
court. OVR would learn the story from the investigation.
9:40:18 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said the CS does not appear to give OVR a
decision with regard to filing a case with the court. It appears
to be mandatory.
MR. KOPP replied that the reference on page 2, line 1 to "shall"
request a hearing refers to the law enforcement agency. OVR has
the authority to conduct an investigation and they can ask for a
hearing. Once they do request it, the law enforcement agency has
ten days to request a hearing.
SENATOR DYSON said he appreciates all the questions. He noted
that last year the Alaska Peace Officers Association had
endorsed a similar bill, but this year they had one person on
the board who didn't want to endorse it. He speculated that once
the word gets out that this mechanism exists, the police will be
more vigorous in returning property quickly. Making the victim
whole is a duty.
9:44:59 AM
DOUG WOLVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System, said
he met with the sponsor's staff and also sent the proposed bill
to several judges for comment. The court is always neutral when
it comes to legislation, but several judges asked what the
standard of proof for ownership would be. The CS clarifies that
it is a preponderance of the evidence. The next question was how
cases that don't get filed as criminal cases in court would be
handled. The CS establishes that either superior or district
court would have jurisdiction.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked Mr. Wolver to clarify how the police would
have the property if they haven't caught the perpetrator.
MR. WOLVER responded they could find it in a pawn shop, or
through a search warrant. He noted that many property crimes
don't get prosecuted.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if any judges didn't like the bill.
MR. WOLVER said they don't take official positions on
legislation. They don't see as an issue with this bill, but a
request would not normally come to them.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the judges were concerned about the
potential for a flood of claims into the court system.
MR. WOLVER replied he did not hear concern about that from the
judges. He noted that fiscal notes are educated guesses. In this
case, DOL has an undetermined fiscal note. They probably won't
see many cases, but it is hard to know.
SENATOR KOOKESH said if there is a flood of cases then we know
there is a problem.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if there would be a filing fee involved.
MR. WOLVER said he had not thought of that, but there would
probably just be a motion unless there was no underlying case
involved. In that case, there might be a filing fee.
9:50:19 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to report CS for SB 30, version M, from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that without objection, CSSB
30(STA) passed from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:51:38 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wielechowski adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 9:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|