SENATE BILL NO. 210 An Act relating to the manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages; relating to forfeitures of property for violations of alcoholic beverage laws; and relating to violations of alcoholic beverage laws. HEATHER BRAKES, STAFF, SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, related that in 2004, Congress passed legislation recognizing that many rural communities and their residents face the highest alcohol abuse and family violence rates in the country. The Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission was established and it released a Draft Interim Report that contains recommendations, including amendments to several provisions in Alaska statutes. Senate Bill 210 is a response to some of the recommendations made in that report. 3:01:44 PM Ms. Brakes pointed out several changes. The first one allows seizure of alcohol transported by common carrier in violation of current law. It allows for the authority to seize property determined to have been purchased or obtained through the proceeds of illegal importation or sale of alcohol, and it outlines procedures for a person claiming an interest in property that has been seized. It also defines "manufacture" of alcohol and clears up inconsistency in statutes regarding allowable quantities of alcohol and the presumption of possession for sale. Ms. Brakes reported that there are currently over 100 communities in Alaska that have chosen a local option to limit or ban the sale of alcohol. She referred to the 2004 Annual Drug Report by the Department of Public Safety (copy on file.) She noted that on pages 7 and 8, bootlegging remains a lucrative business. SB 210 provides clarity and consistency in the beverage control statutes in order to assist law enforcement and communities in fighting the illegal importation of alcohol. 3:04:41 PM Representative Hawker inquired about a change from 12 liters to 10 ½ liters in the provision for possession of distilled spirits. Ms. Brakes replied that AS 04.11.010(c) in Section 1 is being amended regarding the sale of spirits in order to make language consistent throughout statutes. Representative Hawker summarized that this change makes the provision consistent with other statutory language. He referred to earlier testimony about forfeiture provisions and the concern that a person could lose their home. He inquired about the judicial process related to that situation. Ms. Brakes explained that the intent of SB 210 is to mirror the controlled substances statutes. Loss of a person's home was a concern in a previous committee. The sponsor's concern remains about someone who paid for a home from proceeds of an illegal activity. That property would be subject to forfeiture, but there would be court proceedings to make the determination. Representative Hawker stated that there would be a judicial process. Ms. Brakes agreed. 3:08:03 PM Representative Kerttula noted that she would ask for a legal opinion about what happens to family members in such a situation. DOUG GRIFFIN, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, offered to answer questions. CAPTAIN ED HARRINGTON, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, also offered to answer questions. 3:09:47 PM Representative Kelly presented a scenario in a village involving a common air carrier that lands in a dry village with illegal alcohol on board before continuing on to a non- dry village. He asked what the consequences would be for the plane. Captain Harrington said that is not a problem. The troopers deal with it when the alcohol reaches the dry village. Representative Kelly expounded on the possible scenario when the plane reaches the dry village. He wondered about an unintended consequence. He suggested another scenario involving a boat on a river passing by a dry village and wondered about possible unforeseen consequences. Vice Chair Stoltze noted those are valid questions. Co-Chair Chenault closed public testimony. 3:13:25 PM Representative Kerttula redirected her question about the family members of a bootlegging situation to Anne Carpeneti. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that the provision allowing the state to seize and forfeit items purchased from illegal activity has been in statute since 1982 and a house has never been seized. The family is protected under forfeiture law. Representative Kerttula asked about the family vehicle. Ms. Carpeneti replied that there are safeguards for those types of situations. 3:16:04 PM Representative Kelly asked for a response from Ms. Carpeneti regarding his previous scenarios. Ms. Carpeneti explained that there should be no problem in either situation because the plane and boat would be in transit and the alcohol would stay on the vessel. There is a statute that requires labeling of alcohol intended for damp villages. Representative Hawker noted on page 3 of the bill that "items of value purchased from the proceeds" are being added to the list of forfeitures. He wondered if an innocent person who is paid from illegal proceeds, or given items purchased by illegal proceeds, is subject to consequences. Ms. Carpeneti said that situation is also protected by remission procedures in current law that are not affected by this bill. Co-Chair Chenault asked what is being changed regarding transporting alcohol by common carriers in dry villages. Ms. Carpeneti said this bill refers only to alcohol that has been illegally transported in violation to this particular statute, which has particular labeling requirements. 3:19:08 PM Representative Kerttula referred to Section 3, the 30 days notice, and asked if the innocent spouse is included. Ms. Carpeneti replied that they would have to file a notice of their interest. She clarified that Section 3 streamlines procedures when no one files a notice of interest and addresses civil forfeitures, which don't happen often. Representative Kerttula asked about the right to a jury trial. Ms. Carpeneti replied that she thought forfeiture proceedings were not subject to a jury trial. She suggested Captain Harrington respond to the question. Representative Kerttula redirected her question to Captain Harrington, who replied that he does not know. He said that most forfeitures have been adjudicated at a criminal trial. Co-Chair Meyer corrected his statement that the committee has seen the bill previously. 3:22:50 PM Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to REPORT SB 210 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SB 210 was reported out of Committee with a "no recommendation" and with a zero note #1 by the Department of Public Safety. 3:23:51 PM