CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 108(JUD) "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records of criminal cases; and providing for an effective date." 1:43:36 PM SENATOR FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, remarked that the legislature infrequently dealt with civil liberties topics. He believed many members had handled Second Amendment issues well and that First Amendment items would be addressed on a more frequent basis. He relayed that the bill pertained to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He discussed that in comparison to other states Alaska had the most complete CourtView system [the Alaska Trial Court's online and publicly accessible database]. He detailed that most states had the equivalent of CourtView in their city or county, but not statewide. The bill would strengthen the privacy and liberty interests of persons when charges were dismissed or acquitted by removing records from CourtView. He acknowledged that some individuals who were arrested were guilty, but were released due to insufficient evidence. He relayed that over 9,000 of the 29,000 arrests for misdemeanor offences the prior year had resulted in dismissal. He believed there had been around 7,000 felony arrests, with 1,700 dismissals. Senator Dyson continued that under the current system, the dismissed cases remained on CourtView in perpetuity. The CourtView system had been implemented in 2004 and he guessed there were approximately 60,000 people listed in the database. He noted that despite the clear notification that an arrest was not a guarantee of a person's guilt, the listing of a person's name on the website made it more difficult to obtain employment and to rent a home. He stated that the process of removing a person's name from the site was structurally defective. He detailed that a police chief or equivalent were required to approve the removal of a name from the website. He believed that requiring the arresting department to remove the name was counterintuitive and exposed the department to potential liability. He relayed that if the first attempt to have a person's name removed was unsuccessful, their next option was to take the issue to court. He stated that Alaska's statutes were clear that it was incumbent upon the accused to prove they had been wrongly arrested. 1:47:49 PM Senator Dyson stressed that the practice was contrary to a person's constitutional right to innocence before proven guilty. He believed there would always be pragmatic reasons to trample on civil and human rights; however, legislators had taken an oath to preserve the constitutional provisions. He opined that the default should land on the side of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. He asked his staff to address the bill's sectional analysis. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there had previously been some public testimony on the subject matter in a hearing on a separate crime bill. The subject matter had subsequently been removed from the other bill to be dealt with as a single issue. CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, read from the sectional analysis (copy on file): Section 1 Provides legislative intent directing the Court, to the extent practicable, to treat as confidential records of criminal cases disposed of before the effective date of the Act by acquittal of all charges, dismissal of all charges, or acquittal of some charges and dismissal of remaining charges, to the same extent that records are held confidential by this bill, under AS 22.35.030. Section 2 Amends AS 22.35 by adding a new section, AS 22.35.030. Records concerning criminal cases resulting in acquittal or dismissal confidential. This section establishes that a court record of a criminal case is confidential if 120 days have elapsed from the date of acquittal or dismissal and (1) the person was acquitted of all charges filed in the case; (2) all charges against the person have been dismissed by the prosecuting authority; or (3) the person was acquitted of some of the charges in the case, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Provide exceptions for access to information made confidential for state agency employees responsible for health, safety, welfare, or placement of a child, a person with a physical or intellectual disability, or a person with a mental illness; employees that protect other vulnerable citizens, and state criminal justice information network users. The Department of Health and Social Services will adopt regulations to administer these exceptions. Section 3 Establishes the Applicability of the Act to criminal charges concluded on or after the effective date of the Act by dismissal or by acquittal of the defendant. Section 4 Establishes the effective date of the Act as October 1, 2014. Senator Dyson communicated that the information would remain available to police, the state, and the national record; the bill would remove public records of dismissed or acquitted cases after 120 days. Co-Chair Stoltze asked for detail about the law related to the police chief. Mr. Kopp pointed to the sealing of criminal justice information under AS 12.62.180. He relayed that a criminal justice agency may seal only the information that the agency was responsible for maintaining. A person may submit a written request to the head of the agency responsible for maintaining past conviction or current offender information. The two issues required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt were mistaken identity or false accusation; the decision of the agency head was the final administrative decision on the request. The appellant bore the burden of proof and if they did not agree with the agency decision their next option was to appeal to the court. He read from the statute that "a person about whom information is sealed under this section may deny the existence of the information if it is in fact sealed." Co-Chair Stoltze asked a question related to a current court case [specifics on the case were not provided]. Mr. Kopp replied in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that the Municipality of Anchorage had made the decision to litigate. He stated that the municipality had the ability to correct an action, but chose to litigate instead. Mr. Kopp agreed. 1:54:29 PM Vice-Chair Neuman referred to a prior request from the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to seal files related to decreasing workload. He wondered if the bill addressed the issue. Mr. Kopp replied that the bill did not pertain to lowering the OPA workload. Vice-Chair Neuman clarified his interest in the sealing of cases. Mr. Kopp answered that the bill was strictly focused on individuals with acquitted or dismissed charges who remain on CourtView. Senator Dyson believed it would be helpful to hear from the courts. He noted that the court system was taking some action on its own related to the records under discussion. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that many individuals did not want to advertise their efforts to have a charge removed from their record. 1:57:00 PM NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, relayed that the court system was neutral on the bill, but she appreciated the sponsor's willingness to work with the agency. She communicated that the bill would make dismissed or acquitted cases confidential in electronic and paper form (the bill did not include plea bargained cases). The cases would remain in the state's public safety database and would be accessible to arresting officers and the district attorney's office. The legislative intent asked the department to make the change retroactively; the court system could achieve the goal without a fiscal impact note. She stated that it was possible for the court system to take records off of CourtView retroactively; it would be significantly more burdensome to make archived hardcopy files confidential. Co-Chair Stoltze asked hypothetically if the bill would remove O.J. Simpson case records from CourtView had the events surrounding the case occurred in Anchorage. Ms. Meade replied that the case would be covered by the legislation given that all charges had been acquitted; the criminal case would be removed from CourtView 120 days after acquittal under the legislation. Co-Chair Stoltze thought extreme examples could help frame an issue. He mentioned an example related to a false stalking accusation. Ms. Meade replied that stalking was typically a civil protective order and would not be covered under the bill. She noted that the court was separately looking at a court rule that would impact civil actions where the court found no probable cause at an initial hearing. The bill before the committee only covered criminal cases. Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the conviction and later exoneration of Mechele Linehan and asked if the case would apply under the legislation. Ms. Meade replied that because the case had not been dismissed by the prosecutor it would not be covered under the bill and would not be confidential. 2:00:48 PM Representative Gara asked for verification that plea bargained cases would remain on CourtView. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. Representative Gara asked for verification that the bill only dismissed records for cases when the prosecution fully dismissed the charges. Ms. Meade responded in the affirmative. Representative Gara asked for verification that a person would end up on CourtView if they continued to commit crimes and were convicted like O.J. Simpson. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a description of the administrative process. He asked about a process under deliberation by the court system. Ms. Meade referred to a proposed court rule that was underway. She discussed that the court maintained the Alaska Rules of Court; there were committees responsible for recommending changes and the Alaska Supreme Court was ultimately in charge of making changes to the rules. She elaborated that currently the Supreme Court was considering (and would go out for public comment) an amendment to its existing rule about items that did not appear on CourtView. She detailed an administrative rule designated items that could not be on CourtView, which was slightly different than designating a case as confidential. Anything the legislature deemed confidential did not appear on CourtView including child in need of aid cases, protective proceedings such as guardianships, and juvenile delinquency cases. Ms. Meade communicated that additional categories not posted on CourtView included the names of children in domestic relations cases (these were not confidential in paper form), social security numbers, and victim addresses. The court was amending the administrative rule to include other items it found problematic when listed on CourtView. She pointed to a case where a woman was arrested but no charging document was filed; the case was not covered by the bill, but it would be covered by the forthcoming court rule that would remove anything where an arrest had taken place but no charging document had been filed. She explained that the situations were not covered by the rule because they had not yet become a criminal case. The court was also considering adding situations where no probable cause had been found at an initial hearing, which sometimes happened with stalking protective orders or other protective order applications. The rule was going out for public comment for wide circulation and the court was expected to act within the next 45 days. 2:04:32 PM Co-Chair Stoltze asked for verification that his constituents who had testified in the past would be covered under the administrative protective order, but not under the bill. Ms. Meade referred to testimony related to Nancy Means and replied in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze speculated that when an out-of-state settlement was won against the municipality it would be sealed as well. Ms. Meade clarified that people could ask to have a confidential case made public. She elaborated that the court system's case records were not considered criminal justice information. Currently, the only way to remove something from CourtView was through the court system. She detailed that there was a court rule to seek to have cases made confidential that otherwise were not and to have confidential cases made public; it was the mechanism required to remove something from CourtView. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the process was initiated by the person wishing to have their name removed from the site. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. 2:06:21 PM CATHERINE STONE, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC HOUSING DIVISION, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She relayed that the corporation initially had concerns about the bill related to its ability to use CourtView to research applicants' criminal records; however, it ultimately supported the legislation due to the way it would affect people participating in the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Housing Choice voucher program. She detailed that the corporation provided approximately 4,600 vouchers per month to families in 16 locations throughout the state. The recipients passed a federally required screening process and were subsequently issued a voucher in order to find a landlord and home to rent; the voucher paid a portion of the rent and the corporation provided the additional payment. She communicated that sometimes people who had an old arrest that had never resulted in a conviction experienced a barrier to renting because CourtView was used as a screening tool. She elaborated that even though the arrest had not resulted in a conviction, the record on CourtView many times prevented individuals from renting. Program recipients were given an initial 60 days to find a unit, which could be extended to a maximum of 120 days per federal law. She remarked that it was a shame when qualified individuals were not able to locate a rental based on prior history or behavior that may not have resulted in a conviction. She believed the bill would allow people who may have made a mistake in the past to have a better opportunity to find housing. Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that it would help the AHFC clientele to secure housing if landlords did not know about prior activity. Ms. Stone replied in the affirmative. She elaborated that individuals on the sex offender list or with violent or drug related convictions did not qualify for the AHFC program. Once the individual was approved in the program screening process they should be able to find a home; however, sometimes an old arrest was used as a screening tool by landlords which prevented them from finding a rental. 2:10:05 PM JAMES MOONEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He spoke about how a false sexual assault accusation in 2009 had impacted his life. He stated that his ex-fiancé had moved from the state with their daughter and had not seen his daughter since. He had lost his job as a result of the experience. He had been acquitted, but had never been able to obtain another management job due to the records on CourtView. He spoke to challenges securing work. He stated that he deserved to have his life back, had never hurt anyone, and had not done anything wrong. He pleaded with the committee to help provide him with a fighting chance. He wanted his daughter to know he loved her. Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Mr. Mooney's testimony. 2:14:03 PM JAMIE ROGERS-JENKINS, SELF, TWO RIVERS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She believed the bill represented a civil liberties issue and could not thank the sponsor enough for carrying the bill. She opined that the bill did not go far enough. She believed people used CourtView as a screening tool for jobs and housing and that people did not follow through to determine what had actually happened. She stated that people had a "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality that could not be avoided. She used AHFC testimony as an example and stated that the testimony had assumed an individual may have done something wrong in the past, but had not been convicted of a crime. Although she supported the bill she believed it should include expungement. She opined that the bill should include plea bargained cases. Ms. Rogers-Jenkins stressed that the only cases that should appear on CourtView should be those that resulted in a conviction. She stated that many people had pled to something they had not done or to a lesser charge because it was closer to something that actually happened. Reasons for taking a plea bargain could include fear, time, and expense. She believed extreme examples like O.J. Simpson should be avoided. Additionally, she felt that restraining orders were abused and should not be listed on CourtView. She spoke to a case she had taken a plea to; she stated she had not committed the crime and there had been no investigation. She believed the preferable remedy was adequate investigation and no overcharging with the intent to instill fear and gain conviction. She would support a state funded campaign to let people know of the occurrences. She stated that police were not always truthful. She stated that the Office of Victims' Rights was the primary opponent of the bill and that it did not acknowledge various abuses. She asked the committee to pass the bill. 2:22:13 PM RICK ALLEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, PALMER (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He addressed an earlier question by Vice-Chair Neuman. He discussed that several years earlier the Public Defender Agency had changed its policy related to sealing files internally; the change had taken place in effort to reduce the number of conflicts and the number of criminal cases that went to OPA. He spoke to his experience as an attorney. He had seen many examples of individuals charged with theft or robbery; the cases had been appropriately dismissed by a prosecutor when the defendant had been able to prove their innocence. He stated that the allegation was currently recorded on CourtView indefinitely regardless of a person's innocence. He believed there was an unintended consequence where the government was punishing individuals without having proved them guilty of anything. He understood that it had never been the intent of CourtView. He stated that the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof were important bedrocks in the American system. He believed the bill would strike a good balance between a person's right to privacy and liberty and the public's right to important information. 2:25:26 PM DEANNA SMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. She spoke to her personal experience. She was currently staying in a safe house. She stated that if she had known about the ability to look on CourtView it would likely have prevented her current situation. She stated that public access to the records would provide the public with information about a person and would inform them about a possible behavioral pattern. She had used CourtView to determine that the person her daughter had begun dating had an unlawful past. She implored the committee not to pass the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Ms. Smith's courage in her testimony. 2:28:29 PM CARMEN GUTIERREZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in strong support of the bill. She spoke to her extensive work history with the criminal justice system and as former deputy commissioner for the Department of Corrections. She stated that currently every person charged with an offense had a permanent public record of the arrest and charge. She detailed that in felony cases there was also a statement of the alleged factual details accompanying the charging document. The person's name and the facts of the charge remained public even when charges were dismissed or after a jury decided on an acquittal. An arrest often became synonymous with conviction in the minds of those doing an inspection when the arrest continued to remain public information. She stressed that the records greatly impeded a person's ability to find employment, to rent an apartment, and to live a life free from stigmatization for a crime they were never convicted of. Ms. Gutierrez relayed that police officers tasked with a tremendous amount of work were required to make snap decisions when deciding it was more likely than not that a crime had occurred. The soundness of an officer's decision often depended on the experience of the officer and their perceived need to diffuse a difficult situation. She elaborated that after a person was arrested and charged a prosecutor had more time to review the merits of the case; in some cases upon more careful review and with the benefit of additional facts, the prosecutor determined that a charge did not merit prosecution and that it should be dismissed. However, the individual arrested was forever stigmatized by the arrest. She noted that close to 1,300 state felony cases and 9,500 misdemeanor cases had been dismissed in FY 13. She communicated that cases were dismissed for many reasons, but often due to lack of evidence, misidentification, no crime committed, and other. She stressed that many people were arrested even though they never committed a criminal offence. The constitutional right to due process of law was intended to protect individuals from being treated as convicted persons without first being afforded certain procedural safeguards. She believed it was the way it should be. She submitted that it was the state's responsibility to uphold the criminal justice system. Ms. Gutierrez spoke to her prior work as an attorney and her oath to uphold the constitution. She had concerns about the underlying premise of a letter addressed from Office of Victims' Rights to the legislature (copy on file). She believed that the premise was that something less than innocence should be insinuated each time an Alaskan was arrested even when the charge was later dismissed. She detailed that every day judges were required to tell every jury convened to hear a criminal case that the mere fact of an arrest and charge could not be used as any kind of evidence of guilt; however, CourtView information was causing people to be judged by an arrest. The system required criminal conviction. She stressed that an arrest and charge should not tarnish the reputation of an Alaskan citizen. She thanked the sponsor for introducing the legislation. 2:35:04 PM QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), spoke about the legal analysis involved in charging an individual and sustaining a charge. He mentioned the idea that the probable cause standard and a grand jury indictment was sufficient to conclude when a person was guilty. However, he stated that the probable cause and grand jury indictment standard was only about concluding when unexplained or uncontradicted items merited going forward on a case. He stated that an important part of the legal analysis was that once an investigation continued, the initial facts were explained or contradicted in some cases. He relayed that the screening process of probable cause was not sufficient evidence for conviction, but was about providing sufficient evidence to move forward on a case. He stated that "not guilty" meant not guilty in the criminal trial process. He remarked that there were many cases where charges were dismissed and collateral consequences were significant and life-long. 2:37:42 PM Representative Gara asked for verification that only a prosecutor presents evidence before a grand jury. Mr. Steiner concurred. He added that a grand jury was a secret and sealed proceeding in which only a prosecutor presents evidence; defense attorneys were not permitted to enter the proceedings. 2:38:40 PM MARY GEDDES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She remarked on her 28 years of criminal law experience in Alaska. She read from a prepared statement (copy on file): Senate Bill 108, introduced by Senator Dyson, provides a simple and sensible answer to an important question. What should happen with the record of a state court criminal case when no convictions were obtained and the case is now closed? Under the current language of SB 108, the approach is straightforward. Four months after such a case is closed, the court record is designated as confidential. This means, simply, that the court record is no longer offered for general public viewing. Many of you have heard the term, expungement. In the majority of states, expungement is an available remedy for arrests and other nonconviction records. Expungement typically means the destruction of a record. But Alaska does not have an expungement statute. SB 108 provides a less drastic remedy than expungement. SB 108 would not require the destruction of court records. Nor does it impede or unnecessarily burden law enforcement. How often does it happen that a criminal case filing ends with a dismissal and no conviction? More frequently than you might imagine. In the last fiscal year alone, approximately 7,563 misdemeanor and 945 felony cases were closed because of dismissals by state prosecutors. In addition, approximately 100 felony and misdemeanor cases were closed as a result of acquittals. The reason for making nonconviction court records confidential is a good one. It avoids an unnecessary risk of harm to a person. Even though we all know it should not make any difference, just the information that there once was a criminal accusation can limit a person's economic opportunity and severely damage a reputation. Life, subsequent to an arrest, is permanently altered. Making such records confidential, by contrast, provides a meaningful end to a criminal process. Perhaps there is no better illustration of the personal impact of criminal litigation for us Alaskans than the case of Senator Ted Stevens. After 41 years of faithful service, he was charged with crimes and convicted. He was convicted. But his conviction was later thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct, and his case was entirely dismissed by the government. Let's suppose for a moment that Sen. Stevens had been charged in state court. Even after a dismissal of all charges, public court records would forever list him - really, brand him - as a "criminal defendant." Why is that fair? Why should any citizen be treated that way for all time when the government has closely evaluated the evidence and seen fit to dismiss the charges, or when a defendant has been acquitted? Taylor Winston, an employee of the state Office of Victims' Rights, recently wrote this Committee concerning SB 108. Ms. Winston opposes the idea of making closed nonconviction records confidential for reasons stated in her column on April 10, 2014. Under such a theory of justice, however, a person once charged of a crime should be forever considered "not innocent," even though the courts lack any legal authority to make such a determination. Neither prosecutors acting alone nor a grand jury has a 'good enough' fact-finding process such that their indictments should forever stand as public monuments. Let's remember that a grand jury meets in secret with the prosecutor, and that the accused and his lawyer aren't allowed in. Not only did the Founding Fathers reject the grand jury as the means of determining criminal responsibility, they also decided that there would be no continuing penalty, no loss of privilege and certainly no lifetime loss of privacy for those who had been once charged but not convicted of a crime. Ms. Winston argues that the information provided on the court's electronic website (showing information on open and closed criminal cases) is "objective" and provides information the public can use to protect itself. In a letter she submitted to the Legislature, she provided an example: she said she would check the website to help make a decision on a babysitter. This is a great example as to why SB 108 should be enacted. The website warns the reader as to its unreliability and prejudicial effect and yet people still rely on it, presumptively, for divining someone's trustworthiness. A zealous advocate, Ms. Winston seems genuinely concerned, but her dire prediction that "victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse, and our communities will suffer" under SB 108 is certainly not justified by the very modest reach of this bill. Senate Bill 108 would not block any police, prosecutor or judge from access to closed nonconviction court records. Any party to a closed case still has automatic access. Because Alaska's statutes and its constitution now also require the criminal justice system to accommodate the rights of crime victims, it is almost certain that a complaining witness would also have automatic access. Access by any other individuals can be obtained with the written permission of the court if the court finds that the requestor's interest outweighs the potential harm to the person or interests being protected. In making this call, the court will consider the (1) risk of injury to individuals; (2) individual privacy rights and interests; (3) proprietary business information; (4) the deliberative process; or (5) public safety. Finally, it should be noted that SB 108 does not impose any burdens of secrecy or non-publication on persons or companies who obtain the record. Senate Bill 108 is a neat, nifty way to be fair to defendants whose cases are entirely dismissed - like Sen. Stevens- without undermining law enforcement or prosecutorial functions. Let your state representative know that SB 108 should pass. Co-Chair Stoltze asked for written testimony. Ms. Geddes agreed to provide her testimony to the committee. 2:47:02 PM TAYLOR WINSTON, DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS (OVR), ANCHORAGE, testified in strong opposition to the legislation. She believed the bill was of grave concerns, particularly to victims in Alaska. In reference to previous testimony she stressed that the bill was not a "nifty" service to victims of the state. She emphasized that the victims had a constitutional right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect; the bill did not treat them with those things. She spoke to her professional experience working in the Alaska legal system. She had spent over 12 years working on sexual assault cases. She stressed that the path of a victim of sexual assault was arduous. She spoke about the difficulty victims faced when reporting a crime including feelings of guilt and shame. She discussed that everyone wanted to encourage victims to report because when victims reported the process should be able to act and should make communities safer. She highlighted the bravery victims showed when reporting a crime. She stated that the process did not restore a victim's sense of well-being; it was humiliating and constituted a re-victimization. She stated that the individuals had to relive the trauma of past events in front of a grand jury. She discussed that it was up to a jury to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. She stated that an acquittal was like a knife through the heart for the victim. Ms. Winston testified that the legislation was contrary to a victim's constitutional right to be treated with dignity, fairness, and respect. She asked for verification that the bill had been amended to only include dismissals by the prosecution, not by the court. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that there was an affirmation, but he had not looked at the minutia of the bill. Ms. Winston stated that the bill put the decision and fate of the victims in the hands of prosecutors. She mentioned her former work as a prosecutor and the dismissal of cases that occurred for various reasons. She wondered what justice the removal of records related to dismissed cases provided for victims of various crimes. She stressed justice for all and not just the defendant. She believed an accurate account of information and a definitive source was important. She mentioned the O.J. Simpson case; she believed it was important for the public to have the ability to see what happens in its institutions. She was glad some of the supporters had brought forward their convictions. She stated that certain things would not be known if the record was not open. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that supporters had brought forward their arrests, not convictions. Ms. Winston agreed and restated that the record was clear regarding the testifier's arrests. She pointed to supportive testimony and noted that the bill would not address some specific concerns mentioned. She spoke to the testimony of Mr. Mooney and stated it was one of the reasons transparency of government was important. She had prosecuted the case he spoke about. She provided details of the case. She stated that the evidence against him had been strong, but the jury had acquitted him. 2:59:08 PM Ms. Winston stressed the importance of the court record. She pointed to the Mechele Linehan case, which had been dismissed by the prosecution and would not stay in the court record if the bill passed. She mentioned the John Carlin case and communicated that there was going to be voiding of his conviction; OVR had submitted that his death in prison did not mean his conviction should be voided and the decision had been reversed related to the specific point. She spoke to the national George Zimmerman case and believed it deserved to have public scrutiny and review. She opined that prosecutors should be scrutinized for what they dismissed. She stressed that the organization was not opposed to the concept presented by SB 108, but it was opposed to the language the bill used. She believed there should be a surgical approach because the bill would affect many people. The organization had proposed amendments to the committee to help protect victims. Ms. Winston referred to an earlier question by Representative Gara related to a grand jury and relayed that a prosecutor was under obligation to present exculpatory evidence (any evidence that tended to negate a defendant's guilt). She discussed grand jury procedures. She spoke to the Joshua Wade cases related to murder convictions. She mentioned that in cases of concurrent state and federal jurisdiction, the state would dismiss a case to allow it to move through the federal process; the detail would be removed from the public's view under the legislation. She did not believe it was fair to the citizens of the state. She believed the bill was contrary to the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act, and the transparency of government. She reiterated that the bill was divergent from the constitutional right to fairness, dignity, and respect. She urged the committee to think about the victims. She referred to statute and the sealing of the process and expressed her belief that a better process should be devised to address people trying to seal their records. 3:05:25 PM Representative Thompson noted his compassion for victims and understood their constitutional rights; however, people who were falsely accused also had constitutional rights. He noted that under the legislation the records would be removed from CourtView after 120 days. He wondered what timeframe Ms. Winston would be comfortable with. Ms. Winston replied that there was a difference between a case where a person was falsely accused with no evidence to support the charge and a case where a plea agreement to dismiss had been agreed upon. She noted that a case was sometimes dismissed if a defendant died. She relayed that the 120-day time period was not the issue. She opined that CourtView had been a problem. She did not want individuals wrongfully accused of crimes to be punished by the system; however, she did want the public record to remain on CourtView for other situations. She believed the legislation needed to be further defined. 3:08:44 PM Representative Gara spoke from the perspective of a victim and shared that his father had been murdered when he was a child; however, he would not feel comfortable to have a person who was wrongfully accused listed as a criminal for the rest of their life even if the record showed that charges had been dismissed. He stated that it was not possible to have a perfect system. He would never feel comfortable having a murder charge listed for an innocent person. JAMES NOBLE, SELF, PRUDHOE BAY (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He stated that charges had been dismissed after he had been falsely accused of stalking and domestic violence by an ex-girlfriend. He had been surprised and upset by a letter of opposition written by Ms. Winston. After listening to her prior testimony he agreed with much of what Ms. Winston had said; however, he personally related to her description of the various process of humility and shame that victims went through. He stated that he was the guilty party according to Ms. Winston's letter and beliefs. He addressed the idea that predators got away with crimes; he believed the system was working hard to bring guilty persons to justice. He relayed that the dismissed charges against him were on the CourtView record. The charges had been brought over five years earlier, but they remained visible. He stressed that people looked at CourtView; it was useful, but also harmful. He emphasized that the current system did not work. He agreed that there were a few cases where the guilty went free due to the system, but that the system would never be perfect. He noted the high case dismissal rate of 60 to 70 percent. He asked about the rights to due process, innocence until proven guilty, about his right to privacy, and his right after proving his innocence. He reiterated his support for the legislation and thanked the sponsor. 3:14:38 PM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 3:15:18 PM AT EASE 3:17:09 PM RECONVENED