SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION  3:36:14 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 33 "An Act relating to pretrial release; relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." He advised that this bill was last heard last Thursday 3/14/19 and public testimony was heard and is closed. Written testimony may be submitted to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov until 6:00 pm this evening, assuming the bill moves from committee today. He noted that there was one amendment for the committee to consider. He noted who was available to answer questions. 3:36:58 PM SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31- GS1030\M.1, on behalf of Senator Reinbold as sponsor. 31-GS1030\M.1 Radford 3/15/19 AMENDMENT 1  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR REINBOLD TO: CSSB 33(STA), Draft Version "M" Page 1, line 3: Delete "38.2" Insert "5(a), 38.2," Page 1, line 14: Delete "48 [24]" Insert "72 [24]" Page 9, line 21: Delete "48 [24]" Insert "72 [24]" Page 13, following line 29: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:  DIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. Rule 5(a), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read: (a) Appearance Before Judicial Officer After  Arrest.  (1) Except when the person arrested is issued a citation for a class C felony, misdemeanor, or a violation and immediately thereafter released, the arrested person shall appear before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay and in any event within 72 hours [24 HOURS] after arrest, absent compelling circumstances, including weekend days and holidays. (2) If (A) the judicial officer commits the arrested person to jail for a purpose other than to serve a sentence, and (B) the jail is situated in a different community from the place where the judicial officer committed the arrested person to jail, and (C) the arrested person is not represented by counsel, and (D) the arrested person has not previously had a bail review, and (E) the arrested person has no date, time and place established for his or her next court appearance, then the arrested person shall appear before a judicial officer the next business day (i) in order for bail to be reviewed, and (ii) in order to determine if the person is represented by counsel, and (iii) in order for the counsel to be appointed, if appropriate. (3) The responsibility for ensuring that the arrested person appears before a judicial officer as specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be borne equally by (A) municipal police officers and municipal jail personnel, and by (B) state troopers, state jail personnel, and all other peace officers. No distinction shall be drawn between cases in which arrest was made pursuant to a warrant and cases in which arrest was made without a warrant. (4) Whenever the person arrested on a warrant appears before a judicial officer other than the one who issued the warrant, the complaint and any other statement or deposition on which the warrant was granted must be furnished to the defendant and must be communicated to the judicial officer before whom the person arrested appears. (5) Whenever a person arrested without a warrant appears before a judicial officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith. (6) Judicial officers and jail facilities shall be available at all times to receive bail, and each judicial officer individually shall have authority to delegate this duty to the person admitting the defendant to jail, or to such other person as shall in the determination of a judicial officer be qualified for this purpose." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 23, line 22: Delete "Sections 22 - 24" Insert "Sections 22 - 25" Delete "secs. 22 - 24" Insert "secs. 22 - 25" CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes. 3:37:29 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said that the amendment modifies the title and changes the timeline for arraignments from 24 to 72 hours. She offered that 72 hours allows the troopers time to interview witnesses and allows more time for the victim who may be too "beat up" to be interviewed right away. She shared that both troopers and police officers have complained to her repeatedly "that the guys or gals are getting released before the ink is dry on the reports." She said 72 hours allows more flexibility, particularly in rural communities where resources are less available and crime is higher. 3:38:58 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI recalled that earlier testimony from the court indicated that 48 hours was already the outside limit and there wasn't any need to extend beyond that. He questioned the necessity of the amendment. 3:39:41 PM NANCY MEADE, General Council, Administrative Service, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, suggested it might be best if the sponsor also explained her view. She confirmed Senator Kawasaki's recall that the court system schedules arraignments for court appearances within 24 hours. Current law allows up to 48 hours and that extension is used occasionally for such things as the defendant is not in shape to appear in court. She noted the statute also allows the prosecutor up to 48 hours to gather the evidence for the bail hearing. "But the court does schedule them within 24 hours." CHAIR SHOWER asked her to comment on the situation Senator Reinbold cited about the victim being in such bad shape they were unable to provide information. MS. MEADE suggested he ask law enforcement to comment on that because she didn't have that information. 3:41:11 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if witnesses are called in an arraignment. MS. MEADE replied not usually. CHAIR SHOWER asked if the courts requested the proposed extension and if the court feels the extension is necessary. MS. MEADE clarified that the courts did not request the amendment. She noted that she previously testified that the courts schedule arraignments within 24 hours. The law allows up to 48 hours, but the court's perspective is that more time is not needed. 3:42:07 PM SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that the amendment is not about the courts; it is about the troopers and victims. She commented on pretrial delays and the emphasis that the courts place on the defendant and that the process is not victim oriented. 3:43:40 PM KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, introduced herself. 3:43:57 PM MICHAEL DUXBURY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, explained that rural Alaska has Village Police Officers (VPOs), Tribal Police Officers(TPOs), and Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs). VPSOs have a good amount of law enforcement training whereas the VPOs and TPOs need help and guidance from the Alaska State Troopers to prepare the reports and charging documents in a format that is acceptable to the courts. He described the process in Bethel as an example. When the troopers arrive in the morning, they are likely to find up to six reports on the FAX machine from VPOs and TPOs in outlying areas. Because of the lack of training, the information in these reports - about probable cause for example, may not be in an acceptable format for the court. The troopers contact the VPOs or TPOs to supplement and clarify the reports before they are sent to the court. This may take some time because the village officers may have gone off shift. In these circumstances the extended timeframe is helpful, he said. 3:46:38 PM CHAIR SHOWER asked if he sees a need to extend the timeframe to 72 hours. MR. DUXBURY offered his personal opinion that 48 hours is better than 24 hours and 72 hours could sometimes be important. CHAIR SHOWER asked if the need for a longer timeframe is unique to Alaska because of geography and weather. MR. DUXBURY replied, "In a place that is one-fifth the size of the United States with only 13,500 miles of road, this is definitely one of our issues." CHAIR SHOWER asked the Department of Law to comment on the timeline. 3:47:52 PM MS. SCHROEDER said 72 hours would provide more flexibility in the scenarios that Mr. Duxbury described. The Department of Law's perspective is that it trails the Court System and will continue to show up whenever there are hearings. CHAIR SHOWER asked if there may be constitutional or unintended consequences associated with extending the timeline to 72 hours. MS. SCHROEDER replied DOL did not assess the amendment for constitutional issues, but would not recommend extending beyond 72 hours CHAIR SHOWER asked if the amendment would increase costs because people would potentially stay in jail longer. MR. DUXBURY said he didn't believe this would generate a fiscal note from the troopers. 3:50:02 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said she sees a lot of benefit in providing more flexibility in the timeline. This could potentially reduce costs associated with travel and staffing on holidays and weekends and reduce stress on prosecutors that she's heard have morale issues. MS. SCHROEDER said it would be difficult to assess any cost savings because DOL will continue to show up when the courts hold hearings and the court has said it will continue to arraign people within 24 hours. She confirmed that there is a fiscal impact associated with the district attorney offices in Anchorage and Fairbanks staffing up on weekends to help the prosecutor handle the inflow. 3:52:01 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked Ms. Meade why the court wouldn't want to avoid some weekend work if it reduced costs somewhat. "Is there a reason we feel like we need to get to an arraignment within 24 hours?" MS. MEADE replied the current law is 24 hours so that is what the court follows. She noted that at some point in the past the timeline was changed to 48 hours, but the courts continued to arraign people within 24 hours. She described the Anchorage "jail court" that's held on the weekends. A judicial officer goes to the Anchorage jail and starts arraignments at noon. What used to take a couple of hours can now last until 5:00 pm, she said, so it would not be feasible to wait and arraign all those people on Monday. She said she anticipates the court will continue to schedule arraignments on the weekends to keep up with the work. SENATOR MICCICHE clarified for the public that Senate Bill 91 reduced the arraignment timeline from 48 hours to 24 hours, the courts continued to hold arraignment hearings within 24 hours of arrest, the administration's SB 33 returns to 48 hours, and Mr. Duxbury testified that the flexibility in extending the timeline to 72 hours would be helpful [in rural Alaska]. He asked Mr. Duxbury to comment. 3:55:33 PM MR. DUXBURY said his intent was to relay his experience that the 24 hour timeline has been difficult in the circumstances he described and that 48 hours provided welcome flexibility for troopers to better support TPOs, VPOs and VPSOs in the villages. He clarified that he was not testifying in support of or opposition to 72 hours because he did not have any experience with or data for that timeline. CHAIR SHOWER asked what process is followed when somebody isn't arraigned within 24 hours. MS. SCHROEDER explained that if DOL doesn't communicate with the court to get a special dispensation, the risk is that the case would be dismissed. She added that DOL does watch the clock and communicates with the court when it's warranted. 3:57:22 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the courts, public safety, and the district attorney's office would respond to the proposed change to 72 hours. MR. DUXBURY said he didn't have enough experience to say any more than the fiscal note would be indeterminate. However, it would provide the flexibility to allow an officer who has been up all night and working on overtime to go home for some needed rest and go to court after the weekend. MS. MEADE said she did not anticipate any operational or fiscal impact on the Court System by changing the timeframe from 24 hours to 48 hours or 72 hours. MS. SCHROEDER explained that the administration is asking to change the timeline to 48 hours to provide time for such things as engaging in conversations with the court about structuring arraignments. The current law does not provide any flexibility for such things. CHAIR SHOWER asked if there is data to show that cases have been dismissed because time ran out. 4:00:10 PM MS. MEADE said she was not aware of any data about that, but Section 3 of the bill says a person can be held up to 96 hours if law enforcement or others legitimately need the time. CHAIR SHOWER said the struggle is to strike the right balance between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused. 4:01:28 PM SENATOR REINBOLD restated her reason for offering the amendment had nothing to do with the Court System. Rather, it's that 24 hours is too rushed to ensure that the charging documents are prepared correctly and this puts the public at risk. Law enforcement has repeatedly said they don't have time and she believes that extending the timeline to 72 hours would help rural communities. Some people in the Department of Law have also acknowledged that the extension would be helpful when weather is a factor. She opined that the extension would save money and improve morale. She said she intended to withdraw the amendment but wanted the discussion on the record. "We've got some serious issues; we need to become far more victim-centered and not so much defendant-centered," she said. 4:04:07 PM SENATOR REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 1. SENATOR COGHILL clarified that he made the motion. He added that he did not support the amendment but appreciated the sponsor clearly articulating the benefit of pretrial services and the risk assessment tool. 4:04:30 PM SENATOR COGHILL withdrew Amendment 1, work order 31-GS1030\M.1. SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that she did not talk in support of the pretrial risk assessment tool. She said she hates that tool but does support watching people pretrial. CHAIR SHOWER found no further amendments and stated that the CS for SB 33 is before the committee for final discussion. SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for the bill. CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion and solicited a motion. 4:05:44 PM SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 33, version M, from committee with individual recommendations, attached fiscal note(s), and authorization for legislative legal to make appropriate conforming technical changes. 4:06:02 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI objected to state that there is obviously a fiscal impact to SB 33. He said he highlighted the lack of determinate fiscal notes during the last hearing and he doesn't like to move a bill from committee without clarity on the costs. SENATOR KAWASAKI removed his objection. CHAIR SHOWER advised that the judiciary committee will look closely at the provisions for electronic monitoring and the risk assessment tool. SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that the most important costs are those to victims, businesses, and society, not the state. 4:07:04 PM CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and CSSB 33(STA) moved from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.