HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 23, 1998 1:45 P.M. TAPE HFC 98 - 38, Side 1 TAPE HFC 98 - 38, Side 2 CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring Representative Davies Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Foster Representative Mulder Representative Grussendorf ALSO PRESENT Senator Dave Donley; Senator Fred Dyson; Representative Beverly Masek; Representative Ethan Berkowitz; Juanita Hensley, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Jayne Andreen, Executive Director, Council of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. SUMMARY HB 231 "An Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles." CSHB 231 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Administration. HB 245 "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure." CSHB 245 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the Department of Administration and one by the Department of Corrections; and with two zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Administration and one by the Department of Public Safety. SJR 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners to those required under the Constitution of the United States. HCS CSSJR 3 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Administration. HOUSE BILL NO. 231 "An Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed committee substitute, Work Draft 0-LS0501\L, dated 2/23/98 (copy on file). He noted that the sections relating to accident reporting and required equipment were deleted. The sponsor indicated that these subjects might be considered in separate legislation at another time. Representative Foster asked if bush areas would be exempted. He felt that registration of snow machines in bush areas would be onerous. JUANITA HENSLEY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION noted that the registration of snowmobiles is currently under Title 5. Currently, all snowmobiles are required to be registered. The legislation would move registration of snowmobiles from Title 5 and place it in Title 28. Snowmobiles would be registered at the time of sale. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that there is no new requirement. Ms. Hensley noted that current statutes require payment of a fee. The only change would be to authorize snowmobile dealers to register the machine at the time of sale. Representative Martin questioned if the law should be repealed. Ms. Hensley clarified that registration is required every two years. Registration can occur through the Internet, phone, or by mail. She emphasized that the legislation will protect owners from theft. She noted that the legislation was requested by the industry and owners of snow machines. Representative Martin questioned if the legislation would burden the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Ms. Hensley noted that the sponsor worked to limit the amount of work that the DMV has to perform. One full time position would negotiate contracts with dealers, and audit and train dealers. She did not think that the legislation would add very much to their workload. There are approximately 14,000 snow machines that are currently registered. Snow machine clubs estimate that there are approximately 70,000 unregistered snow machines. They expect another 8,000 new snow machines to be registered per year. The Division would have to register approximately 10,000 a year due to a turnover of used machines. She discussed the Division's fiscal note. She observed that $100 thousand dollars in revenues would be generated in the first two years. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Division of Parks would use the statistics on the number of registered vehicles to apply for federal grants. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms. Hensley clarified that snow machines are not titled. Lien holders are not identified on registration. Lien holders could be identified by implementing programming changes. The programming changes would require additional costs. Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the legislation. In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Ms. Hensley noted that registration costs $10 dollars every two years. She stated that the registration fee is sufficient to administer the program. In response to comments by Representative Martin, Co-Chair Therriault clarified that money collected for registration is not used to match federal funds. Ms. Hensley explained that federal grants are based on the number of snow machines that are registered. Representative Kohring noted that the public is not adhering to the laws regarding registration of snowmobiles. He questioned if the law should be repealed. Representative Foster asked what is the fine or penalty for not registering a snowmobile. Ms. Hensley stated that the fine would be the same as for not registering a car. Four- wheelers are not required to be registered. Representative Davies spoke against repealing the statute. Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0501\L, dated 2/23/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Davies MOVED to report CSHB 231 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners to those required under the Constitution of the United States. Senator Donley provided members with a proposed committee substitute, Work Draft 0-LS0268\L, dated 2/13/98(copy on file). He spoke in support of the proposed committee substitute. Senator Donley provided members with a proposed letter of intent (copy on file). He spoke in support of the letter of intent. He maintained that the proposed letter of intent would give the Court additional, clear guidance in regards to the Legislature's intent in adopting SJR 3. Senator Donley reviewed changes incorporated by the proposed committee substitute. He observed that specific reference to Article 1, section 12 was deleted. The language was changed to read: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution." The intent is to cover all unique and special rights given to convicted prisoners by the Alaska State Constitution that are not currently guaranteed under the federal Constitution. Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0268\L, dated 2/13/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of rehabilitation. He asked if federal standards deny efforts to rehabilitate prisoners. Senator Donley stressed that the legislation creates a baseline. Rehabilitation programs could still be funded through the budget. The legislation speaks to the minimum required. Prisoners would no longer be able to sue to enforce a right of reformation, except as required under the federal Constitution. He maintained that the legislation would allow decisions to be based on what is appropriate within the budget process. Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSJR 3 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes and letter of intent. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HOUSE BILL NO. 245 "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure." JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified in support of HB 245. She observed that she was alerted by a police officer to the problem of abusers calling their victims within hours of their arrest. She emphasized domestic violence perpetrators who are exercising an on going cycle of control over their victims will use whatever means they have to continue their control. Ms. Andreen stressed that contact by the defendant to the victim should be limited before the first judicial hearing. This allows victims time to decide whether they should seek a civil protective order and to make plans for the safety of themselves and their children. The judge can determine whether or not there can be contact at the first judicial hearing. Ms. Andreen spoke in support of increased penalties for repeat domestic violence offenders. She maintained that domestic violence offenders are not held as accountable by the criminal justice system as offenders of other offenses. She stated that the Council supports 30 days for a second offense and 60 days for a third offense when it is a fourth degree assault and a prior history of domestic violence. Ms. Andreen spoke in support of criminalizing unlawful contact. It is a criminal offense to violate a civil order preventing contact. There are no quick consequences for someone who has been ordered by the court not to have contact as a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, probation or parole. Ms. Andreen pointed out that the these issues fall in line with recommendations of the Governor's Domestic Violence Summit held in December 1997. The Summit concluded that offenders need to be held more accountable for their actions. She stressed that the importance of giving the court system and the criminal justice system sanctions and controls in order to hold offenders accountable. She asserted that it is important that the violation of conditions of release be criminalized. Co-Chair Therriault provided members with proposed committee substitute, Work Draft 0-LS0450\R, dated 2/21/98 (copy on file). Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0450\R, dated 2/21/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault reviewed the committee substitute. "A person is arrested for a crime involving domestic violence" was added on page 1, line 10. A proposed Amendment 2 would broaden this language by adding "or a crime against a person (copy on file). There was a conforming change in section 3. There was a court rule change in section 10. On page 1, line 13 a person is guilty if they "attempt to initiate communication with the alleged victim of the crime that was the basis for the person's arrest." Representative Davies referred to page 2, line 17. He noted that AS 12.30.025 specifically exempts domestic violence. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW clarified that AS 12.30.025 should be omitted. Representative Davies MOVED ADOPT Amendment 1, delete AS 12.30.025 on page 2, line 17. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2. Amendment 2 would add "or a crime against a person". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that Amendment 2 includes a title change to incorporate the reference of crimes against a person into the title. Representative Davies provided members with a spreadsheet detailing the sentencing of domestic violence cases in 1986 (copy on file). He observed that, in 1986, 400 of 1279 domestic violence offenders received no jail time. He estimated that under HB 245 half of these cases would receive jail time. He observed that if half of these offenders received 20 days, the budget would be impacted by approximately $400 thousand dollars a year. To approximate the cost of the legislation he assumed that 5 percent of the offenders that did not receive jail time in 1986 would receive 20 days; 10 percent of the offenders that received 1 - 5 days in 1986 would receive 15 days; and 15 percent of the offenders that received 6 - 10 days in 1986 would receive 10 days. He concluded that there would be an additional cost of $87.5 thousand dollars a year. He maintained that the indeterminate fiscal by the Department of Corrections is under-estimated. Representative Davies spoke in support of a revised fiscal note for the Department of Corrections of $80 thousand dollars. Ms. Carpeneti observed that the statistics do not identify the number of previous offenses. She assumed that offenders that did not receive jail time were convicted on a first offense without a violation of a protective order. She concluded that the legislation does not represent a significant departure from what is currently occurring. Representative Davies argued that there would be a cost. He requested that the legislation be held for further consideration of the fiscal note. (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 38, Side 2) Ms. Carpeneti noted that the Department of Corrections based their fiscal note on estimations by the Department of Law. Representative Fred Dyson acknowledged Representative Davies' logic as irrefutable. He observed that those that are in the field have a different conclusion. He spoke in support of moving the legislation. He suggested that the impact is unknown. He pointed out that the legislation may act as a deterrent. Representative Ethan Berkowitz pointed out that it is hard to determine the cost. He observed that a reduction of domestic violence cases would be accompanied by a decrease in social costs to the State. He felt that the legislation would reduce the instances of domestic violence. Representative Davies stated that he supports the legislation. He expressed concern that the Department has sufficient funding to implement the legislation. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that the Department of Corrections does not have a lot of options for sentenced offenders. He stated that the cost will be addressed through the budget. Representative Davies emphasized that there is a tendency for the system to adjust to reality. He suggested that if there are no cells that charges will be adjusted down. In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Co- Chair Therriault clarified that the restriction on calls, to the victim, would only be placed on individuals between the time of arrest and the initial appearance before a judge. The judge would determine if there should be further restrictions on the individual's right to contact a victim. Representative Dyson added that the intent is to prevent intimidation of the victim by the defendant. Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT an amended fiscal note for the Department of Corrections of $80 thousand dollars. Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED. He observed that the sponsor can work with the Department to refine the fiscal note as the legislation travels through the system. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt a revised fiscal note of $80 thousand dollars for the Department of Corrections. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Hanley The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3. Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED. Representative Berkowitz explained that Amendment 3 would allow the prosecuting agency to seek an additional crime for the violation of a no contact order. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if prosecutors could reinstate the suspension of sentence. Representative Berkowitz noted that the worst recidivists would receive the maximum misdemeanor sentence. They would not have any suspended sentence. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the amendment would restrict contact of the witness and the victim. Ms. Carpeneti clarified that Amendment 3 addresses what happens to a person after a judge has ordered them not to have contact with a victim or a witness to a crime. She observed that there is no good, effective way of enforcing a court order for restrictive contact. Co-Chair Hanley referred to page 1, section 1, subsection (2). Ms. Carpeneti explained that the "order" refers to release on bail, conditions of probation, or judgement in sentencing. Subsection 1 observes that the individual has been ordered not to contact the victim or witness as a condition of an order. Subsection 2 occurs when they have contacted the person in violation of the terms of the order. She acknowledged that a judge could order the person back to jail if there is a suspended sentence or find them in contempt of court. A contempt finding would result in a $100 dollar fine. She emphasized that Amendment 3 would be a more effective deterrent then current options available to the court. She observed that offenders violate their contact orders fairly regularly. She stressed that Amendment 3 would be an effective deterrent in the most serious cases where people keep contacting their victim. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Carpeneti explained that the witness may be a child who lives in the house where there is a domestic violence assault. Access can be restricted as a condition of release under current law. In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Ms. Carpeneti noted that some judges believe they already have the authority to order a defendant not to contact a victim for any period of time that seems reasonable under the circumstances. Other judges do not think they have the authority. The amendment would make it clear that all judges have the authority to restrict contact. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment 3. IN FAVOR: Davies, Foster, Grussendorf, Martin, Mulder, Hanley OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Therriault Representative Moses absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-4). Representative Dyson observed that most members have not had the experience of being beaten until they are terrorized. He recounted his own experiences. He emphasized the terror victims feel when their abusers confront them. He stressed that victims would benefit from extra tools to prevent contact by their abusers. Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to report CSHB 245 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 245 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the Department of Administration and one by the Department of Corrections; and with two zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Administration and one by the Department of Public Safety. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. House Finance Committee 9 2/23/98