Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
01/31/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| HB78 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
8:03:54 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 8, "An Act relating to protective
orders."
8:05:47 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 8 on behalf of Representative Edgmon,
prime sponsor. He paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2014, a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and
former Sen. Mark Begich eliminated the "Alaska
Exemption" from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
This brought attention to the state's obligation to
enforce protection orders issued by other
jurisdictions, including other state, territorial, or
tribal courts.
As current statutes are written, law enforcement is
only compelled to enforce a tribal or another state's
protection order if it has been filed (that is,
registered) in an Alaska court. However, with Alaska
subject to the VAWA, the state is required to enforce
protection orders issued in another jurisdiction even
if the order has not been registered.
HB 8 follows the recommendation of the Department of
Law to amend conflicting state statutes in order to
bring Alaska into compliance with the federal law. HB
8 will not only clarify the duties of law enforcement
but also will eliminate potential lawsuits that could
stem from the contradictions currently found in state
statutes.
Additionally, the bill adds a presumption of validity
on the part of state law enforcement, so that they are
required to enforce a protective order issued in
another jurisdiction so long as it appears authentic
on its face. HB 8 also more clearly specifies in
statute that "other states" and "other jurisdictions"
include courts of another state or territory, United
States military tribunals, and tribal courts.
It's important to note that the state still encourages
registration of protection orders from other
jurisdictions. As the Department of Law has noted, the
state's central registry "gives officers access to
tribal and foreign protection orders anywhere in
Alaska, even if the victim does not have a copy of the
order at hand."
8:09:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO clarified there are concerns that Alaska
be given the ability to enforce [protective orders of other
jurisdictions], and the general idea behind HB 8 is to support
the victims of sexual assault. He added, "We want to be
expedient with this."
MR. CLARK said Representative Talerico stated that summary very
well. He gave an example of someone in Ohio who has a
protective order in place and moves to Alaska, but is not aware
of the need to register the protective order in Alaska. That
person then is menaced in some way by the person against whom
the protective order was made and needs help immediately. The
proposed legislation would ensure that help is "legal and
possible."
8:11:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whose job it is to register the
protective order and whether the person with the order would
need an attorney to complete such a registration.
MR. CLARK offered his understanding that it would be the holder
of the protective order - the victim - and would be a fairly
routine matter of contacting the court.
8:12:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE questioned how the registration process
would work, in terms of a police officer in a rural community
being able to look up information and "get a hit."
MR. CLARK answered that the registration process is well-
established in Alaska. Under HB 8, if someone has failed to
register a protective order, the enforcement could take place
immediately anyway. He reiterated that the proposed legislation
would add "a presumption of validity." He noted that often, a
person who has taken out a protective order possesses a hard
copy of that order; therefore, in a threatening situation, the
person could call law enforcement, who could enforce the order
if it "appears authentic on its face."
8:14:38 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if he is correct in saying that everywhere
else in the U.S. is "on board with this" and enforcing
protective orders issued by other jurisdictions.
MR. CLARK answered that is correct. He emphasized that the
State of Alaska is on board with this and is working under the
requirements of the federal law. He said the intent of HB 8 is
to address contradictions that exist in state statute. He said
such change would not only act in favor of the victims, but also
assist law enforcement, because continued contradictions in
statute can cause conflicts in prosecutions going forward by
presenting ambiguities in the prosecution of a case.
8:16:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER directed attention to language on page
4, lines 21 and 22, which read as follows:
(d) A protective order issued in another
jurisdiction that appears authentic on its face is
presumed valid.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "What's the procedure they're
going to use to validate this, and do they need to validate
anything?"
MR. CLARK replied that the reason for that language is to "err
on the side of caution." He said if someone does not register a
protective order from another jurisdiction, is in a threatening
situation, and law enforcement arrives, and the person has the
protective order in hand, then law enforcement is authorized to
determine whether the hard copy looks valid and, if so, proceed
to enforce the protection. He said, "It exists in other states
as a precaution in order to ... give as much help and assistance
to someone in a threatening situation as possible. And to put
it plainly, those matters can be sorted out; the validity itself
can be sorted out after the situation is brought under control
and people are safe."
MR. CLARK, in response to follow-up questions, confirmed that
the matter would be settled in terms of validity before any
prosecution would go forward. He said the section of the
Violence Against Women Act that authorizes what the bill is
describing includes certain criteria that a protective order
from another jurisdiction must meet: the issue in court must
have jurisdiction in the parties and the matter under the laws
of the state, territory, or tribe, and that the issue in court
must give reasonable notice and opportunity to the person
against whom that order is sought in order for that person's due
process to be protected.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER queried as to whether there are any
statistics showing whether there have been any "frivolous
orders."
8:21:05 AM
MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals & Ethics Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department
of Law (DOL), stated that she is not aware of any frivolous use
of protective orders. She deferred to Casey Schroeder to more
specifically address questions regarding protective orders.
8:21:48 AM
CASEY SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), stated,
"We're not aware of any frivolous or perhaps fraudulent uses of
protective orders in this context, and we don't have any
specifics on that either, unfortunately."
8:22:26 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Lundquist for an estimate of how many
people in Alaska have protective orders from other
jurisdictions.
MS. LUNDQUIST deferred to Ms. Schroeder.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the division could obtain statistics
showing the overall number of protective orders and those
registered with the court; however, she said she does not know
if there would be a specification of which of those are from
other jurisdictions.
CO-CHAIR PARISH indicated that he did not require Ms. Schroeder
to research information if she did not already have it on hand,
as the information is not vital. He added, "It's a pretty clear
bill."
8:23:51 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER opened public testimony on HB 8.
8:25:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said he endorses and embraces the
proposed legislation. He said at the village level, when
someone wants to leave to get away from a bad situation, he/she
goes to bigger city, and [HB 8] addresses that.
8:26:25 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER closed public testimony on HB 8.
8:26:50 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated support for HB 8 as a way to ensure
there are no problems between federal and state law.
8:27:32 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to report HB 8 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:27:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER [objected] to note that Co-Chair Parish
had asked for information that [Ms. Schroeder] had said she
could provide, and he said if possible he would like more time
to review the bill.
8:28:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for purpose of discussion.
8:28:50 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH reiterated that he does not think there are
conflicts between state and federal law, and he clarified that
he had withdrawn his request for information. He urged
Representative Rauscher to support HB 8, but reminded him that
he had the right to pass the bill with "no recommendation" and
the opportunity to move an amendment on the House floor.
8:29:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE offered his understanding that the state
is basically already doing what is proposed under HB 8, but the
proposed legislation would [make it official]. He indicated he
would like to ask more questions of the representatives from the
state agencies.
8:30:33 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:30 a.m. to 8:32 a.m.
8:32:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that [during consideration of a
similar bill heard during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature,] three members [of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee] had voted "no recommendation." He said he would like
to vote in support of HB 8, but wonders what problem those
legislators in the former legislature saw in regard to [House
Bill 221]. He expressed interest in finding out an answer.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked Representative Rauscher if he had any
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered no.
8:34:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked Ms. Schroeder if Alaska is already
compliant or if the proposed legislation is an attempt to make
the state compliant with federal law addressing domestic
violence and protective orders.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that is correct: "the federal law
already requires us to do this." The proposed legislation
"cleans up direct conflicts" of unconstitutionality and
streamlines the process, which will help with prosecutions. She
continued as follows:
The current law, the way it reads, it's an element of
the offense that ... the protective law be registered,
and the federal law says no, we can't do that anymore
- that cannot be a requirement. So, what this is
going to do, is when it comes to prosecuting people
for violating protective orders, it's really going to
help us out when the law is clear and it matches the
federal law and we're all doing what we're supposed to
do. It'll hopefully cut down on litigation ... so we
can just focus on protecting victims.
8:35:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed appreciation that Ms.
Schroeder had mentioned the desire to protect victims. She
opined that it is of the utmost importance to hurry the bill
along in order to afford that protection.
8:36:18 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated his intent is to move HB 8 out of
committee today. He suggested that because there is another
committee of referral, Representative Rauscher would have time
to get his research done and work with the bill sponsor.
8:37:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO removed his objection.
8:37:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to Co-Chair Fansler,
clarified that he has no objection [to the motion to move HB 8
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal notes].
8:37:54 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that there being no further
objection, HB 8 was reported out of the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB008 Additional Documentation-7.30.15 VAWA Enforcement Dept. of Law Opinion 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-2014 Repeal of Alaska Exemption to VAWA 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-USCODE Title 18 Chapter 2265--Full Faith and Credit 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8 House Community & Regional Affairs Hearing Request 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Sectional Analysis 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Sponsor Statement 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 ver. A 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CRA Hearing Request.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB078 Sponsor Statement 1.25.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 78 |
| HB78 Fiscal Note - DOA.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 78 |
| HB008 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 1.27.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 1.27.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 78 Supporting Documents - 2015-16 Support Letters.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 78 |
| HB078 ver A 1.25.17.PDF |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 78 |