Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/2017 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB18 | |
| HB8 | |
| SJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
3:41:28 PM
CHAIR BISHOP called the meeting back to order and announced
consideration of HB 8, sponsored by Representative Edgmon.
Senator MacKinnon had an amendment when it was last considered.
SENATOR MACKINNON moved Amendment 1, version 30-LS0127\A.3
30-LS0127\A.3
Wallace
3/16/17
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MACKINNON
TO: HB 8
Page 4, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 22.35.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 22.35.030. Publication of Records [RECORDS
CONCERNING CRIMINAL CASES RESULTING IN ACQUITTAL OR
DISMISSAL]. The Alaska Court System may not publish a
court record [OF A CRIMINAL CASE] on a publicly
available website
(1) in a criminal case if 60 days have
elapsed from the date of acquittal or dismissal and
(A) [(1)] the defendant was acquitted of
all charges filed in the case;
(B) [(2)] all criminal charges against the
defendant in the case have been dismissed and were not
dismissed as part of a plea agreement in another
criminal case under Rule 11, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure;
(C) [(3)] the defendant was acquitted of
some of the criminal charges in the case and the
remaining charges were dismissed; or
(D) [(4)] all criminal charges against the
defendant in the case have been dismissed after a
suspended entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078;
(2) of a protective order under
AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180, restraining order, or
injunction in a case involving domestic violence if
the publication would likely reveal the identity or
location of the party protected under the order."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR BISHOP objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MACKINNON explained that Amendment 1 aligns state
statute with federal statute with regards to protective orders
for victims of domestic violence. There are multiple
complications in complying with federal law, and HB 8 is not
supported by the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault nor the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(CDVSA). The concern from agencies that advocate on behalf of
those affected by domestic violence believe that a perpetrator's
name should be in CourtView and available for the general public
to view.
3:43:21 PM
She said Nancy Meade from the court system suggested using the
word "petitioner", because otherwise the court would have to
take all records down from CourtView to be in compliance with
what this amendment proposes. The courts already do not show the
victim or the perpetrator on CourtView in light of agreements
Alaska has with other states. So, being put in an awkward
situation of advocating for something that is fair to everyone
under the eyes of the court or the law, Senator MacKinnon said
she believes this bill should advance to the Judiciary Committee
where it should have a robust conversation about what is
currently shown on CourtView.
SENATOR MACKINNON said 3,400 protection orders were issued in
the previous year, and she was told about 50 percent of those
who are seeking protective orders are denied, because the
reasons they give may not reach the threshold to actually
qualify. The concern she has with using the language the court
proposes - a petitioner - is that anyone can go to the court and
ask for a protective order and give a specific set of
circumstances, but the accused does not have any input into the
conversation at that time.
SENATOR MACKINNON said she does not support anyone who does
anything violent to any other person, but she has seen
individuals rush to the court house to get a protective order
when they are in a child custody case and the person who is
being accused of something in that order may or may not have
committed a crime. But their name is forever posted on CourtView
with very little way to have it removed. Sometimes an accused
can petition the court to have their name removed, but by only
taking the victim's (petitioner) name off, the accused is
sitting there with no rebuttal on the conversation. This is an
important conversation to have.
SENATOR MACKINNON said that those who are accused or those who
have had violence inflicted on them should be treated equitably
in the sense that they deserve consideration. This language
matches federal law, so she wanted this language to be submitted
to the Judiciary Committee for discussion. She would defer to
whatever they believe is the best for the people of Alaska.
3:47:19 PM
At ease
3:47:40 PM
CHAIR BISHOP called the meeting back to order and finding no
comments, invited Senator Gardner to speak.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the sponsor of the amendment suggested
the CDVSA would support it.
SENATOR MACKINNON clarified that the CDVSA opposes the
amendment. Representatives from CDVSA want the victims' names
removed so that the victim would not be identified in their
community or elsewhere. She would like the accused names removed
if no crime has actually been proved in court. That is why she
is separating this a bit.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if any "nodders" in the audience wanted to
testify on record about this amendment.
CHAIR BISHOP asked again for public testimony.
3:49:38 PM
ELISA COSNI, Policy Specialist, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau, Alaska, said they are the
actual victim advocate service agencies across the state and
that she agreed with Senator Mackinnon's characterization of
their view of the amendment. From the victim advocate
perspective, they have two goals: one is to absolutely uphold
victim safety and the other is privacy. In certain cases, that
might require the victim making that decision: to be anonymous.
But the agency's experience is that opportunity is not clear to
the petitioner (the victim) even though it is in the
administrative rules. The other piece is the benefit of having
the protective orders on line and viewable by advocates and
shelters, so they are better able to hold the accused
accountable and being able to track them in that way. The
accused might have a history of domestic violence that maybe
wasn't prosecuted or prosecuted successfully, but oftentimes -
frequently - violence is perpetrated in cycles. So, her people
might have that kind of knowledge about this person.
CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony on HB 8. He removed his
objection.
SENATOR GARDNER objected for more questions. She asked if the
protective order is not available on CourtView, to whom it is
available.
SENATOR MACKINNON replied law enforcement officers.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Alaska Court
System, Anchorage, Alaska, answered they are removed from
CourtView, but they are not made confidential. And other than
being on the public version of CourtView, it is the same as any
other case. So, all protective orders are transmitted by the
court to Department of Public Safety (DPS) for posting within
ABSIN. Law Enforcement has access to the fact that there was a
protective order and people would be able to access those at the
court house in their paper form. The prohibition in the
amendment would say the court cannot post them on a publically
available Internet site, which is the CourtView that people look
at from their kitchens on their laptops.
SENATOR GARDNER removed her objection.
CHAIR BISHOP found no further objections and said Amendment 1
was adopted.
SENATOR MACKINNON moved HB 8, as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
CHAIR BISHOP announced that without objection, SCS HB 8(CRA)
moved from the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCSHB8(CRA).PDF |
SCRA 4/4/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| SJR4-LEG-SESS-04-04-17.pdf |
SCRA 4/4/2017 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |