Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/23/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB11 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 11-NO INTERNET ACCESS TO SOME CRIM. CASES
1:56:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 11, "An Act restricting
the publication of certain records of criminal cases on the
Internet; and providing for an effective date."
1:56:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that CourtView is available on the internet through
the Alaska Court System, and people are clearly advised to
"please read all of it." She opined CourtView can be confusing
as to whether a person is convicted of a crime, what part of the
crime they are convicted, or whether the person is found
innocent or guilty. She further explained that a bill last year
[Senate Bill 108] would have taken the data off of CourtView,
and also taken away written records located in the court clerk's
office. She opined CSHB 15 represents that data should not be
for all to see as it could interfere with a person obtaining a
job or an apartment. CourtView could put doubt in the public's
mind regarding the person's character.
1:59:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted this bill is similar to Senate
Bill 108, from the twenty-eighth legislature, which was vetoed
by Governor Sean Parnell.
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether she had communicated with
the current administration for its opinion, and that he
recognizes there are significant issues around closing any court
records to public view, whether on line or in person.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that the administration was in
favor of the original bill, and she assumed that taking out the
sealing portion would not cause the administration to oppose the
bill. When this bill was re-filed she was approached by the
Alaska Court System and advised they were willing to take data
off of CourtView. She opined that one of the biggest issues is
[closing records to public view] and this bill allows a person
to review files at the court clerk's office. She pointed out
that there are newspaper articles for everything and the
internet is not just about CourtView.
2:03:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned Representative Wilson's statement
regarding the availability of the internet and asked whether an
alleged victim would be interested enough to photocopy the
records and put them on the internet themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that when a person is arrested
the data goes up on CourtView, and the public could follow the
case to the end. She further explained that in the event a
person is acquitted, 60 days later the data is taken down from
CourtView. She indicated that a report of crimes can be found
on the internet via a different venue than CourtView and related
that when the bill discusses the internet it is solely about
CourtView.
2:05:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled an issue with Senate Bill 108
last year was that the victim's advocacy groups were interested
in still being allowed access to those charged with a crime and
had gone through a plea agreement. She quiered if the person
pleaded out to a lesser charge whether the case would still be
on CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that all of the charges related
to the same case would be on CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT questioned whether Ms. Wilson had talked
to the victim's advocacy groups about this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the victim's advocacy groups
received HB 11 and SSHB 11, and [the groups] advised
Representative Wilson that they would get their comments to her
and she has yet to see anything in writing other than that they
received the information.
2:06:39 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:06 to 2:08 p.m.
2:08:56 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of Administrative Director,
Alaska Court System, said she is available to answer questions
about the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Representative Wilson's
comment that after Governor Parnell vetoed the bill last year
the Alaska Court System made changes regarding the availability
of records. He asked the status of the changes, and what
flexibility the Alaska Court System has without legislative
action.
MS. MEADE advised that the Alaska Court System administratively
determined categories of cases that should not appear on
CourtView, even though the case files are not confidential. She
explained there is an administrative rule that lists case types
it does not feel are appropriate for posting on CourtView.
Approximately nine months ago, the Alaska Court System took
steps to amend the rule to remove from CourtView criminal cases
that were dismissed because the prosecuting authority declined
to file a charging document, criminal cases dismissed for lack
of probable cause under Criminal Rule 5D, criminal cases
dismissed for an identity error and, she noted, there are about
10-12 similar categories. She described a large category being
when a Petition for Domestic Violence Protective Order is filed
and during the Ex Parte hearing the judicial officer finds there
is no probable cause to find domestic violence, or there was not
a domestic relationship. The court realized it could be held
against a respondent even though the court found, within 24
hours of the hearing, that it was basically an unfounded
petition. She advised that those were removed from CourtView in
response to complaints of people being undeservedly on CourtView
and the negative consequences they were suffering.
2:11:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, without passing CSHB 15, in terms
of the court's authority, how much latitude the court has to
basically restrict what is made available on the internet. He
further asked that if the court is aware of the issue of misuse
of court data, whether the legislature has to get involved.
2:11:56 PM
MS. MEADE offered that the court has the authority to put onto,
or take off of, CourtView anything that it prefers. It is
within the court's purview not to have CourtView publically
available to people as it is a case management system. She
remarked that the court could decide not to post cases on
CourtView and people would only be allowed to review public
records at the courthouse. She highlighted that the court does
have its own public records law, and it does believe in public
access to records. She offered that the legislature can do
more, but the court did what it thought was appropriate.
2:13:00 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that without legislation the court
actually would have the authority to not post any of the issues
which are encompassed by the bill on CourtView.
MS. MEADE answered in the affirmative, that the court could take
additional categories of cases down from CourtView.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned the court's rationale in choosing,
without legislation, to continue to post cases regarding someone
who has been completely acquitted.
MS. MEADE said she will be cautious in answering that question
because she does not predict what the Alaska Supreme Court
Justices are thinking, but they went as far as they felt was
appropriate administratively. Since the decision to remove
criminal cases where someone is acquitted or dismissed is, as
has been seen, somewhat more controversial. It is less an
administrative function and more a policy decision that affects
Alaskans who differ in their views on this. The court was not
prepared to take the [policy] step, leaving it more for the
legislature as the public wouldn't necessarily know to comment
on any administrative decision. She reiterated that it is more
of a policy decision for the legislature than administrative
type decision for the court. The court could do it, but she
believes the above is the court's thinking as to why it did not.
MS. MEADE responded to Chair LeDoux that the Alaska Court System
does not have a position on this bill, as they are neutral.
2:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the origin of CourtView and why the
court decided to put its case management on the internet for
public view.
2:15:40 PM
MS. MEADE answered that CourtView was purchased as an electronic
case management system for the benefit of court staff and
attorneys with cases in court. She opined that it was never
intended to be a tool to do a sideways criminal background check
on someone, and it is not the official criminal background check
repository in the State of Alaska. Originally, she noted, it
was intended to be the Alaska Court System's case management
system and described it as not particularly user friendly for a
member of the public. It was put online as a help to the public
and to attorneys, but in recent times the thinking is that it
has been abused by some people with improper conclusions drawn.
There is a warning at the initial screen when a person logs onto
CourtView advising people to be careful and not draw improper
conclusions, she remarked.
2:17:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT questioned whether there had been
complaints from the public about misinformation and inaccuracies
on CourtView, as there has been misuse in performing a
background check or checking out neighbors. She offered the
scenario of filing a domestic violence complaint against Chair
LeDoux and making the case that because they live in close
proximity of each other, "I fear her." She stated the action
itself would appear on CourtView whether or not it was
dismissed, as it would show Representative Millett filing a
protective order against Chair LeDoux.
MS. MEADE posited that she does not hear complaints that there
are inaccuracies on CourtView as her staff is quite good at
entering the data, but people do look at it and draw improper
conclusions because, perhaps, they do not understand what it
says. She clarified that CourtView includes every document that
is filed in a case as it is the docket sheet relating to the
Alaska Court System. She explained, with regard to
Representative Millett's scenario, in all likelihood it would be
found, at the initial hearing, to be unfounded and under the
court's administrative rule would be removed from CourtView.
She added that it was one of the adjustments the court made on
its own in the last six-nine months, and offered that the
situation in itself was addressed by the court.
2:20:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the veto message of Senate
Bill 108, last year, contains discussions of many issues that
merit close attention before making a decision in this area. He
asked whether there is a court rule on this subject.
MS. MEADE answered, Administrative Rule 40A.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Alaska Court System
"amended that rule to accommodate either CourtView or what they
are doing with this on CourtView."
MS. MEADE said she was not sure she understood his question.
The amendment to Administrative Rule 40A added approximately
eight new categories of cases that the court removed from
CourtView, and other cases still remain public, she conveyed.
2:22:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether this bill would
change Administrative Rule 40A.
MS. MEADE advised the court does not view this bill as
incorporating any sort of rule change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered whether the court published the
changes in Rule 40A in its role as a procedural rule or as a
substantive rule. He asked, in the event the legislature chose
to amend Rule 40A whether it would require a two-thirds vote as
an amendment to a procedural rule.
MS. MEADE offered that there is a substantial question as to
whether the legislature can amend the administrative rules, as
the court does not consider those rules of practice and
procedure. She further offered that the court does not view
this as an amendment to the administrative rule and; therefore,
does not see a problem with the legislature deciding to take
this tact in this case.
2:24:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Alaska Court System
believes there are certain rules the legislature does not have
power to amend, change, or is completely immune to legislative
review.
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that Representative Gruenberg's
question has nothing to do with this bill and she directed that
he keep the discussion to this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether Ms. Meade had any
comments regarding his statement, "how this thing can cut both
ways."
MS. MEADE stated she has no official comment on that and she
understands his job can be difficult.
2:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked in the event this bill was [Senate
Bill 108], of last year, whether it have required the rule
change that took place.
MS. MEADE opined that the court has decided the legislature has
authority to act in this area and does not perceive it as an
amendment to Rule 40D. She advised the legislature can take
this action without the court thinking the legislature is
improperly amending some court rule.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that it is valuable that the
bill becomes a statute and thanked the sponsor for bringing it
forward.
2:26:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN provided that a bill like this raises
issues of protecting people who are charged improperly for
crimes, and it creates concerns. He quiered whether this [bill]
is only affecting CourtView and not the bigger question of what
is broadly accessible to the public.
MS. MEADE confirmed that this bill affects only what is on
CourtView, and that Senate Bill 108 would have made the cases
confidential. She explained that under this bill someone could
still go to the courthouse and look into cases, including those
that were fully dismissed or acquitted. In the event this bill
passes, it would remove those cases from CourtView, she advised.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether those cases would only be
accessible from the courthouse data base. He offered the
scenario that a person could go to the courthouse, look up a
case, locate a filed domestic violence action, and locate the
judge's ruling that there was no relationship subject to a
charge.
MS. MEADE clarified that the hypothetical is off CourtView now
due to the court rule and it has nothing to do with this bill.
MS. MEADE, in response to Representative Claman, advised that
this bill would allow people to go to the courthouse, look at a
computer, and find cases about people who ended up in dismissal
and/or acquittal.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether this bill goes further than
the current administrative court rule.
MS. MEADE responded "further" in that it speaks to cases coming
off CourtView that are not mentioned at all in the court rule.
"It is a different beast," she offered.
2:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reminded the committee that every person
is innocent until found guilty and CourtView has done an
excellent job of trying to warn people that this is not the
official view. However, people have become techies and
sometimes look on CourtView because they want to know. She
mentioned that by definition a person is not a criminal if
acquitted at trial or if their case is dismissed by the courts.
SSHB 11 asks that Alaskans who have not been found guilty of any
wrong doing be given the right of emancipation of social
distrust and inherent prejudices.
2:31:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested the opinion of the Department
of Public Safety, and asked whether her office made any inquiry
regarding states that may have addressed this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised that few states have allowed this
type of access outside of the courts. She said [that entities
such as] the Department of Health & Social Services and the
Department of Public Safety have a data base on line that is
pass coded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the staff to distribute Alaska
Administrative Rule 40A.
2:33:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony and advised she will not
close it today.
2:34:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that this is partially caused by
technology and the internet being available. He noted that the
whole idea of defamation previously was cut and dry, and it was
understood what was going on in a liable suit. He remarked
those types of things are changing because an accusation is
easier to read in social media than any type of extended
defense. He remarked that he appreciates this bill coming
forward because an accusation can be devastating.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested including a sunset date.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated she is not opposed to the idea, but
people have to pay a lot of money for being at the wrong place
at the wrong time.
2:36:32 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB15 Ver I.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB123-DCCED-ABC-03-09-15.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Ver A.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB11 Fiscal Note - DOC.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB15 Fiscal Note - DOC 3-21.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |