Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/23/2019 06:00 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB12 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS
6:00:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to assault in the first
degree; relating to sex offenses; and relating to credit toward
a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program
or under electronic monitoring."
[CSHB 12(JUD), Version E was before the committee.]
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks on the committee hearing.
6:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
said that one of the habits he retains from his law enforcement
days is that he reads Alaska Supreme Court opinions and rulings.
He paraphrased from his sponsor statement, which read:
House Bill 12 An Act Relating to Protective Orders
Sponsor Statement Version E
Last summer, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Whalen
v Whalen that victims of domestic violence are unable
to get an extension or renewal for an existing
protective order based on the same incident of
violence of the original order. This is regardless of
whether they are still in fear of their perpetrators
or whether their perpetrators continue to pose a risk
to their safety.
The Court's holding turned on the interpretation of
the protective order statutes which fail to expressly
allow for extensions, renewals, or subsequent
protective orders. The Court ruled the statutes are
unclear and thus, do not allow for the extensions.
The bill also extends this clarification to the
statute that covers protective orders for sexual
assault and stalking.
HB 12 clarifies that a court is not barred from
ordering relief to victims based on an incident for
which relief has previously been issued or considered,
thus preventing a situation in which survivors must be
a victim again before receiving judicial assistance.
6:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he reviewed two protective order
statutes that pertain to domestic violence and to sexual assault
and stalking. He said that the bill will provide clarifying
language that a protective order may be renewed or extended 30
days prior to the end of the order or within 60 days after it
expires without a person having to become a victim a second
time. The court would not need to determine if something else
happened to the victim to justify the renewal or extension.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related a scenario that illustrates how this
routinely arises. A person may be arrested for domestic violence
assault and go to jail but the last thing the offender tells the
victim is that upon release the matter will be settled. Six
months later the offender is released, and the victim expresses
to the court fear that the offender will be coming after the
person again and requests an extension or renewal of the
protective order. The Alaska Supreme Court indicates that the
statutes are not clear that it is authorized unless another
domestic violence incident occurs. That seemed wrong and
inconsistent with how the courts had been responding to those
situations.
6:04:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that HB 12 does not introduce any new
public policy but clarifies the statutes to expressly allow an
extension or renewal of domestic violence orders. The Alaska
Supreme Court has requested this change, so in that spirit, he
brings forth HB 12.
6:05:05 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, said the sponsor would like the record to
reflect the problems the Alaska Supreme Court identified and how
this bill corrects them. He referred to Section 1.
Section 1 AS 18.65.850(e)
This section makes clear that the court may not deny a
petition for a protective order for a victim of
stalking or sexual assault solely because there is a
lapse between the assault and the petition, if the
sexual assault was the basis of a previous order, or
if a court previously found that the incident was
sexual assault or stalking, but declined to issue
relief.
MR. TRUITT referred to page 1, lines 4-6 of Version E, which is
the existing language. He said that the language on line 5 is
conforming language. He said that currently, AS 18.65.850(e)
only applies to sexual assault. He referred to language on line
7, the language "the stalking or" was not in the original bill.
6:06:28
MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the operative fix for
the issues raised in Whalen v. Whalen.
Section 2 AS 18.65.850
This section allows a petitioner to request an
extension of a protective order 30 days before, or
within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension
was granted through the provisions of Section 1 of
this bill. The court shall give the respondent at
least 10 days' notice of the hearing and the right to
appear and be heard, either in person or though legal
counsel. The court may extend the provision of the
order it necessary to protect the petitioner from
stalking or sexual assault, regardless of whether the
respondent appears at the hearing. The protective
order extension will be for six months or earlier if
dissolved by court order.
6:07:47 PM
MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 1, line 14, to the
language "or extended under this section. He said that two
provisions provide clarity to the courts. He directed attention
to lines 9-11 of HB 12, Version E, which highlights the
situation Representative Kopp referenced. The perpetrator of the
domestic violence might be in jail or have moved out of state,
so due to the proximity of the perpetrator and the victim, a
protective order is not necessary. He explained that prior to
Whalen, the judge would advise the victim to come back if the
situation changes.
6:08:40 PM
MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the due process
provisions of how a court would administer an extension, and he
reviewed the summary of Section 2. He said that nothing touches
on the existing burden of proof that applies to protective
orders. He referenced page 1, lines 10-11, noting the language
"if the petition alleges a change in circumstances since the
court's previous finding." He stated that this language was
added by the House Judiciary Standing committee at the request
of the Alaska Court System. He said that the change in
circumstance would be the perpetrator being released from jail
or moving back to the locale where the victim resides.
6:10:08 PM
MR. TRUITT turned to Sections 3 and 4, which cover the actual
domestic violence order. He stated these sections have the same
intent as Sections 1-2 but are not identical since the domestic
violence protective order statute is not identical to the sexual
assault and stalking protective order statute.
Section 3 AS 18.66.100(e)
This section clarifies that the court may not deny a
petition for a protective order for a victim of
domestic violence solely because there is a lapse
between the assault and the petition, if the domestic
violence was the basis of a previous order, or if a
court previously found that the incident was domestic
violence, but declined to issue relief.
MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 2, lines 19-20 of Section
4, Version E.
Section 4 AS 18.66.100
This section allows a petitioner to request an
extension of a protective order 30 days before, or
within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension
was granted through the provisions of Section 3 of
this bill.
The court shall give the respondent at least 10 days'
notice of the hearing and the right to appear and be
heard, either in person or though legal counsel. The
court may extend the provision of the order it
necessary to protect the petitioner from stalking or
sexual assault, regardless of whether the respondent
appears at the hearing. The protective order extension
will be for one year or earlier if dissolved by court
order.
MR. TRUITT explained that this language only applies to
protective orders issued under [AS 18.66.100(b)(2)] of the
domestic violence protective order statute. There are two types
of protective orders in that statute. AS 18.66.100(b)(1)
contains what is known as the long-term protective order
statute, one without an end date, unless dissolved by the court.
He said that AS 18.66.100(b)(2) contains 16 different provisions
of relief the court can issue by way of the protective order.
This bill applies to those provisions and not long-term
protective orders, he said.
6:11:47 PM
MR. TRUITT reviewed Section 5.
Section 5 Applicability
Section 5 adds applicability language to the
uncodified law of the State of Alaska to protective
orders issued before, on or after the effective date
of Sections 1 through 4 of this Act.
He said that if HB 12 is enacted into law, Sections 1-4 of the
bill will apply to every protective order in existence, any
issued on the day the bill is enacted, and any future protective
orders.
6:12:16 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out that the bill does not contain an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP acknowledged that making the bill effective
as soon as possible could help a lot of people.
6:13:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that it is not right that a victim must be
victimized a second time in order to have the protective order
extended. She thanked Representative Kopp for introducing HB 12.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he worked with the Alaska Legal
Services Corporation and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault in drafting the bill. It is supported by
those agencies, as well as the Alaska Peace Officers
Association, he said.
6:14:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute
(SCS) for CSHB 12(JUD), work draft 31-LS0103\G, as the working
document.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
6:14:43 PM
REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, said that Version G contains three changes:
Section 1 would amend AS 18.65.850(b) related to
protective orders issued for stalking or sexual
assault. It would change the effective period from six
months to one year, which is in line with current
protective order timeframes for domestic violence.
Section 3 is also conforming language that would amend
AS 18.65.850(f) to provide that protective orders for
stalking or sexual assault have a maximum extension
period of one year. This section also clarifies that
when an extension to a current protective order is
granted the start date of that extension is the day
the current protective order would have expired.
Section 5 would add a new subsection to amend AS
18.66.100(f) to provide that extensions granted for
domestic violence protective orders start on the date
the current protective order would have expired.
6:16:30 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether it only allows for a one-year
extension.
MS. LARGENT said it provides the timeframes of when it expires.
CHAIR HUGHES said that long-term protective orders can be
issued.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there is no limit to the
number of renewals for protective orders.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification that the
protective order can be issued for one year, and an extension is
for one year unless dissolved by the court. He added that those
extensions can be renewed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes.
6:18:17 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether he was supportive of the proposed
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes. He said that increasing the
duration for sexual assault and stalking from six months to a
year would bring it in line with domestic violence and sexual
assault. He said that in reviewing the legislative history, that
it appears the reason was that the domestic violence involves
someone the victim knows. However, the victim does not always
know the perpetrator in stalking and sexual assault. He said
that in terms of continuity, many good reasons exist to have the
duration at one year. He stated that the Domestic Violence
Support Network supports making protective orders be one year in
duration. He fully supported the recommendation.
MS. LARGENT pointed out that when a victim files, there would be
an evidentiary hearing, so it is not automatic. The judge would
need to make findings on the record and find by a preponderance
of the evidence grounds to continue. The defendant would have an
opportunity to present evidence so an extension potentially
would not be granted. She added that the defendant or the victim
can file to have a protective order extinguished.
6:20:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objections the Senate committee substitute (CS) for CSHB
12(JUD), Version G was before the committee.
6:20:44 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on HB 12.
6:21:04 PM
CHRISTINE PATE, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Sitka, stated that she
runs a statewide legal services program for survivors of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She also
provides training and technical assistance to the advocates for
the statewide domestic violence and sexual assault programs that
go into court daily with survivors on civil protective orders.
She appreciated Representative Kopp introducing this bill and
the work the committee did to make the bill even stronger. The
ANDVSA strongly supports Version G to increase the length of the
stalking and assault protection orders from six to 12 months
since it provides uniformity in the law. It also provides
protection to survivors who are not in an intimate relationship
with the opposing party and often need a longer timeframe than
the six-month period.
She said that she has worked for 25 years in this field and has
found that civil legal protective orders provide a critical tool
to help end domestic violence in the state. She said that making
sure they are strong and flexible is critical to keeping
survivors safe. This is because the survivors can control the
process and have a voice in obtaining the remedies that they
need to keep themselves and their families safe, she said. As a
civil legal provider for survivors, she has seen the devastating
effect of the Whalen decision. She has heard from numerous
survivors who have needed protection after histories of terrible
abuse but are unable to get it. She echoed what Representative
Kopp said that prior to Whalen many courts in the state allowed
for an extension or for victims to get a new protective order
based on previously found domestic violence.
MS. PATE stated that now courts are unable to do this. This bill
would give discretion back to the courts to protect survivors
who need it most. She said that survivors who have endured
terrible histories of domestic violence are currently being
forced to make impossible strategic decisions about when to
apply for a protective order to maximize their safety. These
victims know they will only have six or 12 months of safety. If
a criminal case exists, they must calculate if they should wait
until the defendant is out of jail. She said that provisions for
no contact orders may not specifically allow victims to obtain a
civil protection order. She did not think survivors should need
to make those types of decisions and protective orders must
respond to the cyclical nature of crimes of intimate partner
violence. She urged members to approve HB 12 to allow the courts
to go back to having discretion to protect victims after 12
months if safety demands it.
6:24:41 PM
PATTY MASTERS, Coordinator, Direct Services, Advocates for
Victims of Violence (AVV Valdez), Valdez, said that she
advocates for victims of violence. The AVV Valdez also provides
a shelter for victims. She said she works with survivors of
domestic violence and sexual assault on a daily basis. She
testified in support of HB 12 to help keep victims safe. She
said Ms. Pate made excellent points. She said that survivors
need a protective order for longer than one year. She said it is
difficult for women and men to come into programs and ask for
help. The process can be daunting, and these victims suffer
endless trauma in getting out of a violent household or
lifestyle. This bill would fix the Whalen decision by allowing
the courts to grant protective orders on already litigated
domestic violence sexual assault and stalking by extending the
protective order past one year. She said she recently worked
with several victims who have been terrified because their
perpetrators have been incarcerated and are being released this
month. They have been terrified that they may not be able to get
a long-term protective order.
6:27:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 12.
[HB 12 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 12(JUD) Version E.PDF |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Sponsor Statement ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Sectional ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Explantion of Changes ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Reference Document CPO Statute and Duration of Order.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| SB 80 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Fiscal Note - GOV.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB052 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES 04.22.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB52 SECTIONAL ANALYSIS 4-22-19.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - Alliance Board of Directors.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |