Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/12/2019 03:00 PM House STATE 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Commissioner, Department of Administration | |
| Commissioner, Department of Corrections | |
| HB20 | |
| HJR9 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 20-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
3:12:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An
Act relating to sexual assault; relating to the definitions of
'without consent' and 'consent'; relating to failure to report a
violent crime; relating to sexual misconduct under the code of
military justice; requiring law enforcement agencies to test
sexual assault examination kits; requiring notification of
completion of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual
assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
3:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of SSHB 20, began her presentation of the proposed
legislation with a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "House Bill
20." She gave a brief background on the rape kit reform work in
Alaska: Rape kit reform in Alaska began in the fall of 2014.
The Joyful Heart Foundation, founded by actress Mariska Hargitay
of the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit television series,
launched its "End The backlog" campaign. She referenced the
Home Box Office (HBO) documentary, entitled "I Am Evidence,"
which related the discovery of thousands of rape kits stored in
an abandoned building in Detroit, Michigan, and ultimately
500,000 untested rape kits throughout the country. She cited
that Alaska ranks first in domestic violence and sexual assault
rates, and child sexual abuse rates are six times the national
average.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that the first step in the reform
process is a statewide audit to quantify the number of untested
rape kits in Alaska. The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ)
under President Barak Obama offered two large grant
opportunities, and Alaska has been successful in securing two of
the grants. As a result of Alaska's Scientific Crime Detection
Laboratory ("crime lab") [Department of Public Safety (DPS)]
audit, it was discovered that the [rape kit testing] system was
broken: all the kits weren't being tested; there were improper
procedures; and standard procedures were not followed for
maintaining a chain of custody for the rape kits. A change has
been implemented to require each kit have a unique identifier to
track it through the system. In addition, a policy was
implemented to require all rape kits be stored at the crime lab
in Anchorage; high capacity storage shelving was acquired for
this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Senate Bill 54 [passed during
the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018] put the audit
requirement into statute; and House Bill 31 [passed during the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018] put into statute
the "gold standard" for reporting - having both an anonymous
report and a law enforcement report - to allow a victim to have
the evidence collected, which must be done within 72 hours [of
the incident], but still allow the victim to delay making the
decision regarding prosecution. She added that House Bill 31
also required standardized training on sexual assault for all
law enforcement officials. She mentioned that this requirement
was in response to a statement by a sexual assault advocate that
law enforcement response to sexual assault depends on where you
live in the state. Lastly House Bill 31 renewed the requirement
for the audit of untested rape kits in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that still to be addressed are
the two recommendations from The Joyful Heart Foundation:
a timeline to establish when testing must occur and a
victim notification process. All the reforms mentioned are
included in the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2010. She
stated that besides the two recommendations, SSHB 20 would
address the following: a definition of consent and the
inclusion of sexual assault against someone who is
incapacitated, requested by Standing Together Against Rape
(STAR) and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual
Assault (ANDVSA); and specificity in the audit report
requested by 49th State Rising.
3:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the sponsor substitute (SS)
for HB 20, Version 31-LS0253\S, as the working document. There
being no objection, SSHB 20 was before the committee.
3:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued with the PowerPoint presentation
to review the sectional analysis for SSHB 20. She relayed that
STAR and ANDVSA requested a change in statutory language to
address the circumstances in which a person's incapacitation is
in question - whether the person is incapacitated and whether
the perpetrator knew it. She cited the STAR document, entitled
"2019 Policy Priorities," included in the committee packet,
which read in part:
Revise the elements of the crime to ensure a
perpetrator may be found guilty of the offense if they
know or reasonably should know the victim is
incapacitated or unaware and unable to consent to
sexual penetration or sexual contact under the
circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that Sections 1, 2, and 3 would
change the statutory definition for sexual assault in the first,
second, and third degrees, respectively. The statutory language
regarding sexual assault would be amended to state that a person
commits the crime [of sexual assault] if he/she knows or
reasonably should know that the victim is mentally incapable.
She stated that the addition of "reasonably should know" would
facilitate prosecution of a sexual assault crime. She pointed
out that there is a variance regarding the legal language to be
used in the statute - "reasonably should know" versus
"recklessly disregard." Both are used in statute; they address
the same standard; the Department of Law (DOL) and Legislative
Legal Services have offered varying opinions; and it is yet to
be decided which ultimately will be used in the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that sexual assault in the first degree
involves sexual penetration; sexual assault in the second degree
involves sexual contact; and sexual assault in the third degree
involves sexual contact that is more specific to improper abuse
of power situations. She stated the fundamental questions to be
considered regarding the proposed legislation: What does
justice look like for a victim? Does SSHB 20 include all the
circumstances in which a crime is committed in order to bring
justice to the victims? She reviewed sentencing for sexual
assault shown on the PowerPoint presentation, which read in part
as follows:
Section 1: Sexual Assault in the First Degree
Sentencing:
For first felony conviction, if victim is
less than 13 years of age, 25 to 35 years
13 years of age or older, 20 to 30 years
Section 2: Sexual Assault in the Second Degree
Sentencing:
for the first felony conviction 5 to 15 years
Section 3: Sexual Assault in the Third Degree
Sentencing:
for the first felony conviction 2 to 12 years
3:26:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reviewed the definition of consent in
Section 4 of SSHB 20, displayed on the PowerPoint presentation,
which read as follows:
Current 11.41.470 (8) defines "without consent" as
means that a person
(A) with or without resisting, is coerced by the
use of force against a person or property, or by
the express or implied threat of death, imminent
physical injury, or kidnapping to be inflicted on
anyone; or
(B) is incapacitated as a result of an act of the
defendant.
Problem: Current outdated definition implies force
must be used. This is not always the case and jurors
often look for evidence of force.
Solution: Update the meaning of consent to be in the
affirmative, to demonstrate that consent has been
given. This is consistent with other jurisdictions to
require a more overt expression of consent.
New language to 11.41.470:
(9) "consent" means words or overt actions indicating
freely given agreement to engage in sexual penetration
or sexual contact.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that this change, which puts consent
into the affirmative rather than in terms of "without consent"
and the use of force, represents an evolution of society's
understanding of consent and expectations around sexual
behaviors.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out the conforming changes included
in Section 5 of SSHB 20. The proposed legislation would update
AS 11.56.765(a), which addresses the failure to report a violent
crime committed against a child and make it clear that a child
can never give consent to sexual penetration. She pointed out
the changes, found on page 4, lines 15-23, of SSHB 20: sub-
subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) [under AS
11.56.765(a)(1)(C)] would be deleted; and subparagraph (C) would
read, "the sexual penetration or attempted sexual penetration by
another of a child". Legislative Legal Services personnel
explained that after research, they concluded that these four
sub-subparagraphs were included in error, because of the
understanding that a child can never give consent. Paragraph
(2), [page 4, lines 26-27] defines a child as under 16 years of
age.
3:32:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out the conforming change in Section
6, [page 4, lines 30-31]. The proposed legislation would update
AS 11.56.767(c), which addresses the failure to report a violent
crime committed against an adult, by adding the definition of
consent. She added that under the proposed legislation, all
statutory references to "without consent" would be repealed and
replaced by the new definition of consent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out another such conforming change
in Section 7, [page 5, lines 1-2]. The proposed legislation
would update AS 26.05.900(e), relating to the Military Code of
Justice, to add the definition of consent.
3:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether a sex crime has been committed
if there is sexual penetration involving a 15-year-old, who is
legally a child according to statute, and another person who is
two or three years older.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that Section 6, beginning on page 4,
line 30, addresses "failure to report a crime" under AS
11.56.767; it refers to an individual who knows that a crime has
happened, and not someone engaged in the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL gave an example: A 22-year-old has a 17-
year-old younger brother who is in a sexual relationship with a
15-year-old school mate. He asked whether the 22-year-old is
legally obliged to report the relationship as a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered, "Yes, if it is in fact a crime."
She expressed that she is not clear about the age difference
issue; however, if it is in fact a criminal act, then it must be
reported.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the reporting requirement would be
new statute under the proposed legislation or existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that it is existing statute
conforming to its original intent based on the opinion of
Legislative Legal Services. She reiterated that the language on
page 4, lines 17-23, would be removed under SSHB 20 because of
the understanding that a child cannot give consent.
3:36:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Section 5 on page 4, lines
17-23, and suggested that none of the four sub-subparagraphs
being deleted relate to a consensual sexual relationship;
therefore, Representative Wool's example of statutory rape -
involving two minors with sufficient age difference - would not
be captured in that mandatory reporting scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her belief that the crime he is
referencing is covered under a different statute. Section 5
refers to AS 11.56, entitled "Offenses Against Public
Administration," and involves a person, other than the victim,
committing the crime of failure to report a violent crime
against a child. Removing the four sub-subparagraphs is due to
it being understood that a child can never give consent.
3:38:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the stipulation of "13 years"
under sentencing for sexual assault in the first degree, shown
on the PowerPoint presentation, and the definition of a child -
someone under 16 years of age - in Section 5, [page 4, lines 26-
27]. She asked for an explanation of the discrepancy.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced AS 12.55.125(i), which read in
part, "A defendant convicted of (1) sexual assault in the first
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree" and stated
that the sentencing addresses two categories of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, "What's the difference between the
definition of a minor and of a child?"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that in Alaska, 16 years of age is
the age at which a young person may marry with parental
permission, which presents inconsistencies in statute regarding
16- to 18-year-olds. There is proposed legislation to move the
marriage age to 18 years of age. She asked Representative
Vance, "Are you asking specifically why this one chooses 13
years of age versus the other as 16?" She acknowledged that she
does not have the answer for that.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed to pursue the issue later.
3:41:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there are no longer
mandatory reporters with respect to crimes, and everyone is
required to report.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her understanding that what
Representative LeDoux is referring to is mandatory reporting of
child abuse by teachers, childcare workers, coaches, and such.
She maintained that the proposed legislation would not alter
that requirement. She explained that the proposed statutory
change is specific to a statute regarding "offenses against
public administration"; therefore, does not impact any of the
other statutes that have specific requirements of mandatory
reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether no crime has been committed
when failing to report the murder of a 17-year-old, but it is a
crime when failing to report the murder of a 16-year-old.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the language in the proposed
legislation does not address homicides but only sexual assault
crimes. She offered that since AS 11.56.767 (c) addresses the
failure to report a violent crime committed against an adult,
both categories are covered in statute.
3:43:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that the questions, although
interesting, pertain more to the underlying statute than to the
proposed legislation.
3:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR conceded that some of the statutory
amendments were at the recommendation of Legislative Legal
Services to correct some erroneous language and not completely
aligned with the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Section 8 regarding sexual
assault examination kits and relayed that this section addresses
the two remaining timeline recommendations and victim
notification. The PowerPoint presentation read as follows:
Title 44: State Government
Chapter 41: Department of Public Safety
Section 65: new section Sexual Assault
Examination Kits
Adds language to requires three things:
1. That all sexual assault examination kits are
sent to the crime lab within 30 days of
collection
2. That all sexual assault examination kits be
tested within six months
3. That victims be notified by law enforcement
within two weeks of receiving the results that
the kit has been tested
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that the law enforcement agency is the
client of the crime lab for the purpose of sending in kits for
testing. She cited page 5, lines 6-8, of SSHB 20 which read:
(1) within 30 days after the agency collects the
sexual assault examination kit, send the sexual
assault examination kit to a laboratory operated or
approved by the Department of Public Safety;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned that the word "approved" needs to
be replaced with the word "accredited." She stated that the
fiscal note for SSHB 20 has not been completed; however, she
does expect there to be a cost associated with the proposed
legislation. She also mentioned that the timelines may need to
be lengthened.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the fundamental question: What
does justice mean for victims? She stated that with the cuts in
staffing, it was taking more than two years to bring cases to
trial; prosecutors were waiting to request the lab to do the
testing until such time they felt the case would move forward;
victims were waiting two years to get any results from the kits.
She cited the scenario in which the identity of the perpetrator
is unknown and emphasized the effect that would have on the
victim. The Survivor Bill of Rights states that by establishing
set timelines, the burden and the trauma of the experience for
the victim is eased.
3:46:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that even six months seems slow.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that many states are working on this
effort using a variety of timelines. She mentioned that she
originally set an 18-month timeline. Currently DPS is achieving
an average of 10 months. She maintained that the crime lab was
built with the idea of having a huge amazing facility, fully
staffed, with a robust testing system. She said, "It just never
happened."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that the gold standard for victim
notification is to have a database with unique identifiers,
usernames, and passwords to allow the victim to log in and track
the "life cycle" of the kit. She said that typically when one
calls law enforcement repeatedly, the story must be related
repeatedly, and the victim is re-traumatized as a result. In
the course of two years, the victim may have called up to ten
times. She stated that currently there are three databases:
one for current cases; one for closed cases; and another one
specific to the court system. There are challenges in rural
communities with internet access, staffing, and capacity. She
said that she is working with DPS to find a way to accomplish
notification without it being overly burdensome to law
enforcement in small communities where resources are limited.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Sections 9 and 10, which would
add statutory language requiring [DPS to include in the audit]
the reason a kit was ineligible for testing. She explained that
the audits [currently] did not include that information; 49th
State Rising has requested that this information be included.
The work of the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) by way of
the two federal grants will end; therefore, she wants to ensure
that language in the statute reflects appropriate reporting in
perpetuity in the absence of that organization.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reviewed the PowerPoint presentation
discussing Section 11, which lists the reasons a sexual assault
examination kit is ineligible for testing. It read in part as
follows:
Amends 44.41.070 to add a new subsection (e) to read
A sexual assault examination kit is ineligible for
testing if the law enforcement agency or state
department finds that the sexual assault examination
kit
(1) was collected improperly
(2) is not necessary to identify the perpetrator of
the crime; or
(3) was collected from a person who does not wish to
proceed 19 (sic) with criminal charges.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered alternative language that is being
considered for the proposed subsection (e) of AS 44.41.070. The
person referred to in paragraph (3) is also called an "anonymous
victim" - a person who chooses not to move forward with criminal
charges. Paragraph (2) may be referred to as a Combined
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Index System (CODIS) ineligible
sexual assault kit - the DNA is not eligible to be used for
identification. Paragraph (1) may be referred to as a
scientifically unviable case - evidence was collected
improperly. She reiterated that there are unresolved language
issues for the proposed legislation, not intent or outcome
issues; she is attempting to gather input from many advocacy
groups.
3:53:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to paragraph (3) [page 6, lines
18-19], regarding the anonymous victim. She asked whether there
was a way to test that kit in the future should the person
decide to move forward with criminal charges later.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded, "There is a way to go back." She
said that as a result of House Bill 31, the two options were
defined - the anonymous report and the law enforcement report.
In the course of processing the backlog of cases, DPS is
attempting to contact individuals to seek their permission to
move forward with the testing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is a provision for the
sexual assault kit of a minor, who cannot give consent to
proceed [with testing].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that there is a different procedure
when sexual assault of a minor is involved. She offered to give
Representative Vance more information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Section 13 to display the
effective dates of SSHB 20, as follows: the changes would apply
to offenses committed on or after the effective dates of
Sections 1-7 and Section 12 of the proposed legislation; and
SSHB 20 would take effect January 1, 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 12 to point out that in
the places in which statute has been updated to reflect the
affirmative definition of consent, Section 12 would repeal the
previous definition of "without consent" to be replaced with the
new definition of "consent."
3:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the statement that a child
cannot give consent and the legal definition of a child as under
age 16. He asked whether there are situations in which consent
cannot be given for someone age 16 and over.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned statute from the State of
Minnesota, which more clearly defines a person who cannot give
consent; for example, stipulating that a person who is mentally
incapacitated or physically helpless cannot consent to a sexual
act. She stated that there are many places in Alaska statute
needing updates and there are resulting implications of those
changes. She explained that her office is trying to decide
whether language captures what is intended or whether more
specificity is needed. She said that she welcomes suggestions.
3:57:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to victim notification of test
results. He asked whether victims are being notified that the
test has been completed or being notified of the results.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR cited page 5, lines 13-16, of SSHB 20, which
read as follows:
(3) within two weeks after the laboratory that
receives the sexual assault examination kit under (1)
of this subsection completes serological or DNA
testing, notify the person from whom the sexual
assault examination kit was collected that the sexual
assault examination kit has been tested.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that putting more specifics into the
statute was discussed - whether there was a CODIS hit or whether
the DNA sample was insufficient for testing - but staff chose
not to put that level of specificity into the statute at
present. She explained that depending on the community law
enforcement agency, different methods may be appropriate for
contacting victims. She said that she wanted to leave some
flexibility to law enforcement for how communication would occur
and what would be communicated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether in the case of someone not
wishing to press charges, the person's kit would not be in the
queue for testing under the testing timelines but be set aside
and tested later if the victim decides to press charges.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "That is the intent." She said
that based on USDOJ recommendations, the state must use a
victim-centered approach; if an individual does not want his/her
kit tested, the person must be afforded the right to refuse.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that SSHB 20 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR9.PDF |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 - Sponsor Statement 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 - Supporting Document, EP Image Options 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 Amendment (Rep. JKT).pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HB083 ver A 3.6.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 ver M 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Summary of Changes ver A to ver M 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Sectional Analysis 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Sponsor Statement 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB057 ver M 2.26.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M Sponsor Statement 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - email string DLWD 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - email from FYSA 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - legal memo to ver A 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - Code of Federal Regulations 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB57 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WH 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB020 ver A 01.07.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 ver S 03.07.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Summary of Changes Version A to S 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Sponsor Statement 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Sectional Analysis 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - 49th Rising_AS44.41.070_SAK Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - DPS-Annual-Sexual-Assualt-Kit-Inventory-Report-2018_ 11.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - SAK-Inventory-Report-and-Plan-DPS-2017.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Documents - Rape Kit Joyful Heart Foundation.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Documents STAR policy priorities.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Fiscal Note Ver A 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 State Affairs Presention 3.12.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |