Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2001 06:56 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 32(JUD)
"An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess
or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or
photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the
commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit
possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent
viewing or photography, or a sexual offense."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES read the sponsor statement into the record
as follows.
As the use of computers and the Internet expands so too do
crimes involving the use of these technologies. One area of
particular concern is sex crimes against children. Adults
prone to abusing children will use the Internet to solicit a
minor for sex or to set up a meeting with a child in order to
rape or abuse the child. Further, Many people, who are
inclined to distribute or view child pornography, are now
using their computers to do so. These are new technologies and
the state still has relatively few tools for dealing with
criminals using these technologies. HB 32 provides us with
another tool to use in combating sexual predators.
Across the country and at the federal level there are
forfeiture laws in place. Several other states already have
laws on the books specifically relating to the forfeiture of
computers used in sex crimes. The use of computers in sex
crimes is a national problem. As more and more states pass
forfeiture legislation it is becoming increasingly obvious
that this is a useful and valuable tool in the fight against
computer crimes.
HB 32 would make it possible for the police to stay on top of
this rapidly changing industry without spending more state
dollars. Advances in computer technologies seem to happen on a
daily basis. New technology can often "outwit" last year's
model, leaving the police at a large disadvantage in their
attempt to curb crimes committed with the aid of the newest
technology. In order for the police to combat computer and
Internet crimes effectively it is imperative that they be
constantly provided with new hardware.
Under AS 12.55.015(c) the court may award forfeited property
or a percentage of it to any municipal law enforcement agency
involved in the arrest or conviction of the defendant. This
would allow the courts to pass on seized property to the
police so that the police can stay up to date with available
technology in a cost-effective manner.
HB 32 is designed to help protect our children in a twofold
manner: 1) forfeiture is a proven tool in the fight against
crime, and 2) the forfeited property can be given to our local
law enforcement agencies in order to help make sure that they
have the necessary tools to protect our children. I ask for
your support in passing this legislation.
Representative Hayes pointed out changes to the intent language
made in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which cite case law to
"make it absolutely positively airtight" that the only equipment
that could be seized was that owned by the perpetrator and not by a
third party. He showed that Section 3 of the committee substitute
specifies that property owned by an employer could not be seized.
Representative Hayes referenced information provided showing some
cases that this new law would apply. He also referred to letters of
support and one letter in opposition to the bill from a nudist
organization [not provided] regarding their concerns with vehicle
forfeiture. He assured their concerns were addressed in the Senate
Judiciary committee substitute with language that specifies
computers as the only equipment that could be taken.
Representative Hayes then directed the Committee's attention to
other information regarding how forfeitures work as well as
statutes from other states. [Copies on file.] He noted this
legislation is "the most progressive" language on the West Coast of
the United States addressing these types of crimes.
Senator Ward asked if this legislation includes e-mail of
pornography materials.
Representative Hayes answered that it does not. He told of law
enforcement organizations that infiltrate Internet chat rooms and
other areas to locate suspected pedophiles and perpetrators of sex
crimes. He noted that if a person receives a pornographic e-mail
message, but deletes it and does not pass it along to another user,
that person would not be subject to the provisions of this law.
Senator Leman asked if the person who sent a pornographic e-mail
could be prosecuted and under this legislation, forfeits their
computer equipment.
Representative Hayes did not think so unless the intent is
distribution rather than a joke. He assured that this question has
been addressed in other committees.
Senator Leman hoped the forfeiture provision would apply saying
that it does happen occasionally.
Senator Green asked if the penalties proposed in the bill are in
addition to other punishment. She asserted, "this is a lot of work
to take someone's computer if they're not being punished."
Representative Hayes replied that only upon conviction as a sexual
predator could computer equipment could be seized.
Senator Ward asked about equipment belonging to the State of
Alaska.
Representative Hayes reiterated that the intent language inserted
by the Senate Judiciary Committee specifies legislative intent that
only equipment owned by the perpetrator could be seized. He stated
that equipment owned by an employer, parent, spouse, etc., of the
offender could not be confiscated.
Co-Chair Donley drew attention to the committee substitute
provision setting the procedure for the utilization of any
confiscated equipment.
Co-Chair Donley asked why there is no fiscal note from the
Department of Law.
Representative Hayes explained there would be no additional expense
to the Department of Law because conviction on child pornography
charges would automatically provide for equipment seizure without
the need for additional specific prosecution.
Senator Ward shared that Department of Public Safety Deputy
Commissioner Del Smith relayed to him that it is not against the
law to send an e-mail using another person's e-mail address.
Senator Ward suggested this legislation could be used to make such
a practice illegal.
Representative Hayes was unsure how this could be done since this
legislation is specifically directed to child pornography and sex
crimes. He again detailed the process of investigators entering
chat rooms using an alias as a child to attract child abusers.
Senator Ward ascertained this legislation is "pretty broad and
covers a lot of territory." He stated that having no law making it
illegal to send pornography using another person's e-mail address
"could be a problem." He gave a scenario of someone distributing
pornography from the governor's address.
Senator Hoffman suggested Senator Ward introduce new legislation to
address this matter.
Senator Ward wanted to hold the bill in Committee so he could draft
an amendment to make such a practice illegal. He also stated that
impersonating a public servant is shown to be against the law, but
is actually not, according to the Department of Public Safety.
Co-Chair Donley understood the concerns but did not think this
issue complied with the title of the bill.
Senator Ward asserted that he was certain, "the sponsor would want
to do whatever is necessary in order to protect the public from
these sexual predators."
Co-Chair Donley noted the bill has the support of the Committee and
requested the sponsor work with Senator Ward on addressing this
matter. He stated the bill would be reconsidered at the next
meeting.
Co-Chair Donley ordered the bill HELD in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|