Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/10/2019 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 49(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to pretrial services; establishing the crime
of possession of motor vehicle theft tools; relating
to electronic monitoring; relating to controlled
substances; relating to probation and parole; relating
to sentencing; amending the definitions of 'most
serious felony,' 'sex offense,' and 'sex offender';
relating to registration of sex offenders; relating to
operating under the influence; relating to refusal to
submit to a chemical test; relating to the duties of
the commissioner of corrections; relating to testing
of sexual assault examination kits; relating to
reports of involuntary commitment; amending Rules
6(r)(6) and 38.2, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure;
and providing for an effective date."
9:05:27 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee would
continue to consider HB 49. Mr. John Skidmore from
Department of Law would discuss what was not in the bill
but what was in related Senate bills on the same topic [SB
32, SB 33, SB 34, and SB 35]. She discussed other
testifiers. The Department of Corrections (DOC) would
discuss the financial implications of the bill and the
fiscal note at the afternoon meeting and the committee
would consider the financial implications of the bill.
9:08:13 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, affirmed that he had previously discussed the bill up
to Section 96.
Mr. Skidmore wanted to make a correction to his testimony
from the previous day. He had referenced the path back to a
driver's license in Section 72 and Section 73 on page 52 of
the bill. There was a difference in words in lines 3
through 5. He explained the distinction in the language.
Mr. Skidmore addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 96
Allows a person's criminal history report to be used
at grand jury to prove the existence of prior
convictions when prior convictions are an element of
the offense.
Section 97-98
Requires the use of contemporaneous two-way video
conferencing at all arraignments, pleas, and non-
evidentiary bail hearings in misdemeanor cases and
initial appearances and non-evidentiary bail reviews
and arraignments in felony cases. Also allows the
court to order the defendant to appear by
contemporaneous two-way video conferencing at any
other hearing
Section 99
Repealer section
Mr. Skidmore explained that the section pertained to a
criminal history database and changed court rules to allow
a prosecutor to establish a prior criminal conviction when
the conviction was an element of the crime that was being
indicted in front of the grand jury. The section expanded
current law to include other situations where prior
convictions needed to be established. The section was the
same as in SB 32, the Senate version of the bill.
Mr. Skidmore detailed that Section 97 and 98. The court
rule changes would make it easier to use video conferencing
at certain pre-trial hearings. The language was the same as
SB 32, also in committee. He detailed the pretrial
enforcement division was not listed in the repealer
section. The pretrial services officers would remain as a
separate unit in of DOC.
9:12:10 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the sectional analysis:
Section 100
Uncodified law section. Requires the commissioner of
corrections to provide the report established in sec
90 by Jan 10, 2020.
Section 101
Uncodified law section. Requires the Department of
Corrections to report to the legislature on pro-social
programs
Section 102
Uncodified law section. Requires the Alaska Court
System to transmit information regarding involuntary
commitments that have occurred since October 1, 1981
to the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Skidmore noted that Section 100 and Section 101 both
dealt with a report requested of the legislature by DOC.
Section 102 dealt with involuntary commitments and was
potentially a data transfer provision that would allow the
state to be in compliance with federal law. The information
pertained to mental health commitments, and the information
would be uploaded and shared to be available for firearm
purchase information. The difference between HB 49 and the
Senate version was the date of completion.
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 103
Applicability section.
Section 104
Conditional effect section for court rule change.
Section 105
Immediate effective date for section 102.
Section 106
January 1, 2020 effective date for section 92-95.
Section 107
July 1, 2019 effective date for all other sections.
Co-Chair von Imhof was curious about the committee's
thoughts about the date change described by Mr. Skidmore.
She recalled that there had been testimony that many of the
documents in question were on microfiche and would take
time to process. She asked what the committee thought about
extending the time frame by one year as proposed in the
bill.
Senator Wielechowski understood that if the bill only went
back to 2011 versus 1982, all the documents would be
electronic, and the effective date could be much sooner and
there would be a savings of $140,000.
Senator Wilson wanted to hear from the Alaska Court System
(COURT) about the timeline.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that there would be testimony from
COURT. She asked Mr. Skidmore to discuss what was not in
the bill, and what was in the Senate bill.
9:16:12 AM
Mr. Skidmore thought there were some differences between
the related Senate bills. He thought some of the Senate
bills required some additional reports from departments. He
did not have positions on the sections. There were couple
of items that were not addressed in the HB 49. There was no
provision for how a first time Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) sentence was served. He thought of the items as minor
changes. He thought there could be a couple of items he had
overlooked.
Mr. Skidmore thought there was an area of substantial
difference in the concept of marriage defense, which could
be found in HB 49 as it came over from the house and was
found in SB 35. He thought there had been confusion about
the concept. He wanted to clarify how the law was supposed
to work around the marriage defense.
Mr. Skidmore stated that all sexual assault and sexual
abuse of a minor laws were made to ensure that there was
consensual sexual activity between people. The law was
reflected in statutes subsections that mentioned lack of
consent, the statutes that dealt with sexual abuse of a
minor and was captured in statutes that dealt with an
imbalance of power. The idea was captured in statutes that
discussed concepts about people that were mentally
incapable, incapacitated, or unaware. All three of the
terms were about a person not capable of consent. Current
law stated that it was permissible to engage in sexual
activity with those in the three conditions if the persons
were married. He offered to provide further definitions.
The concept was being debated across the country. The State
of Minnesota had recently passed a bill that eliminated the
marriage defense.
9:20:51 AM
Mr. Skidmore qualified that elimination of the marriage
defense did not criminalize sexual activity between spouses
when there was consent, regardless of whether or not one of
the spouses was suffering from a mental disease or defect.
The definition for "mentally incapable" described suffering
from a mental disease or deft to a degree that it made the
individual incapable of understanding the nature or
consequences of their conduct.
Mr. Skidmore stated he was quoting AS 11.41.470.04 He
continued that if the marriage defense was eliminated as
proposed in SB 35, both parties would have to consent. So
long as both parties' consent, the activity was legal. When
someone was not capable of consenting, in those
circumstances sexual activity was not permissible.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Mr. Skidmore was saying that
the marriage defense provision was not in HB 49, but was in
the Senate version of the bill.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
9:23:11 AM
Senator Micciche discussed the concept of consent. He
discussed the marriage defense and thought it had just been
eliminated in India. He shared concerns about angry
children reaching out against a senior parent. He
referenced hearing claims in testimony. He asked how a
senior parent would be protected while behaving with the
expectation of the marriage defense constraints.
Mr. Skidmore reminded that the criminal justice system had
always been set up to protect people from unfair
accusations. He asserted that the justice system set out
that everyone was presumed innocent until proved otherwise;
and that to prove otherwise, a crime must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. He walked through the elements of a
scenario in which a parent and a new spouse (not the
natural spouse) were reported for illegal sexual activity.
He questioned if it could be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the parent that had some sort of mental disease
or defect was rendered incapable of understanding the
nature or consequences at the time of the activity.
Mr. Skidmore discussed the progressive nature of
Alzheimer's Disease; the nature of which rendered people
lucid during certain times, and other times not. He
emphasized that the law said that if someone were to be
prosecuted, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that
the person was incapable of understanding the consequences
at the time it took place. Secondly, it must be shown that
sexual activity occurred. Thirdly, it would have to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the other spouse knew
that the spouse with the mental illness was incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences at the moment.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the basic cornerstone of the
justice system (reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence)
were the things that provided protection because the
scenarios he heard simply did not violate the law.
9:27:51 AM
Senator Micciche asked if the provision just iterated that
a married person could not use marriage as a defense for
what was already illegal for everyone else.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wilson wanted to break the provision down into
simpler terms. He discussed different scenarios that might
be applicable.
Mr. Skidmore drew the distinction that the provision
applied to finding a spouse in an incapacitated condition
rather than causing an incapacitated condition.
9:30:11 AM
Senator Wielechowski looked at the definition of "mentally
incapable." He gleaned that Mr. Skidmore was adding the
term "at the time." He noted that the statute did not
address "at the time."
Mr. Skidmore used the term "at the time" to help people
understand what the law meant. Without the term, it would
mean that a person diagnosed with Alzheimer's could not
engage in sexual activity starting at the time of
diagnosis. He did not believe that was what the law stated.
Senator Wielechowski thought people had concerns about the
concept.
Mr. Skidmore had not seen a single case referencing the
concept as described by Senator Wielechowski. He stated
that in the law there was two concepts for conduct of a
criminal: actus reas (the act itself) and mens rea (the
mental element). The actus reas was not the act itself, but
the circumstances surrounding it. He could not imagine any
court interpreting the scenario that Senator Wielechowski
was describing.
Senator Wielechowski pointed out that courts frequently
deemed individuals mentally incapable of standing trial.
Mr. Skidmore pointed out the incompetence was a different
standard than what applied in the provision being
discussed. He furthered that if the courts found a person
mentally incompetent, the person could be restored.
Requiring a person to be mentally competent at the time of
a trial was the same concept being applied to the
provision.
9:33:50 AM
Senator Olson thought it was confusing to the public and
that there appeared to be an overreach by the law. He
shared concerns.
Mr. Skidmore had heard of concerns relating to the
provision. He thought it was important to understand the
law and interpret it differently. He thought
misrepresentations by the legislature could affect the
public.
Mr. Skidmore discussed the idea of an affirmative defense.
The concept trying to be achieved was that everyone should
be able to exercise autonomy for when to grant consent for
sexual activity. The marriage defense stated that for
certain individuals, there was no option for consent. He
asserted that the provision tried to level the playing
field.
Senator Olson asked whether Mr. Skidmore was in favor of
marriage as an affirmative defense.
Mr. Skidmore was not in favor of an affirmative defense and
did not think it achieved what Senator Olson had described.
9:38:17 AM
Senator Bishop focused on the concept of consent while
incapacitated. He discussed a hypothetical scenario of a
person diagnosed with Alzheimer's that was incapacitated.
Mr. Skidmore was not an expert on Alzheimer's and only had
anecdotal experience. He recognized that Alzheimer's was a
progressive neuro-degenerative disease under which he
doubted it was medically possible for a doctor to deem that
a person would be lucid again. He thought that caretakers
and spouses would be able to ascertain when the other
spouse was lucid or not. He defined sexual contact.
Senator Bishop understood the definition of sexual contact
but wanted to have a clear definition of incapacitation.
Mr. Skidmore reiterated that the provision dealt with
"suffering from a mental disease or defect that renders a
person incapable of understanding."
9:42:04 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof appreciated the conversation. She
understood that the Senate version of the bill removed the
marriage defense and people would be treated the same under
the law, regardless of marital status. She believed the
provision had been debated in the Senate State Affairs
Committee. She thought Mr. Skidmore had been very clear.
She asked if the committee was ready to move on to a new
subject.
Senator Micciche noticed that everything in the Senate's
four crime bills was a pragmatic approach to a real
problem. He asked why Mr. Skidmore was bringing the
marriage defense to the table.
Mr. Skidmore stated there had been cases in which a spouse
alleged assault by the other spouse, and the case was
unable to move forward with prosecution due to the marriage
defense. He knew of cases provided directly to the
Department of Law (LAW) and had also spoken to advocates
from Standing Together Against Rape that had more examples.
Senator Micciche had received emails from individuals and
from constituents that had issues with the problem and had
been unable to prosecute a crime because of the marriage
defense. He thought the elimination of the marriage defense
was a pragmatic approach to a real issue.
Senator Bishop heard Mr. Skidmore say there were some minor
differences between the bill and the Senate version.
Mr. Skidmore stated he had listed several differences that
were minor, and had not listed the provision of marriage
defense as minor.
Senator Bishop asked if HB 49 was workable for the
administration.
Mr. Skidmore stated there were several components in HB 49
that the administration had significant concerns about.
Senator Bishop asked for clarification as to the minor
differences and significant concerns.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that when he referred to minor, he
referred to things that were not in the bill. He stated
that when he referenced significant issues, he was talking
about concepts in the bill that were different from the
Senate concepts. He used the example of caps on technical
violations, which was different in the two bills and he did
not consider the issue to be minor. He listed discretionary
parole eligibility as an issue that was different in the
two bills.
9:46:40 AM
Senator Wielechowski had spoken with members of the House
and had gleaned that the administration had agreed to the
language in the bill, including the caps on technical
violations and the marriage defense language.
Mr. Skidmore was not involved in any sort of discussions as
described by Senator Wielechowski. He could speak to the
differences in the law and where the differences were
significant to LAW.
Senator Wielechowski asked who to talk to that would know
what the administration supported. He had been told
directly that the provisions were specifically agreed to
and supported by the administration.
Mr. Skidmore stated that there were political
considerations for the legislature to look at. He suggested
that members talk to the person that made the statements.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the committee had asked Mr.
Skidmore to talk about what was not included in HB 49 and
other provisions in the related bills. She asked Mr.
Skidmore to discuss any additional significant bill
provisions that were contained in the Senate bill versions
and not in HB 49.
Mr. Skidmore could not recall any additional provisions to
discuss. He was certain there were other differences, but
nothing he would describe as significant.
Senator Micciche asked about differences concerning
violating conditions of release.
Mr. Skidmore affirmed that there was a difference on
violation of conditions of release. The Senate version
changed back to pre-SB 91 law. The Senate version set the
period at 90 days. In the House version, the violation
remained a class B misdemeanor for all offenses. The
difference was in the maximum sentencing.
9:50:12 AM
Senator Micciche asked about truth in sentencing.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the truth in sentencing was not
originally found in any of the governor's bills, but had
been added to SB 33 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There were no provisions related to the subject in HB 49.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the administration supported
the proposed truth in sentencing language that was in the
Senate version of the bill.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the administration had not taken a
position on the matter.
Senator Wielechowski asked if HB 49 effectively repealed
and replaced the negative aspects of SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore had testified in the House Finance Committee
that HB 49 (at the time) had effectively repealed and
replaced the negative aspects of SB 91. There had been
changes made to the bill on the floor, and he was unsure
that he could make the same statement at present.
Senator Wielechowski asked which provisions Mr. Skidmore
could recommend changing in order to effectively repeal and
replace all the negative aspects of SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the two concepts that were
different (after changing on the House floor) were caps on
technical violations and discretionary parole; and
returning the provisions to pre-SB 91 status would, in his
opinion, repeal and replace the negative aspects of SB 91.
Senator Micciche asked if Mr. Skidmore supported the HB 49
sentencing changes, or if he preferred what was in the
governor's bill.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the presumptive sentencing for
felonies did not revert to pre-SB 91 status; however, in HB
49 adjusted the sentencing ranges upward for both A and B
misdemeanors. He thought the change effectively repealed
and replaced what was in SB 91. He thought the change
provided an effective tool for LAW to use.
Senator Wielechowski mentioned that the governor was paying
for Facebook advertisements that claimed that he had
proposed legislation that would repeal SB 91 and replace
the bill with common-sense crime laws that would help to
make Alaska the safest state in the country. He asked if
Alaska would be the safest state in the country if the bill
was passed with the proposed changes to the caps and
discretionary parole.
Mr. Skidmore thought that if the changes he described were
made, it would provide tools for the state to try and
combat the crime problem and bring down crime rates.
Senator Wielechowski asked if there was anything else that
Mr. Skidmore could recommend in order to make Alaska the
safest state in the country.
Mr. Skidmore had no other recommendations at present.
9:54:25 AM
Senator Micciche did not want to contradict Senator
Wielechowski, but thought it was unfair to ask Mr. Skidmore
how he would determine how to make Alaska the safest state
in the country. He understood the question but thought it
was fairer to ask if the legislation returned the pieces of
legislation originally proposed by the administration. He
asked Mr. Skidmore if the bill returned the tools to
adequately prosecute and hold people accountable to the way
crimes as they were traditionally viewed as opposed to
under the enacted SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore as for clarification on the question.
Senator Micciche had not found the administration's crime
bills to be overly punitive. He asked if Mr. Skidmore's
preference that the bill passed with provisions in HB 49 or
other bills as proposed by the governor. He asked which
would be a more effective way to deal with the state's
crime problem.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the governor's original proposed
bills were the proposals the administration thought made
sense. He acknowledged the legislative process. He
emphasized that the legislature and the governor had to
make the decisions. He thought he had tried to identify the
areas of legislative provisions to work with and respect
the legislative process.
Co-Chair von Imhof emphasized that the legislative body was
independent from the executive branch. She thought there
were items from previous bills that the committee might
want to add to HB 49 because members felt the provisions
were important. She mentioned various provisions of
interest including sexual abuse of a minor, sexual assault,
indecent exposure, unlawful exploitation of a minor, and
distribution of child pornography. She did not think the
legislature needed permission from the governor to put in
provisions it wanted.
9:58:59 AM
Senator Shower discussed the bill process. He thought it
was important not to rush the process. He discussed the
stakeholders and associated testimony as an aggregate
opinion. He questioned whether the committee wanted to pass
legislation that was "good enough" rather than the best. He
thought the administration was informing the body as to
what tools were needed to address the crime problem in the
state. He thought the bill being considered was still
missing parts. He questioned whether the law had given
enough tools to the appropriate agencies to get the job
done.
Senator Shower continued his remarks. He was concerned that
the legislature was compromising the bill. He urged
patience. He thought there had been consistent feedback
from agencies that they needed certain tools.
Co-Chair von Imhof thanked Senator Shower for his work on
the bills.
10:02:19 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof drew attention to FN 6, OMB Component
2202.
Mr. Skidmore noted that there had been a previous fiscal
note for SB 32, and it should be the same as FN 6. He
informed that the note being considered was erroneous, and
the committee should be considering OMB Component 4881. He
clarified that the fiscal note that should be considered
addressed the additional resources needed to prosecute the
change in drug crimes. The note also included the
recriminalization of driving with a license suspended.
Co-Chair von Imhof knew that the committee would be doing
more work on the bill and thought there was a chance the
fiscal notes would change.
10:05:09 AM
MAJOR ANDREW GREENSTREET, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE
TROOPERS (via teleconference), expressed excitement about
the bill, which would give law enforcement the tools to be
more effective in responding. Additionally, he thought the
bill would give the tools to assist victims of crimes and
restore the public's faith in the justice system. He
thought often troopers and other law enforcement officers
worked with individuals during a challenging time when the
officer's response was important to the victims.
Major Greenstreet noted that HB 49 addressed property
crimes, which had risen 23 percent in the previous five
years. He reported getting on overwhelming sense that
businesses that were being victimized were reporting thefts
as frequently because of the perception that there was "no
teeth" in the criminal justice system and the limited
number of resources available to investigate the crimes.
Major Greenstreet continued his remarks. He thought the new
tools pertaining to motor vehicle theft would give law
enforcement additional options to address the crime and
prevent further crime. He thought oftentimes vehicle thefts
were part of drug culture. He addressed the stronger
penalties for drug crimes in the bill. He thought the bill
helped with the ability to address drug crimes at different
levels. He approved of significant penalties for
possession.
Major Greenstreet addressed the videoconferencing allowed
for in the bill. He thought there was an officer safety
component and thought videoconferencing would allow
troopers to be more effective.
10:09:49 AM
Senator Micciche referenced changes in Soldotna. He thought
that HB 49 was a significant backward move from SB 32 and
SB 35, which had been passed through the Senate. He
discussed drug houses in his district which had turned
communities into a "zombie wasteland" where residents lived
in fear daily. He asked if Major Greenstreet supported the
return of the caps, reductions in violating conditions of
release, and lower sentencing contained in the bill; or if
his preference was to return to pre-SB 91 levels in the
three areas.
Major Greenstreet clarified that he preferred stronger
sentencing, and preferred the original language pertaining
to violations of conditions of parole, and removal of the
cap. He was a second-generation Alaskan and was a lifelong
Alaskan. He had worked in law enforcement for 25 years and
had worked in narcotics investigation. He was concerned
about the drug culture in the state. He wanted to support
the strongest legislation to curb the drug problem in the
state.
Senator Micciche thanked Major Greenstreet for his
testimony.
10:13:00 AM
Senator Wielechowski acknowledged the importance of the
issue. He asked if there was anything Major Greenstreet to
put in the bill to make Alaska the safest state in the
nation.
Major Greenstreet supported Mr. Skidmore's remarks
pertaining to the marriage defense proposal. He supported
the original bill and returning law to pre-SB 91 levels.
Senator Bishop associated himself with Senator
Wielechowski's remarks. He referenced Senator Micciche's
remarks about Soldotna. He asked if Major Greenstreet could
address the problems mentioned by Senator Micciche could be
solved if SB 32, SB 33, SB 34, and SB 35 were enacted in
full.
Major Greenstreet thought that the bills were a start in
the right direction. He discussed the importance of the
state's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
designation. He asserted that the state needed good solid
legislation for the HIDTA funds to be effective.
10:15:35 AM
Senator Shower discussed drug activity in the Mat-Su area.
He reiterated his question of whether "good enough" was ok.
He asked if Major Greenstreet would prefer the complete
package of Senate crime bills, or if HB 49 was good enough.
He agreed that that simply returning to pre-SB 91 laws was
not sufficient. He acknowledged that putting people in jail
was not going to solve the state's drug problem, and that
other solutions were necessary.
Major Greenstreet discussed the drug activity in the
Hatcher's Pass area. He wanted law enforcement to be as
effective as possible in the area. He did not like settling
for an "ok" solution and wanted to support the best
legislation possible. He liked the direction that the
legislation was going. He hoped that the bill could be done
better.
Co-Chair von Imhof wanted to address the fiscal notes for
rape kits.
10:18:25 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if Alaska the safest state in
the country before the passage of SB 91.
Major Greenstreet affirmed that Alaska was certainly not
the safest state in the country before SB 91 was passed.
Senator Wielechowski referenced Alaska's poor safety
statistics and asked how it was possible to make Alaska the
safest state in the nation by going back to pre-SB 91 laws.
Major Greenstreet did not know how returning to pre-SB 91
status would make the state the safest, but thought the
proposed changes were better than the current law. He
thought the proposed legislation was a step in the right
direction.
10:20:08 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about a new fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS), OMB Component 527. She
asked for the sexual assault kits to be addressed.
~KATHERYN MONFREDA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),
stated that the crime lab was under her management. She
detailed that the fiscal note requested two positions to
meet the obligation of getting the backlog of sexual
assault kits processed within one year.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about the new provision in the
bill regarding the sexual assault kits.
10:21:46 AM
DAVID KANARIS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SCIENTIFIC CRIME DETECTIVE
LAB, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),
confirmed that the fiscal note requested two additional
positions. He stated that there had been an increase in
cases in the lab, specifically more sexual assault cases.
On average in 2018 there was 28 sexual assault cases per
month, which had risen to 36 per month. Due to the
provisions in the bill, the lab expected an additional 120
cases. He estimated that each position could work around 70
to 80 cases per month. The fiscal note also reuqested
$158,000 to outsource a number of cases.
Mr. Kanaris continued to discuss the fiscal note. He
discussed the huge commitment necessary to train
individuals to process cases to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation standards and lab quality standards. He
stated the outsourcing would be for six months.
Senator Bishop expressed concern about part of the fiscal
note analysis:
"However, if the crime lab continues to see an
increase in DNA case submissions as it has this fiscal
year, prioritization of sexual assault cases will
continue to increase over other DNA requests (such as
property crimes) increasing the backlog and turnaround
time of nonpriority cases."
Senator Bishop wondered if the department needed another
position so that resources would not need to be diverted
from lower priority requests such as property crimes.
Mr. Kanaris stated that the intent of the language was to
inform the legislature what could potentially happen if
there were no additional positions funded. He stated that
the two requested positions were the minimum needed to stay
current with the increased caseload.
10:25:45 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the fiscal note referenced
the outsourcing for testing of sexual assault kits. She
thought it was possible to consider outsourcing in the
future in order to keep up with all the lab requests.
Senator Wilson expressed concern that the previous year the
capital budget had appropriated around $2 million for the
storage and testing of sexual assault kits. He thought the
funding could run out if additional funds were not
appropriated. He wondered if the state wanted to continue
to fund the testing of the kits on a statewide basis.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the expenses on the fiscal note
showed the state's responsibility. She asked about the
responsibility of the municipalities and boroughs. She
asked if Senator Wilson was suggesting that all sexual
assault kits be sent to the state to be processed in a
central location.
Senator Wilson thought the language of the bill stated that
the kits went to the state or an outside processor. He
understood that the $2 million previously appropriated
would run out and wondered if the previous appropriation
was going to be factored into the fiscal note, or if there
would be an additional funding request.
Mr. Kanaris understood that the capital appropriation the
previous year was to have all the historical kits processed
in the state. The project had been started and the lab had
sent about 600 of the kits out to be processed out of
state. The project would continue on for the following two
years. The fiscal note attached to the bill was forward-
looking and was to fund the processing of forthcoming kits
and to keep the processing within the 12-month time limit
as proposed by the bill.
Senator Wilson understood that there was no cost for
municipalities. He asked if the state was responsible for
paying for all sexual assault exam kits statewide.
Mr. Kanaris affirmed that the state crime lab did process
all sexual assault kits for the state and was the only full
service crime lab in the state.
10:30:00 AM
Senator Micciche understood that there had been inadequate
funding and inadequate expectations for processing that had
created a backlog. He thought Mr. Kanaris had communicated
that the appropriation had satisfied the funding for the
backlog and the fiscal note would likely satisfy the
funding going forward in accordance with the legislation.
Mr. Kanaris agreed. He clarified that the capital
appropriation was not to address a lack of past funding.
Rather, the backlog of kits were cases not previously
submitted to the lab.
Senator Micciche was supportive of adequate funding to
process the sexual assault kits. He discussed the
importance of testing of sexual assault kits.
Mr. Kanaris stated that the original fiscal note for SB 20
had requested four positions with the intent of working the
backlog of cases within six months' time. He expected to be
able to manage processing kits in twelve months' time with
two additional positions.
Senator Wilson asked if Mr. Kanaris was requesting two
positions, but it was best to have four.
Mr. Kanaris expected to meet the 12-month timeline with two
positions. He stated that if the legislature wanted to
reduce the timeline to less than 12 months, the lab would
need more positions.
10:33:42 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that COURT did not have a policy position on many sections
of the bill. The court system was impacted by the bail
provisions and pre-trial sections. She referenced Section
50, which was the statute that informed judges how to make
arraignment decisions. The provision was largely a return
to former law and did away with how the pre-trial risk
assessment score drove the decision of the judge. She had a
couple of suggestions to solve tension in some wordings.
Ms. Meade looked at page 31, which covered bail conditions.
She considered page 31, line 27 through line 29, which
would change what happened to the pre-trial services
officer. The bill stated that the court may order a person
to submit to supervision by an officer, which may include
the use of electronic monitoring. She took issue with the
clause "if determined necessary by the commissioner of
DOC". She stated that current law dictated that it was the
court that determined if a person should be under
electronic monitoring. She did not know if the provision
was intended or if there had been a drafting error. She
noted that on line 24, it stated the court may order a
person to submit to electronic monitoring. A prior version
said "by a private company," which had been eliminated but
she still saw tension between subsection 17 and subsection
19 and suggested the "if clause" be eliminated for clarity.
10:36:58 AM
Ms. Meade drew attention to lines 25 and 26 of the bill,
which she thought was wholly unnecessary and could lead to
problems. She pointed out that the timing of the provision
was wrong and explained the logic. She suggested that
subsection 18 be eliminated.
Ms. Meade addressed page 32, line 23; which pertained to
court considerations at release. There had been discussion
in the other body as to whether subsection 12 (the pre-
trial risk assessment) had to be considered. She suggested
minor language changes to remove obstacles from the court
continuing if the pre-trial services office did not get the
assessment to the court system.
Senator Wilson asked if the court would still have access
to the information if the line was deleted.
Ms. Meade noted that the section was a list of "shalls,"
and if the wording was changed to "may" the language would
have to be moved to a different section. She explained that
the language was changed on the grounds that people wanted
to continue to have the judge consider the pre-trial risk
assessment. She clarified that a judge was not bound to
follow anything in the report. She added that the bill did
have the effect of removing the assessment score from being
the driver of the court's decision-making; but it did
stipulate that the court must look at it.
10:40:13 AM
Ms. Meade drew attention to page 33 line 19 of the bill.
The provision stated that the courts bail schedule (used
for minor misdemeanors) had to have a condition providing
that the jail shall test the person for intoxication.
Former law said the jail "may detain" a person until the
person was below a .08 on the intoxication test. The bill
changed the language to read "shall detail" and made it
incumbent upon DOC to test every person and hold the person
until the test was below .08. She wanted to bring attention
to a potential change in current practice.
Senator Bishop referenced a situation in Fairbanks and
asked how the potential language may have affected the
outcome.
Ms. Meade clarified that she did not have a suggestion but
wanted to point out that the bill made a change from "can
hold them" to "have to hold them."
Senator Wielechowski asked if the provision would require
DOC to test every single person who was arrested for a
misdemeanor.
Ms. Meade saw that line 19 specified that DOC "shall"
conduct a chemical test of a person "who is intoxicated."
She supposed it would be within the discretion and
judgement of the correctional office or facility to
determine whether the individual fell under the
terminology.
Senator Hoffman asked how many individuals would fall under
the provision, and how many individuals had been released
under the "may" clause.
Ms. Meade did not have the information.
Senator Hoffman thought it was important to consider how
many people would be affected by the change from "may" to
"shall." He thought that in the Bethel area there was
overcrowded conditions in detention facilities.
10:44:05 AM
Ms. Meade had thoughts about page 37 of the bill, which
discussed technical violations of probation. She thought
there was probably an inadvertent drafting error. There was
no longer a definition for technical petitions to revoke
probation and other subsections in the provision.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Ms. Meade if she was familiar with
the provision in the Senate's version of the bill. She
wondered if Ms. Meade was happier with the Senate's version
pertaining to the technical violation of the caps.
Ms. Meade thought that the provision had been repealed in
the Senate version. All the technical violations as
discussed by Mr. Skidmore had been considered problematic
by LAW and it wanted to get rid of the statute. The court
did not have a position.
Ms. Meade addressed the end of the bill, and did not have a
position on testing kits, or probation and parole. The
court rule amendments began in Section 96. She thought Mr.
Skidmore had testified that the section would be helpful
for prosecutors in grand juries. She had no knowledge of
the subject as grand juries were run by district attorneys
without a judge. She stated that the amendment would
typically go through a court rules committee to establish
recommendations for the supreme court as to whether it was
an appropriate procedure. She noted that the legislature
had the authority to do so with a two-thirds majority vote.
10:47:18 AM
Ms. Meade addressed Section 97 and Section 98, which had
rule amendments that typically went through the criminal
rules committee for consideration by the supreme court. The
supreme court had a lot of interest in videoconferencing,
specifically in the rules being addressed. She had worked
with LAW to offer wording that might be more in keeping
with the supreme court's intent. She stated that COURT did
spearhead all the use of videoconferencing in the state for
proceedings that took place between jails and the court and
would continue to do so.
Ms. Meade addressed Section 102, which pertained to a
report regarding involuntary commitments. The section did
require COURT to provide to DPS information about
individuals who were mentally committed since 1981. The
section provided time to do so, as Ms. Meade had requested
in previous testimony. She noted that the provision would
create a substantial amount of work since the information
was largely on microfiche. The information would be
provided to DPS to put in a database so the individuals
would be disqualified from gun ownership.
Senator Micciche asked about Ms. Meade's preference if the
effective date was split between readily available data and
microfiche data.
Ms. Meade stated that a different version of the bill had
an effective date of January 1, 2011; which did not have a
fiscal impact because the cases would be on Court View and
the staff would be able to absorb the extra work. Between
2002 and 2011, courts were being phased into Court View.
She discussed the amount of work relative to how far back
in time the records went.
Senator Micciche asked for information on the impact of
different effective dates.
Co-Chair von Imhof wanted to know the necessity of having
records from 2010 and prior. She asked how data going back
to 1982 would enhance a case.
Ms. Meade clarified that COURT had not sought the
provision; but DPS wanted the information going back to
1981 and had asked for the information in the past. The
information had been required starting in 2014 and COURT
had provided it. Without authority, COURT would not
disclose the confidential documents.
10:51:55 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the committee would resume
in the afternoon to hear further testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof wanted to address FN 18 from the Alaska
Court System, OMB Component 768. The note was published May
8, 2019 for $1,276,000. She asked if the fiscal note was
updated.
Ms. Meade answered in the affirmative. She noted that LAW
was seeking five new attorneys and four new staff
positions. The department had also added a request for two
temporary judges to cover all the new anticipated drug
cases. The judges would travel the state to cover the
increased workload and would need two travelling court
clerks. The other part of the fiscal note covered two
clerical positions to open the additional felony cases and
upload information to Court View. The cost of complying
with the report on mental commitments would be hiring two
(range 14A) employees to look at old files.
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed the agenda for the afternoon.
CSHB 49(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 49 SB 33 Spreadsheet - HB 49 am House - Comparison.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 49 SB 33 |
| HB 49 SB 32 Spreadsheet - HB 49 am House Comparison.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 49 SB 32 |
| HB 49 am House- Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 SB 34 Spreadsheet -HB 49 am House - Comparison.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 49 SB 34 |