Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 68-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
1:05:34 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to sex trafficking;
establishing the crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating to
prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking, patron
of a victim of sex trafficking, and human trafficking;
establishing the process for vacating judgments for certain
convictions of prostitution and misconduct involving a
controlled substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent fund
dividends for certain individuals whose convictions are vacated;
and providing for an effective date."
1:06:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 68, Version 33-GH1029\S, Radford,
4/11/23, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected for the purpose of
discussion.
CHAIR VANCE invited Mr. Almeida to present an explanation of
changes.
1:07:06 PM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, provided an
explanation of changes [included in the committee packet] in the
proposed CS for HB 68, ("Version S"), which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 4: Removes "place of prostitution" and
"prostitution enterprise" from sex trafficking in the
1st degree. Raises the minor age of the victim from 20
to 21.
Section 5: Raises the minor age of the victim from 20
to 21.
Section 8: Adds new lang. to sec. 11.41.367 "?may
reasonably be construed?" and adds subsection (b) to
line 20 under sec. 11.41.369. The sale of forfeited
property may be used to provide resources to victims
of sex trafficking.
Section 9: Consolidates both crimes of human and sex
trafficking in one section.
Section 11: Separates degrees of prostitution for
clarity and adds prostitution enterprise to
prostitution in the first degree.
Section 12: Conforming change only.
Section 13: Adds subsection (b) The sale of forfeited
property may be used to provide restitution to victims
of sex trafficking.
Section 20: Revokes a defendants business license if
they're convicted of any human trafficking, sex
trafficking, or patron of a victim of sex trafficking
charges.
Section 22: Adds prostitution in the 1st or 2nd degree
to those who the court may not suspend the imposition
of an entry of judgment.
Section 23: Adds prostitution in the 1st or 2nd degree
to those who the court may not suspend an imposition
of sentence.
Section 25: Technical and conforming changes as it
corrects cross references to indecent viewing or
production of pictures.
Section 26: Technical & conforming change only.
Section 29 32: Expands privacy protections
(consistent with existing law) to victims of any sex
offense and any sex trafficking offense.
Section 33: Conforming change based on section 11.
Section 35: Removes misdemeanor drug charges for the
vacation of judgment provisions.
Section 36: Adds the revocation of teaching licenses
from those convicted of sex trafficking offenses.
Section 45: Conforming changes consistent with the
changes made in sec. 46.
Section 49 & 50: Conforming changes based on section
11.
Section 56-58: Conforming changes.
Section 59: New provision regarding the Alaska Court
System's implementation of section 35.
MR. ALMEIDA noted that Section 59 was added to provide the court
system with the flexibility to implement Section 35. However,
after speaking with Legislative Legal Services, Section 59 would
likely be removed via a forthcoming amendment, as it was not
legally necessary.
1:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked why Section 36 and Section 20 were
not inclusive of additional licenses, such as nursing licenses,
whereby sex traffickers could be enticed to inflict further
damage.
MR. ALMEIDA said Representative Vance shared the same concerns
[as those expressed by Representative Allard]. He indicated
that a future amendment would be drafted to include an itemized
list of additional licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether those changes would be made
before moving the bill out of committee.
MR. ALMEIDA answered yes, there would be an additional amendment
deadline for Version S.
CHAIR VANCE opined that professional licenses, specifically
those involving children, should be revoked for individuals
convicted of sex trafficking. She clarified that the intent was
not to target teachers or characterize any one profession as
traffickers; nonetheless, she said it was a "trusted
responsibility" to have a professional license.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD highlighted daycare licenses as an
important professional license to add to the provision.
1:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that any felony
conviction must be listed on the renewal [application] of a
professional license. He suspected that most professional
licenses would not be renewed for a convicted sex trafficker and
suggested that there may already be a path [in statute] for the
denial of certain professional licenses.
1:20:27 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), acknowledged that the drafter's request [to itemize
additional professional licensures] was daunting. She indicated
that the preferred option would be to follow up on existing
practices.
1:21:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to Section 36, asked whether
solicitation was a felony.
MS. SCHROEDER said it depended on the underlying offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 25, line 8, in
Section 36 and asked whether there were allowances if the
perpetrator was a minor.
MS. SCHROEDER attempted to clarify the question.
1:22:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a professional [teaching]
license would be revoked from a convicted 19-year-old.
MS. SCHROEDER said she was unsure as to how a 19-year-old would
acquire a teaching license. She said the instances of a minor
obtaining a professional license was rare.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a teacher
of any age was found guilty of [a trafficking case] that
occurred when he/she was 20. He asked whether that individual's
license would be revoked.
MS. SCHROEDER shared her understanding that, yes, the license
would be revoked.
1:23:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to the provision on page
7, lines 12-14, which defined prostitution in the third degree.
He inquired about the meaning of the language "whether the
intended recipient is the person or someone else."
CHAIR VANCE explained that the intent was to capture the conduct
of offering a fee in exchange for sex on behalf of another
person. However, Legislative Legal Services explained that said
conduct was already covered under prostitution in the third
degree without the added language [on line 14].
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the difference between
prostitution in the third and fourth degree without the new
language on page 7, line 14.
MS. SCHROEDER agreed that the language in question was
superfluous. She explained that prostitution in the third
degree, as drafted, was a person offering a fee in exchange for
sex, whereas prostitution in the fourth degree was someone
agreeing to engage in sexual conduct in exchange for a fee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that buying the sex act
was prestation in the third degree, whereas selling the sex act
was prostitution in the third degree.
MS. SCHOEDER confirmed.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that the classification of prostitution
in the third and fourth degree already existed in statute. She
indicated that prostitution in the first and second degree were
the added classifications to provide further clarification of
the crime.
1:27:08 PM
MR. ALMEIDA referred to Section 11 and defined prostitution in
the first through fourth degree.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, referring to Section 35, suggested leaving
in the misdemeanor drug charges for the vacation of judgement
provisions. He argued that a direct connection could be made to
sex trafficking if a trafficking victim was later convicted of a
drug offense. He pointed out that it may be a small number of
individuals who come forward as a victim of sex trafficking to
request a vacation of judgement, therefore, the system would not
be overwhelmed.
CHAIR VANCE said she shared the same concern; however, she
believed that the process for vacation and the fiscal analysis
needed further analysis. She indicated that she removed the
misdemeanor drug charges for the purpose of moving the bill
forward in a timely manner.
1:30:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she shared the same concern [as
Representative Gray]. She recalled testimony from the
department stating that [the vacation of judgement for
misdemeanor drug charges with evidence of sex trafficking] would
not be a fiscal liability. She expressed concern about pushing
the legislation through quickly before hashing everything out.
CHAIR VANCE reminded the committee that the bill was introduced
two sessions ago. She clarified that she had concerns about the
vacation of judgement process, in addition to the fiscal note.
She said she wanted to ensure that individuals requesting the
vacation of judgements were, indeed, trafficked, adding that the
accuracy of such an assessment was unclear to her, which was why
the misdemeanor drug charges were removed from Version S.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD agreed that "saving some lives is better
than saving no lives."
1:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that the inclusion of drug
convictions was a recent addition to the bill.
CHAIR VANCE shared her understanding that the provision in
question was added last year in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
1:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY requested an explanation of the fiscal note
pertaining to the vacation of judgements.
CHAIR VANCE explained that there were two fiscal notes: one from
the DOL and one from the Alaska Court System. She asked Ms.
Schroeder to speak to DOL's fiscal note.
MS. SCHROEDER said the department's fiscal note was a zero
fiscal note.
1:34:13 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Council, The Alaska Court System, confirmed
that the court system's positive fiscal note was largely due to
the vacation of drug convictions. She reported that the
vacation of prostitution convictions alone would have resulted
in a one-time temporary position costing the state $37,000;
however, with the inclusion of the drug convictions, the fiscal
note reflected a cost of $188,000 per year to account for the
20,000 potential drug cases, of which an estimated 5-10 percent
may come forward [to request a vacation of judgement]. She
calculated that even 500 petitions would necessitate an
additional staff position for processing. She noted that there
were few prostitution convictions totaling three to ten - with
a co-occurring drug conviction.
1:36:42 PM
CHAIR VANCE noted that the removal of the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) from Version S was not
reflected in the explanation of changes. She reasoned that the
council was already at capacity and reminded the committee that
the governor's council on Human and Sex Trafficking had
volunteered to become the permanent [resource]. She explained
that the reason the council was added in the first place was to
ensure that grants and resources were distributed, reiterating
that the removal of the CDVSA was to allow the council to
"continue doing what they do well." A forthcoming solution
would be offered to provide continued resources to trafficking
victims, she said.
1:38:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to a provision in section 11
[Sec. 11.66.108 Persons exempt from prosecution] and questioned
the purpose of paragraph (2) starting on page 8, line 23.
MS. SCHROEDER said the language was intended for a person
engaging in prostitution who witnesses a serious crime. She
said the provision offered immunity from prosecution for
reporting an offense and cooperating with law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which 99 percent
of the evidence was obtained through other means and only a
"scintilla" of evidence was obtained as a consequence of the
reporting. He asked whether the individual would still be
immune from prosecution.
MS. SCHROEDER said if a prosecution could be brought without the
evidence provided by the reporting individual, a prosecution
[against that person] could be engaged in. However, engaging in
those types of prosecutions was rare, she said. Additionally,
in response to a previous question regarding the revocation of
professional teaching licenses, she clarified that the provision
was only applicable to offenses committed on or after the
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the meaning of a "lifetime
revocation," asking whether the individual could reapply for a
new license in the future.
MS. SCHROEDER shared her understanding that a lifetime ban would
restrict that person from applying in the future.
1:42:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed his concern about the affirmative
defense outlined in subsections (b)(1)-(2) on page 4. He argued
that simply asking for someone's age was not a reasonable
verification of age, positing that the vast majority of sex
trafficking victims would say that they are 18 years old.
MS. SCHROEDER contended that it was a reasonable person
standard. Nonetheless, the method of age verification would
still need to be presented to the jury.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether it would make sense to create
a separate bill on labor trafficking. He expressed concern that
the legislation, as drafted, may be missing some of the nuances
of labor trafficking, as the bill was largely focused on sex
trafficking and prostitution.
MS. SCHROEDER said [the bill] was a policy decision made by the
administration. She acknowledged that there were "a whole host
of things" that could be done with human trafficking, included
licensing issues, that were not addressed in the legislation;
however, she indicated that the bill was an opportunity to clean
up existing statutes on the matter.
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked for the legal definition of "labor."
MS. SCHROEDER said "labor" was not defined in statute.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that for the purpose of clarification,
the bill separated human trafficking from sex trafficking in
statute. Including further nuances of human trafficking, she
said, would compel a 60-page bill. She inquired about instances
of labor trafficking in Alaska.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that human trafficking was not
prosecuted as often as sex trafficking. She shared her belief
that labor trafficking was an issue in Alaska that thus far, had
been addressed through licensing requirements, for example, as
opposed to the criminal code.
1:49:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to the definition of
human trafficking in the second degree [Section 7] and asked
whether the new language made the provision less restrictive.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the changes made to the
classification of human trafficking mirrored the changes made in
the sex trafficking provisions; consequently, the amended
language in question mirrored the approach to sex trafficking in
the second degree.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was still a crime to
obtain a benefit from human trafficking, despite that language
being deleted from human trafficking in the second degree.
MS. SCHROEDER said it would depend on how the benefit was
obtained.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about meaning of "intent to
promote human trafficking," characterizing the language as
"amorphous."
MS. SCHROEDER agreed, defining it as the conscious objective of
promoting or furthering human trafficking. She added that
[intent] was a mental state that would be determined on a case-
by-case basis.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a legislator advocating on
behalf of human trafficking could be prosecuted under this
provision.
MS. SCHROEDER answered, "Absolutely not."
1:53:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the language on page 5, lines
9-11.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that language was added to exclude
parenting behaviors, such as withholding a pair of jeans until
the driveway was shoveled, which could be construed as an
exchange for labor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the language on page 5, lines
12-16 [Sec. 11.41.368. Corroboration of certain testimony not
required] applied to children or any person.
MS. SCHROEDER said it applied to anybody. She provided the
history of the provision in question.
1:55:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 5, lines 17-22
[Sec. 11.41.369. Forfeiture] and provided a scenario in which a
car was borrowed for the purpose of human trafficking. He asked
whether the car could be forfeited.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that a forfeiture action could be
instituted on that property.
1:57:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease from.
1:57:51 PM
CHAIR VANCE reminded the committee that she did not intend to
move the bill out of committee today.
1:58:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 9 and asked
whether the list of actions that constitute "inducing or
causing" was exclusive.
MS. SCHROEDER said the list was not all inclusive, adding that
an argument could be made for additional conduct that could
qualify as inducing or causing. She said the list was intended
to act as a guideline and provide more direction than what was
in current law.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wondered why adult entertainment was
listed under inducing or causing.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that adult entertainment and labor was
referenced in the human trafficking statutes. She reiterated
that the list applied to both sex and human causing, both of
which used the term "induce or cause."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a person could be guilty of
inducing or causing if the act was never inducted.
MS. SCHROEDER said a substantial step in furtherance of the
offense could make a person guilty of an attempt.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered two scenarios and inquired
about the legal liability of each.
MS. SCHROEDER said the conduct would be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
2:04:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD Asked "It's almost like if someone
solicits for murder, but they don't go through with it. So,
recruitment, right?"
MS. SCHROEDER said solicitation could apply to that scenario;
however, solicitation was covered under a different set of
statutes.
2:05:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referred to page 11 and sought to confirm
that sex trafficking was not subject to the statute of
limitations, meaning that that prosecution could be brought
forth at any time.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that sex trafficking in the first and
second degree had no statute of limitations. Alternatively, sex
trafficking in the third degree and human trafficking in the
third degree had a statute of limitation of 10 years.
2:05:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about paragraph (b)(2) on page 12,
line 11.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the statute of limitations for any
offense not listed under (b)(1) of that section would be five
years.
2:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version S was adopted as the work draft.
CHAIR VANCE announced that Version S would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 68 - Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Highlights.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Fiscal Notes (1-9).pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Sex and Human Trafficking Informational Sheet 3.17.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Letters of Support (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Letters of Opposition (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| New CS for HB 68 - v.S.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |