Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/17/2021 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 105-DETENTION OF MINORS
1:36:43 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 105(HSS), "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to the right to representation by the Public Defender
Agency; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the detention of minors; relating to
minors subject to adult courts; relating to the placement of
minors in adult correctional facilities; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
[CSHB 105(HSS) was before the committee.]
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that the companion bill, SB 91, previously
passed from the Senate Health and Social Services Committee and
is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1:37:16 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Juneau, Alaska,
read testimony on behalf of the administration, as follows:
Thank you for the opportunity to present on HB 105
today, a bill that brings Alaska into compliance with
federal law and addresses both long-identified and
newly emerging statutory issues related to juvenile
justice. HB 105 updates Alaska statute with recent
changes to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, hereafter referred to as JJDPA. JJDPA
is the primary piece of federal legislation that
guides juvenile justice practices around the country.
Lack of compliance with JJDPA will lead to grant
penalties on the division's major federal grant.
Without HB 105, DJJ will be subject to a 20 percent
reduction to our Title II grant, which is about
$80,000 for federal FY 21 and we will be penalized
each year moving forward if not in compliance.
HB 105 requires that minors who have been waived into
the adult criminal justice system be held in juvenile
facilities until they're age 18. Currently minors who
are subject to autowaiver or to discretionary waiver
statutes are held in adult jails and correctional
facilities in Alaska. This bill is limited in scope
and intentionally does not have any impact on the
crimes or sentences of minors who are subject to
waiver into the adult's justice system, nor will this
bill have any fiscal impact.
If implemented, the bill will improve the conditions
of confinement for minors that are currently held in
adult facilities. Minors can be difficult to manage in
adult facilities and are often held in segregation
units.
1:39:07 PM
MS. DOMPELING continued to read prepared testimony on HB
105, as follows:
To accomplish this, the bill will require the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) to develop
agreements about the holding of minors who are in DOC
custody, who have been waived, but to have them in our
juvenile facilities with the Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ).
According to the Department of Corrections (DOC),
today there are approximately six minors in DOC
facilities who have been charged with autowaiver
offenses.
There's also a bulk of this bill, HB 105, that has
conforming updates to the definitions of DJJ
facilities and staff. These definitions have a real
impact on our work as well as youth safety.
The bill will also make recommendations for changes to
criminal statute after a case against a former DJJ
employee resulted in acquittal of sexual abuse, after
the lack of an updated definition of DJJ staff "for a
position of authority."
1:40:01 PM
In addition, HB 105 adds DJJ's staff to the list of
mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect.
In closing, we just appreciate the governor's support
in this important legislation, as well as the
cooperation of the Departments of Corrections (DOC),
Public Safety, and Law in the development of this
proposal. The Senate Health and Social Services
Committee made important changes to the Senate
companion of HB 105, SB 91, that are reflected in this
version of HB 105 before you today.
Thank you all for your consideration of this important
bill. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have
now or after Matt Davidson provides a quick summary of
key bill sections.
1:40:50 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND, in response to a question from the audience,
stated his intention to take public testimony on HB 105.
1:41:12 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), Juneau, Alaska, reported that the House Judiciary and
Health and Social Services committees passed HB 105 out with
amendments. The Senate Health and Social Services Committee also
passed SB 99, the Division of Juvenile Justice's Definitions
bill out of committee. As the director mentioned, HB 105 would
bring Alaska into compliance with the JJDPA.
MR. DAVIDSON highlighted the major sections of HB 105,
paraphrasing the sectional analysis of the CSHB 105(HSS):
Section 14 instructs the DOC to enter into agreements
with DHSS for the detention and care of minors who are
waived into the adult criminal justice system.
Section 17 updates the court findings and timing
necessary for non-delinquent minors, who are often
runaway minors or in the Office of Children's Services
when the court needs to hold these minors temporarily
in DJJ facilities pending another placement.
1:43:02 PM
Sections 22 and 25 update the autowaiver and
discretionary waiver statutes with a reference to the
new practice of holding waived minors in DJJ
facilities.
Section 26 adds a new subsection in DJJ statute
dealing with holding waived minors in DJJ facilities
and detailing the limited circumstances and processes
that allow for the exceptions to the new rule of
holding all minors in DJJ facilities until the minor
reaches the age of 18.
1:43:30 PM
Section 40 clarifies that court records related to
minors waived into the adult criminal justice system
are not considered confidential.
Section 41 authorizes the division to share important
information about waived minors under its
confidentiality statute.
1:44:04 PM
MR. DAVIDSON turned to SB 99, which was incorporated into HB
105. These provisions update the terms and definitions of DJJ
staff and facilities. The new definitions are found in Sections
44 through 46 but the bulk of the bill made conforming changes.
He highlighted that the major update was in Section 6, which
provided a definition for position of authority related to
sexual abuse of a minor. This change was made when a former DJJ
staff was acquitted of sexual abuse of a minor because the
statutory definition of position of authority did not
specifically list DJJ staff. Section 55 would add DJJ to the
mandatory reporting requirement for child abuse and neglect. The
bill also would update important DJJ statutes, codify best
practices and correct drafting errors from previous legislation
related to driver's licenses and underage drinking.
1:45:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the policy call to fix the drafting
issue appears to handle minor consuming citations in open court
rather than as minor offenses confidentially handled by DJJ.
1:46:25 PM
MR. DAVIDSON answered that this would codify the current
practices related to underage drinking. He stated that the
division does not have any authority over underage drinking. In
2016, the legislature passed Senate Bill 165 that changed rules
and made it clear underage drinking was a district court
offense; that those cases would not be referred to DJJ. That
bill also repealed statutes that referred habitual minor
consuming offenders to DJJ. Thus, HB 105 does not change the
current practices.
1:47:40 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated his intention was to introduce a bill next
year to consider whether the most serious offenders under the
age of 16 would be handled by DJJ. He referred to page 12, line
18 of HB 105, which uses probable cause but pointed out that
line 22 uses reasonable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.
He asked whether reasonable cause was a new term.
1:49:34 PM
MR. DAVIDSON responded that the language in Section 17 mirrored
a federal Act amended in 2018 related to the detention of status
offenders. This would only be used in rare cases, such as when a
minor in OCS custody was a runaway, placing himself/herself in
danger. In those instances, OCS would petition the court for an
arrest warrant, which permits law enforcement to temporarily
transport the runaway to a DJJ facility for his/her protection,
pending another non-secure placement. He was unsure of the
difference between reasonable cause and reasonable suspicion. He
stated that runaway minors have not committed any crime but the
court can still issue an arrest warrant. He reported that the
division reports about five of these cases per year to the
federal government.
1:51:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the statutes will now contain the terms
probable cause, reasonable cause and reasonable suspicion.
1:51:34 PM
MR. DAVIDSON responded that he could not speak to what terms are
used in other sections of law but this language pertains to AS
47.141, Child in Need of Aid (CINA) statutes. He explained that
this does not relate to a criminal proceeding but to a civil
proceeding in the statutes.
1:52:10 PM
SENATOR SHOWER referred to Section 17 on page 12. He noted that
lines 20, 22, 24, 27 and 30, each end with a semicolon. He said
he previously held discussions with the administration about
adding "and" after the semicolon. Although the administration
finds the semicolon means "and", it would be better to add an
"and" after the semicolon on each line. He suggested he could
offer a conceptual amendment to address this but deferred to
Legislative Legal to comment.
1:53:08 PM
At ease
1:53:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
1:54:19 PM
SENATOR SHOWER restated his question. He referred to page 12,
Section 17, and asked whether an "and" should be added after the
";" on lines 20, 22, 24, 27 and 30.
1:55:03 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, speaking as the attorney who drafted HB 105, answered
that "and" was implied in those instances. However, for the sake
of clarity an "and" could be added to line 30 after "court;" to
make it clear.
1:55:28 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that the department had suggested
that the most important one to clarify by adding "and" was on
line 30 to paragraph 5.
1:55:52 PM
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Legislative Liaison, Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), Anchorage, Alaska, agreed that the
department previously discussed this clarification with Senator
Shower. She said the department agrees that it makes sense to
clarify this, so it is clear that an order that an issued under
AS 47.10.141 (k) must include paragraphs (1) through (6).
1:56:30 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the bill is correct in its current form.
1:56:37 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM answered that adding an "and" after "court;" on
line 30 would add an additional level of clarity.
1:57:19 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
Alaska, concurred with the suggestion to add "and" on line 30
for clarity. She opined that the terms of probable cause and
reasonable cause had very minor differences in meaning, were
closely aligned, and would make little difference in any court
determination. She pointed out that Section 17 included two
different standards. Thus, if a child in OCS custody was a
runaway minor, the court would need to make a finding of
probable cause.
1:58:48 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for an explanation of the slight difference
between probable cause and reasonable cause.
1:58:57 PM
MS. MEADE answered that the difference in meaning was minuscule.
She described probable cause as the finding that a law
enforcement officer must make in order to believe that a
criminal action has taken place or was about to occur. She
viewed reasonable cause as slightly above probable cause, which
would be underpinned by more findings.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether all foster children are ordered to
be placed in foster homes by court order. She envisioned that
some children might run away from home when good parents set
appropriate parameters but these children could also be running
away from something bad that was occurring in the home. She
asked whether the foster child's record could be cleared if the
child fled from an unsafe situation. She pointed out that a
natural child who runs away from home would not be arrested or
be subject to a criminal record.
2:01:12 PM
MS. MEADE responded that all of these foster children would be
under 18 years of age, so their records would not be public
records. She explained that these situations arise in
exceedingly rare instances and the cases all relate to CINA.
When the foster parents inform OCS that their foster child is a
runaway, OCS would make a determination, but would not
immediately go to court to seek an arrest warrant unless there
was an underlying problem, such as that the child was a chronic
runaway, had a criminal record, or had difficulty adhering to
the current court order. She offered her belief that OCS would
need to determine that it had no other option except to place
the child at the McLaughlin Youth Center for a maximum of seven
days. She acknowledged that sometimes foster children leave
their foster homes to go someplace, such as the Covenant House
or they have a legitimate reason for leaving. In those
instances, OCS would not seek an arrest warrant to detain them
for seven days.
2:03:46 PM
MS. DOMPELING agreed that this process was rarely used. It is a
violation to have non-delinquent minors in secure facilities.
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act (JJRA) or JJDPA already have
standards in statute, which were made even more stringent for
non-delinquent status offenders to be held in DJJ facilities.
She agreed with Ms. Meade that in the past three years, this
process was used for about five youth per year.
2:04:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that this would mean that a nondelinquent
runaway would be placed in a DJJ facility. However, in order to
align with the new federal laws, minors who were charged as
adults would be in a DJJ facility until they reach 18 years of
age. She expressed concern that the DJJ facility could house a
runaway but also a murderer. She expressed concern about the
safety and security of youth housed at DJJ facilities. She asked
whether DJJ facilities were as secure as the adult prisons.
2:05:47 PM
MS. DOMPELING responded that DJJ occasionally houses individuals
under the age of 16 who have committed unclassified and class A
felonies. She explained that minors over the age of 16 are
waived minors. Thus, DJJ already encounters this situation.
However, DJJ provides its staff with information and training on
adolescent development, trauma and informed care and an
understanding of the adolescent mind. Thus, DJJ believes that it
can safely handle security for its youth, even when it brings in
16-year-old minors charged with felony offenses. Further, JJDPA
instituted even tighter guidelines for nondelinquent minors
being held in these facilities, she said.
2:07:38 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if DJJ facilities separate the "hard core
felons" from youth detained as runaways or if the population was
comingled.
2:08:13 PM
MS. DOMPELING answered that there could be comingling since DJJ
facilities are detention facilities. She said all DJJ facilities
are secure facilities. Nondelinquent youth can be held seven
days but they are usually in and out of their facilities fairly
quickly. She explained that youth were not locked in their rooms
but were kept busy in educational programming.
2:09:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that the state continues to struggle in
its adult facilities with low-level felons associating with
hardened offenders. Inappropriate behaviors can be modeled and
influence the low-level felons, she said. She related her
understanding that DJJ's goal was to limit comingling and place
the runaways as quickly as possible. She expressed concern that
someone being held for murder could adversely impact a runaway
teenager who was awaiting placement to another foster home.
2:10:03 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related his interest in working with the
department on a stand-alone bill in the next legislative session
to address these issues. He agreed that comingling presents
dangers, including predatory behavior. Since runaway teenagers
are more vulnerable, the issue needs to be solved.
2:10:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to the repealed statutes listed
at the end of the bill. He recalled that the first two statutes
being repealed relate to revocation of driver licenses. He said
he was unsure the impact that repealing these two sections would
have, in terms of the division's flexibility to consider each
case differently according to their needs.
2:11:40 PM
MR. DAVIDSON referred to the first two repealed statutes in
Section 56, which relate to the mandate that DJJ revoke driver's
licenses for minors charged with misconduct for possession of
controlled substances, such as possession of marijuana, whose
cases are handled informally. He explained that in 2016, the
legislature repealed the requirement that the division revoke
driver's licenses for similarly charged youth, who are
adjudicated delinquent for those same offenses. AS
47.12.060(b)(5) required the division to seek revocation of
driver's licenses when court cases are not pursued, such as for
possession of marijuana. The court still would still have
flexibility and the option to repeal licenses for those same
offenses or notify the Division of Motor Vehicles on license
revocations for misconduct involving weapons and controlled
substances.
2:13:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the division retains the ability to
revoke the individual's license in an informal resolution.
MR. DAVIDSON responded that DJJ could petition the court but the
statutes being repealed mandated revocation for all licenses for
misconduct involving weapons and controlled substances. He
explained that the license revocations are not related to
driving offenses but are made due to possession of a minor
amount of a controlled substance. The division has the option to
seek a more formal court order to revoke driver's licenses.
2:14:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that at that point the
division would no longer informally resolve the case.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that was correct.
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether DJJ anticipates any change to
recidivism. He asked how much federal money would be protected
by this change.
MS. DOMPELING asked whether he was speaking to the recidivism of
waived minors.
SENATOR SHOWER agreed.
2:15:42 PM
MS. DOMPELING responded yes. She stated that waived minors in
DJJ facilities would be required to participate in education
programs that the division partners within local school
districts. She related her understanding that DOC allowed the
option for waived minors to participate in educational
programming whereas DJJ required them to participate. She stated
that the lack of education was a criminogenic risk factor for
minors and adults. She explained that helping waived minors
obtain education, such as their high school diploma or GED,
before they turn 18 years of age was a step in the right
direction.
SENATOR SHOWER asked how much federal money this change would
protect.
2:16:57 PM
MS. DOMPELING answered that the grant award this fiscal year was
$425,000. If the award amount stayed the same, the 20 percent
penalty would total $85,000, it would take 50 percent of the
remaining balance of award for total compliance. She calculated
that of the $425,000 Title II grant award, the division could
use $225,000 for things not focused on compliance with the JJRA
but to get waived minors out of DOC facilities.
2:17:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND called on Senator Begich to speak to HB 105
because of his interest in juvenile justice.
2:18:11 PM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
provided his background in the juvenile justice system. He
stated that for 21 years he served on and chaired the Juvenile
Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC). He said he also served on the
National Association for Juvenile Justice, working on revisions
to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.
He said he worked on revisions to the Act in 1992, in the late
1990s and in the early 2000s. He reported that the current
federal funding is based on last year's authorization and
appropriation from the Department of Justice to the states.
Alaska receives the minimal base amount because of its
population but he anticipated the amount would increase. Under
the current administration's proposed budget, that amount will
increase. In the past, as much as $750,000 has been directly
connected to the "core requirements" of JJDPA Act, which was
referred to earlier.
He explained that some funding was previously directed to non
attendant care shelters. These grants were awarded to
communities to provide runaways with alternative facilities
rather than placing them in detention facilities. This also
frees up law enforcement officer time to attend to other police
business. He said it was worth noting that a number of these
facilities were set up around the state.
SENATOR BEGICH said he served on those committees under then
Governors Sheffield, Cowper, Hickel, Knowles, Murkowski and
Walker. JJAC's goal was to create the best juvenile justice
system in the country. This is part of that process. By
supporting DJJ with SB 99, which was incorporated in HB 105, it
will ensure the law passed in 2018 during the Trump
administration would continue to keep Alaska in compliance, not
lose federal funds and ensure that Alaska can continue to
provide alternatives throughout the state.
2:21:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked about the idea of comingling runaways with
felons such murderers.
2:15:31 PM
SENATOR BEGICH answered that he worked as director, of the
Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) for many years. During his tenure, there was
never an incident from comingling that led to further
victimization. The division trains its professional staff to
ensure that separation is maintained in a safe and secure
manner. He emphasized that developing alternatives for minors
rather than placing them in adult facilities was deemed more
appropriate because of their amenability to treatment. Those who
were deemed non-amenable to treatment were automatically waived
at the age of 16, although the court maintained jurisdiction to
waive those youth in cases of extreme culpability or non-
amenability to treatment. He offered his belief that DJJ was the
best place for all juveniles to be detained. Even though the
funding amounts are small compared to billion dollar budgets,
these funds leverage significant levels of alternatives to
detention. The loss of these federal funds would create more
risk not less.
2:23:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related that three committee members were
involved in the repeal of Senate Bill 91. She said that
rehabilitation was the next step. One vision was to use certain
facilities, such as the Palmer Correctional Facility, for only
low-level offenders and focus the effort on education and
rehabilitation to improve their chances. She emphasized the
importance of using that same concept for young people.
2:24:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to Section 41 on page 27. He stated that
the division touched briefly on the goal but he was unsure if he
understood the implications of the language on lines 22-25 in
subparagraph (E).
2:25:11 PM
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the intent of the changes to AS
47.12.310, DJJ's confidentiality statute, was to clarify that
DJJ can share appropriate information regarding a case involving
minors with DOC to facilitate the care, supervision and
rehabilitation of those minors. For example, DJJ sometimes
receives requests from DOC and wants to share medical
information for minors who graduated from DJJ but committed
another offense and were housed at DOC. The division has
authorization to share predisposition reports for classification
or other purposes. One intent was to share appropriate
information to allow DOC to aptly care for a former juvenile
offender. The other change was to clarify DJJ could share
information about waived minors.
MR. DAVIDSON referred to page 28 [Section 43], which addresses
sharing information on the class of waived minors being held in
DJJ temporarily pending their 18th birthday.
SENATOR KIEHL said the information was helpful, especially if
DOC were to move to the rehabilitation model Senator Hughes
mentioned. He expressed concern that the language would also
give law enforcement access to records. He asked whether that
was the intent.
2:27:56 PM
MR. DAVIDSON responded that the intent was not to allow all
juvenile records to be shared. He said AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(E)
would read, as follows:
AS 47.12.310(b) is amended to read:
(b) A state or municipal agency or employee shall
disclose
(2)appropriate information regarding a case
to ?
(E) a law enforcement or corrections agency
of this state or another jurisdiction as may be
necessary for the protection, rehabilitation, care, or
supervision of any minor or former juvenile offender
or for actions by that agency to protect the public
safety;".
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the division was very secure and it
does not share information with law enforcement agencies
indiscriminately. For example, DJJ would share information with
law enforcement if someone left DJJ without permission; the
division would work with law enforcement to bring the minor back
into custody.
2:29:28 PM
MS. DOMPELING related that DJJ might give information about
tattoos to assist law enforcement in identifying minors. She
characterized it as a continuity of care, that DJJ was more
rehabilitative-oriented. She asked why DOC should need to
compile information that could easily be shared.
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern that it would allow information
to be shared if law enforcement requested it. He suggested an
amendment could split it so the former offender information
could be provided to DOC but not change the law enforcement
provision.
2:32:20 PM
MS. DOMPELING responded that she did not think the division
would object if it made more sense to separate it. She did not
necessarily believe that separating it would change the scope of
what the division would provide to law enforcement. It would
just add more to the ability to provide information to DOC.
2:32:52 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony and after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
HB 105.
2:33:53 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 105,
on page 12, line 30 of Section 17, after ";" add "and".
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR SHOWER restated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would add
"and" on page 12, line 30 of Section 17, after ";".
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:34:35 PM
At ease
2:36:34 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:36:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to HB 105,
which read:
Pg. 27, line 24:
Delete "or former juvenile offender"
Pg. 28, following line 26:
Insert a new subparagraph
"(O) a corrections agency of this state or
another jurisdiction as may be necessary for the
protection, rehabilitation, care, or supervision
of a former juvenile offender"
2:36:50 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
2:37:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove
the language "former juvenile offender" and create a new
subparagraph (O) related to information that could be released
about former juvenile offenders. The intention was to clarify
what the administration intended but it would not open juvenile
justice records of former juvenile offenders to share with law
enforcement. This would limit disclosing information in
accordance with the department's intent.
2:37:54 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND related his understanding that Conceptual
Amendment 2 would remove the language "law enforcement" from
subparagraph (E) and not replicate it in subparagraph (O). He
asked if that was intentional.
2:38:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed it was intentional. He explained that law
enforcement would not be in subparagraph (O) because this
subparagraph relates to former offenders. This would allow DOC
to share information about former offenders.
CHAIR HOLLAND thanked him for the clarification.
2:38:35 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether the term "and" should be removed
from subparagraph (N). He suggested adding "and" after ";" in
subparagraph (O) as a conforming change.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that Legislative Legal Services would be
allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to
Conceptual Amendment 2.
2:38:58 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed. He asked whether Conceptual Amendment 2
would affect paragraph (3).
SENATOR SHOWER confirmed that was his previous question.
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection.
2:39:32 PM
MS. DOMPELING expressed concern that removing the language
"former juvenile offender" would mean that law enforcement could
only call for information on minors who were under DJJ's
jurisdiction. She related that her example of releasing
information on a minor with a tattoo was for a person who was no
longer under DJJ supervision. As an adult, the person would be
considered a former offender which might limit the scope and
shrink the information that could be shared.
2:40:43 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 would
restore the status quo for law enforcement sharing. In the
example Ms. Dompeling provided, DJJ would have same authority it
has today.
2:41:11 PM
MS. DOMPELING asked to have Conceptual Amendment 2 read.
2:41:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL restated the effect of the specific portion of
Conceptual Amendment 2 on page 27, line 24 that removed "or
former juvenile offender" from subparagraph (E). He read:
(b) A state or municipal agency or employee shall
disclose
(2) appropriate information regarding a case to ?
(E) a law enforcement or corrections agency
of this state another jurisdiction as may be necessary
for the protection, rehabilitation, care or
supervision of any minor or for actions by that agency
to protect the public safety;
SENATOR KIEHL stated that Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove
"or former juvenile offender." However, it would not take away
existing authority for the information sharing Ms. Dompeling
previously described. Instead, it would limit the expanded
authority to the Department of Corrections.
MS. DOMPELING, after reviewing the language, agreed that he was
correct. She said she did not have any other concerns.
2:42:38 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:43:01 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked for the will of the committee.
2:43:05 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report CSHB 105(HSS), as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, SCS HB 105(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|