Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/22/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB24 | |
| HB164 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB97 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to the crimes of stalking, online
enticement of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a
minor, endangering the welfare of a child, sending an
explicit image of a minor, harassment, distribution of
indecent material to minors, and misconduct involving
confidential information; relating to probation; and
providing for an effective date."
1:42:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that his intent was not to report
the crime bills [HB 127 and HB 175] out that day, but to
begin an in-depth discussion about them.
JOHN J. BURNS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
testified in favor of both HB 127 and HB 175. He noted that
HB 175 was a housekeeping bill that would clarify and
correct statutory revisions made the prior year.
Attorney General Burns informed the committee that the
focus of HB 127 (as proposed by the governor) was to expand
the crimes of stalking and misconduct involving the
acquisition and misuse of confidential information; it
would expand the scope of crimes associated with online
enticement and exploitation of minors. He asserted that the
state was firmly focused on ending the epidemic of sexual
assault and domestic violence that had been plaguing
Alaskan communities. He reviewed statistics:
· The incidence of sexual abuse among Alaskan children
was six times the national average.
· Alaskan women were raped two-and-one-half times more
often than the national average.
· 60 percent of Alaskan women had been physically or
sexually assaulted or seriously threatened with
assault.
Attorney General Burns explained that HB 127 had been built
on legislation implemented the prior year, and proposed
important changes that would further protect victims from
exploitation and assault. In addition to amending and
clarifying aspects of existing statutes, HB 127 would
expand the crime of stalking by amending the definition of
"non-consensual contact" and make it a crime to use a
global positioning system (GPS) device to follow or monitor
a victim, or to install or attempt to install devices to
observe, record, or photograph events occurring in the
home, workplace, or vehicle of a victim, or on a victim's
personal telephone or computer.
1:45:53 PM
Attorney General Burns continued that the amended
definition reflected the reality of current technology and
the illicit uses to which it was being applied. House Bill
127 would also make it a crime to distribute an explicit
image of a minor and to knowingly obtain or misuse
confidential information about another person without legal
authority or consent. Finally, in addition to various
amendments and sentencing reclassifications, HB 127 would
improve upon law enacted the prior year to allow the
attorney general (or the attorney general's designee) to
issue administrative subpoenas to law enforcement officials
to obtain limited information from an internet services
provider (ISP) if there was probable cause to believe that
an internet service account was being used in connection
with the crimes of the online enticement of a minor,
unlawful exploitation of a minor, or the distribution or
possession of child pornography.
Attorney General Burns concluded that the objective of HB
127 was consistent with efforts to eradicate sexual assault
and domestic violence in Alaska. He urged support of the
legislation.
Representative Guttenberg queried the administrative
subpoena for an internet service provider. He asked how
providers from outside Alaska would be dealt with.
Attorney General Burns replied that the intent of the
proposal was to allow the service of an administrative
subpoena either as currently lawfully provided or as
acceptable to the internet service provider, in order to
facilitate the process of service. Currently, the law
related to an administrative subpoena provided for
signature only by the attorney general, and the service had
to be either through certified mail or by process server.
House Bill 127 would facilitate the service of
administrative subpoenas through other, additional means.
Representative Guttenberg summarized that the subpoena
would only be serviceable by mutual consent.
Attorney General Burns replied that the subpoena would be
allowed as authorized by law or through mutual consent.
1:48:35 PM
Representative Wilson questioned the fiscal notes, which
she pointed out were indeterminate or zero. She wondered
whether there were statistics about who would fall under
the categories.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, replied that
she assumed the question related to the expansion of the
definition of non-consensual contact, or stalking. She
stated that there were no statistics, because the
activities were not currently against the law. She added
that there was information from other jurisdictions that
the described acts had been done by stalkers. She pointed
out that to convict someone of stalking, it had to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person
committed the acts of non-consensual contact with the
intent to terrorize the victim or to put the victim in fear
of death or physical injury. The legislation contained a
definition of non-consensual contact and what that would
include.
Representative Wilson asked whether there were statistics
from other states with the laws already in place.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she was not familiar with the
statistics, but offered to look for more information.
Representative Wilson acknowledged that there was a need
for the definition. She thought zero and indeterminate
fiscal notes made it hard to calculate the financial
impact.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the state did not anticipate a
large number of cases, but wanted the statute to be changed
so that there would be provisions to address the situation
if it came up.
Representative Costello believed that the bill would
prohibit graphic texting, regardless of whether a minor
initiated the action or forwarded something.
Attorney General Burns responded that she was correct.
Representative Costello noted that the bill would clarify
that a child under the age of 16 years of age could not be
left alone with a person who had to register as a child
kidnapper. She asked whether the law already addressed
those who had to register as sex offenders.
1:52:24 PM
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the item was considered a
housekeeping amendment; the statute prohibited a parent
from leaving a child under 16 years of age with a person
who was required to register as a sex offender; for some
reason, it did not include people who had to register as
child kidnappers.
Representative Doogan queried how harassment would be
applied by the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that the amendment to the harassment
statute in HB 127 was only conforming, to make it clear
that the "sexting" provision (created in another section)
was not duplicative in the harassment section.
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the word "sexting."
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the word was not in the bill,
but was in common usage.
Representative Doogan asked how the issue of misconduct
involving confidential information would be applied in the
bill.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the item would be a new crime.
Representative Doogan queried the issue of probation.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that current statute required that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) provided qualified
probation officers to the superior court. She added that
superior court meant felony crimes. Historically, Alaska
had never had probation officers for supervised probation
for misdemeanants, primarily because it would be enormously
expensive. However, there had been an experimental program
tried by a group of people in the criminal justice system
(the PACE [Probationer Accountability with Certain
Enforcement] program); a discreet group of misdemeanor
defendants were stringently supervised during probation to
ascertain what difference could be made. House Bill 127
would clarify that courts would not be able to appoint
probation officers to every misdemeanant, unless the
commissioner of DOC agreed.
Representative Gara expressed concerns about the
administrative subpoena. He pointed out that historically,
a subpoena could only be issued by a court; the prior year,
legislative authority had been given to allow the attorney
general to issue some subpoenas. He asked what form would
have to be used so that the defendant knew they got the
subpoena and had the time to challenge its validity.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that at the current time, there would
not be a defendant to notify. She referred to testimony by
Sgt. DeGraff the prior year related to investigations based
on probable cause that a particular internet account was
being used to perpetrate child pornography crimes or online
enticement of a minor. The bill would allow law enforcement
to obtain information about the account from an internet
service provider; the administrative subpoenas would only
go to internet service providers, so there would not be a
defendant at that point.
1:57:37 PM
Representative Gara summarized that the person gone after
would not know.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that he was correct. She added that
there would be limited information about an identity; at a
certain point, the defendant would have the right to get
the information, if there were criminal charges.
Representative Gara asked why the state could not simply
rely on the courts to determine whether a subpoena was
valid.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that crimes involving computer and
internet use and involving child and pornography moved
swiftly; the information had to be obtained as quickly as
possible in order to isolate the computer being used. The
alternative was to go to the judge and get a search
warrant, but for a quicker investigation with limited
information. She noted the provision was the same as the
one passed the previous legislative session to find out
where the computer was.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the stakes were high for the
children involved.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the bill could be
applied to the activities of the Transportation Security
Agency (TSA). She referred to concerns that the images
taken in airports could be used as inappropriate material.
She believed pat-down procedures were being conducted at an
unnecessary rate and raised questions about inappropriate
touching. She wanted to fight for Alaskans' rights to
privacy.
Mr. Burns responded that issues relative to the TSA were
being evaluated.
2:02:14 PM
Representative Edgmon thanked the governor for his emphasis
on the issue represented in HB 127. He referred to the bill
heard earlier during the session related to synthetic
marijuana. He wondered about rural Alaska and getting ahead
of the technology curve with the legislation.
Mr. Burns responded that the department was trying to keep
up with the technology; he thought the present use of the
internet for the described uses was "appalling." He stated
that HB 127 intended to achieve the ability for law
enforcement to intercept through the administrative
subpoena process; it would not take the place of a warrant,
but would allow law enforcement to hone in on the activity.
Representative Edgmon remarked that GPS units were used
throughout the state. He wondered whether the GPS device
would have state application.
Mr. Burns responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Carpeneti commented that the additions to the
definition of non-consensual contact were part of the
stalking statute, which provided that a person committed
the crime if they recklessly placed another person in fear
of death or physical injury by engaging in a course of
conduct that reasonably frightened them. The proposed new
ways of contacting a person would be in addition to those
already stipulated in statute.
Vice-chair Fairclough remarked that victims of rape,
incest, or child abuse felt the same as those who were
patted down by the agents of the TSA. She expressed
frustration.
Representative Guttenberg asked how an individual ISP could
be focused on in public places that had many computers,
such as internet cafes. He described experience with
wireless routers. He wondered whether there was something
in the bill that would help focus on a perpetrator.
2:08:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed out that there would be more
details when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took
the state to court.
Representative Gara pointed to a provision on page 3, line
24 and wondered whether an amendment would be needed. He
noted that the provision related to "sexting" was aimed at
preventing abuse of people under 16 years of age, and that
certain body parts (which he would not read into the record
as they sounded bad) applied. However, the bill did not say
that the body parts had to be uncovered. He queried the
intent.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the terms were used in many
places in Title 11; the intent related to unclothed body
parts.
Representative Gara asked whether it was written anywhere
in the statutes that the body parts had to be unclothed in
order to prosecute someone. He asked whether the word
"genitals" was defined in relation with being uncovered.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that the issue had never come up;
she assumed the meaning was unclothed.
Representative Gara expressed discomfort with the language;
he wanted more than intent. He did not want a person to be
prosecuted for texting clothed body parts. He was not
convinced that the language in the bill was clear enough
and questioned the need for an amendment.
2:11:40 PM
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the item was defined as an
explicit image. She thought a court decision addressing the
issue could be found. She added that the intent was not to
prohibit sending pictures of clothed people.
Vice-chair Fairclough opined that people could be clothed
and the image could still be explicit. She thought the
current language had been sufficient in the past. She
pointed out that people could dress children up in sexually
provocative ways before creating inappropriately explicit
images.
Vice-chair Fairclough believed Representative Gara's intent
had been put into the record. She thought it was right to
point out there could still be a violation with the
presence of clothing.
Representative Doogan believed the bill would do two
things: raise the classification in three cases from Class
B to Class C felonies, and insert a few new crimes that
were Class B felonies. He asked why the penalties needed to
be increased in the first cases.
Ms. Carpeneti believed there had been a misunderstanding;
the new crimes added were misdemeanors, not felonies. The
bill would raise the crime of online enticement of a minor
(currently a Class C felony for most first-time offenders
and a Class B felony for sex offenders or child kidnappers)
up one level. The rationale was that the crimes were very
serious and caused enormous harm to children.
Ms. Carpeneti continued that the crime of the unlawful
exploitation of a minor (the creation of child pornography
using children) would be raised to a Class B felony for all
offenders; under current law, the crime was a Class B
felony for the first offense and a Class A felony for a
second conviction of the offense. The rationale for the
increase was the seriousness of the conduct.
2:16:32 PM
Representative Doogan pointed to Section 9 of the sectional
analysis, which he thought communicated that the bill would
create a new crime that was a Class B felony.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that Section 9 would create
misconduct involving confidential information in the first
and second degree (Class A and Class B misdemeanors).
Representative Doogan referred to the sections in which the
felony level would be raised up and asked whether the
levels had been set the previous session.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the particular crimes and levels
had not been created recently. She added that unlawful
exploitation of a minor was created when the criminal code
was created in 1978 and had been enacted in 1980; online
enticement of a minor was enacted in the early 2000s.
HB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to the crimes of stalking, online
enticement of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a
minor, endangering the welfare of a child, sending an
explicit image of a minor, harassment, distribution of
indecent material to minors, and misconduct involving
confidential information; relating to probation; and
providing for an effective date."
Representative Gara returned to discussion of HB 127. He
questioned the intent of the bill regarding texting images
of body parts. He wanted to know whether the intent was to
refer to body parts that were only uncovered.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the intent of the legislation
related to unclothed body parts; in sexual assault and
sexual abuse situations, the terms generally meant
unclothed.
Representative Wilson wondered whether dressing a 12-year-
old in lingerie would be allowable. She thought there were
more issues that needed to be discussed.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the House Judiciary Committee
had reviewed the bill and limited it because of concerns
about the breadth of scope and constitutional issues. The
proposed law was more limited than it had been originally.
She asked whether the committee intended to broaden it.
Representative Wilson thought that the intent needed to be
clear if the state was going to be able to protect
children.
Ms. Carpeneti added that HB 127 had a fairly limited focus.
She pointed out that there were other provisions (related
to "unlawful exploitation of a minor") that would cover
more serious conduct. The provisions prohibited putting
children in certain positions and creating images of them.
Representative Gara did not understand how a bill that
would create new crimes that could result in people going
to jail could have a zero Department of Corrections fiscal
note.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Executive Orders Info.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 CFR Costs.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 -HR0009A.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Null & Void article.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 NYC v FCC Syllabus.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 stroke of pen.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 sponsor.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Supremacy-10th Amend.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Utah Em. Dom. Article.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB10-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Email Mike O'Meara 3-15-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Fax AARP 3-14-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11 Summary.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Sponsor Statement ver M.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24-NEWFNCCED-RCA-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Letter GCI 3-15-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| CSHB64-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 CS Section Changes.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB64_Vehicle CountsDMV.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB64 NEWFN-DEC-AQ-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| 02 HB 097 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 04 HB 097 Invasive Weeds and Agriculture Pest Coordinator Accomplishments.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB 097 LOS AK Comte for Noxious and Inv Plants Mgment.PDF |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097 Report on the Alaska Weed Project.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB 097 LOS AK Sealife Center.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097 Testify Zaumzeil.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097_Perception_of_an_Invasive_Species.PDF |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| HB 105 AFA Letter of Support 1.12.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Parcel Maps 12.20.2010.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Public Briefing 1.24.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Land Ownership and Mill Status.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 SE Land Summary 2.22.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Trends Populations Projections 2010-2034.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Value Added 3.8.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Vicinity Map 12-20-2010.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB_141_Sponsor_Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Sectional_Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_ GOAC3.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_DuncanFeilds.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_Ivanof Bay Tribe.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_SWAMC.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_ BVI.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_Yakutat.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB147 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Chair of State Board 1-25-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Alaska Socity of CPAs 2-1-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| CSHB164(L&C) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| CSHB164(L&C) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 175 Explanation of Changes CD JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Sponsor statement CS JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sectional CS JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 141 NOAA Alaska Fisheries report 4pgs..pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB 10 AML Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB97 Letter.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 97 |
| HB 64 AML Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB164 Fosselman Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |