Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/11/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB14 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 127 - CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO
1:42:41 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
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."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 127, Version 27-GH1840\M, Gardner, 2/24/11, which was
adopted as the work draft on 2/28/11 and amended; left pending
from that meeting on 2/28/11 was the motion to adopt Amendment 1
to Version M.]
CHAIR GATTO referred to Amendment 1, labeled 27-GH1840\M.1,
Gardner, 2/24/11, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "minor,":
Insert "criminal impersonation,"
Page 2, following line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 11.46.565(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal
impersonation in the first degree if
(1) the person
(A) [(1)] possesses an access device or
identification document of another person;
(B) [(2)] without authorization of the
other person, uses the access device or identification
document of another person to obtain a false
identification document, open an account at a
financial institution, obtain an access device, or
obtain property or services; and
(C) [(3)] recklessly damages the financial
reputation of the other person; or
(2) the person violates AS 11.46.570 and
the crime intended is a sex offense; in this
paragraph, "sex offense" has the meaning given in
AS 12.63.100."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1 - 12 and 15"
Insert "Sections 1 - 13 and 16"
Page 11, line 18:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 14 and 15"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, having made the motion to adopt Amendment 1
on 2/28/11, offered his belief that Amendment 1 has great
potential for benefit without causing harm, and expressed strong
support for HB 127.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting the previous debate on
Amendment 1, surmised that the question at this point is really
whether Amendment 1's proposed change to AS 11.46.565(a) belongs
in HB 127 specifically. Essentially, should criminal
impersonation during the commission of a sex crime be inserted
into the statutes dealing with property crimes?
1:45:01 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relaying
that the DOL has concerns about including Amendment 1 in HB 127,
opined that its proposed change isn't necessary, and that
adopting Amendment 1 could instead result in problems.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 1. Representatives Keller, Pruitt, Thompson,
Gruenberg, and Gatto voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 1-5.
[Amendment 2 to Version M was adopted on 2/28/11; Amendment 3 to
Version M was moved, discussed, and withdrawn on 2/28/11.]
1:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.3, Gardner, 3/3/11, which read:
Page 4, line 2:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 4, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "three or more people"
Insert "another person"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected.
1:48:10 PM
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature - noting that Amendment 4 addresses [proposed
AS 11.61.116,] which establishes the crime of sending an
explicit image of a minor - relayed on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gruenberg, that [in part,] Amendment 4 would
remove language in proposed AS 11.61.116(c) stipulating that it
would be a violation to send an explicit image of a minor to one
or two people.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected to note that members'
packets contain two memorandums dated March 10, 2011, that
address proposed AS 11.61.116(c) and Amendment 4.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
MS. STAFT, continuing with her explanation of Amendment 4,
indicated that it would also alter the language of AS
11.61.116(c) such that it would then be a class B misdemeanor to
send an explicit image of a minor to another person - regardless
of how many other persons. Amendment 4 addresses a concern that
as currently written, proposed AS 11.61.116(c) would make
sending an explicit image of a minor to only one or two people a
lesser crime - a mere violation - than that of sending an
explicit image of an adult, which is currently a class B
misdemeanor under AS 11.61.120(a)(6). It was felt that it would
be inappropriate to make such a crime involving a minor less
severe than one involving an adult. However, Amendment 4 would
not change the language in proposed AS 11.61.116(c) stipulating
that it would be a class A misdemeanor to send an explicit image
of a minor to an Internet website accessible to the public.
MS. STAFT, in response to a question, confirmed that in the
original version of HB 127, it would have been a class C felony
to send an explicit image of a minor to an Internet website
accessible to the public.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to another question, explained that
it was felt by some that making that behavior a class C felony,
as the original bill proposed, constituted a pretty major change
in existing law, and it would therefore be better at this point
in time if that behavior constituted a class A misdemeanor
instead.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 4.
1:55:35 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services
(DHSS), relayed that he'd written one of the aforementioned
memorandums. That memorandum [additionally] explains how
juvenile offenders who commit violations are managed compared to
how juvenile offenders who commit misdemeanor crimes are
managed. Specifically, juveniles who commit violations are
managed via district court, not via the juvenile justice system
(JJS). By making all crimes of sending an explicit image of a
minor misdemeanors, as Amendment 4 proposes, all juveniles who
commit that crime would fall under the purview of the JJS.
CHAIR GATTO, ascertaining that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 4 was adopted.
1:57:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.4, Gardner, 3/9/11, which read:
Page 9, lines 15 - 16:
Delete ", consistent with regulations adopted
under (i) of this section,"
Page 9, line 24, following "(d)":
Insert "Service of a subpoena issued under (b) of
this section may be by any method authorized by law or
acceptable to the Internet service provider."
Page 9, line 26:
Delete "setting aside"
Insert "quashing"
Page 10, lines 12 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(i) For purposes of this section, the attorney
general's designee must be in the Department of Law."
CHAIR GATTO objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the DOL is requesting Amendment 5,
which would in part delete language in proposed AS 44.23.080
regarding the adoption of regulations pertaining to the issuance
of an administrative subpoena. After researching various other
statutory provisions pertaining to administrative subpoenas, it
was determined that none of them provided for regulations to be
adopted. As an alternative, Amendment 5 would then add language
stipulating that service of a subpoena may be made by any manner
authorized by law or acceptable to the Internet service
provider. Amendment 5 would also replace the term, "setting
aside" with the term, "quashing" - which is the more common term
used when discussing subpoenas - and would clarify that the
attorney general's designee must be [another employee within]
the DOL. This latter change would address a concern that
proposed AS 44.23.080 didn't specify who could be the designee.
CHAIR GATTO removed his objection, ascertained that there were
no further objections, and announced that Amendment 5 was
adopted.
2:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.5, Gardner, 3/9/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "distribution of indecent material to
minors,"
Page 4, line 22, through page 5, line 10:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1 - 12 and 15"
Insert "Sections 1 - 11 and 14"
Page 11, line 18:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 12 and 13"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that amendment 6 would delete
Section 9, which is proposing to alter AS 11.61.128(a), which
pertains to the crime of distribution of indecent material to
minors.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to comments, clarified that a
[federal district court] judge has issued an injunction against
enforcing the provisions of AS 11.61.128 that were adopted last
year; that the state has submitted a motion [to that court]
asking that the case be removed to state court; and that each
side has submitted a motion asking for summary judgment. She
went on to explain that Section 9 - addressing subsection (a) of
AS 11.61.128 - was initially included in the bill to clarify
what culpable mental state was required for the crime of
distribution of indecent material to minors, and both parties in
the aforementioned lawsuit thought that doing so would be
helpful. Currently, it's the rest of [AS 11.61.128] that is
under judicial review.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that at one
point, some had thought that including Section 9 in the bill
might help resolve that litigation, but because it's since
became clear that it wouldn't, the thought now is that it would
be simpler to just delete proposed Section 9, as Amendment 6 is
proposing to do.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that it's the DOL's position that it would
instead be better to retain Section 9 because it wouldn't affect
the litigation and retaining it would clarify the law, which,
again, both parties in the litigation have agreed would be a
good idea. She added, though, that she did not think it would
be worthwhile to hold the bill up [over this issue].
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no longer any
objections to Amendment 6, announced that Amendment 6 was
adopted.
[Due to technical difficulties, the recording did not capture
several seconds' worth of dialog during which the chair informed
committee members that the bill as amended was now before them
and that he would entertain a motion.]
2:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 127, Version 27-GH1840\M, Gardner,
2/24/11, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 127(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.