Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/05/2018 01:30 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 | |
| HB312 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
2:57:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting,
or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties
for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license
violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and
amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game
offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for
certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to
commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching
funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop -
Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution;
adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an
effective date."
3:00:31 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, advised that
HB 129 is a governor's bill, it does not affect the court system
much at all, and that the Alaska Court System (ACS) is
completely neutral on the bill. She related that she was asked
to respond to certain questions raised in the last committee
meeting regarding restitution and fines. While it does not
matter to the court system what is in the bill, she said she
could assist in understanding a little bit about where the money
goes when the court "orders some of this stuff." She referred
to Sec. 17, AS 16.05.925(b), page 5, lines 10-26, and advised
that it adjusts the restitution amount that may be ordered for
someone convicted of unlawfully taking one of the mammals listed
in subsection (b) and increases those amounts. Routinely, the
court orders restitution in cases that involve the unlawful
taking of game and there are a series of regulations that come
up when violated, under which people are convicted. When people
are convicted for those misdemeanors they may receive a fine and
this restitution. She advised that in speaking with judges in
some of the areas where these cases would arise, she believes
that restitutions are generally ordered in the amounts listed.
In the event someone does unlawfully take a moose, for example,
it is fairly routine in certain areas to order $1,000 in
restitution, and under AS 16.05.925(b)(8) that amount would
change to $2,500, she said.
3:02:25 PM
MS. MEADE, in response to the question as to the fiscal impact
of these increases, responded that the court system does not
track fine amounts or restitution amounts, according to statute,
so she could not locate "a great answer." Although, she said,
she could determine how many misdemeanor convictions had taken
place for the unlawful taking of game by going through all of
the regulations. She advised that in the last couple of years
it has varied from a low of 29 cases per year to 45 cases per
year. (Audio difficulties) 30 or 35 per year and maybe up to
$1,000 more would be ordered in restitution, roughly there may
be $70,000 ordered in total for restitution. She said she could
get the numbers for total fish and game restitutions ordered,
except there is restitution for "lots of things" other than just
the unlawfully taking of game, such as commercial fishing and
"all sorts of stuff." In 2017, approximately $100,000 in total
fish and game restitution was ordered, and in 2016 $20,000 was
ordered in restitution, so it varies depending upon "what's
going on out there" and what cases come to court. She related
that she also learned, by looking at how much of those dollars
are actually paid as opposed to ordered, that when it comes to
fish and game restitution as opposed to other criminal
restitution, a large percentage is paid. Of the $100,000 owed
in 2017, approximately $65,000 was paid, which is a higher
percentage of recovery than from the other crimes.
3:04:26 PM
MS. MEADE referred to "how the money works" and explained that
the court signs an order, there may be a fine, restitution, or
other things going on, and then the court is finished with the
case. Except, people can pay the court anytime, but many people
do not. Previously, after 30-days the court clerks would send
all of its judgments to the Department of Law Collections
Section and it would try to collect on behalf of victims'
restitution and collect court fines, except that section "went
away." The Department of Administration then "sort of" revised
and revived that section as the Shared Services of Alaska (SSOA)
Division within the Department of Administration. The SSOA
currently collects fines and "lots of other things that the
court orders," with the exception of restitution. Currently,
she offered, the court collects restitution and SSOA collects
every other debt a person might owe after a criminal case. She
opined that it probably is not important to the committee "who
is trying to collect what on behalf of whom" when all of the
criminal debts someone may owe is deposited straight into the
general fund and it does not go to anyplace else.
When the court collects restitution, it goes to a named victim
injured in a criminal case because restitution may be owed for
the value of the person's car, or medical bills after an
assault. Except, she pointed out, in fish and game cases, the
restitution in Section 17 goes to the state because it is the
state's loss of fish and game. The state collects that
restitution and puts it straight into the general fund where it
stays and is not dedicated anywhere, she opined.
3:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that given that
explanation, he could not understand why there was not a
positive fiscal note for this legislation.
MS. MEADE said that of course the court system would not have a
fiscal note because it does not care what it is collecting or on
the benefit of whom. She then deferred to the department to
answer the question and said that she did not know that anyone
ever submits fiscal notes for the general fund.
3:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that she found it perplexing that
there would not be a fiscal note for the general fund.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that all could agree that whoever it is that
is supposed to submit a fiscal note for the general fund, it is
not the court system.
3:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to [CSHB 129, Sec. 4, AS
16.05.430(a), page 2, lines 27-31 and page 3, lines 1-2] and
advised that there were probably "a few other sections around"
that refer to "things are punishable" instead of "by a fine of
not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 6
months, or by both." It read: "punishable as provided in AS
12.55," and Representative LeDoux asked the amount of the fine
under AS 12.55.
MS. MEADE responded that AS 12.55 is in the criminal penalty
section of the statutes, and that Representative LeDoux probably
previously saw AS 12.55 in crime bills mostly. Currently, she
said, the fish and game laws have many unclassified misdemeanors
as this wording read: "it is guilty of a misdemeanor with a
specified punishment." She explained that Section 4 would "get
rid of that specific punishment," change it to a class A
misdemeanor, and treat it in the same manner as any other class
A misdemeanor under Title 11, such as an assault and so forth.
Those class A misdemeanor penalties under AS 12.55 have a
maximum fine of $25,000 with minimum and maximum imprisonments.
She reiterated that the effect of that provision changes the
minimum and maximum prison term and changes the fine from $1,000
up to a maximum of $25,000.
3:09:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented "that's a huge change," and
asked whether this was actually intended. Her concern is that
for most criminals, whether the fine is $500 or $500,000, the
problem is that so many of the people arrested for petty
offenses do not have the money at all. Except, she pointed out,
with a fish and game violation, some of these people actually
have the money to pay the fine. For example, fishermen might
just pay the fine in order to get back out on the fishing
grounds. She said she was unsure the state necessarily wanted to
increase those fine from what the legislature previously thought
should not be punishable for a fine of over $1,000 to go up to
$25,000, because "that's a heck of a leap."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she would like to speak
with "whoever, you know, came up with this language, whether
this was actually the intent. And, if it was in fact the
intent, some rationale for what the intent was to increase it by
... is that 25-fold or is it 25,000-fold?"
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that it was 25-fold and advised the
committee that Representative LeDoux was discussing that the
maximum penalty on a misdemeanor goes to $25,000 under the
current status of class A misdemeanors. He deferred to Aaron
Peterson, Department of Law.
3:11:52 PM
AARON PETERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special
Prosecutions, responded that Representative LeDoux exactly
identified (audio difficulties) and potential fine amounts on
some of the offenses, and that is a policy question.
CHAIR CLAMAN interrupted Mr. Peterson and pointed out that on
the one hand it is a policy (audio difficulties) making and
presenting this bill. Chair Claman expressed that he would not
accept an answer saying that this is a policy call for the
legislature because this is a governor's bill.
3:12:39 PM
MR. PETERSON explained that some of these offenses should be in
line with other class A misdemeanors in that some of the
affected offenses change, for example, under Sec. 11 [AS
16.05.783(c), page 4, lines 10-16], (audio difficulties) from
$5,000 to $25,000. In effect, he noted, throughout Title 16, it
makes the fine amount and the jail time amount uniform with
other class A misdemeanors found under Title 11 (audio
difficulties) in statute. He pointed out that in several places
there are additional (audio difficulties) to reduce those
misdemeanors down to violations, which was discussed in the
previous hearing. The rationale is making it uniform while
giving the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Department
of Law (DOL) the ability to, where appropriate, reduce to a
violation and the smaller maximum fine under AS 12.55.035 of
$500, and they do not carry (audio difficulties) making it
uniform with statutes in other sections.
3:14:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that the administration went
through this bill last week and she did not think that the issue
of the big fine increase was necessarily pointed out to this
committee, and she believed that is something worth mentioning.
[HB 129 was held over.]