Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/27/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2019
2:02 p.m.
2:02:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Anthony Newman, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile
Justice, Department of Health and Social Services; Nancy
Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Kelly Howell,
Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department
of Public Safety; Michael Duxbury, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety; Kelly Goode, Deputy Director,
Department of Corrections; Representative Matt Claman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Robert Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law; Jennifer Winkelman, Director, Division of Probation
and Parole, Department of Corrections; Mike Coons, Self,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
2:04:32 PM
ANTHONY NEWMAN, PROGRAM OFFICER, DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
referenced the adopted committee substitute (CS) version
[committee substitute for HB 20, Work Draft 31-LS0253\C
(Radford, 4/26/19) that was adopted during the earlier
10:00 a.m. 4/27/19 meeting] and explained how it affected
the division. He reported that on page 13, Section 22
regarding electronic monitoring, the CS changed the crime
of escape in the third degree. He read from the bill:
(3) while under official detention for a misdemeanor,
(A) removes, tampers with, or disables the electronic
monitoring equipment; or (B) without prior
authorization, leaves one's residence or other place
designated by the commissioner of corrections or the
commissioner of health and social services for service
by electronic monitoring;
Mr. Newman confirmed that the Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ) placed electronic monitors on juveniles and noted
that the division believed the provision was a useful tool
for the small number of youths placed on electronic
monitors. He understood that fewer than 12 juveniles were
placed on the monitors at any given time.
2:05:54 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked whether a felony charge remained
on the record of a youth who was placed on electronic
monitoring. Mr. Newman responded that a felony adjudication
for juveniles remained on their record. However,
confidentiality laws required that the information was not
shared with others.
Representative Carpenter clarified that a juvenile that
tampered with their electronic monitoring would be charged
with a felony. Mr. Newman responded in the affirmative if
the crime of escape in the third degree was a felony.
2:07:42 PM
Representative Knopp asked whether a juvenile felony charge
would carry over to their adult record.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
understood that the charge was handled by DJJ and the
juvenile was adjudicated rather than convicted of a felony.
The felony adjudication stayed on a person's record within
the Department of Public Safety's APSIN (Alaska Public
Safety Information Network) system but was not published
publicly. She qualified that exceptions existed for
juveniles waived into adult court where felony convictions
were a matter of public record.
Representative Knopp had concerns with a felony showing up
on a juvenile's records for less serious crimes like
escape. He was not 100 percent comfortable with that idea.
Representative Merrick learned that a base station was
required for an ankle monitor. She was wondering if the
base station was interpreted as part of the monitoring
equipment. She read the phrase from the bill, "removes,
tampers with, or disables the electronic monitoring
equipment." She wondered what happened if some else
tampered with the equipment. Ms. Mead deferred to the
Department of Corrections (DOC) for questions regarding
electronic monitoring equipment; she was not familiar with
how the devices worked. She deduced that tampering with any
piece of the electronic monitor was included in the
statute. Representative Merrick wanted to ensure that a
defendant was not blamed for tampering with equipment they
did not alter.
Co-Chair Wilson deferred the question until knowledgeable
testifiers from DOC were available to answer questions
regarding electronic monitoring.
2:11:21 PM
Representative Josephson liked the committee substitute for
HB 20. He cited the Class C felony issue for drug
possession. He wondered who the experts were for
[treatment] programs or options and their availability. He
expressed interest in imposing conditions on the defendant
like inpatient treatment. He wanted to provide an
opportunity for the drug user to avoid felony charges if
they carried out the conditions. He wanted to know what all
the available options were before he crafted an amendment.
Ms. Mead pointed out that one of the provisions of SB 91-
Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure; Corrections [CHAPTER 36 SLA
16 - 07/11/2016] created the very mechanism he was
referring to, called the Suspended Entry of Judgement (SEJ)
which was a tool for suspending a judgement. The provision
was not being repealed. She noted that it was different
from a Suspended Imposition of Judgement (SIJ). She
explained that if the defendant pleaded guilty, he could
enter into a deal with a prosecutor for a suspended
judgement under a probationary term that could include
treatment or other conditions. Once the defendant met the
required conditions, the case would be dismissed. She
referenced John Skidmore's [Director, Criminal Division,
Department of Law] earlier testimony that he hoped to
employ SEJ more often for cases like drug possession. She
suggested talking with someone from the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) or the Mental Health
Trust Authority to find out about program availability.
Co-Chair Wilson was concerned about the court ordering
treatment that did not exist in certain areas of the state.
She wondered if the judges were provided a list of programs
available and their locations. Ms. Mead thought it was
generally true that judges in Anchorage were aware of the
available programs in Anchorage. She clarified that a judge
did not order treatment to any specific program in any area
of the state. She indicated that a discussion had already
occurred between the prosecutor, the defense, and the
defendant where everyone agreed to the course of action,
particularly with an SEJ or deferred sentencing. The court
could not impose an impossible condition since the
conditions were negotiated in advance of the hearing.
However, treatment as a condition of probation was
different because the court would not know where a person
would want to live after they fulfilled their sentence.
2:16:37 PM
Co-Chair Wilson had a question regarding the pretrial tool.
She asked if the courts saw validity in the pretrial tool.
Ms. Mead suggested that some judges liked the tool, and
some did not. She continued that Judiciary did not take an
official position on the tool and because it is the law the
judge and attorneys referred to it. She could not comment
further on the use of the tool. Co-Chair Wilson deduced
that if the pretrial tool was merely advisory, it would
mean that a judge could use their own discretion and "not
be forced into a decision." Ms. Mead reminded the committee
that SB 54-Crimes; Sentencing; Probation; Parole [CHAPTER 1
4SSLA 17 - 11/26/2017] fixed the issue regarding mandatory
bail statutes requiring mandatory release dependent on the
tool's score. The law currently operated under the
presumption of release unless clear and convincing evidence
was presented to demonstrate a threat to public safety or
failure to appear. She characterized the tool currently as
essentially advisory and for serious felonies or any crime
against a person where the judge had no presumption. The
judge would be able to use the tool in a strictly advisory
capacity if all presumption was eliminated, returning to
how judges functioned prior to SB 91.
2:20:59 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked how much sentences were increased
for drug traffickers versus drug users in the CS.
KELLY HOWELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, deferred the answer
to Deputy Commissioner Duxbury who prior to his current
position was the department's commander of the statewide
drug enforcement unit.
Representative Josephson discussed the relevance of
provisions regarding DNA samples in relation to rape kits
in the governor's version of the crime bill. He hoped the
department would provide an opinion about the provisions
having to do with submitting a DNA sample. Ms. Howell
explained that the provisions for qualifying offenses in
the governor's crime bill made refusal to provide DNA
evidence upon arrest a crime. She added that currently
refusal was legal. She indicated that DNA evidence
collection related to the sexual assault rape kit testing
that was not collected via refusal would not be entered
into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). She deferred to
the crime lab for answers regarding when DNA evidence was
entered into CODIS.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard had not properly digested
everything in the new CS. She wondered where she could find
vehicle theft provisions in the CS. Ms. Howell deferred to
the Department of Law for the answer (DOL).
2:26:05 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston was trying to understand the impact of
increasing the sentencing for drugs. She wondered if the
sentences were increasing for drug dealers versus drug
users and how that related to the quantity of drugs
involved.
MICHAEL DUXBURY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, offered that it was difficult to determine what a
large versus small quantity of drugs was. He relayed that
when drugs were classified as Schedule 1A or 2A etc., the
potency, lethality, and the drugs impacts were
significantly different even among the various Schedule 1A
drugs. He exemplified consulting federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) chemists to determine potency
differences between Schedule 1A drugs. He was informed that
an oxycodone would be given a power of 1, morphine was
given a power of 10, heroine was assigned a power of 100
and fentanyl was given a power of 1000. In addition, car
carfentanil an additive used in Heroine or other opioids
would be given the power of 10,000. He stated that a single
gram of heroine equated to a fourth of a packet of sugar
and was a typical amount for daily addicts. Conversely, the
amount of fentanyl that covered a date on a penny was a
lethal dose. Therefore, one gram of fentanyl could
potentially kill many people. He indicated that making
small amounts of drug possession a felony was intended to
occur with SEJ and SIJ. A one-time incident did not
necessarily result in a large sentence. He wondered if he
had answered the representative's question. Vice-Chair
Johnston responded, "Sort of." She was trying to find the
fine line of sentencing that was appropriate for users and
was uncertain she supported the "jump" to making users
felons. She wondered how effective pressuring drug users to
"squeal on their dealer" was and whether the sentences were
being increased for the user who dealt versus the major
dealer, where it actually might assist in taking drugs off
the market. Mr. Duxbury responded that the pre-SB 91
sentences were trying to better address the major dealer.
He addressed her questioning of whether harsher sentences
were appropriate for addicts to induce them to treatment or
in compelling them to inform on the dealer. He believed
that it was not beneficial to "put addicts in jail." He
related that currently users who sold very small quantities
in order to support their drug habit only received a
citation. Therefore, nothing currently was available to
incentivize accountability and treatment, or cooperation
and assistance in catching a dealer. Traditionally, law
enforcement was successful in catching the major dealer
through the user/small dealer. He emphasized that
previously sentencing for small quantities and the use of
SEJ and SIJ were effective tools to accomplish catching
dealers. Recently, many cases were handed over to the
federal government for prosecution and the offender was
sent out of state to federal prisons. He also mentioned
that not having tools to use for the user/small dealer
affected the quality of life issues for the public.
2:34:58 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston was looking at the difference between
changing the sentencing between misdemeanors and felonies.
She asked if the deputy commissioner saw any flexibility in
keeping misdemeanors versus holding the felony over the
user/small dealer's head. She surmised that SEJ and SIJ
were more effective tools than increasing sentencing to
felonies. Mr. Duxbury offered that he took a law
enforcement perspective on the issues she raised. He
deferred to Mr. Skidmore about the use of SEJ and deferred
judgment tools. He reminded the committee that one gram of
heroin mixed with fentanyl could kill 10 people. He wanted
to stop the "insidious" small time dealing where the
lethalness was worse than ever before. He acknowledged her
point of view but worried about the deadly consequences of
drug use.
Co-Chair Wilson talked about a constituent who was asked by
the police to video tape a neighboring home where drug
activities were taking place. She inquired whether the
proposed changes in the CS would make it easier for the
police to respond without asking for neighborhood
surveillance. Mr. Duxbury did not want to reveal the
surveillance tactics employed by the police. He reiterated
that the ability to compel the person charged with
possessing a small amount of drugs to help identify the
dealer might lead to a search warrant for a drug house in
the scenario Rep. Wilson described. He thought that the
bill would help the police acquire the reasonable suspicion
and probable cause necessary for a warrant to enter a
suspected drug house. Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the
department was willing to take its drug sniffing dogs
through the prison to identify drugs. Mr. Duxbury indicated
that dog drug searches without probable cause would
typically be a violation of privacy and law enforcement had
to act in accordance with the state constitution. However,
he was working with DOC to develop more ways to find drugs
in prison and would be willing to use drug sniffing dogs
for that purpose. Co-Chair Wilson asked if her rights were
violated if a drug sniffing dog was walking through the
airport. Mr. Duxbury responded that the scenario happened
via a federal security regulation carried out through
Homeland Security that allowed the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to search for dangerous items such as
bombs. He reiterated that the state could not search for
drugs without probable cause.
2:42:06 PM
Representative Josephson understood the two options in the
proposed Class C felony of either accepting the sentence or
going to treatment. He wanted to understand how cooperation
fit into the options. Mr. Duxbury indicated that law
enforcement did not make offers to individuals by
themselves; they worked in conjunction with a prosecuting
attorney to discover what conditions would be important to
the individual. Law enforcement approached the situation
with its regulations and the constitution in mind. When
they find an individual, who was willing to cooperate and
share information the process was always done in
consultation with DOL.
Representative Carpenter questioned whether inmates had a
right to privacy and if dog searches were prohibited in
prison. He asked for clarification. Mr. Duxbury responded
that he was unsure of the legality of the issue and would
work collaboratively with other involved agencies. He would
seek legal guidance from the Department of Law if the
policy was under consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that she was aware that DOC had
one trained drug sniffing dog and was trying to work with
DPS to establish an agreement.
2:46:48 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked whether the CS
contained harsher sentences for repeat vehicular theft.
ROBERT HENDERSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), explained that vehicle theft was
a Class C felony offense. He cited page 4, line 2, Section
33 of the CS and noted that the CS adjusted the presumptive
ranges for Class B felonies and did not adjust Class C
felony offences. He added that for a first time Class C
felony vehicle theft the presumptive term was zero to two
years.
Representative Carpenter wondered whether there was a
presumptive right to privacy that would prevent law
enforcement from using a drug dog to search for drugs. Mr.
Henderson replied that all Alaskan citizens had a
"heightened" right to privacy that was greater than the
provisions in the US Constitution. Prisoners had lesser
rights to privacy and search dogs were permitted in prison.
Representative Carpenter asked if the dog could belong to
another agency like DPS. Mr. Henderson responded in the
affirmative.
2:49:43 PM
Representative Merrick asked whether corrections officers
were subject to the same privacy rights as prisoners. She
had heard that many of the drugs had been coming into the
prison through prison staff. Mr. Henderson wanted to
further explore the issue. He reiterated that prisoners had
a lesser expectation to privacy and a correctional facility
had a lower expectation as well. However, a corrections
officer as an employee had an expectation of privacy at
work. He deemed that there would be protections and
circumstances that would protect privacy rights. He wanted
more time to "think through the nuanced legal issues"
before he could advise DOC on the matter.
Co-Chair Wilson requested follow-up. She wanted to ensure
privacy rights but also the ability to detect drugs in
prison. She shared that she had received a letter from an
inmate that stated inmates find it easier to find drugs
inside the correctional facility than on the outside. She
characterized the problem as a "major issue."
2:52:01 PM
Representative Josephson asked whether the reason the CS
for HB 20 and the governor's crime bill did not adjust
Class C felonies was the belief that the issue was
addressed in SB 54. Mr. Henderson replied that SB 54 did
change the presumptive sentencing for first time C felons
from an 18-month probationary sentence to a zero to two-
year sentencing range. He clarified that the governor's
bill did address presumptive ranges for Class C felonies.
Representative Josephson spoke to vehicle theft and noted
that a colleague introduced a mandatory minimum bill. He
related that the administration's crime bills did not
contain mandatory minimums. Mr. Henderson responded in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Henderson how the department
would measure the impact of the changes being made in the
bill. She wondered how effective the decisions being made
were. Mr. Henderson offered that the question was "very
broad." He explained that the criminal justice system was
based on discretion and relied on the professional
judgement of its practitioners. The system was adversarial
by design. He pointed to the "discretion" that existed
prior to SB 91 that compelled where the appropriate
sanction was. He noted that prior to SB 91 the range for a
class A felony offense was 7 to 11 years if a dangerous
instrument was involved. He believed that the court could
assign the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances
of the offense. He concluded that the system was based on
the discretion of highly trained judges weighing the
information presented by the prosecution and defense that
could offer aggravating or mitigating factors. He endorsed
returning the law to pre-SB 91 standards. He emphasized
that SB 91 reduced the amount of discretion in the system.
2:56:36 PM
Representative Knopp stated his unfamiliarity with the
judicial system. He wondered if the judge had the
discretion to accept or reject the deal or change the deal
"on the spot" when a defense and a prosecuting attorney
reached a deal. Mr. Henderson responded that it depended on
how the plea deal was structured. He indicated that in
general, a judge had the discretion to only accept or
reject the agreement. The charging decision rested solely
with the prosecution. The court could look at the sentence
and determine whether the sentence was too harsh or too
lenient and would ask the parties to adjust the agreement
but could not impose a different sentence. Representative
Knopp asked whether a mechanism was in place that affords a
judge the discretion. He felt that the discretion always
ended up with the prosecutors or defense attorneys and not
the judge. Mr. Henderson replied that the answer lied in
the recognition that most cases were resolved via a plea
agreement, which was the function of volume. The system did
not contain the capacity to take all cases to trial. He
thought that sentencing ranges provided discretion to the
prosecutor and the judge in plea agreements. The court
would look at the plea agreement. He agreed that
prosecutors had a "tremendous amount of discretion in the
criminal justice system." He felt that prosecutors took the
matter of discretion very "seriously." He agreed that when
more discretion was granted to the system more discretion
was given to prosecutors.
3:01:06 PM
Representative Josephson referenced credit for time served
under electronic monitoring (EM) while on bail. He noted
the use of the word "may" regarding credit for time served
and wondered why a judge would very likely grant a certain
amount of credit. He pointed out that may could mean "maybe
or maybe not." Mr. Henderson cited the statute that
Representative Josephson referenced AS 12.65.027 (d) that
used the words "may grant." He added that another provision
stated, may grant if. He qualified that that the statute
was typically interpreted as "if the offender did not
commit a new criminal offense" time served may be granted.
He was unsure whether the legislature intended that the
judge had complete discretion, but the way many judges
interpreted the statute was as a directive to grant credit
if the offender did not commit a new criminal offense while
on bail. He furthered that the one case, Bell versus State
[1983 - Alaska Court of Appeals] that had interpreted the
subsection and was carried through to the Court of Appeals.
He noted that the case started with the proposition that if
the offender did not commit a new criminal offense while on
bail, he was entitled to EM credit. He called it "the
foundational premise" of the case. Mr. Henderson provided a
hypothetical scenario. He suggested that if the legislature
intended a different goal, then it would not be the
practitioner's interpretation. Representative Josephson
deduced that the small word "if" "energized the word "may"
to lean towards awarding the credit in conjunction with the
Bell case. Mr. Henderson responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson inquired about how to fix the issue. Mr.
Henderson suggested the legislature clarify the statute.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the legislature could have
taken more time to clarify the statute or did the problem
lie in how the statute was written. Mr. Henderson agreed
with the former statement and reported that the appellate
courts would always look at legislative intent and how much
weight was placed on the intent depended on how clear the
underlying statute was. He favored clearly written statute
in the situation. Co-Chair Wilson agreed that clarity was
the superior choice.
3:06:30 PM
Representative Josephson offered that the defendant was
entitled to an "order" that rationalized the judge's
decision and was another problem with not granting the
credit. The way the statute was written it could appear
that the judge's decision was "arbitrary" and "capricious"
even if the judge felt that the defendants past violent
acts negated or precluded credit. He asked for comment. Mr.
Henderson maintained that the representative made a very
good point. He voiced that the time served should be left
to DOC and the courts.
Co-Chair Wilson thought that the bill would remove the
pretrial EM altogether. Mr. Henderson answered in the
affirmative. He relayed that the court was really doing two
separate analysis. In the pretrial phase, the judge
assessed whether the person was a flight risk or posed a
danger to the public, but when sentencing many factors were
considered. He expounded that the court was not considering
the same sentencing factors when granting Pretrial release
and was granting credit for time served under pretrial
considerations that under sentencing were not the same
considerations.
3:09:10 PM
Representative Carpenter thought that if a person was on
electronic monitoring, a good defense strategy would
accumulate time served to minimize the jail time the
offender served. He asked whether the scenario was
happening. Mr. Henderson believed that the scenario
occurred. He thought that it was a beneficial strategy to
lengthen the time on bail whether on EM or for cases that
resulted in incarceration. There was an incentive to delay
a case and remain in pre-trial status for as long as
possible. Representative Carpenter deduced that time and
money was wasted in the strategy and thought it was a
significant issue.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that the Department of
Corrections was available to answer questions.
Representative Merrick asked whether the EM base station
was included in terms of tampering with the devise and how
they were managed so they were not tampered with by someone
other than the offender. She had learned that EM technology
did not utilize GPS technology and solely relied on a base
station unit.
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROBATION AND
PAROLE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
clarified that GPS monitoring equipment was used for EM
except in some areas where it didn't work. She explained
that the equipment on the ankle was the primary concern
related to tampering. Officers stationed at the base
station were trained in reading the alerts and working with
the manufacturer to determine tampering or equipment
issues. She had not experienced another person tampering
with the GPS system. The GPS relayed information regarding
the defendant in real time.
3:15:29 PM
Representative Merrick asked if ankle bracelets were
monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Ms. Winkelman
answered in the affirmative. She explained that the
equipment was monitoring the bracelets continuously and the
data was entered into a database that the officers could
access at any time. However, if an alert happened the call
center immediately alerted the probation or parole officer
to respond. The alerts went off immediately for things like
low batteries, tampering, fit, or proximity.
Simultaneously, the officers had access to the data base on
a computer system at any time. She likened the call center
to an emergency 911 call center. Representative Merrick
asked how the ankle monitors were tampered with. She
wondered if it was difficult to tamper or remove them. Ms.
Winkelman was aware that the EM had to be easier to remove
in case of an emergency. She reported that the percentage
of escapes in the prior years was minimal. She had looked
at the amount of escapes that happened in the prior 12
months and noted it amounted to less than one percent. The
department had done a risk assessment prior to placing
someone on EM. She added that when an alert was sounded, it
was investigated immediately to determine the cause. If the
conclusion was tampering or removal, the defendant was
placed back into custody. She emphasized that very few
offenders tampered with the equipment.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered how a person could get lost under
EM. Ms. Winkelman was unable to answer the question. She
noted it depended on the reliability of the GPS system and
guessed that it would happen in area without GPS coverage.
3:19:56 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard requested information
concerning misconduct involving a controlled substance. She
referred to page 14, Section 24, which was the point HB
49-Crimes; Sentencing; Drugs; Theft; Reports was partially
inserted into HB 20 to form the CS. She communicated that
her community's overwhelming concern was regarding drug
users, drug offenders, drug distributors, and meth
producers and the "revolving door" of offenders not being
sentenced for longer periods. She asked whether HB 20 would
close the gap that created a revolving door of offenders
going in and out of prison. She wondered whether DOC was
prepared for a larger prison population and rehabilitation
services.
KELLY GOODE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
deferred to DOL and the Court System regarding sentencing
since DOC was on the "downstream" side of sentencing and
sentencing laws. She relayed that DOC was given time, until
the following Monday, to provide a fiscal note for the
bill. The department was carefully scrutinizing the bill to
prepare accurate fiscal notes and present "real numbers" to
the committee.
Representative Carpenter asked how the present pretrial
electronic monitoring compared to the less than one percent
escape statistic for sentenced individuals on EM. Ms. Goode
deferred the question to Ms. Winkelman.
Ms. Winkelman answered that she would provide the committee
current numbers. She commented that the crime was not
charged with escape. Pretrial escape was considered
violating conditions of release or "VCOR". She needed to
compile the information.
Co-Chair Wilson interposed that she heard discussions
regarding eliminating Pretrial EM, which currently included
over 1,000 individuals. She asked Ms. Winkelman to provide
an estimate of people who would reject EM if they did not
receive credit. She wondered how the department could
measure the scenario. She inquired whether under the
current risk assessment tool process, the defendant had an
opportunity to choose jail time instead of EM. Ms. Goode
deferred to Ms. Meade and DOL to help answer the question.
Co-Chair Wilson reiterated her question.
Ms. Winkelman also deferred to Ms. Meade for assistance.
She explained that very rarely would a person decline to be
released, if given the option. She observed that
individuals released on Pretrial EM often did not have a
home or supportive environment to return to versus inmates
released on EM. The department would not release an inmate
on EM without establishing the residence they returned to
was livable. Some pretrial EM involved releasing
individuals without support in place.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Ms. Mead to answer the question. She
relayed her question again. She relayed a hypothetical
scenario. She wondered if an offender had to accept EM
instead of jail time. Ms. Mead thought Co-Chair Wilson's
hypothetical scenario was unlikely, which made it difficult
to answer. She hypothesized that a homeless person without
the option of plugging in the monitoring device might turn
down EM even if their pretrial tool score recommended
release. She suggested that if the prosecutor agreed, the
judge would reverse the finding and likely offer cash bail
that would effectively keep the individual in bail. She
thought it highly unlikely that a judge would grant the
request of an individual to be placed in jail if EM was
possible to be carried out safely just because they desired
jail time for credit. She maintained that judges do not
impose jail as housing and thought the idea was
"farfetched." Co-Chair Wilson merely wanted to know if the
offender legally had the choice. She continued to address
her hypothetical scenario and deduced that the tool created
the choice unlike the system prior to SB 91. Ms. Mead
expressed some confusion with the scenario and relayed that
it was a difficult hypothetical to provide an answer for.
She answered that prior to SB 91 a judge could order
certain conditions of release and the person could choose
not to meet them as was still currently the case. She could
not imagine a judge taking up a jail bed for someone
turning down pretrial release just because they refused it.
Co-Chair Wilson restated her question and concerns with
over 1,000 individuals on EM. She wondered if her scenario
was likely a reality. Ms. Mead did not believe Co-Chair
Wilson's scenario was realistic even if time served credit
was eliminated.
3:33:55 PM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony.
3:34:25 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), noted
that he was the President of the Greater Alaska Chapter of
AMAC. He was confused with the process by which HB 20 was
being vetted. He wondered whether HB 20 was a substitute
for HB 49 and HB 52-Crimes; Sex Crimes; Sentencing; Parole
that were added to HB 20. He contended that some members of
the House were "leading a concerted effort" to "tie up" the
governor's crime bills that overturned SB 91. He talked of
the prior year's passage of SB 54 being a watered-down
effort to address crime. He thought the current process was
equal to "smoke and mirrors" and deceptive. He believed
that citizens voted for the governor to address crime and
the PFD. He demanded that the committee address the
governor's crime bills. He urged members to either support
the people or the criminals.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that there would be other
opportunities for public testimony in the future.
Representative Knopp asked about the acronym that Mr. Coons
mentioned. He asked Mr. Coons to repeat his organization's
name. Mr. Coons responded AMAC was the Association of
Mature American Citizens.
3:37:11 PM
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED Public Testimony.
Representative Merrick thought the current topic was the
most important subject of the session.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated the committee would take whatever
time was necessary.
Representative Merrick asked about what was being done
about drug contraband in the state's correctional
facilities and how prevalent the problem was. Ms. Goode was
unprepared to answer the question fully. She offered that
DOC was aware of the problem and constantly addressing
contraband in its correctional facilities. The correctional
officers were trained to identify contraband. The
commissioner was always seeking new ways to address the
issue. She stressed that the issue was a high priority for
DOC.
Representative Carpenter asked if DOC had a policy that
addressed making sure people were aware of their rights
being limited upon entry of correctional facilities. He
asked about the privacy policies and process for employees
and visitors. Ms. Goode would provide the policies to the
committee. Representative Carpenter asked if the department
saw a problem with prosecuting employees who bring drugs
into prison. Ms. Goode related that the current
commissioner stated she would seek prosecution for
employees providing drugs to prisoners. Representative
Carpenter asked whether she knew of any prosecutions under
the new administration. Ms. Goode replied in the negative
but noted that any pending cases would be confidential.
Co-Chair Wilson inquired whether the drug dogs would be
prohibited from entering some parts of the correctional
facility to check for drugs. Ms. Goode replied in the
negative.
Representative Tilton asked whether the policies were the
same for all correctional facilities statewide. Ms. Goode
answered that in general, DOC policies covered all
institutions that were pertinent to a specific institution,
with some exceptions. However, the overall policies that
managed all the department's institutions were the policies
for the entire department. Representative Tilton asked
whether the commissioner could change a specific
institutions policy. She exemplified a policy specific to
a facility that allowed for an event that could result in
contraband entering the facility. Ms. Goode replied that
the commissioner would have the ability to alter the
policy. She agreed that the allowable events were an area
of risk for contraband.
3:44:44 PM
Representative Knopp highlighted the high level of
behavioral health issues at correctional facilities. He was
informed of the rehabilitation and educational programs DOC
offered and was "astonished" at the number reported. He
addressed the mental health support provided to inmates. He
wondered how the support was provided and who mandated
them. He referenced the programs and rehabilitation
services. He wondered if any statutes drove offering the
rehabilitation services or whether it was a good faith
effort on the part of DOC. He wondered whether out of state
facilities would be chosen that offered the same sort of
resources if the services were mandated via statute. Ms.
Goode responded that 68 percent of inmates had mental
health issues and 22 percent had severe issues. She was
uncertain what guided the policy regarding mental health
support and would provide the answer. Alaska's constitution
mandated reformation, which drove the rehabilitation and
educational opportunities. In terms of a request for
proposal (RFP) for sending prisoners to an out of state
facility, the facility was mandated to provide the required
services.
Representative Tilton referenced the money spent on
educating prisoners in relationship to inmates in the
system and thought spending the dollars should have the
best impact on Alaska's prisoners. She asked how often the
educational programs were reviewed for efficacy and whether
funds were readjusted towards more effective rehabilitation
programs. Ms. Goode reported that the current
administration shared the concern and learned that many
programs were not measured for effectiveness. She agreed
that the dollars should be spent on programs that had the
best impact on reforming inmates and helping become law
abiding citizens. She emphasized that the department was
addressing the issue.
Co-Chair Wilson cited the severe mental health inmate
population. She questioned whether DOC had the expertise to
support the severely mentally ill. She asked whether the
department had looked at certain out of state facilities
that could offer better assistance for those inmates with
severe behavioral health issues. Ms. Goode was unable to
answer the question and offered to provide the information.
She was uncertain the facilities existed. Co-Chair Wilson
surmised that correctional facilities were not set up to
help the severely mentally ill. She expounded on her
opinion of Alaska's prison systems. She ultimately wanted
to know whether the changes the legislature was embarking
on would produce desired outcomes and how they were best
measured. She believed in punishment but also in
rehabilitation. She deemed that "the system was made to
fail and not to succeed and wondered why."
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that Amendments were due by 5:00 pm
on Monday, April 29, 2019 to Legal Services. She reported
that committee would not be meeting on Sunday, April 28,
2019 at 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
3:55:06 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|