04/13/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB225 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB90 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB90 | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2007
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Doogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to misconduct involving weapons and bail."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic beverages and to
access to licensed premises; relating to civil liability for
certain persons accessing licensed premises; requiring driver's
licenses and identification cards to be marked if a person is
restricted from consuming alcoholic beverages as a result of a
conviction or condition of probation or parole and relating to
fees for the marked license; and requiring the surrender and
cancellation of driver's licenses under certain circumstances."
- MOVED CSHB 14(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to bail."
- MOVED CSHB 90(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting."
- MOVED CSHB 220(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to reporting of vessel location by certain
commercial passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of
the state, to access to vessels by licensed marine engineers for
purposes of monitoring compliance with state and federal
requirements, and to the obligations of those engineers while
aboard the vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 225
SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF WEAPON WHILE ON BAIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHNSON
03/27/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/07 (H) JUD, FIN
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT ACCESS TO ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
02/09/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/07 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/23/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/26/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/28/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/07 (H) Moved CSHB 14(L&C) Out of Committee
02/28/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/01/07 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 2DP 5NR
03/01/07 (H) DP: GARDNER, LEDOUX
03/01/07 (H) NR: BUCH, NEUMAN, RAMRAS, GATTO, OLSON
04/11/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/11/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/13/07>
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 90
SHORT TITLE: BAIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS, STOLTZE
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) JUD
02/05/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/05/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/08/07>
02/08/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/12/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/30/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/10/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 220
SHORT TITLE: BAN COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTE HUNTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUCH
03/26/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/26/07 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
04/02/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/02/07 (H) Moved CSHB 220(RES) Out of Committee
04/02/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/07 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 6DP 3NR
04/03/07 (H) DP: ROSES, WILSON, GUTTENBERG, EDGMON,
SEATON, GATTO
04/03/07 (H) NR: KAWASAKI, KOHRING, JOHNSON
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 225.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 225.
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
to Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 225.
GARDNER COBB, Captain
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 225.
WALT MONEGAN, Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 225.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 225.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 14.
ED O'NEILL
Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown Jug")
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 225.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
proposed amendments to HB 90, Version K.
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
proposed amendments to HB 90, Version K.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
proposed amendments to HB 90, Version K.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 220.
JOE KLUTSCH, President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220.
BURKE WALDRON, Lieutenant
Alaska Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 220.
DICK BISHOP, President
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 220, Version E.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:08:22 PM. Representatives Coghill,
Samuels, Lynn, Holmes, Gruenberg, and Ramras were present at the
call to order. Representative Dahlstrom was excused.
Representative Doogan was also in attendance.
HB 225 - POSSESSION OF WEAPON WHILE ON BAIL
1:08:49 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 225, "An Act relating to misconduct involving
weapons and bail."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 225, Version 25-LS0710\M, Luckhaupt,
4/11/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version M
was before the committee.
1:09:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that under Version M of HB 225, it would be a felony for
a person to possess a concealed firearm while he/she is on
release, before or after trial, for the commission of a felony
under AS 11, a crime against a person under AS 11.41, a crime
involving domestic violence (DV), or a municipal crime similar
to the latter two crimes; currently such behavior merely results
in the person having his/her release revoked. He mentioned that
HB 225 is endorsed by most law enforcement agencies in the
state.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked why the bill only addresses concealed
weapons.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that he didn't want the bill to
apply in instances where the person on release is merely out
hunting. The bill is meant to address instances wherein
individuals on release for gang-related crimes commit further
gang-related crimes involving concealed weapons. In response to
a question, he relayed that he has not yet heard the National
Rifle Association's (NRA) position on this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether Section 3 of
Version M contains a typo.
1:16:35 PM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), explained that it does not contain a typo, but
rather was written to include all felonies under AS 11 - even
those not committed against a person - and all crimes against a
person under AS 11.41 - whether felony crimes or misdemeanor
crimes.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether, in applying to
someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime, HB 225 would
infringe upon a person's constitutional rights.
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, offered, on behalf of Representative
Johnson, her understanding that a person would be charged with
the crime created by HB 225 even if later he/she is found to be
innocent of the original crime he/she was charged with and was
on release for.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL urged caution in linking the proposed
felony crime with the mere charge of a crime, particularly a
misdemeanor crime.
1:20:25 PM
GARDNER COBB, Captain, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that the APD supports
HB 225. It is common knowledge, he remarked, that the gun per
capita ratio in Alaska is high, though most of those guns are in
the hands of law-abiding citizens; however, with the recent rise
in violent crimes across the country and the surge in youth
violence - including the scourge of gang motivated crimes - in
Anchorage and other parts of the state, it is clear that
resources should be focused in order to bring down the level of
violence, and the APD believes that HB 225 can help law
enforcement in this regard. He then recounted some of the steps
the APD has taken in dealing with gang-related and gang-
motivated crimes, and mentioned that since September of 2005,
the APD has seized 74 guns that were out on the street.
MR. COBB then referred to a recent, high-profile, gang-related
case wherein in one of the defendants was released on bail and
was later found in possession of a stolen semiautomatic pistol.
He mentioned that because long guns are being used in gang-
related case and DV cases, the APD would like to see the bill
broadened to include all weapons even those found in a subject's
vehicle.
MR. COBB, offering that the APD views HB 225 as important
legislation, noted that AS 12.30.023(a)(11)(A) says the court
can order the defendant not to have a firearm in the defendant's
possession or control, in any vehicle over which the defendant
has control, or in the defendant's residence. He suggested that
including such language in HB 225 would be helpful because once
a suspect in a vehicle is stopped and is asked to step out of
the vehicle, he/she simply hides his/her weapons in the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 12.30.023(a)(11)(B)
stipulates that the court can also order the defendant to not
carry a knife other than an ordinary pocket knife, and asked Mr.
Cobb whether he would like to see such a provision included in
HB 225.
MR. COBB said, "I would like to see a person out on bail for
violent crimes and DV be restricted from any dangerous weapons
within their immediate control."
1:28:05 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
added that the DPS is happy with the current language in the
bill. Regarding the concern that the bill would apply to
someone who is charged but not yet convicted, he pointed out
that the person would also only be charged with the crime
provided for in HB 225, and thus there would still be due
process afforded for both charges. House Bill 225, he remarked,
will give law enforcement the ability to act in situations where
a suspect released on bail is found carrying a concealed
firearm.
1:29:46 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in
response to the constitutional issue raised earlier, relayed
that there are two reasons why HB 225 would not violate a
person's constitutional right to keep and bear arms: the bill
is limited to a person who is released on bail - thus there has
been a probable cause determination that the person has
committed a crime involving either violent or felonious behavior
- and it's limited to the carrying of a concealed weapon. In
response to comments and questions, she noted that probable
cause is the standard that's used for all charges; that some
property crimes can involve threats of violence; that the bill
would apply in instances involving fourth degree assault because
in such instances the victim could be placed in fear of being
assaulted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the bill be amended to
specify that it applies to higher-level crimes.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 225 [Version M] would be held over.
HB 14 - RESTRICT ACCESS TO ALCOHOL
1:34:16 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic
beverages and to access to licensed premises; relating to civil
liability for certain persons accessing licensed premises;
requiring driver's licenses and identification cards to be
marked if a person is restricted from consuming alcoholic
beverages as a result of a conviction or condition of probation
or parole and relating to fees for the marked license; and
requiring the surrender and cancellation of driver's licenses
under certain circumstances." [Before the committee was
CSHB 14(L&C).]
CHAIR RAMRAS turned the gavel over to Representative Lynn.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 14, Version 25-LS0095\V, Luckhaupt,
3/5/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version V
was before the committee.
1:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, indicated that HB 14 is meant to address drunk driving
and the carnage that alcohol causes throughout the state. He
recounted that after his own experience wherein his wife was hit
by a drunk driver, he realized that drunk driving is a more
pervasive problem [than he'd originally thought]. He said,
"Today, we'll have a number of people drive drunk in this state;
a number of them will be charged, a number of them will cause
accidents, and there may even be deaths today because of drunk
driving or other alcohol-related offenses."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD mentioned that he has been attempting to
get this legislation passed for three years, and that there have
been a lot of iterations of the bill, which is attempting to
prevent those who've proven they don't have the ability to
handle alcohol from buying and consuming alcohol. Currently,
although a judge can order a person to refrain from buying
alcohol or entering premises where alcohol is sold, such orders
are not enforced because those who are under such orders can't
be identified. House Bill 14 establishes a voluntary program
for licensees that will provide them with a method by which to
identify persons who have been ordered to refrain from buying
alcohol or entering premises where alcohol is sold.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that because the proposed program
is voluntary, there won't be any penalty against a licensee who
chooses not to check a person's identification (ID) card for the
purpose of determining whether the person has been ordered by
the court to refrain from buying alcohol or entering premises
where alcohol is sold. However, if a licensee chooses to check
a person's ID, under HB 14, that ID will have been marked in
such a way that a license will know whether a person is under
such an order. The bill also provides licensees with a monetary
incentive to check a person's ID; if a licensee checks a
person's ID and determines that the person has been ordered to
refrain from buying alcohol or entering premises where alcohol
is sold, the licensee could receive $1,000 in civil damages.
1:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that HB 14 focuses on prevention
rather than on punishment since the latter alone has not been
effective, adding that many Alaskans no longer have intact
families because of those who've proven they are incapable of
handling alcohol. In response to a question, he relayed that
the bill only pertains to people who have been ordered by the
court to refrain from buying alcohol or entering premises where
alcohol is sold.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to another question,
indicated that a licensee is only liable if he/she asks to see a
person's ID, sees that the person has been ordered by the court
to refrain from buying alcohol or entering premises where
alcohol is sold, and then proceeds to serve or sell that person
alcohol anyway. If a licensee never asks to see the person's
ID, then the licensee wouldn't be liable under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that some establishments check
everyone's ID and so such establishments could be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to a question, said that a
person who has been ordered by the court to refrain from buying
alcohol or entering premises where alcohol is sold could be
subject to a $1,000 civil penalty - which would go to the
licensee - if the person attempts to purchase alcohol and the
licensee checks the person's ID and sees that the person may not
purchase alcohol.
1:47:06 PM
ED O'NEILL, Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown Jug"), noting that April is
Sexual Assault Awareness Month, relayed that Brown Jug does a
lot of Bush order business, and therefore would like to see IDs
getting marked as HB 225 proposes so that the company could
refrain from shipping alcohol to those that have been ordered by
the court to refrain from buying alcohol or entering premises
where alcohol is sold. Keeping alcohol out of the hands of
people who shouldn't have it will help in the battle against
sexual assault as well as drunk driving. He offered his
company's hope that the bill will be allowed to continue through
the process.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that the committee would hold
HB 14 [Version V] over until later in the meeting.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding which bill to take
up next.]
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
HB 90 - BAIL
1:50:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An Act relating to bail." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 90, Version 25-LS0331\K, Luckhaupt, 3/7/07, which had been
adopted as the work draft on 4/10/07.]
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, joint prime sponsor of HB 90, made a
motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2, line 16
(A) sexual penetration;
Page 4, line 28
for court review; and
Page 5, line 1
spent in a [AN] private residence...
Page 6, line 5
Applications based on claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there were any objections.
There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, after line 7
(4) hindering prosecution of murder;
Renumber accordingly
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there were any objections.
There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:52:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 16
(j)...unless the prosecuting authority stipulates
otherwise or a defendant has been incarcerated for a
period equal to the maximum sentence for the most
serious charge for which the defendant is being held,
a judicial officer may not...
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:53:24 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
relayed that Amendment 3 was suggested by Quinlan Steiner of the
Public Defender Agency as a way to ensure that a person is not
imprisoned longer than a given charge warrants. Amendment 3,
she indicated, would probably only apply in situations wherein
the person is held on bail for a charge of disorderly conduct,
which has a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 days.
1:54:04 PM
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), concurred that
he'd suggested this language as a way to ensure that a person is
not imprisoned longer than a given charge warrants. In response
to comments and a question regarding potential delays in getting
a trial, he said he could envision using alternative language
along the lines of, "reasonable likelihood that the maximum
sentence has been reached".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he merely wants the court to have
some discretion.
MS. CARPENETI said she is not concerned because, under the bill,
either as currently written or with Amendment 3, a defendant
would be able to get an additional bail hearing since a delay in
getting a trial would constitute a change in circumstances -
"new information" - that the defendant wouldn't have known about
during a previous bail hearing.
MR. STEINER disagreed, adding that it would be hard to predict
how the courts would view this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about potential
ambiguity and therefore he wants the administration to research
that point.
MS. CARPENETI reiterated her belief that use of the term, "new
information" is sufficient for a number of circumstances and so
a defendant would still be able to schedule another bail
hearing.
[Representative Lynn returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS assured the committee that if Amendment 3
is adopted he will work with the administration to ensure that
nothing more needs to be done to address the concern that
Amendment 3 is meant to alleviate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 3.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there were no further objections and
announced that Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:03:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, lines 3 and 4: delete all material and insert:
(c) Period of probation, together with any
extension, may not exceed
(1) except as provided in (2) of this
section, 10 years;
(2) for a person convicted of a felony sex
offense, 25 years.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding a different proposed
amendment.]
[The motion to adopt Amendment 4 was left pending, and HB 90,
Version K, as amended, was set aside until later in the
meeting.]
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
HB 14 - RESTRICT ACCESS TO ALCOHOL
2:06:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next return to
the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to the
purchase of alcoholic beverages and to access to licensed
premises; relating to civil liability for certain persons
accessing licensed premises; requiring driver's licenses and
identification cards to be marked if a person is restricted from
consuming alcoholic beverages as a result of a conviction or
condition of probation or parole and relating to fees for the
marked license; and requiring the surrender and cancellation of
driver's licenses under certain circumstances." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 14,
Version 25-LS0095\V, Luckhaupt, 3/5/07, which had been adopted
as the work draft earlier in the meeting.]
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 14, Version 25-LS0095\V, Luckhaupt,
3/5/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 14(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 90 - BAIL
2:07:44 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next return to
the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An Act relating to bail."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 90, Version 25-LS0331\K, Luckhaupt, 3/7/07, which had
been adopted as the work draft on 4/10/07 and amended earlier in
the meeting; left pending from earlier in the meeting was a
motion to adopt Amendment 4.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to the motion to adopt
Amendment 4 [text provided previously]. He offered his
understanding that the normal minimum term of imprisonment for a
felony sex crime is 15 years.
2:08:48 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
clarified that the minimum term of imprisonment is 5 years for a
class C felony sex offense, 10 years for a class B felony sex
offense, and 15 years for an unclassified felony sex offense.
In response to a question, she offered her understanding that
the legislature's rationale behind providing long periods of
probation for sex offenders stems from the fact that having
serious supervision and control over sex offenders is the best
way to manage them; in this way, the Department of Corrections
(DOC) can spot when a person is moving away from compliance and
towards re-offending.
2:11:13 PM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner
- Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC), remarked that
[without the adoption of Amendment 4], the proposed longer
probation period would apply to everyone, and the DOC feels that
such a change would place a heavy burden on the DOC. He
mentioned that the department has submitted only indeterminate
fiscal notes for HB 90, and offered his belief that many who
would re-offend would do so within 10-16 years of being
released.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested, in lieu of adopting
Amendment 4, altering proposed AS 12.55.090 such that a period
of probation, together with any extension, may not extend more
than 10 years beyond the mandatory minimum sentence for any
given crime.
MR. PEEPLES sought confirmation that [existing and proposed]
AS 12.55.090(c) is discretionary.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that it is discretionary and that the
proposed change would allow the court to institute a 25-year
probation period in instances where the court feels that such
supervision is necessary. Treatment experts have relayed that
the goal with sex offenders is to extend the period between re-
offenses; thus the longer authorities can have supervision over
sex offenders, the better, because it is very difficult to treat
sex offenders in any way other than to control them via the use
of regular polygraph examinations and regular reporting to
probation/parole officers.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that although rapists, as
they get older, may lose interest in raping victims, pedophiles
never lose interest in molesting children and must therefore be
managed/supervised their whole lives.
2:14:10 PM
MR. PEEPLES relayed that the DOC is unable at this time to
determine the fiscal impact of HB 90.
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), indicated that
he can't speak to whether proposed AS 12.55.090 or Amendment 4
would be of any benefit, but said he agrees that most re-
offenses would occur within 15 years of release.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether stipulating, via
Amendment 4, that the increased probation period applies only to
felony sex offenses is sufficient.
MR. PEEPLES indicated that it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is tempted to offer an amendment to
the amendment that would result in sex offenders never being
released from prison.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 4.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there were no further objections and
announced that Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:17:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, joint prime sponsor of HB 90, made a
motion to adopt Amendment 5, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 1, between lines 12 and 13
(a) A person commits the crime of violation by sex
offender of condition of probation or parole if the
person
(1) is on probation or parole for conviction of a
sex offense;
(2) has served the entire term of incarceration
imposed for conviction of the sex offense; and
(3) either
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. CARPENETI offered that Amendment 5 came about as a result of
a conversation between the DOL and the DOC, and is intended to
avoid a large fiscal note and address a concern regarding what
happens in instances where a sex offender is on probation but
has run out of incarceration time and thus has no incentive to
continue taking polygraph examinations or continue with his/her
treatment program. Amendment 5 provides "that it's a crime"
only if the person has no more time left on his/her sentence for
the underlying sex offense.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there were no further objections and
announced that Amendment 5 was adopted.
2:19:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 24
(2) must be confined at all times to the grounds of
the facility or be in the physical custody of an
employee of the facility, except for court appearances
or meetings with counsel;
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, Amendment 6 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that Amendment 1, which was already
adopted, is similar to Amendment 7, labeled 25-LS0331\K.2,
Luckhaupt, 4/13/07, which read:
Page 4, line 28, following "review;":
Insert "and"
Page 5, line 1:
Delete "an"
Insert "a"
Page 6, line 5, following "ineffective":
Insert "assistance of"
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "applicant's attorney"
Insert "assistance the applicant's attorney
provided"
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 7 as amended to
read:
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "applicant's attorney"
Insert "assistance the applicant's attorney provided"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he has no objection to
Amendment 7, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that Amendment 7, as
amended, pertains to the new provision addressing applications
based on claim of ineffective counsel - proposed AS 12.72.025.
MS. CARPENETI concurred, adding that proposed AS 12.72.025
specifically addresses second applications for post conviction
relief wherein the applicant is claiming his/her first attorney
did not provide effective assistance of counsel.
2:22:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that Amendment 7, as amended, doesn't
change the meaning of the aforementioned provision and is merely
a "housekeeping" amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the technical term is
"ineffective assistance of counsel".
MS. CARPENETI said she has no objection to Amendment 7, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 7, as amended, was
adopted.
2:23:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 8 - labeled 25-
LS0331\K.1, Luckhaupt, 4/12/07 - and said it would augment
Amendment 1 and that it should be considered a conceptual
amendment so that the drafter can integrate it with Amendment 6;
Amendment 8 read:
Page 4, line 25, following "facility":
Insert "unless the person is at work or traveling
to or from work"
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Conceptual Amendment 8 addresses
those people who are attending a treatment program that requires
its participants to work as part of treatment.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, said that the DOL's
concern with Conceptual Amendment 8 is that Nygren credit -
credit against a sentence of imprisonment - is supposed to be
for treatment programs that are similar to incarceration - the
courts have already held this in both the Nygren case and
various other cases - and so treatment programs that allow a
person to leave a facility in order to work unsupervised by
anyone from the facility is a program that is not similar to
incarceration and thus shouldn't qualify as a program suitable
for allowing the defendant to receive Nygren credit for time
spent in that program.
MR. PEEPLES, in response to questions, confirmed that the
halfway house in Fairbanks that is part of the DOC would not
fall under the definition of, "treatment center", and said that
some of the treatment beds available at a facility operated by
the Salvation Army are usually reserved for those receiving
post-sentence treatment.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that the provision which Conceptual
Amendment 8 would alter - proposed AS 12.55.027(c)(2) - pertains
to pre-sentence treatment.
2:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that Conceptual Amendment 8,
when integrated with amendment 6, would provide another
exception to proposed AS 12.55.027(c)(2), and that the Chair's
intention with Conceptual Amendment 8 is to have Nygren credit
given only if work is part of the treatment program and the work
is specifically approved by the court.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that the bill already requires that
any qualifying treatment program be one that's approved by the
court.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is suggesting that
the court specifically approve the work portion of a particular
treatment program. He acknowledged that additional language
might need to be crafted to address this point.
CHAIR RAMRAS, referring to a situation he was familiar with
wherein a young woman attended and successfully completed a
treatment program in the Lower 48, surmised that had that
program had a work component, the woman would have had to choose
between participating in the work component or receiving credit
for her time there. He said he doesn't want to restrict
remedies that will help people become productive members of
society.
2:30:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed an interest in amending Conceptual
Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that she's received suggested
language from Mr. Steiner that incorporates the concepts of both
Amendment 6 and Conceptual Amendment 8; that language reads
[original punctuation provided]: "must be confined at all times
to the grounds of the facility or be in the physical custody of
an employee of the facility, except for court appearances,
meetings with counsel, and for work as required by the treatment
program;".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to comments, pointed out
that if one is able to go to work while attending a treatment
program, it is not like being in jail; therefore, a person whose
treatment program has a work component should still have to
serve all of his/her jail time or else it will result in him/her
being treated differently than someone else who committed a
similar crime and received a similar sentence but couldn't
afford to go to a treatment program.
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking that there is no equity in the system,
said he is more interested in the wellness of the broader
community and less interested in who gets a better leg up.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 8 such that it would say:
Page 4, line 25, following "facility":
Insert "unless the person is at work or traveling
to or from work as required by the treatment program
and as specifically approved by the court for credit"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he wants the court to
specifically know that the person is going to and from work and
working, and to approve that, and that [the work component] be
part of the treatment program.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 8, as amended, and offered his understanding that
under it the court would have to specifically say that a
particular type of work counts towards Nygren credit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that such was his intention.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 8, as amended,
was adopted.
2:37:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 90, Version 25-LS0331\K, Luckhaupt,
3/7/07, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 90(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
HB 220 - BAN COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTE HUNTING
2:38:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 220, "An Act prohibiting computer-assisted remote
hunting." [Before the committee was CSHB 220(RES), and provided
in members' packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 220, Version 25-LS0795\E, Kane, 4/11/07.]
2:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 220 would ban Internet hunting and is endorsed
by a broad spectrum of the community.
2:41:52 PM
JOE KLUTSCH, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), after relaying that the APHA represents the vast
majority of Alaska's hunting guides and is committed to "fair-
chase" hunting practices and ethical standards of conduct,
offered the APHA's belief that the intent of HB 220 is
"absolutely correct." He then asked the sponsor and members to
refrain from referring to the behavior outlined in the bill as
"hunting." The organized killing of an animal via cyberspace
and robotics is not hunting. True hunting is a problem-solving
exercise that involves planning, knowledge of the species being
pursued, and knowledge of its habitat. Furthermore, a hunter in
Alaska has to be prepared to cope with all the elements of
nature common to outdoor activities. Hunting is a real-life
drama that can involve doubt, frustration, anxiety, discovery,
great physical and mental challenge, and joy and disappointment.
MR. KLUTSCH said that in the aforementioned setting, the outcome
of the hunting process is not assured. He relayed that the APHA
believes that HB 220 is appropriate, that "these kind of
activities" shouldn't be allowed to occur in Alaska, and that a
number of other states have taken action similar to what HB 220
is proposing. In conclusion, he said that the APHA is offering
its whole-hearted support [of HB 220] and encourages the
committee to "do the same."
2:43:59 PM
BURKE WALDRON, Lieutenant, Alaska Bureau of Wildlife
Enforcement, Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed simply
that "the Troopers certainly sponsor" HB 220.
2:44:36 PM
DICK BISHOP, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), relayed
that the AOC supports HB 220. He went on to say that the common
value across the spectrum of ethical, responsible hunters is the
satisfaction of being personally involved in the natural course
of events that affect wildlife and wild lands, and whether the
hunter's prime motive is to fill the freezer or drying rack or
to find a prize specimen to preserve, admire, and honor for a
lifetime, the hunting experience provides challenges and
lifelong satisfaction. Hunts are celebrated in different ways
among different cultures, but the bottom line, he opined, is
that personal experience is what counts; the prospect of
computer-assisted remote hunting flies in the face of all that
is most valuable in the hunting experience. Hunting is not a
pursuit that should be reduced to another armchair video game or
to a shopping junket on the Internet. The values associated
with hunting and the wildlife hunted deserve more respect than
points on a video game, and more initiative than a credit card
purchase. He concluded by asking the committee to please pass
HB 220 in order to clarify that hunting is too important to
Alaskans and the state's visitors to simply trivialize it by
allowing it to become another form of electronic diversion.
2:47:30 PM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), said that the DOL supports the intent of HB 220 and had
made some suggestions for improving the bill. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the Board of Game, he
relayed, have had quite a bit of experience in complying with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and subsection (b)
addresses the ADA.
2:48:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 220, Version 25-LS0795\E, Kane, 4/11/07,
as the work draft. There being no objection, Version E was
before the committee.
MR. SAXBY went on to say that the language in Version E reflects
the ADF&G's experience in complying with the ADA. The ADF&G, in
negotiating with people to arrive at a reasonable accommodation
for their particular circumstances, has determined that there
are certain features that are essential to the act of hunting,
and two of those features are that a person must be present in
the field and that there must be some degree of meaningful
participation in the actual act itself - the taking of the
animal. Version E stipulates, via subsection (b), that these
two features must be present. The reason the administration has
asked that this additional language be included in the bill, he
relayed, is that subsection (b) provides a broad exemption and
will be viewed as a legislative pronouncement.
MR. SAXBY indicated that language in subsection (b) of Version E
also clarifies that the Board of Game, as technological advances
are made, retains the authority to decide what technology is
appropriate.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how computer-assisted remote hunting works.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered his understanding that the owner of
a piece of private property in Texas set up a [video] camera
that was linked with the scope on a rifle, and when game is
herded in front of the camera, a client would be able to aim and
fire the rifle via his/her computer, and then someone on site
would finish dispatching the animal should that be necessary.
In response to a question, he mentioned that this type of
hunting has actually taken place.
2:52:05 PM
MR. SAXBY said that a couple of years ago, a person who was
quadriplegic won a permit to participate in a particular hunt,
and that person argued that he wanted someone else to
essentially do everything for him while he participated
vicariously in the hunt from his hospital bed by hearing about
the hunt. The ADF&G said that was not acceptable because such
activity wouldn't qualify under the criteria of being present in
the field and participating meaningfully in the taking of the
animal. The statewide ADA coordinator was very supportive of
the ADF&G's position and helped the department "draw the
appropriate line."
MR. SAXBY, in response to comments and a question, said that
there is no statute that allows vicarious hunting, and that the
administration was fearful that the broad exemption provided by
the [previous version of the] bill might be interpreted as
allowing vicarious hunting. He mentioned, however, that AS
16.05.255(a) authorizes the Board of Game to establish the means
and methods by which a person with disabilities can hunt. In
response to another question, he said he is not aware of anyone
having requested to be able to fish remotely.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, in response to a question regarding
jurisdiction, explained that the bill stipulates that one may
not engage in computer-assisted remote hunting either in the
state or from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the administration has
the jurisdiction to prosecute someone outside of Alaska.
MR. SAXBY said the administration would probably only prosecute
someone in the state. In response to another question, he said
the administration is satisfied with the language in Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested to the sponsor that he give
consideration to whether he wants the bill to contain a
forfeiture provision.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he assumes that computer-assisted
remote hunting could only be accomplished through the use of a
game farm, and therefore outlawing such activity will ensure
that it never happens and thus nothing would be subject to
forfeiture.
2:58:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 220, Version 25-LS0795\E, Kane, 4/11/07,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 220(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|