Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/14/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar | |
| HB175 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 175 - COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
2:08:24 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act relating to an appearance
before a judicial officer after arrest; relating to penalties
for operating a vehicle without possessing proof of motor
vehicle liability insurance or a driver's license; relating to
penalties for certain arson offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1),
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules
of Administration; and providing for an effective date."
2:09:14 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained
that HB 175 would correct four problems in current law.
Specifically, Sections 1, 2, and 6 - pertaining respectively to
AS 12.25.150, rights of prisoner after arrest, AS 12.70.130,
arrest without warrant of a person charged with a crime in
another state, and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, proceedings before the judge or magistrate - would
conform those provisions of law to reflect changes made last
year via House Bill 324. That bill last year increased the
timeframe - from 24 hours to 48 hours - in which a person must
be brought before a judicial officer after being arrested;
unfortunately, that bill neglected to also make conforming
changes to AS 12.25.150 and AS 12.70.130.
MS. CARPENETI explained that Section 3 - pertaining to AS
28.15.131, license to be carried and exhibited on demand - would
conform that statute to current court rules in the Alaska Rules
of Administration which provide that not having one's valid
driver's license in one's possession while driving is merely a
correctable infraction, with bail set at $50, rather than a
class B misdemeanor. Section 4 - pertaining to AS 28.22.019,
proof of insurance to be carried and exhibited on demand [and]
penalty - would similarly conform that statute to current court
rules in the Alaska Rules of Administration which provide that
not having proof of insurance in one's possession while driving
is merely a correctable infraction, with a mandatory fine of
$500, rather than a class B misdemeanor with a discretionary
minimum fine of $500.
MS. CARPENETI explained that Section 5 - pertaining to AS
41.23.220, penalty [for committing violations in the Knik River
Public Use Area] - would conform that statute with AS 11.46.420,
pertaining to the crime arson in the third degree. Enacted in
2006, AS 41.23.220 and associated regulations provided that
burning a vehicle in the Knik River Public Use Area would be a
violation, with a bail amount of $50. In contrast, when enacted
in 2008, AS 11.46.420 provided that burning a vehicle on state
or municipal land would be a class C felony property crime.
Under Section 5, all burning of vehicles in public areas would
be a class C felony, and this is in keeping with the latest
expression of legislative intent as evidenced by the enactment
of AS 11.46.420. In response to a question, she confirmed that
under Section 4, not having proof of insurance in one's
possession while driving would remain a correctable infraction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a Department of Law
memorandum in members' packets dated March 1, 2010, regarding
other states' rules about first court appearance after arrest.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, clarified that in
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin - one of the cases cited in
that memorandum - the U.S. Supreme Court approved a 48-hour
time-period for holding someone without probable cause; and that
no state court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution as
requiring a different time period, though other states have
approved a variety of different time periods in their state
laws. She confirmed that Alaska's courts hadn't addressed this
issue yet because existing Alaska Statute provided for a 24-hour
time-period including weekends and holidays.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that Alaska's courts
haven't yet interpreted the U.S. Constitution regarding that
issue, and suggested, therefore, that a specific severability
clause be added to HB 175 since its proposed change to the time
limit could invite a constitutional challenge.
2:23:34 PM
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), noting that he'd submitted
written testimony regarding HB 175, pointed out that in Alaska
there is already a rule allowing for an exception to the
existing deadline when necessary. It's an open question, he
ventured, whether the Alaska Supreme Court would find that a 48-
hour time-period is reasonable. To the extent that HB 175 is
intended to allow for the extended period of time only when
needed, he remarked, the ACLU of Alaska suggests that it would
instead be better to have a 24-hour time-period and continue to
allow for additional time to be requested when necessary.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:26 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to comments, pointed out that the
constitutional issues regarding this time period were discussed
thoroughly last year when House Bill 324 - which proposed the
change from 24 hours to 48 hours - was debated, and reiterated
that HB 175 would merely correct an oversight in that when that
time period was changed, some of the associated statutes weren't
similarly changed.
2:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the language on
page 2 of Mr. Mittman's written testimony, specifically that
which read [original punctuation, along with some formatting
changes, provided]:
Given that the currently existing rules of criminal
procedure already provide an exception for defendants
arrested far from urban centers and allow the
prosecution to request a delay to gather more
information where necessary for a bail hearing, the
state's success over the last 18 years in providing an
initial appearance within 24 hours strongly suggests
that a delay of more than 24 hours would represent
unnecessary delay, making the statute
unconstitutional.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions and comments, clarified
that although Alaska's statutes do allow for a delay if the
person is charged with a felony, that delay only applies after
the person's initial appearance before the court, whereas the
bill addresses the time period in which a person must initially
be brought before the court after his/her arrest. Regardless of
what the deadlines is, the best practice, she pointed out, is to
bring the person before a judicial officer as soon as possible
because that's better for all concerned. However, there are
situations in which it could be difficult for law enforcement to
gather enough information within a 24-hour time-period to
determine what the appropriate charges should be, and it would
therefore be better to wait a day before arraignment. The bill
would extend the deadline in those cases where it is necessary
for the orderly administration of justice. Furthermore, the
victim has a constitutional right to appear at that initial
hearing, and sometimes he/she either can't be found or would be
unable to attend within a 24-hour time-period. She assured the
committee that having a 48-hour deadline doesn't mean that the
DOL is automatically going to wait another day before bringing a
person in for his/her initial court appearance, because the DOL
is not interested in keeping someone an extra day just because
the law allows it.
2:39:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DOL was having to
release people because it wasn't meeting the 24-hour deadline.
MS. CARPENETI said not to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned, then, why the deadline was
changed.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the 24-hour deadline was
problematic in that when a person was arrested in the middle of
the night or was arrested in a rural area of the state, for
example, it was sometimes very difficult to gather enough
information within 24 hours for the DOL to make reasonable
decisions. Referring to the aforementioned DOL memorandum, she
noted that most other states provide for a significantly greater
amount of time than 24 hours. She offered her belief that the
change from 24 hours to 48 hours hasn't affected the majority of
cases, and would instead be very helpful. In response to
further questions, she acknowledged that because the statutes
weren't changed under House Bill 324, most jurisdictions are
still operating under the 24-hour deadline, though some
jurisdictions have somewhat relaxed that deadline depending on
the particular case.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify on HB 175, closed public testimony, and relayed that
HB 175 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Amy L. Demboski Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| William A. Granger Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Nora G. Barlow Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |