Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/16/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB114 | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| HB175 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 175 - COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
2:43:21 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final 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."
2:43:38 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained
that [Sections 1, 2, and 6 of HB 175 - 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. Specifically, 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, although it changed the
court rule to reflect the new deadline, neglected to also make
conforming changes to AS 12.25.150 and AS 12.70.130. In
response to questions, she indicated that a person might have
his/her charges dismissed, depending on the circumstances, if
he/she isn't brought before a judicial officer within the
required timeframe; and relayed that law enforcement agencies
and the Department of Corrections (DOC) are still following the
statute's requirement of 24 hours rather than the court rule's
requirement of 48 hours.
2:45:41 PM
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 - 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 - 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 to 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 questions, she indicated that
AS 11.46.420 doesn't apply in situations involving private land.
2:53:33 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
questions, acknowledging that the bill is only providing for
conforming changes to those made last year, shared his concern
that the [existing] 48-hour timeframe in which a person must be
brought before a judicial officer after being arrested could
result in the person having to remain in jail longer than
necessary, particularly in situations involving lower-level
offenses and particularly if waiting the entire 48 hours becomes
the standard operating procedure for law enforcement. He
expressed his hope that in the majority of cases, a person would
be brought before a judicial officer within 24 hours and a delay
to 48 hours would only occur in the few cases where it's truly
necessary.
MS. CARPENETI noted that the existing language of AS
12.25.150(a) - found in Section 1 of the bill - says in part, "A
person arrested shall be taken before a judge or magistrate
without unnecessary delay", and relayed that most entities
involved in the criminal justice system are already geared up to
meet a 24-hour deadline, but there are a few situations in which
that doesn't provide enough time for all parties involved in the
case, including the victim. Again, the law would still require
that no unnecessary delay occur between the person's arrest and
his/her initial judicial hearing.
CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, expressed a preference
for not delaying the bill, given that it's only addressing
conforming changes.
3:04:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 1,
labeled 27-ls0579\A.1, Gardner, 3/14/11, which read:
Page 3, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
SEVERABILITY. Under AS 01.10.030, if any
provision of this Act, or the application of it to any
person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder
of this Act and the application to other persons or
circumstances is not affected."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that Amendment 1 would
preclude any potential problems pertaining to severability from
arising.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, indicated her belief
that Alaska's general severability clause would already apply if
the issue were raised, but acknowledged that the adoption of
Amendment 1 wouldn't hurt.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected, and expressed a concern that
adopting Amendment 1 could unnecessarily "red flag" the issue of
severability. He then removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just wants to be sure that the
court understands [it could simply sever those provisions of the
bill it finds to be unconstitutional and leave the other
provisions intact].
CHAIR GATTO, upon ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 175, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
175(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB114 Fiscal Note CS(LC)-LAW-CIV-03-11-11.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 114 |
| HB114 Supporting Documents-Article Goodcents 03-2011.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 114 |
| HB175 Proposed Amendment A.1 03-14-11.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| Donald J. Haase Campaign Information.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Eagle Forum Posts.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Judicial Council Composition.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |