Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/10/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB233 | |
| HB264 | |
| HB250 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB285 | |
| HB228 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 228-SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY; NOTICE TO VICTIMS
[Contains discussion of HB 49.]
4:06:17 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 228, "An Act relating to notice
provided to victims regarding petitions for removal from a
registry that is published on the Internet; relating to the
duration of the duty to register as a sex offender or child
kidnapper; relating to petitions for removal from a registry
that is published on the Internet; relating to the definitions
of 'tier I sex offense,' 'tier II sex offense or child
kidnapping,' and 'tier III sex offense or child kidnapping';
amending the definition of 'sex offense'; relating to the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; establishing Rule 35.3,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
4:07:34 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor, relayed that HB
228 is in response to the Alaska Supreme Court decision of June
2019, Doe v. Department of Public Safety. It held that
offenders on the sex offender registry must be afforded the
opportunity to be removed from the registry, if they can
demonstrate that they no longer pose a danger to the public.
The decision was based on the Alaska State Constitution's "Right
of Privacy" provision [Article I, Section 22], and stated that
the state's sex offender registry, without affording an offender
the opportunity to be removed, is unconstitutional. The
decision discussed an offender on the registry being denied
housing, employment, and living in a certain community.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that HB 228 would provide the legislature
with an opportunity to provide guidance to practitioners and the
courts about the burden of proof that an offender must produce
to establish that he/she is no longer a danger - "beyond a
reasonable doubt," "clear and convincing evidence," or "probable
cause." He posed the following questions: What sort of prior
convictions or other factors might influence the decision about
whether an individual is dangerous? How long must an offender
be on the registry before he/she is able to apply to be removed
from the registry? If an offender is denied, can he/she reapply
to be removed? If so, how frequently and what sort of factors
would determine whether the offender could reapply?"
MR. SKIDMORE stated that there are two components to the
registry: the law enforcement registry, which is used for law
enforcement purposes, and the information posted online for the
public to view. Under current law, a smaller subset of the
information provided to law enforcement is posted online. All
the concepts that the Alaska Supreme Court found that violate
the Alaska State Constitution are based on the public registry.
Another very significant question is, "When an individual has
the opportunity to be removed from the registry, is that simply
an opportunity to not have their information published to the
public, or does that mean that they never have to provide any
information to law enforcement, once they've met that burden?"
He maintained that these are all questions that need to be
answered and are best answered by the legislature. He said that
HB 228 would afford the legislature the opportunity to discuss
these issues and provide guidance on policy.
MR. SKIDMORE noted that HB 228 would also bring Alaska's
registry into closer alignment with the federal government and
other states. He relayed that the proposed legislation
accomplishes this in two ways: First, it creates three tiers of
registry for evaluating different types of offenses instead of
two tiers of registry. Second, there is additional information
that Alaska does not currently require that would be helpful for
law enforcement. An example is international travel
information. When an individual from another country travels to
the U.S., the U.S. State Department asks the other country to
advise it if the individual has been convicted or held
responsible in that other country for a sex offense. The U.S.
government wants to monitor the sex offender who is coming to
the U.S. Likewise, other countries want that information on
U.S. citizens that travel. This information is valuable for law
enforcement but is never posted on a public registry.
4:14:01 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what would happen if the
legislature took no action.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that all the questions that he posed are
under litigation in the superior court. If the legislature does
not act, then the courts would have to continue to legislate
"from the bench" to answer the questions. He stated that if
decisions are made on a case by case basis, then each superior
court judge would make decisions independently on each case.
There is no controlling guidance from one superior court to
another. The only way judges would be bound and uniformity
brought to the process is if there was a conflict in the lower
courts and the case was heard by the court of appeals or the
Alaska Supreme Court. In that case, one of them would have to
legislate from the bench and provide guidance. He said that
another option would be for the Alaska Court System to adopt
rules to answer the questions - again resulting in the judicial
branch legislating and providing policy guidance instead of the
legislature. He added that if the legislature does not act,
there would be two outcomes: 1) increased litigation and
expense, and 2) a lack of guidance resulting in continued
confusion and cases handled in different manners. He added that
if the legislature were to decide that it doesn't agree with the
courts, it would have no ability to reverse the decisions.
4:17:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how a minor - in the case of a 14-
year-old sending a nude photograph through a [cell] phone -
would be treated under the tiered system and be removed from a
sex registry.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that in Alaska, minors are not required to
register for sex offenses; therefore, they would not be impacted
under HB 228 or current law.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the chart from DOL, entitled
"Sex Offender Registration" and included in the committee
packet, and asked how the benchmarks for the tiers were chosen:
registration with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for 10
years under Tier I, 15 years under Tier II, and Life under Tier
III; eligible for removal from the online registry at 5 years
under Tier I, 10 years under Tier II, and 15 years under Tier
III.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the tiers in the chart are those used
by the federal government and by most states in the country.
Alaska is following other states for a uniform approach
nationwide. The tier system and the time frames are in line
with what other states are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is data showing that a
sex offender or kidnapper is unlikely to reoffend after a
certain number of years to support the schedule in the chart.
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that he is not aware of studies on
that issue. Most of the states in the country have statutory
provisions like what the Alaska Supreme Court is requiring the
legislature to enact - a way for individuals to be removed from
the registry if they can demonstrate that they no longer pose a
danger.
4:21:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Skidmore to elucidate on "Class A
Misdemeanor Sex Offense: Sexual Abuse of a Minor 4" under Tier
1.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that misdemeanor sex offences are the
least serious of the sex offenses. Sex offenses are
characterized by sexual penetration and sexual contact; and
misdemeanors relate to sexual contact, as defined under AS
11.41.427(a)(1)-(5), which read in part:
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual assault in
the fourth degree if
(1) while employed in a state correctional
facility or other placement designated by the
commissioner of corrections for the custody and care
of prisoners, the offender engages in sexual contact
with a person who the offender knows is committed to
the custody of the Department of Corrections to serve
a term of imprisonment or period of temporary
commitment;
(2) the offender engages in sexual contact with a
person 18 or 19 years of age who the offender knows is
committed to the custody of the Department of Health
and Social Services under AS 47.10 or AS 47.12 and the
offender is the legal guardian of the person;
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that the sexual contact cited involves
someone older and not sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the legal effects would be for
the state, if it chose to increase the time frames [for being on
the online registry] under the tiers.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that he does not know at what point the
court would conclude that the length of time someone is on the
registry is longer than what the court considers due process
required under the Alaska State Constitution. He offered that
the courts have indicated that someone needs to be afforded the
opportunity to be removed from the registry. The proposed
legislation would set a clear and convincing evidence burden of
proof to show that the person is not a danger; that is, looking
at subsequent convictions, other assessments, and whatever DOL
considers would give the greatest assurance that someone removed
from the registry would not be a danger. He added that under HB
228, the individual would only be removed from the public
registry but would still be required to report to law
enforcement.
4:25:38 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Committee,
sponsor, by request of the governor, paraphrased from the
sectional analysis for HB 228, which read:
Sections 1 and 2 require a victim to be notified
of the filing of a petition for removal from a
registry that is published on the Internet and of
their right to participate in the subsequent hearing.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 add to the list of
information that a sex offender or child kidnapper
must provide to the Department of Public Safety upon
registering to include such things as if they intend
to leave the state or intend to travel
internationally.
Section 6 of the bill creates a third tier of sex
offenders and child kidnappers. The tier will
determine the length of the registration period. Tier
I offenders will need to register for 10 years after
unconditional discharge, tier II offenders will need
to register for 15 years after unconditional
discharge, and tier III offenders will need to
register for life after unconditional discharge.
Section 7 of the bill clarifies that the period
of registration is tolled if the sex offender or child
kidnapper is not in compliance with the registration
requirements or is incarcerated. The period tolled
would be equal to the amount of time that the person
was out of compliance or was incarcerated.
4:28:33 PM
Section 8 outlines the criteria that must be
satisfied before a sex offender or child kidnapper may
be removed from an Internet registry. The sex offender
or child kidnapper must have
(1) successfully completed all treatment
programs ordered by the court or required by the
parole board;
(2) within the previous year, been assessed
as low-risk by a treatment provider approved by
the Department of Corrections under AS 44.28.020;
(3) since being convicted of the offense for
which the person is registering, has not been
convicted of an offense, attempt, solicitation,
or conspiracy to commit any of the following
offenses:
(i) a crime against a person under AS
11.41;
(ii) a violation by sex offender of
condition of probation under AS
11.56.759;
(iii) sending an explicit image of a
minor under AS 11.61.116;
(iv) cruelty to animals under AS
11.61.140;
(v) misconduct involving weapons under
AS 11.61.190 11.61.250;
(vi) a sex offense or child kidnapping
as defined in AS 12.63.100; or
(vii) a crime of domestic violence
under AS 18.66.990.
In addition, the person must not have been
convicted of failure to register as a sex offender or
child kidnapper for the previous 15 years for a tier
III offender, 10 years for a tier II offender, or five
years for a tier I offender. These time periods must
not include the period prior to unconditional
discharge.
4:30:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Section 8(a)(3), on page 9,
line 29 - page 10, line 11, of HB 228, and asked whether an
offender convicted of any of the crimes listed under
subparagraphs (A)-(G) would never be removed from the offender
registry.
MS. SCHROEDER answered, "That's correct. Those are disqualifying
offenses."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the standards were
consistent with the Alaska Supreme Court ruling.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that the supreme court was not very
prescriptive regarding the standards; DOL looked to other states
to develop a list that the department thought would work in
Alaska.
MS. SCHROEDER continued to paraphrase from the sectional
analysis, which read:
The court must find by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the registration and compliance
requirements outlined in statute have been satisfied;
(2) the sex offender or child kidnapper is unlikely to
commit another sex offense or child kidnapping; and
(3) continued registration on a registry that is
published on the Internet is not necessary for the
protection of the public. Even if the person's
information is removed from an Internet registry, the
person must still register with the Department of
Public Safety for law enforcement purposes.
This section also requires the Department of
Corrections to pay for the risk assessments required
under this section if the court determines that the
person petitioning for removal from a registry that is
published on the Internet is indigent.
Finally, this section makes clear that the court
must allow the victim of the offense which required
the sex offender or child kidnapper to register to
submit comments to the court about whether the person
should be removed from the registry that is published
on the Internet.
Section 9 of the bill makes sexual conduct with
animals a registerable sex offense.
Section 10 of the bill defines "registry that is
published on the Internet" and "tier I," "tier II,"
and "tier III" sex offenses.
Section 11 is a conforming change.
Section 12 of the bill allows the public defender
to represent an indigent person in their petition for
removal from an Internet registry.
Section 13 gives the Court of Appeals
jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding removal from an
Internet registry.
Section 14 requires the Department of Corrections
adopt standards for the administration of risk
assessments for sex offenders and child kidnappers.
Section 15 establishes a court rule which mirrors
the requirements in section 8 of the bill.
Section 16 amends the applicability of the
requirements for an out-of-state sex offender to
register in Alaska when that person is present in the
state (ch.4 FSSLA 2016 (HB 49)) to apply to offenses
committed before, on, or after July 9, 2019.
4:35:47 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the legislature did not make
the requirement [for an out-of-state sex offender to register in
Alaska] retroactive at the time HB 49 was passed.
Section 17 repeals AS 12.63.100(1), the
definition of aggravated sex offense under AS
11.41.100(a)(3) or similar law of another jurisdiction
since the bill moves from the aggravated sex offense
classification to the tier system established in
section 6.
Section 18 is the applicability section. Most of
the bill is retroactive and will apply to sex
offenders and child kidnappers who have already been
convicted and are on the registry.
Section 19 is the conditional effect section for
the court rule.
Section 20 establishes the effective date of the
bill as July 1, 2020.
4:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether sex offenders from out of
state, who must register in Alaska, would be subject to Alaska's
requirements for removal from the registry or those in the state
in which they were convicted.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that an individual from out of state would
be required to register for the same length of time that he/she
is required to register in the state of conviction. To afford
the person the opportunity to be removed from Alaska's registry,
DOL would need to determine the appropriate tier.
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins's
question, said that DOL wanted to keep the law as narrow as
possible in dealing with out-of-state sex offenders so that if
there was a legal challenge, it would be a "clean" legal
challenge. He explained that applying the law retroactively is
a different legal concept - one that DOL wanted to keep
separate. He added that the case that prompted introduction of
HB 228 had two components: One component was whether Alaska sex
offender registration may be imposed on sex offenders who have
moved to Alaska. At the time HB 49 was moving through the
legislature, there was litigation in the Alaska Supreme Court
addressing such issues. That portion of the opinion was decided
in Alaska's favor. The second component was that the court's
opinion led DOL to believe that applying the law retroactively
would be legal.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 228 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 233 Letter of Support 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support #2 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support #3 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 307 Sponsor Statement v. A 3.9.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 Sectional Analysis v. A 3.9.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 v. A 3.9.2020.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO-03-06-20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 285 Sponsor Statement ver A 3.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 Sectional ver A 3.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 ver A 3.10.20.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 Fiscal Note DNR-DMLW-3-6-20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 228 Transmittal Letter 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Sectional Analysis 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOA OPA 1.27.2020.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DMVA Offc Commissioner 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 v. A 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOA PDA 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOC Health and Rehab 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DPS Statewide Support 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note Law Crim. Div. 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support - Testimony 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support - Testimony #2 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |