Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/03/2022 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB287 | |
| HB246 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
10:13:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR (via
teleconference), introduced the legislation that aimed to
reflect the new law and consensus in Alaska around the
decriminalization of marijuana and removed the convictions
of simple marijuana possession from public view. He
reported that the legislation had attracted support from
both sides of the isle and his office had worked closely
with the administration. He believed it was a timely policy
change to make, especially as the state settled into the
new post-marijuana decriminalization.
10:15:44 AM
CLAIRE GROSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-
TOMKINS, explained the bill had two distinct parts, which
addressed the two primary ways employers and members of the
public access criminal justice information in Alaska. The
first part pertained to the Alaska Court System. She
highlighted that the two parts were separate, one was
automatic and the other required a petition process. She
detailed that the court system would automatically remove
the very specific type of minor marijuana conviction from
CourtView at no cost. She noted the department would be
able to absorb the cost. The bill applied to convictions
where a person was convicted for less than one ounce of
marijuana, they were 21 years of age or older at the time
of the offense, and they were not convicted of any other
criminal charges in that case. She explained the specific
convictions had been selected due to some CourtView
technology protocol requirements. She explained the court
system could not take one charge or conviction out of a
case on CourtView, it had to process one entire case at a
time.
Ms. Gross addressed the second portion of the bill
pertaining to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). She
detailed that DPS maintained and worked from the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) database. She
explained that employers could use the APSIN database for
formal background checks. For example, the system could be
accessed by employers outside the state, for jobs requiring
state licensure, for people applying to work in law
enforcement, and other. She elaborated that any employers
could request an "any persons" report from DPS. She
explained that individuals with past convictions that met
the aforementioned requirements could petition DPS to have
the specific information in their background checks
shielded from view. She clarified that the information
would not be officially sealed, but shielding the
information was functionally the same thing. She noted that
any member of the criminal justice system would continue to
have access to the information.
Ms. Gross relayed that DPS would need one full-time
employee for one year at a cost of approximately $100,000
in order to work through the cases and respond to
petitions. She reported there was some cost associated with
updating the APSIN software to access the records and
shield them from view.
10:20:18 AM
Representative Josephson asked if it would be a friendly
amendment if the bill covered 18 to 20 year olds even
though the law did not protect their right to smoke
marijuana.
Ms. Gross replied that the bill aimed to address things
that Alaskans had determined were no longer a crime. She
stated the problem with including people under the age of
21 was it was still a crime in Alaska; therefore, it was
not something the sponsor's office wanted included in the
bill.
Representative Josephson noted he would like to ask the
court system a question at some point.
Co-Chair Merrick replied affirmatively.
Representative LeBon stated in his "banking days" he had a
customer that required drug (including marijuana) testing
for his employees due to the nature of his business. He
asked if the employer should know about a person's
background and use of marijuana when going into a hiring
process where a company policy was in place to test for
marijuana use (whether the use of marijuana was legal or
not).
Ms. Gross replied that under the legislation, the answer
was no. She reasoned that being high at a job or testing
positive for marijuana at a job where it was not allowable
was a different situation than a past minor conviction.
10:22:24 AM
Representative LeBon appreciated the answer. He asked if it
would be fair for an employer to ask a future employee if
they had a prior legal conviction or incident of use when
the employer had told the future employee there would be
testing going forward.
Ms. Gross asked for clarification on the question.
Representative LeBon was trying to think the bill through
from the perspective of a private employer with a drug
testing program due to the nature of the work where a sober
workforce was important. He asked if it was relevant
information for the hiring process to know about an
applicant's past or to provide notice to a potential
employee the business would be testing for marijuana use.
He remarked that his comment was more of a statement than a
question.
10:23:49 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if he was correct in understanding
that for persons under the age of 18 nothing about a
person's criminal record ever met public view.
Ms. Gross deferred the question to the court system.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, answered
that if someone under the age of 18 was accused of a crime,
the Division of Juvenile Justice generally handled the
case. She elaborated that the proceedings were part of
juvenile delinquency, and the cases were confidential. She
explained that the court system did not file the
information on CourtView and generally people other than
law enforcement did not have access to the information.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that under the
legislation, people between the ages of 18 and 21 would not
be protected and their records would continue to be
available in the current form. He asked if the court system
would be averse to providing an avenue to shield the
records for the specific age group.
10:26:45 AM
Ms. Mead answered that the court system would not take a
position on a policy call made by the legislature. For
example, several years back, the legislature decided that
minor consuming alcohol cases should not appear on
CourtView if they were not charged with other criminal
cases (because of the limitations on how the court system
could and could not post things on CourtView). The court
system followed the policy and minor consuming charges for
individuals under the age of 21 were not posted on
CourtView. She relayed the court system would be able to do
the same for marijuana use if it was the policy call made
by the legislature.
Representative Josephson stated he had come to have more
sensitivity about the court's rights over CourtView and
whether it exists at all because the tool belonged to the
court system, not the legislature. He considered the
scenario where the bill passed and directed the court
system to do or not do certain things with CourtView. He
asked if it would be viewed by the court system as an
encroachment on its jurisdiction.
Ms. Mead appreciated the sensitivity. She stated it
depended on the level of the infringement on CourtView. She
detailed that CourtView was the court system's case
management system and the court made numerous decisions
about the database as its own policy. She elaborated that
starting in 2015 the legislature required any criminal case
ending in dismissal or acquittal to be removed from
CourtView. She informed the committee it had been a strong
policy at the time. She expounded that the supreme court
had not simultaneously considered the same sorts of
policies and the court system did not consider it an
infringement because it had been easy to do and there was a
strong view on the part of the legislature that it should
happen. She explained that the current bill would be worded
fairly similarly and globally the court system could remove
things from CourtView if the legislature desired. She noted
it was not currently an issue the supreme court was focused
on. She remarked it would be different if the supreme court
was in the midst of considering changes to CourtView in a
more global manner or wanted to make a review of everything
on or off of the database. She explained that during that
time period she may have a different reaction to the
legislature stepping in and making some of the decisions
being considered by the court.
Representative Josephson asked if the court system could
decide it no longer wanted to have the CourtView system.
Ms. Mead answered affirmatively.
10:30:23 AM
Representative LeBon remarked that Alaska was not the only
state to legalize the use of marijuana. He asked if it was
a trend among other states that had legalized marijuana use
to clear the court records of prior use as described in the
bill.
Ms. Mead replied that Ms. Gross had data on the topic.
Ms. Gross replied that the majority of other states that
had legalized marijuana had enacted a much broader version
of something like HB 246. She explained that other states
were excusing felonies and reducing charges. She elaborated
that many states that had [the legalization of marijuana
on] a ballot initiative had included the changes [similar
to those proposed in the current bill] automatically. She
stated that Alaska was behind the times compared to other
states. She added that the majority of states that had not
legalized marijuana had taken some type of step in the
direction taken by the bill.
Representative LeBon was interested in a summary of states
that had backed off of the reporting and had cleared record
to understand how far behind Alaska was.
10:31:52 AM
Representative Wool asked about individuals convicted of
minor marijuana crimes and not charged with another crime
in the same incident. He had heard in the past there were
not many standalone marijuana crimes. He understood dealing
and cultivation were likely not minor crimes.
Ms. Mead clarified that the bill looked at people who were
not convicted of any other charges in the case. She
explained that other charges may have been filed in the
case. Under the legislation, the court system would remove
from CourtView, cases where possession of under an ounce of
marijuana was the sole conviction in the case. She relayed
the estimated number of cases that would be removed from
CourtView was somewhere between 700 and 1,000. She added
that defendants needed to be over 21 years of age. She
noted that the bill had been around in different iterations
brought by different legislators in the past. She detailed
that in the past there had been a question about what
happened in cases where a person had been charged with
other things and it had been dealt down to marijuana. The
court system had been asked for the number of the cases
with no other charges. The court system had found the
number to be approximately half with other charges in the
case. She clarified that the current bill only applied to
cases where there were no other convictions apart from the
marijuana charge. She relayed that the court system could
count the specific cases readily.
10:34:05 AM
Ms. Gross explained that DPS and the court system were
working from different numbers because they did things
differently and had different constraints related to how
the data was originally stored. She explained the number
was very different from the DPS side, which had identified
8,500 records in the state's criminal case history
repository. She elaborated that some of the people had died
and some of the people accounted for more than one of the
convictions. She believed when factoring in the
information, the number of actual people who would benefit
from the legislation was around 8,000.
Representative Wool stated his understanding that the bill
applied to minor marijuana crimes without any other
convictions attached. He asked for verification that the
only charge seen on CourtView was the marijuana charge and
it included no other crimes such as a DUI.
Ms. Mead clarified that it was the only conviction that
would be seen on CourtView. She explained that a person may
have been originally charged with four things, but only
convicted on the marijuana charge.
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Mead's earlier statement
that minor consumption of alcohol cases (below the age of
21) were not listed on CourtView. He asked if the charges
associated with minor consumption of alcohol or marijuana
were similar.
Ms. Mead replied, "No." She elaborated that minor consuming
alcohol was a minor offense and not considered a crime. She
explained that the offense was a violation carrying a
ticket cost of $500. Individuals had the ability to reduce
the fine to $250 if they did a certain training. She
clarified that possession of marijuana was still a crime
for individuals under the age of 21. She elucidated that
the possession of marijuana was still a crime on the books
under Title 11 for individuals over the age of 21, but it
was a defense for individuals over 21 years of age in
possession of one ounce.
10:37:49 AM
Representative Wool asked for verification that under the
bill, individuals aged 18 up to 21 who were caught with
possession of marijuana would not have their record
expunged.
Ms. Mead confirmed that the court system would not review
those cases from CourtView.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Mead to review the court
system's fiscal note.
Ms. Mead reviewed the department's zero fiscal note. She
detailed that the court system intended to identify the
specified cases and already had a fairly global list. The
department would remove cases that contained conduct that
fell under the bill from CourtView. She reported that the
bill sponsor agreed to a delayed effective date to allow
time for the court system to implement the change without
additional resources. She noted that making the removal of
the cases automatic instead of via petition had been
selected because it did not require additional resources.
She cautioned there may be a small number of errors because
sometimes the court system could identify the cases that
came in under the particular subsection of possession of
under one ounce of marijuana, in addition to a person's
birthdate and offence date. She explained that sometimes
the prosecuting authority did not provide a precise
subsection and provided a more global charge (e.g.,
11.71.060 without specifying which subsection). She
clarified that the particular cases would not be
automatically removed from CourtView because they contain
conduct other than that described in Section 4 of the bill.
Under the particular circumstances, the court system may
miss someone in the automatic process. She explained that
the person would be able to fill out a form to notify the
court system they were improperly on CourtView. The court
system staff would have to assess the cases individually.
She noted that if the system was flooded with forms, there
may be some sort of fiscal impact in the future. She added
she did not foresee it being an issue.
10:40:25 AM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
change would not prevent law enforcement from knowing an
entire history of unconvicted charges if they were looking
for pattern and practice, proper propensity evidence, and
MO evidence.
Ms. Mead answered that law enforcement should not be
relying on CourtView for access to official criminal
records in any event. She noted that law enforcement would
be impacted by Sections 1 through 3 of the legislation,
which did not pertain to CourtView. She noted that law
enforcement would still have full access to the records.
Sections 1 through 3 would only shield the records from the
"any persons" requests.
10:41:23 AM
Co-Chair Merrick asked the Department of Public Safety to
review its fiscal note.
KELLY HOWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, relayed that DPS, through an
analysis of the records contained in APSIN, identified
approximately 8,500 records that were standalone
convictions as classified in the bill. She elaborated that
because DPS could not estimate how many of the individuals
would come forward to request that the information be
prohibited from disclosure, DPS would request to hire a
temporary position to enable the department to deal with
the incoming requests and to proactively research records
in order to expedite requests from individuals to prohibit
the information from disclosure in certain background
reports. The department would request $184,200 UGF in the
first year to cover personal services and the necessary
programming changes to APSIN to prohibit release of the
information. The cost in the second year would be $121,200
in personal services costs for the position and associated
overhead costs.
10:43:40 AM
Representative Josephson asked for the reason between the
difference in the 700 to 1,000 cases [projected by the
court system] and the 8,000 [projected by DPS].
Ms. Mead replied that the court system was counting cases
that were filed under the specific subsection of the
illegal marijuana law (AS 11.71.060) specifying that
possessing under one ounce of the substance was a crime.
She clarified that if the case came into the court system
charging AS 11.71.060(a)(2)(a), the court system would
remove the case, given it was the conduct the bill wanted
shielded from CourtView. She elaborated that the law had
changed a number of times over the years. For example, in
the 1980s the marijuana possession law specified it was
legal to possess up to half a pound of the substance. She
detailed if the court system had a case in its records
where a person had been convicted for possessing over half
a pound, the case would not be removed from CourtView under
the legislation because the person may have been in
possession of seven ounces. She expounded that a person may
come forward requesting the department to look at the case
if they had only been convicted of possessing up to one
ounce. She explained the case would be removed [from
CourtView] if it was found to meet the criteria. She
clarified the department's estimate only counted cases it
was certain fell within the bill's specifications.
Ms. Howell explained the reason for the discrepancy in
between the court system and DPS numbers. She detailed that
APSIN was the state's criminal history repository and
contained official records of a person's criminal history.
Out of an abundance of caution, the department had
identified and included a number of cases that could meet
the criteria in the bill. The cases were standalone
convictions for possession of marijuana. She highlighted
that the law had changed many times and the department did
not know without conducting further research whether a
person's particular conviction would meet the criteria in
the bill; therefore, the department had identified any
record that could potentially fall under the bill
(including state convictions and municipal offenses). She
added that the department's bureau chief for Criminal
Records and Identification was available online to speak as
the subject matter expert on APSIN and criminal history
records.
10:47:07 AM
LISA PURINTON, BUREAU CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), confirmed Ms. Howell's prior statement
that the major discrepancy between the court system and DPS
numbers was the difference between having the specific
subsections as Ms. Mead had identified versus the more
general version of AS 11.71.060 without any reference to
subsections. She explained those cases would have to be
individually researched by DPS to determine if the criteria
had been met as outlined in the bill for preventing the
records from being displayed in an "any persons" background
check request. She highlighted that the DPS data went much
further back than the court's data. She believed the court
was limited to going back to around 2007, while DPS
included all historic marijuana conviction records that
could potentially fall within scope.
Ms. Mead clarified that initially the court system had gone
back to 2005 when all of the courts were on CourtView and
records were most reliable. She noted that the bill had
started several years back. Since that time, more
information had been added to CourtView. In general, the
court system identified about 700 cases from 2005 forward.
The cases going back to 1990 accounted for the slightly
higher number.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for the bill sponsor about the
catalyst for the bill.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that the idea had
been discussed in past legislatures since the ballot
initiative decriminalizing marijuana had passed a number of
years back. He explained that the issue had always been on
his radar and the action seemed very reasonable, especially
as other states around the country had gone much farther
than the scope of the bill. He added that the bill
reflected a calibration toward what he hoped could attract
maximum support from the legislature and pass. He would be
pleased to see a greater scope, but he had matched the bill
to what he believed were the political realities in the
building. He believed the bill made a lot of sense given
how marijuana had evolved over the past decade and had been
changed in the state's criminal statutes. He viewed the
action taken by the bill as a commonsense step.
10:50:45 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was a difference in the
public's accessibility of records shown on CourtView versus
in the DPS APSIN database.
Ms. Howell answered that APSIN was not accessible by the
general public.
Representative Carpenter was concerned about rewriting
history and the inability for employers to access past
records from the court system for prospective employees. He
understood it was an effort to destigmatize something that
had been illegal and was now legal. He provided a
hypothetical scenario where the speed limit increased from
55 miles per hour (mph) to 65 mph. He asked if individuals
who had received a speeding ticket when the speed limit was
lower should no longer have the speeding violation on their
record. He explained that as an employer, he would look at
the record and determine that when the speed limit had been
55 mph the individual had a violation. He explained it
provided information about their following of the law. He
asked if there were instances where other laws had changed.
He understood it was a policy call, but he wondered if
there were instances where speeding tickets had been
removed from CourtView because of speed limit changes or
other violations, misdemeanors, or felonies had changed and
therefore records had been removed from CourtView.
Alternatively, he asked if the bill was an isolated case.
10:53:22 AM
Ms. Mead answered that the short answer was "no" with
respect to CourtView. She explained that when laws changed
there was not a policy or law directing the court to remove
entries on Court View. The bill would be unique in that
regard. She pointed out that the court system was neutral
on the bill. She highlighted that the legislation was not a
full expungement bill and did not destroy records. She
noted that law enforcement would continue to have full
access to the information. She explained that based on what
the legislature had done in the past, the bill followed the
pattern of saying that the cases would be removed from the
publicly available internet site CourtView. The change
would mean people in their homes could not easily and
readily access the material for free. She clarified that
the action would not eliminate the court record and a
person could still access the information at a courthouse.
Representative Carpenter stated he may have used the word
"expungement," but it was not his intent. He recognized the
bill removed something from public view and it was a
destigmatization of a past offense.
10:54:48 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that traffic
citations were removed from a person's record for insurance
companies and other after a period of time. He did not
believe traffic violations went back any further than two
or three years if a person had a clean traffic record. He
thought it may explain why the concern expressed by
Representative Carpenter may not apply in relation to the
bill.
Representative Carpenter stated, "Not a representative of
any of the insurance companies or whatever the case might
be, that sounds like a policy for that particular
institution." He knew that CourtView had past violations
that were not removed after a period of time.
Ms. Mead confirmed that Representative Carpenter was
correct. The court system did not have a time period after
which it removed any cases from Court View. She stated that
a speeding ticket issued by the state would still be on
CourtView.
Representative Josephson agreed with Representative
Carpenter's position. For example, a trucking company may
want to know for its own liability what a person's history
was. He believed under the bill the information would still
be accessible to an employer. He stated that Representative
Carpenter's question was well taken to inquire whether
other things with a statutory change were removed [from
CourtView]. He would be more comfortable with the bill if
the charges were standalone. He explained there were cases
where a person had three or four counts and they were all
dismissed. He explained that more often than not when there
were three or four counts, even though they were dismissed,
there was a bit of smoke there, while there may not have
been a fire. He explained that attorneys and employers
tried to do research as inexpensively and quickly as
possible. He noted that the individuals did not want to
have to go to a courthouse to file a motion for everything
that was not available on CourtView. He pointed out that
family and criminal law attorneys and those working on
restraining order cases, wanted as quick access as possible
to the entire history of a person. He stated that an
attorney learned all types of things and found witnesses
with the method. He would be more comfortable with a
standalone misconduct involving a controlled substance
(MICS 6) charge because it was clearly an isolated case
without tangents.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the presenters.
HB 246 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.