Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
01/19/2022 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB246 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 246-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
1:02:38 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, the call to order and attendance
were not captured on recording but the pertinent information has
been provided by the recording secretary.]
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 246, "An Act restricting the release of certain
records of convictions; and providing for an effective date."
1:03:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, as prime sponsor, introduced HB
246. He stated that the bill had been conceived by the
citizen's initiative legalizing marijuana and, if passed, would
remove from [the Alaska Court's CourtView Public Access Website]
("CourtView") the display of simple possession of marijuana
convictions. He stated that citizens are negatively affected by
convictions no longer categorized as criminal behavior, as
displayed when an interested party conducts a simple background
check. He suggested that affected individuals may suffer harm
when seeking employment and establishing their reputation. He
stated that decriminalization was taking place in many states
across the country and that the passage of HB 246 would progress
the state further from its prohibition past.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that the underlying
issues and laws pertaining to marijuana remain complicated;
however, HB 246 is not. He stated that Section 1 of the
proposed bill was related to legislative intent. He stated that
Section 2 would update AS 12.62.160(b)(8) to allow for an
exemption that would be granted under Section 3. He stated that
Section 3 provides language pertaining to criminal history
information that may not be released and addresses the types of
convictions addressed in HB 246. He stated that Section 4 would
be a new section and pertained to the Alaska Court System's use
of personal information on CourtView and that Section 5
contained the effective date of January 1, 2023.
1:08:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Section 4 referenced a
specific criminal case while Sections 2 and 3 did not. He asked
whether Section 2 should have described a particular case and
whether the decision otherwise was made by the drafter.
1:09:43 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 246, answered that Section 3
[subsection (f)] referred specifically to AS 11.71.060 and the
exact type of possession charge that would be affected by the
passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to language at the bottom of
page 2, on line 30, wherein the agency is directed not to
release criminal history records for defendants who qualify
[under the proposed bill].
MS. GROSS answered that certain individuals with additional
charges would not be exempted from publication of criminal
records and that the exemption would apply only to individuals
with one simple possession conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how, should an individual have a
simple possession case and a murder case, the agency would be
instructed to go forward in terms of releasing the information
related to the murder case.
1:12:57 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, answered that HB
246 would only allow for an individual who meets all four of the
criteria in Section 3 to be eligible to have his/her criminal
history information not disclosed. She stated that two separate
convictions of two separate crimes [including one for simple
possession], only the possession conviction would be subject to
be withheld from disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to page 2, lines 30-31,
and he asked whether "criminal history record information" was
written in a manner so broad that, should an individual meet all
four criteria as stated on Page 3, lines 1-7, that individual's
criminal history would not be subject to release. He asked Ms.
Radford to confirm whether the exemption would apply only to the
conviction under AS 11.71.060.
MS. RADFORD answered that it was her belief that page 2, lines
30-31 did capture the intent [to exempt only convictions under
AS 11.71.060] and stated her willingness to include more
specific language.
1:15:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Sections 3 and 4 and gave an example
wherein a marijuana conviction had occurred in 1990 and a murder
conviction in 2000, and an individual requested criminal records
that, because the defendant did not qualify by meeting all four
criteria in Section 3, both convictions would be released. He
offered his understanding that under the provisions in Section
4, the marijuana conviction would not be released but the murder
conviction would. He asked Ms. Radford to confirm if his
analysis was correct.
MS RADFORD confirmed this as correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that as listed on the sponsor
statement, 700 individuals with convictions would be affected by
the passage of HB 246, and she asked whether any individual had
experienced loss of employment opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that there had been some
anecdotes of individuals affected but that no qualitative data
exist.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concern over the additional
personnel required as listed on the fiscal note and asked
whether existing personnel could be used if individuals
requested their own records be made private.
1:19:58 PM
MS. GROSS answered that a petition process had been considered
but there exists a potential for automation of the process. She
suggested that that distinction [petition and automated] would
not be the factor that had resulted in the fiscal note. She
stated that the removal of the actual record is [the point in
the process] that requires staff time. She offered to verify
with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that her answer was
completely correct. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Vance, she said there would not be the potential
for the fiscal note to be reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS added that, as the prime sponsor
of the bill, he would welcome any potential for reduction of the
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the fiscal note
represented one additional staff in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 23) and
an additional staff in FY 24 and whether the position would
become obsolete in future years.
1:23:16 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, stated that the fiscal note had
been based on the Alaska Public Safety Information Network
(ASPIN) programming costs and a researcher position. She noted
that the position would be temporary for two years because the
records subject to review would be finite since the activity is
no longer a crime.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the fiscal note had been drafted with
the understanding that individuals would petition the court but
not with consideration of an automated process.
MS. HOWELL confirmed that it had, and that the position's
"downtime" between processing petitions would be used to
proactively conduct the research on the set of records subject
to review since it was unknown the number of individuals
petitioning the court for removal of their own record.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the programming costs between
years one and two were different in the amount of $63,000 while
the staffing cost was the same for both years.
MS. HOWELL estimated the programming costs to be $56,000 and
reductions in year two would be realized in commodities and
supplies and consist mainly of personnel costs.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that ASPIN would be programmed to
shield the records from view and asked whether the records may
still be obtained outside of CourtView.
MS. HOWELL answered that the information prohibited from
disclosure would pertain to background checks and would still
exist in an individual's criminal history.
1:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how individuals convicted of the
crimes would become aware of the option that their records may
be sealed.
MS. HOWELL postulated that information would be listed on the
court's website such as that which exists for individuals to
request correction to criminal justice information, and a
request form would likely be developed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN continued his line of questioning on how
an individual would become aware of the exemption.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the bill is drafted so that
individuals would not be required to make such a request and the
process would be automatic.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the rationale for including the
language "requested by" and whether the language could be
removed.
MS. GROSS offered that two records removal processes would be
enacted should HB 246 pass: the removal of convictions from
CourtView, which would be done by the court; and removal of
records from background checks known as "any person reports,"
which would be done by DPS. She noted that the CourtView
process would be automatic and the DPS process would be via
petition as the bill is currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether information would be
included on a form to notify individuals that they may request
[information be shielded on both CourtView and in ASPIN
background checks.]
MS. HOWELL allowed that individuals may be informed by means of
the website and a form but that the implementation had not yet
been developed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there existed the potential
for a larger fiscal note.
MS. HOWELL answered that the fiscal note had been based on the
petition manner and not an automated manner and it would be
unknown how many would initiate a petition and, should the bill
pass without any amendment, the potential exists for a change to
be made to the fiscal note.
MS. GROSS noted that the fiscal note had been based on
approximately 8,000 individuals who would be affected by the
passage of HB 246, and discussions had occurred on the basis of
considering only about 700 individuals.
1:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether it was known that other
states had passed similar legislation and if there were any
lessons to be learned [from those that had].
MS. GROSS asked whether Representative Snyder's question
pertained to costs or general policy discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER encouraged an answer to both.
MS. GROSS answered that other states had passed legislation
pertaining to criminal records and most of them had included
sealing of records in the legalization legislation. She added
that other states had gone much further to address criminal
records and characterized the approach in Alaska as a weak
approach.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that she was not familiar with how a
marijuana conviction would appear in a background check and
asked how egregious it would be for an individual should such a
conviction to appear in a background check.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the current administration had taken
a position regarding the proposed bill.
MS. HOWELL answered that she did not have knowledge of the
administration's position.
1:37:58 PM
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services - CJIS Programs,
Department of Public Safety, in reference to Representative
Vance's question, explained that a criminal background check
would display the statute, severity level, and description such
as "misconduct involving a controlled substance in the sixth
degree" and "possession of less than one ounce of a scheduled
drug." She added that it would not display information specific
to marijuana; it would display reference only to a scheduled
substance.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what other drugs would be categorized
in that schedule.
MS. PURINTON answered that the schedule was specific to
marijuana.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether an ASPIN background check would
display the conviction and a background check sent to DPS would
not.
MS. PURINTON answered that if HB 246 were to pass, the
conviction would not be displayed in a background check.
1:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether similar legislation ever
had been passed that would conceal any prior convictions.
MS. PURINTON answered that to the best of her knowledge, there
had been no recent legislation limiting information that may be
displayed on a criminal background check, other than convictions
that fall under other records sealing laws.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the conviction of an individual, who
was charged, his/her sentence suspended, and the conviction
subsequently discharged would appear on a background check.
MS. PURINTON answered that "the entire set-aside" would be
withheld from a report.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any discharged suspended imposition
of sentence, such as a fishing violation, would appear on a
background check.
MS. PURINTON answered that that information would be displayed
on a background check.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, if an individual should receive a
pardon, whether that conviction would appear in a background
check.
MS. PURINTON offered that pardons are unusual; therefore, she
would be required to conduct research for the answer.
1:44:23 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, suggested that
there may exist confusion between DPS and the court regarding HB
246, and that the Alaska Court System and records displayed in
CourtView are addressed only in Section 4 of the bill; Sections
2 and 3 pertain to DPS release of criminal background checks.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the DPS and Alaska Court
System data systems are linked.
MS. MEADE answered that they are not linked.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what the rationale would be to remove
these records from CourtView when they are still available for
the public to view, albeit with more [research] involved.
MS. MEADE answered that the proposed bill would direct the court
to keep two separate records, and that the legislature could, in
the future, direct the court to keep all the records
confidential such as for Child in Need of Aid (CINA) records.
She suggested that the language was likely a compromise to
shield records from general public view but that they would
remain available at the courthouse.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the legislature had
designated any other records available at the courthouse but not
available on CourtView.
MS. MEADE answered that the legislature had designated
retroactive removal of complete acquittal or dismissal of a case
from CourtView and that court rules may also direct that certain
records are not published on CourtView under Administrative Rule
48.
1:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked who may have full access to the
records.
MS. MEADE answered that HB 246 would remove records solely from
CourtView and any person may inquire for records at the court.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked who may access the records housed at
DPS.
MS. GROSS explained that the only background checks affected by
the bill would be the "any person" background checks. She added
that "interested person" reports, such as those requested for
individuals seeking employment in child or vulnerable adult
care, are accessible records. She added that other reports such
as a "full criminal history report" that may be related to
overseas travel or immigration remain available. She noted that
AS 12.62.400 lists professional licensure occupations that would
not allow automatic records sealing.
1:55:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked how the seal of records under HB 246 would be
distinguished from expungement.
MS. GROSS answered that HB 246 would not [address] expungement,
which is complete removal of a record as though it had never
happened.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the word "today", in Section
1, on line 8, and he asked whether it pertained to a specific
date and time.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS allowed that the language should
be more precise and not interpreted as contemporaneous to the
time of its reading.
1:59:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 246.
1:59:41 PM
LACY WILCOX, President, Alaska Marijuana Industry Association,
testified in support of HB 246 and characterized the bill as a
very incremental change to further previously convicted
individuals to become more productive members of society. She
stated that she had conducted research in 20 other states that
had stronger protections in state law.
2:01:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 246.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the topic of expungement had been widely
discussed and had been controversial. He noted that CourtView
may be widely used by any individual.
2:03:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what the process should be for
amendments considering that there exists the possibility of a
committee substitute.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that amendments should be requested and
that a committee substitute may pertain to sunset dates of the
Criminal Justice Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what implications may exist should
no committee substitute be adopted to address the sunset date of
the commission.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that the potential committee substitute
had been suggested by the drafter of the statute as a technical
issue to be resolved and that the intent of the bill would be
unaffected by the question of timing.
[HB 246 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 246 v. A 1.7.2022.PDF |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sponsor Statement v. A 12.2.2021.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sectional Analysis v. A 1.19.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 1.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |