Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
01/31/2022 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 | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 246-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
1:04:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first 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."
[During the meeting on January 28, 2022, the committee passed
Amendment 1 to HB 246.]
1:05:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 2 to HB 246,
labeled, 32-LS1300\A.2, Radford 1/22/22, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 3, line 14, following "substance;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 15 - 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
1:05:53 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor,
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, explained that, pertaining to the
Department of Public Safety background checks, the proposed
amendment would remove the word "if" on page 2, line 30. She
stated that the amendment would prohibit minor marijuana
convictions, which meet the criteria of the bill, from being
released on a background check.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 3.1 to HB 246, as
amended, labeled, 32LS1300\A.7, Radford, 1/29/22, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "under today's laws"
Insert "on January 1, 2023"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 3.1 would
provide clarity on the timing of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his support of the proposed
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 3.1 was adopted.
1:08:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 3.2 to HB 246, as
amended, labeled 32-LS1300\A.8, Radford, 1/29/22, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 10, following "possession.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 3, following line 17:
Insert new material to read:
"(b) The Alaska Court system is not civilly
liable for an act or omission relating to the removal
of records under this section.
* Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
PRIOR COURT RECORDS. The Alaska Court System
shall, to the extent practicable, remove court records
existing before the effective date of this Act that
meet the requirements of AS 22.35.040(a), enacted by
sec. 4 of this Act, from the court system's publicly
available Internet website."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
MS. GROSS explained that on page 3, line 10 of the bill, the
proposed amendment would replace language for conforming and re-
lettering, to establish a new section to follow. She said that
the new language on page 3, line 17, is based on a
recommendation by the court system, as it would remove any legal
risk for the courts. She stated that inclusion of the language,
"to the extent practicable" would alleviate legal risk to the
court, while individuals would still retain the right to appeal
information published on CourtView. She noted that Section 5
would apply the restriction on the information for convictions
before and after the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to lines 6-8 of the amendment and
questioned whether the court would be accountable to fulfil this
area of law.
1:11:49 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, answered that the court system is
not civilly liable for acts of errors or omissions on CourtView,
although a lawsuit could be brought. She suggested that a
governmental body in general is not liable except in cases of
nefariousness or gross negligence. She stated that the language
may not be strictly necessary and that the language "to the
extent practicable" had been included in other statutes
pertaining to the removal of information. She stated that, if
passed, the implementation of the [new] statute would be for the
court to conduct a search of records related to possession of
under an ounce of marijuana by an individual over the age of 21.
She noted that a case may not be filed under the particular
statute and is dependent upon the filing of the charges despite
the legislative intent of the bill. She reminded the committee
that an individual would still retain the right to appeal
information published on CourtView and expressed her confidence
that nearly all the pertinent cases would be identified.
1:15:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how the court system would be
accountable in the absence of the existence of civil liability
to the courts.
MS. MEADE responded by inviting requests for future legislative
reporting and suggested that constituents should be asked
whether the court is fulfilling its duty. She suggested that
the inclusion of the language is a statement of the obvious, and
the expectation should be met by the effective date, as with all
other statutory requirements of the court. She stated that an
error would be regrettable, and the court system would take
steps to remedy it.
MS. GROSS expressed the understanding that the effective date
would be the [force of law] in the proposed bill.
1:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the courts would be prepared to
deal with cases which are not prosecuted and convicted under the
repealed marijuana criminal possession statute.
MS. MEADE answered that an individual may request records be
removed from CourtView. She added that individuals routinely
make these requests, the majority of which do not pertain to
actual protected information. She stated that, when the court
receives such a request, the matter is researched, a
determination is made, and a correction is made when necessary.
She explained that, should an individual disagree with the
determination, an appeal process exists. She noted that court
rules also regulate information which may be published on
CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested an amendment to include the
word "unknowing" on line 6, following the word "an". He
explained that this would distinguish between when the court is
making a decision and when it is delayed in processing requests.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that first this be
deferred to the court, as this distinction may exist elsewhere
in statute. He added that, according to testimony, processing
such requests is not a problem for the courts.
MS. MEADE stated that requests are handled within a matter of
days, and the suggested language is a matter of policy.
1:25:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
3.2, such that "the Alaska court system is not civilly liable
for an unknowing act or omission relating to the removal of
records under this section."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed discomfort with the broad
language of Amendment 3.2. He allowed that the court is "doing
its part" to remove records, and his intention would be to
address a situation in which an individual is not satisfied.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that immunity exists for the three branches
of government: sovereign immunity for the executive, legislative
immunity for legislators, and judicial immunity. Considering
judicial immunity, he questioned the rationale for including the
subsection.
MS. MEADE answered that it would be in the court's interest to
include the language "to the extent practicable". She explained
that this is based on previous legislation directing the removal
of records in cases of dismissal or acquittal. It would convey
the court's acknowledgment of the legislative intent to remove
the records, and it would convey the understanding that the
court may miss a case.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that the deletion of lines 1-7 would
create issues with the court because uncodified law would
include the language "to the extent practicable".
MS. MEADE expressed agreement with Chair Claman. She expressed
the belief that the court is not currently civilly liable for
information posted on CourtView.
1:29:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed support for including the word
"practicable" in Section 5. He recommended deleting lines 1-7,
as there would be partnership between the public and the court
system to cleanse records.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her support for removing lines 1-
7 and questioned the definition of "practicable" and whether it
exists in other statutes.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that "practicable" is heavily used in the
law and agreements. He explained that it reflects the best of
intent, within reason. He offered a hypothetical scenario in
which some candies are spilled in a parking lot, and the
agreement to clean them up "to the extent practicable" would
convey the understanding that one or more candies may be missed
and would not be an indication of ill-intent.
MS. MEADE expressed agreement with the hypothetical scenario.
She expressed the understanding that "as practicable" reflects
both "as practical" and "as reasonable."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned, if a member of the public
raises an issue, the process of proving [an error or omission],
is not "practicable."
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that, should an individual contact the
legislature with a complaint concerning records, the court
system can be contacted, or a legislator may do so on the
person's behalf. He stated that then the court would be obliged
to investigate.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern for the scenario where an
individual takes all the necessary steps; however, the
individual remains unsatisfied.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that this scenario does not meet the
intent of "practicable."
1:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the report by Legislative
Legal and Research Services [included in the committee packet]
which reflects that over 700 individuals would be affected [by
the proposed legislation]. She requested the source of this
data.
MS. MEADE answered that she had provided the data, and it is
based on conviction records of possession of marijuana under one
ounce. She expressed confidence in the data and noted that the
same conduct has had several iterations of legislation over the
years. She provided the example of a law in the 1980s, in which
an individual would be permitted to possess up to one half a
pound of marijuana. She suggested that those records would not
logically reflect whether the amount in possession had been
under an ounce. She stated that the court receives about 5 to
10 record-review requests per week, and they are resolved with
an existing process and may be appealed. She added that no
court records prior to 1990 appear on CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 3.2.
1:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment
3.2, such that lines 1-7 would be deleted. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
[The committee treated the objection to Amendment 3.2 as if it
were removed.]
There being no further objection, Amendment 3.2, as conceptually
amended, was adopted.
1:43:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 4, to HB 246, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS1300\A.2, Radford, 1/22/22, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 3, line 14, following "substance;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 15 - 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the proposed amendment
would remove the age distinction from the bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the significance in the law of the age
of 21 years or older.
MS. GROSS answered that a minor under the age of 21 in
possession of marijuana would still have committed a crime, and
the age of 21 has been included to reflect the change in the
marijuana possession criminal law.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that there exist
differing perspectives regarding the underlying issues
associated with Amendment 4 and expressed reluctance concerning
the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed opposition to Amendment 4.
She argued that a person in possession of marijuana under the
age of 21 would still have committed a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER concurred with Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed the opinion that an anomaly exists, in
which an individual may enlist [in the military] and die, but
this individual may not consume alcohol under the age of 21. He
stated that the ballot measure which legalized marijuana
possession had been passed with the intent that marijuana be
regulated like alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4.
1:50:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 5, HB 246, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS1300\A.1, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "restricting"
Insert "requiring a notification with"
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 28:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "Sec. 3"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 30, through page 3, line 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) If a defendant was convicted of an offense
under a law that has been repealed since the
defendant's conviction and the conduct constituting
the conviction does not constitute an offense at the
time an agency releases criminal justice information
relating to the conviction under this section, the
agency shall include a notification in the information
stating that the law has been repealed and that the
conduct resulting in conviction does not currently
constitute an offense."
Page 3, lines 9 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 22.35.040. Records concerning convictions
for conduct no longer constituting a criminal offense.
If a defendant was convicted of an offense under a law
that has been repealed and the conduct constituting
the conviction does not constitute an offense at the
time the court records of the defendant's criminal
case are viewed on the Alaska Court System's publicly
available website, the Alaska Court System shall
include a notification with the court records stating
that the law has been repealed and that the conduct
resulting in conviction does not currently constitute
an offense."
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment would
provide for a disclosure of an individual's criminal record, if
the conduct the individual was convicted of is no longer
criminal.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked which department would be the entity
to make the notification proposed in Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the underlying bill and
stated that it would be either the court system or the
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the intent would be to
provide for a notification or flag the conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that a review of records would
take place upon a criminal background check via the court system
or DPS to ensure that the proposed notification appeared on the
background check.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the proposed amendment would
allow the disclosure of certain convictions with a notation that
the offense is no longer a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the proposed amendment would
apply to all convictions for behaviors which are no longer
considered criminal, rather than only those of marijuana
possession.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his hope that it would apply to
future behaviors which may be decriminalized.
1:54:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred the court system to page 2 and DPS to page
1 of the amendment and asked each to describe the impacts if
Amendment 5 were to be adopted.
MS. MEADE, answering on behalf of the court system, expressed
the belief that this would result in additional work and
associated costs. She stated that it is rare for the
legislature to decriminalize certain behaviors. She offered the
scenario in which a speeding ticket was issued for a driver
exceeding the speed limit. Later the speed limit was increased;
therefore, a notation would be required to indicate that this is
no longer a crime. She stated that, while cases may be removed
from CourtView, as a matter of security, the system does not
permit notations after a case is closed. She estimated a change
to the system would result in tens of thousands of dollars in
system modification costs.
1:57:11 PM
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Department of Public Safety, answering on behalf of DPS,
asked whether the amendment would delete the record and provide
a notification in the record that a conviction had occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that there would not be the need
to delete the records, only to add a notification.
MS. PURINTON answered that adding the information would result
in extra work, and that nationally shared databases have data
restrictions. She stated that information handled within the
state could be modified and cautioned that the nationally shared
data could not.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that, should the amendment pass, the
committee could expect additional fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed her support for the spirit of
the amendment; however, she indicated she would not vote in
favor of adoption because of the broadening of the scope of the
underlying bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with Representative
Snyder. He recalled Ms. Meade's earlier observation that it is
uncommon for the legislature to decriminalize certain behaviors.
He stated that standalone legislation drafted in the spirit of
the amendment would likely have his support.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether efforts have been made to
seek technologies to automate the additional workload described
by the courts and DPS, as this would bring uniformity to address
changes to existing laws.
MS. MEADE answered that CourtView is functionally a case
management system and is not designed to inform the public on
legality. She explained that the case management system is a
record of what occurs in court and tracks case information for
interested parties. She explained that it is her role in the
court system to disseminate changes made by the legislature, and
no technology has been sought to automate this process.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE complimented the court system and DPS in
managing large amounts of information and allowed that the
proposed amendment could add costs.
MS. MEADE stated that the court system has not drafted a fiscal
note. She cautioned that the convictions associated with the
bill occurred in the past, and that technologies for new
occurrences would differ from what is required to retroactively
manage records. She stated that CourtView meets the operational
requirements of the courts, and there are no plans to replace
it. She expressed her belief that the requirements of the
underlying bill could be met.
2:05:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed agreement with most of the comments
offered. He stated that legislation regarding expungement was
"not even close" to the discussions taking place in the
legislature and in public.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged the concerns expressed as
valid and withdrew Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the opinion that HB 246 has
improved during the committee process.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND thanked the bill sponsor; however, she
expressed caution in the future for changing existing laws.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked the committee for the
discussion.
2:08:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 246, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 246(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| 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 |
| HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Updated 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 51 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Sponsor Statement v. A 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Opposing Document - Letters Received by 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Fiscal Note CRIM-CJL 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD 1.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |