Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/30/2018 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to the sealing of certain court
records; restricting the publication of certain
records of convictions on a publicly available
website; relating to public records; and amending Rule
37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration."
3:41:00 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND,
explained the bill. The legislation was designed to seal
the court records of people who were convicted of simple
possession of marijuana prior to legalization. He voiced
that the burden of a lifelong criminal record for persons
convicted of a crime that was currently legal kept them
from achieving their full potential. The intent of the bill
did not remove the records of serious criminal offenders.
The purpose of the bill was to eliminate restrictions and
barriers that may be keeping Alaskans from gaining
employment, finding housing, qualify for schooling,
advancing in certifications, or reaching a higher quality
of life. He characterized the legislation as a "jobs bill".
He furthered that the voter initiative to legalize
marijuana had been in effect for three years. Legalization
created prosperous small business owners and generated
millions in revenue for the state. Many Alaskans had
benefited from legalization and the bill would eliminate
the barriers for some Alaskans from becoming "productive"
and "contributing members of society".
Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Sec. 1 AS 12.62.160
Stating that an agency may not release records of a
criminal case to the public if the defendant was
charged with possession of a controlled substance
schedule VIA.
Schedule VIA definition: AS 11.71.190 (a) a substance
shall be placed in schedule VIA if it is found under
AS 11.71.120 to have the lowest degree of danger or
probable danger to the person or public.
(b) marijuana is a schedule VIA controlled substance.
Person had to have been 21 years or older at time of
offense.
Sec. 2 AS 22.35(040)
Is amended by adding: AS 22.35.040 Confidential court
records. A court record of a criminal case is will be
made confidential if defendant was convicted of VIA
possession through state or local ordinance as a
stand-alone charge.
Sec. 3 AS 40.25.120
Every person has a right to inspect a public record in
the state, including public records in recorders
offices except: (18) Records of a schedule VIA
possession for less than once ounce if it was a stand-
alone charge. Defines that a person must have been 21
or older for the confidentiality to apply.
Sec. 4
Alters indirect court rule amendment "Alaska Rules of
Administration" by limiting public access to certain
case records.
Sec. 5
States that because of section four of this act must
receive 2/3 majority vote in each house because of
Article IV Sec. 15 of the Alaska State Constitution.
Sec. 6
Provides effective date for 120 after bill signing.
3:45:24 PM
Co-Chair Seaton did not see the words "standalone" in the
bill but noted that Mr. Fitzgerald had mentioned them. He
cited page 4 of the bill, subparagraph (18), lines 19
through 23 as the new provision the bill was adding to
existing statute. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed to the language in
lines 22 through 23 "was not convicted of any other charge
in that case."
Representative Wilson provided the scenario of someone who
initially received higher charges but was convicted of the
lower offense in a plea bargain. She asked whether the
conviction of simple possession would completely seal the
record. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that if the courts plead
down to a simple possession only charge there was a reason
for doing so and the individual should not be discriminated
against. Representative Wilson provided an example where a
person received a driving under the influence (DUI) and a
marijuana charge. She asked if the DUI charge was dropped
and the person was convicted of simple possession the DUI
would also be removed. Mr. Fitzgerald replied in the
negative. Representative Wilson did not believe that was
what the bill language said. She read from the bill [page
4, subparagraph (18), lines 19 through 23]:
(18) records of a conviction under AS 11.71.060, or a
municipal ordinance with similar elements, for
possession of less than one ounce of a schedule VIA
controlled substance if the defendant was 21 years of
age or older at the time of commission of the offense
and was not convicted of any other charges in that
case.
Representative Wilson surmised that in the case of a
combined charge where the person was only convicted of the
marijuana charge both the charge and conviction would be
sealed. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that it was rare for a DUI
charge to plea down to simple possession of marijuana.
Representative Wilson did not care what rarely occurred.
She deduced that there could be five charges and everything
else would be sealed along with the simple possession
conviction.
3:49:33 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, answered
that Section 2, which applied to the court record worked
the same way as Representative Wilson's hypothetical
scenario. The bill applied to a conviction and not charges.
Representative Wilson used a domestic violence charge in
place of the DUI example and deduced that the domestic
violence charge would disappear because there were no
exemptions regarding other charges. Ms. Mead replied in the
affirmative and added that the conviction related to all
the charges in the case and maintained that all would
become confidential. She was unaware of how often the
scenario occurred. Representative Wilson wondered if the
idea for the legislation was because marijuana was now
legal.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, SPONSOR, replied that when
the marijuana initiative had been brought forward it had
been decided not to include the expungement feature in the
bill. She noted that other states had legalized marijuana
had adopted the measure in HB 316 and believed that the
governor of Vermont had expunged the records of 200 people
when marijuana became legal and California was beginning
the expungement process.
Representative Wilson thought that the same argument could
apply to felony crimes that were lowered to misdemeanors in
prior criminal reform legislation.
Representative Drummond believed that they were covering
new territory with the legalization of marijuana. She
stated that it had always been illegal to steal. She
elaborated that marijuana had been legal for three years
and many were profiting from the industry. She had heard of
situations where minors with simple possession charges were
applying to military academies but could never remove the
charge from their records that created a permanent
impediment to their lives. The bill applied only to adults
with simple possession. Representative Wilson understood
the goal of the bill, but she was concerned there could be
other charges accompanying a marijuana conviction. She
maintained her belief that the bill did not apply equally
to other charges that were lowered. She thought there may
be other safety issues in the current bill language but
would consider amendments to correct the issues.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were additional items Mr.
Fitzgerald wanted to cover.
Mr. Fitzgerald addressed the changes contained in the House
Judiciary Committee version of the bill. He indicated that
the CS eliminated the date of convictions prior to the
legalization date of February 24, 2015 and included that
"all charges had been encompassed" in the provision.
Additionally, the legislation specified that the provisions
applied to individuals 21 years of age or older.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
3:55:52 PM
TARA RICH, LEGAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), shared that she had submitted written
comments to the committee (copy on file). She spoke in
support of the bill. She related that she had not heard any
discussion regarding what sectors of the population the
bill would apply to. The ACLU had performed research based
on the arrest rate for simple marijuana possession but was
not able to discern the data for conviction rates. The data
showed that from 2008 through 2013 African Americans were
twice as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and
Alaska Native and American Indians were more than 1.5
times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than whites. She concluded that marijuana possession laws
were routinely enforced disproportionately against people
of color and was systematized in the war on drugs. The bill
sought to achieve equity in an unjust system.
Representative Wilson questioned why the person that
"pleaded out" or was convicted of simple possession that
was illegal at the time "should have no more punishment
because of that." Ms. Rich replied with an explanation
about the distinction between pleading guilty and a
conviction and noted that the state did not have to prove
guilt in a plea agreement. She indicated that particularly
with low level offences such as simple possession, it was
easier for people to plead guilty to avoid the disruption
in people's lives through incarceration. She noted that
there was evidence-based data that demonstrated plea
agreements effectuated the same harm as a conviction for
people of color without asking the state to fulfill its
duty of proving guilt. Representative Wilson restated her
question and emphasized that the person with the conviction
broke the law at the time. Ms. Rich pointed to the
disproportionate level of policing against minority
communities, which was well documented. She added that on a
national level, despite marijuana use at about the same
rate as Caucasians, African Americans were nearly four
times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
She voiced that the people of Alaska decided that the
activity was not criminal and coupled with systemic
discriminatory enforcement, she believed that the provision
was appropriate. Representative Wilson did not believe
police officers in Alaska were targeting anyone and were
merely trying to uphold the state's laws.
4:02:14 PM
TIM HINTERBERGER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
reported that he had been chair of the campaign to legalize
marijuana. He supported the bill. He relayed that the
original initiative was drafted as straight forward as
possible to maximize the chance of passage of the
initiative. Currently, other stated that legalized
marijuana adopted measures that sealed the record of
individuals with prior marijuana convictions. He believed
that the bill was "entirely consistent with ballot measure
two."
Vice-Chair Gara thanked Mr. Hinterberger for his work. He
warned that currently in Alaska law a student in possession
of marijuana on school grounds was subject to a Class A
felony and suggested that Mr. Hinterberger consider acting
to endorse statutory change in the future.
4:04:32 PM
AMY JACKMAN KEEP CANNABIS LEGAL, KENAI (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
She shared that she had been the campaign manager for the
Keep Cannabis Legal campaign the previous year. She thanked
the committee for the opportunity to testify. She hoped
that the committee would consider the wellbeing of everyone
in the state and keep an open mind. She spoke about a
divided society focused on differences that created fear
and judgement. She believed that historically cannabis had
been falsely demonized. She voiced issues regarding
corporations and did not consider them equal to people. She
favored a society built on love and acceptance of marijuana
use. She listed the medical and pleasurable benefits of
marijuana consumption and termed it a "miracle plant." She
strongly favored permanently sealing the records of non-
violent convictions based on cannabis.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson asked if a representative from the
Department of Public Safety was online. She referred to
the fiscal note and wondered whether the bill sealed the
records from the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
KATHERYN MONFREDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
responded that the department still questioned whether it
would receive the sealed records from the Court System for
criminal justice and law enforcement purposes.
Representative Wilson thought that the fiscal note
indicated that the records would be removed from the DPS
system. She asked for clarification. Ms. Monfreda answered
that the records would be removed from release for the
limited purpose of AS 12.62.160 (b)8 related to employment
or licensing purposes. The records would remain available
for law enforcement and other purposes.
4:14:28 PM
Representative Wilson asked for further information about
who had access to the information.
Co-Chair Foster gave an amendment deadline of the following
Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
HB 316 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:16:46 PM
AT EASE
4:17:05 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
week.