Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/10/2018 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 | |
| HB385 | |
| HB316 | |
| SB97 | |
| SB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 397 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 385 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 306 | 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."
2:02:30 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee last heard the bill
on March 30, 2018. At the hearing the committee heard an
introduction of the bill and closed public testimony. The
committee had a committee substitute (CS), version N. There
was also one amendment. He asked the bill sponsor to
address the changes in the CS.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, SPONSOR, introduced
herself. She deferred to her staff to explain the changes
from the previous version of the bill.
PATRICK FITZGERALD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND,
introduced himself and reviewed the changes to the bill.
The first change in Section 1 was to allow an opt-in
program through the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The
reason for the change was because it would reduce the
burden and cost for DPS placing it on the person who wanted
to classify their record. Another change that was made was
the elimination of Sections 4 and 5, the indirect court
rule. It was inserted with the original legislation to
error on the side of caution, but the legislation would not
interfere with the court rule. Section 3 was also
eliminated. It accomplished what other parts of the bill
already accomplished.
Representative Wilson referred to page 1. She asked for
clarification for the cost decreasing. Mr. Fitzgerald
responded that DPS already had the form.
2:05:39 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), asked Representative Wilson
to repeat her question.
Representative Wilson thought the department was going to
have to look at the cases. She wondered if the person
initiating the change would have to complete a from. Ms.
Monfreda responded that she was correct. Rather than
flagging the records, the department would wait until
someone came to the department. She thought the department
could absorb the work without needing extra people.
Representative Wilson asked if the person would be required
to show that there were no other charges at the time. Ms.
Monfreda believed the information would already be in their
files. The department would know if there were other
charges involved. The department would be asking the person
to prove that the amount was less than an ounce of
marijuana and that there were no other charges in the case.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 316, Work Draft (30-LS1017\N).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
(30-LS1017\U.3) (copy on file):
Page l, line I 0, following "substance":
Insert "and was not charged with any other crime
in that case"
Page l, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) has not been convicted of any other
charges since the conviction under (I) of
this subsection."
Page 2, line 6, following "substance":
Insert "and was not charged with any other crime
in that case"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) has not been convicted of any other
charges since the conviction under (I) of
this subsection."
Page 4, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "and was not convicted of any other
charges in that case"
Insert", was not charged with any other crimes in
that case, and has not been convicted of any
other charges since that conviction"
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (copy on file).
The amendment outlined that the charge could be the only
thing on a person's record in order to have it sealed. If a
person had been charged and found guilty of other things,
it would not make a difference whether other things
appeared on someone's record. She was okay with the idea of
a person with only one charge having their record sealed.
However, she opposed the notion of someone with multiple
offenses having a record sealed, as it showed a pattern.
Representative Ortiz asked if the amendment sealed only the
one item having to do with past use of marijuana. He
wondered what was gained.
2:10:11 PM
Representative Wilson suggested that what was brought up by
the representative was that a person would have a black
mark on their record. People having something on their
record made it difficult to find employment at a job
requiring a background check. She wondered why something
would be removed from a person's record if they already had
other things listed. She was fine with having a record
sealed if it was their only offense.
Representative Ortiz asked about the intent of the
amendment. He wondered if the record would be reopened once
any additional records came into play. Representative
Wilson responded that there was no retroactivity of the
bill.
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor if she had an opinion on
the amendment. Representative Drummond clarified that
charges were different from convictions. The amendment
appeared to insert, "and was not charged." She believed the
issue was already covered in the bill on line 13, page 1.
The intent of the bill was not to cover for bad actors of
other acts of violence or other whatever other criminal
acts they had on their record. She did not believe the bad
actors would be looking to have their marijuana possession
crime hidden if they had several other things on their
record. If they were to remove their marijuana conviction
they would still be bad actors. They were not the people
the state was seeking to assist in reentering society.
Representative Wilson requested that Ms. Mead come to the
table.
2:14:47 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, thought
the amendment narrowed the number of people that the bill
would apply to in two different ways. First, the person
could not have been charged with any other crimes. She
thought this addressed the question Representative Wilson
brought up at the previous hearing. For example, a person
might be charged with possession of meth and possession of
marijuana but only convicted of possession of marijuana. As
she read the amendment, it would exclude the people with
other charges in the case. The only people that would have
their names taken off CourtView would be the ones that were
not charged with anything else but possession of marijuana
and then convicted. Second, a person could not have been
convicted of any other crime since the conviction.
Ms. Mead noted that with respect to the numbers, there were
about 700 cases in CourtView since 2007. Prior to 2007 it
was difficult to obtain data. Marijuana possession became
legal in 2015. Most of the cases stopped at that time. Of
the 700 cases, 568 had no other charges when they ended up
with a conviction for simple possession of marijuana.
However, of those 568 about 72 percent had other crimes in
the database, about 400 cases. She concluded that about 160
people since 2007 would be excluded from CourtView under
the wording of the amendment.
Ms. Mead wanted to make sure everyone knew what the court
would do with Section 2 of the bill. It was different from
a prior version in that it no longer made the cases
confidential. The cases would no longer appear in
CourtView. The prior version had confidentiality, meaning
the court would not also hand out the paper file. In the
current version the record would not be available on the
court website, but the file would still be public under
Section 2 of the bill. She wanted to make sure there was no
misunderstanding when and if the court implemented the
wording.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that a person would not benefit
from the amendment if a person was 21 years or older and
was expunging their record because marijuana was legal. He
indicated he had been interrupted and was told he was
incorrect. He asked for clarification from Ms. Mead.
Ms. Mead relayed that the amendment was not expungement.
Rather, the amendment would take the record off of
CourtView automatically on the effective date. The file
would still be available at the court house. Secondly, if a
person actively walked into DPS and asked that their record
not be released in a general background check, then DPS
would not release the information if the person fit into
the categories that had been discussed.
Vice-Chair Gara suggested that the way the bill was written
a person's record would not be on CourtView if they had a
prior conviction for just possessing marijuana because it
was currently legal. The bill also indicated that if a
person was convicted of something else at the time, the
record would be available on CourtView. The conceptual
amendment included that if a person was charged with
something and the charge was dropped, the information would
remain available on CourtView. He asked if he was correct
about what was being proposed in the conceptual amendment.
2:19:20 PM
Representative Wilson relayed that the amendment did 2
things. First, if a person was charged with another crime
but not convicted, they would not fall under the bill.
Second, if a person had been convicted since the time of
conviction, the person would not be able to have their
record removed from CourtView.
Vice-Chair Gara opposed the conceptual amendment. Sometimes
people were charged with something they did not do.
Although his experience in criminal law was limited, he had
had a client charged with kidnapping, but later the charges
were dropped. He was very uncomfortable with the amendment
and felt it gutted the bill. A later conviction would show
up on CourtView. He did not see the benefit of the
amendment unless people were seen as guilty until proven
innocent. In his world people were innocent until proven
guilty. He furthered that when a charge was dropped, it was
dropped. He continued that when a person was convicted,
they were convicted.
Representative Wilson clarified that the charge part only
had to do with the first case. She provided an example. She
offered the amendment to provide a way for someone who had
only been charged with something that was now legal, to
remove it from their records. She continued that other
convictions would establish a pattern. She did not think a
person should get rewarded if they could not stay out of
trouble since the initial conviction. Mr. Fitzgerald
deferred to Ms. Monfreda.
Ms. Monfreda did not believe the amendment would have a
huge effect on public safety in terms of redacting the
information. She thought it would make programming more
complicated.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if it would count as another charge
if someone had a possession charge and a speeding violation
at the same time. He relayed a hypothetical scenario. He
asked if there would be an additional charge for a traffic
violation. He wondered about a marijuana charge being
removed from someone's record. Representative Wilson
replied that if there was an additional charge at the same
time the marijuana was found, then the marijuana charge
could not be removed. She thought it would make it more
complicated to try to distinguish between the charges.
2:24:42 PM
Ms. Mead explained that when a law included the verbiage
"any other crime" the court interprets that not to include
minor offenses. In the case of the example, the violation
would not be considered a crime. Along similar lines, if a
person was charged with speeding, a minor offense, as well
as the crime of possession of marijuana, it would not
disqualify the case. On the other hand, if a person had not
been convicted of any charges since the conviction, if the
intent to mean criminal charges, it might be something that
could be clarified in the conceptual amendment being
discussed. She thought it might make the amendment clearer
to specify "not convicted of any other crimes or criminal
charges." It would help to clarify that the amendment was
not intended to include minor offences such as traffic
infractions.
Co-Chair Seaton was uncertain how many people had been
charged with simple possession more than once. He asked if
a person was charged with simple possession more than once,
would it mean that their record could not be hidden from
CourtView. Ms. Mead had not anticipated his question and
did not have the data of the 700 cases of just marijuana
possession. She could look into it and provide data. She
did not believe the number would be particularly high.
Co-Chair Seaton thought it could be something like people
using alcohol.
Representative Guttenberg provided a hypothetical scenario.
He wondered at what point a violation was written up. Ms.
Mead was not qualified to answer the question. She deferred
to the Department of Law.
2:28:51 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, replied that once charges were
filed in court, the person was viewed as being charged from
the court's perspective. The prosecutor might get the case
and make different charging decisions. Therefore, the
charges could change. However, once the charges were filed
in court by either the officer or the prosecutor the
individual was viewed as being charged.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 1. She proposed to delete the word
"Charges" on line 20 and insert the word "Crimes."
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson responded that she wanted to use the
word "crimes" rather than "charges" on line 20. She was not
talking about things like speeding violations. She was
talking about actual crimes.
Co-Chair Foster asked her to repeat Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 1. Representative Wilson repeated
the conceptual amendment. The amendment would read: "and
had not been convicted of any other crimes since that
conviction." She clarified that conviction was about a
conviction of marijuana.
Representative Drummond was confused. She believed the CS
that was adopted was only 2 pages long. Representative
Wilson's amendment referred to the previous version which
was no longer in front of the body. Representative Wilson
responded that that was the reason for her conceptual
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Wilson to repeat her
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 again. Representative
Wilson relayed that Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1
on line 20 of Conceptual Amendment 1. The word "charges"
would be changed to "crimes." She was not talking about
speeding tickets or infractions.
Ms. Mead responded that by changing the word "charges" to
"crimes" at the bottom of Representative Wilson's
amendment, it would address what Co-Chair Seaton brought up
about a violation. She suggested, as a measure of
housekeeping, line 6 should probably reflect the same
language.
Representative Wilson clarified her Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 1. The word "charges" would be
changed to "crimes" on line 6 and line 20.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the conceptual amendment
was relative to the CS.
2:33:26 PM
AT EASE
2:34:47 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Schroeder conveyed that the conceptual amendment was
adding language that stated, "was not charged with any
other crimes in that case and has not been convicted of any
other crimes since that conviction. She indicated that the
language needed to be added in Section 1 on line 13 under
4. It would replace number 4. In Section 2 of the CS on
page 2, on line 9 would replace 3.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 was
Adopted.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that in his experience, the most
frequent times where a charge was later dropped was when
law enforcement thought one person was responsible, when
another person was really responsible. He provided a
hypothetical scenario. He concluded that a person should
not be penalized from taking advantage of the benefit
provided in Representative Drummond's bill when a mistaken
charge was later removed.
Representative Wilson was not comfortable because plea
bargains happened frequently. She asked for member support.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt.
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton.
The MOTION to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 as amended
FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there were no other amendments
for HB 316. He asked Vice-Chair Gara to review the fiscal
notes.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed two fiscal notes for HB 316. The
first fiscal note had a zero impact and was from Judiciary.
The appropriation was the Alaska Court System and the
allocation was Trial Courts. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) component number was 768. The second fiscal
note by the Department of Public Safety had an
appropriation of Statewide Support and an allocation of
Criminal Justice Information Systems Program. The OMB
component number was 3200. The note reflected the previous
version of the bill. He indicated someone from DPS could
speak to the accuracy of the fiscal note for the current
version of the bill. Ms. Monfreda replied that the
department would be submitting a revised fiscal note for
the new version of the bill. Co-Chair Foster reiterated
that there would be a forthcoming fiscal note.
2:41:48 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 316 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson,
Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).
CSHB 316 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an
"amend" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note by
the Department of Public Safety and one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (JUD).
2:42:59 PM
AT EASE
2:43:42 PM
RECONVENED