Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/25/2022 01:30 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 | |
| HB172 | |
| SB11 | |
| HB325 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 325-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2:13:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to domestic violence."
2:13:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 325. She stated that HB 325 would
incorporate image-based sexual abuse, which may be referred to
as "revenge porn," into the definition of domestic violence so
it could be prosecuted as harassment in the second degree.
2:14:45 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime
sponsor, addressed the proposed HB 325. She pointed out the
definition related to explicit images contained in the statute,
which defines harassment in the second degree, would be moved
into AS 18.66.990 (3), which defines domestic violence and
crimes involving domestic violence. She stated that the
proposed legislation would not modify the definition as it
pertains to explicit images and distributing them. It would
only move the definition into the domestic violence statutes so
it can be used to protect victims.
2:16:29 PM
LOREE MORTON, Advocacy Initiatives Director, Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, provided invited testimony
in support of HB 325. She stated that the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) supports adding to
the domestic violence statute this element of harassment in the
second degree. She stated that, per the proposed legislation, a
crime involving domestic violence would include publishing or
distributing electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or
films which show the genitals, anus, or female breast(s) of the
other person, or show a person engaged in a sexual act. She
expressed the opinion that abusers will use any means to control
partners and to coerce partners into doing, or not doing,
certain things, to benefit the abuser. She stated that the use
of the media described could cause ridicule, embarrassment,
shame, and degradation. She suggested that this could be used
to keep the victim trapped in an abusive situation.
2:18:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed the understanding that the
sharing of such images is already a crime, but it is not
considered a crime of domestic violence.
MS. KOENEMAN confirmed this as correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER questioned whether there would be any
changes in penalty or punishment.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN answered that the important change
would be victims could petition for a restraining order.
2:20:12 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, provided invited testimony on HB 325. She
stated that the crime of domestic violence is used in several
areas of law, including criminal law and the filing of
protective orders. She offered an example of an individual who
may interfere with the reporting of a crime of domestic violence
and, should HB 325 pass, the use of images could be used as
evidence of this crime. She stated that the crime would be a
Class B misdemeanor, and the sentence would not change. She
stated that mandatory minimum sentences for crimes of domestic
violence exist, such as those involving assault. She noted that
special provisions exist for bail associated with crimes of
domestic violence at the time of arraignment.
MS. SCHROEDER, in response to a question from Representative
Vance, stated that for a court to issue a protective order, the
court would have to find that a crime of domestic violence had
occurred, and it would refer to the underlying statute to
determine whether the conduct had amounted to domestic violence.
In response to a follow-up question regarding how a protective
order could add protection against the use of images, she stated
that a court could order an individual not to commit a crime
against a person, and any continued behavior could result in
additional criminal charges. She added that there would likely
be a provision of no contact issued.
2:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the definition of "publishing"
or "distributing," as referred to in the proposed legislation.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the definition of publishing exists
on the internet, as it does in other statutes. She added that
the Webster's Dictionary is used to define terms which are not
already defined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "distribution" would be
considered if images are only distributed to one other
individual.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the material would not be required
to be widely distributed. She added that "distributes" is
defined in 11.61.116, which pertains to distributing an explicit
image of a minor. This means to deliver an image by sending
the image to another person's computer or telephone.
2:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the definition would include
both electronic and print [format]. He posited that an
individual may attempt to contact a minor's parent to alert the
parent to the image being distributed. He expressed concern
that this could result in the concerned party having committed a
crime.
MS. SCHROEDER clarified that the example pertains to children;
therefore, it is associated with a different statute. She added
that this would not concern domestic violence. She added, for a
crime to have occurred, the perpetrator would have had the
intent to harass or annoy the victim. She stated that the
previous example could be an indication a crime had occurred,
and this would require evidence of the mental state of the
individual sharing the explicit image with the parent. She
added that an individual sharing an image out of concern would
not be an intent to harass or annoy.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN added that, in cases of domestic
violence, the abuser is often engaged in acts to manipulate or
coerce the victim. She offered an example in which a
perpetrator threatens to share, or does share, the image with
the victim's employer. She reiterated that distributing it
solely to one person would meet the definition of harassment.
2:31:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, using the hypothetical situation
involving an explicit image of a 16-year-old person, questioned
whether the definition of domestic violence would be met when
the concerned party is not a member of the 16-year-old's
household.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that for a crime to be considered
"domestic violence," the perpetrator is required to be a member
of the victim's household. She noted that if a 16-year-old
person is annoyed because a parent is notified, this would not
amount to the intent to harass or annoy the victim.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the understanding that the
proposed definition would exclude a 15-year-old victim. He
questioned why it would pertain to a 16-year-old individual.
MS. KOENEMAN answered that any [explicit] images of an
individual under the age of 16 would fall under AS 11.61.116,
which addresses the explicit images of minors.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the sponsor's intent is for
crimes associated with a 16-year-old individual be considered
domestic violence, while those associated with individuals under
the age of 16 not be considered domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN answered that HB 325 would not address
the age of consent in statute, but it would update the
associated statute to include the increased prevalence of
electronic images and videos and how this distribution would
make the victim embarrassed or ashamed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated his question, asking why
individuals under the age of 16 would be excluded from the
definition of domestic violence [in the proposed bill].
MS. KOENEMAN answered that the distribution of these images is
already in statute, and HB 325 would not make changes to this
existing statute.
2:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned the frequency of this type of
behavior, and she questioned whether it occurs enough to
establish the proposed bill.
2:39:06 PM
MICHAEL HENRY, Sargeant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), provided invited testimony on HB 325. He
stated that DPS has conducted an audit to determine statistics
related to harassment, and the law contains approximately eight
subsections under which there were 180 instances. He cautioned
that the information provided was an estimate.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the 180 cases of harassment had
included first- and second-degree charges. He questioned the
timeframe of the charges.
SERGEANT HENRY answered that the statistics include data from
2012 to the present, with the charges filed under AS 11.61.128
(6). He noted that some of those reported had been improperly
coded. He stated that a separate audit has been conducted
regarding cases which resulted in charges filed, and this
totaled nine incidents. He offered to follow up to the
committee with additional research, if needed.
MS. KOENEMAN added that crimes involving domestic violence are
severely underreported, as reasons exist for victims to not come
forward. She suggested the absence of statistics supporting the
need for the bill does not equate to less of a need for the
protections in law.
2:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 1 of a document entitled
"HB 325 Supporting Documents 2.17.2022.pdf," [included in the
committee packet] which depicts "revenge porn" as illegal,
noting, "1 in 3 victims of sextortion in a 2017 online survey
said they had never told anyone, largely because of shame or
embarrassment." She asked whether there exists a legal loophole
and whether this is the reason for the proposed legislation.
MS. KOENEMAN answered that this type of harassment is illegal in
Alaska under criminal harassment statute, but it is not included
in the domestic violence statute. She stated that, when the
court is seeking to determine if a crime of domestic violence
between household members has occurred, a domestic violence
protective order could be issued based on such conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the primary purpose of the
proposed bill would be to include the publication and
distribution of explicit images, so individuals may file for a
protective order under the domestic violence statute.
MS. KOENEMAN answered yes, and it would provide victims legal
assurance that the conduct qualifies as domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, in cases that involve teenagers not
sharing a household with the perpetrator, asked whether [an
individual between the ages of 16 to 18] would file charges
under the harassment in the second-degree statute.
MS. KOENEMAN confirmed that the proposed legislation would apply
to victims over the age of 16 and, for those victims under the
age of 16, charges would be filed under the child pornography
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER questioned whether there is a possibility
of an individual being granted a protective order under the
harassment in the second-degree statute.
MS. SCHROEDER offered that, in cases of harassment charges being
filed, the state would request a no-contact order at the time of
the bail hearing.
2:48:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, regarding the requirement of the household member
relationship, asked whether a next-door neighbor could be
charged with a crime of domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that this would not fall under the proposed
legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN posited a couple who had lived together, but since
split, and one distributed explicit pictures of the other after
the split. He questioned whether the perpetrator could be
charged with a crime of domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it could be a crime of domestic
violence. She explained that household members include those
who live together or those who had lived together.
CHAIR CLAMAN posited a case which involves two 17-year-old
individuals in a dating relationship, and one distributed an
explicit picture of the other. He questioned whether this
individual could be charged with a crime of domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that the definition would include those who
are dating or who have dated. She emphasized the provision that
there would need to exist the intent to harass or annoy [the
victim].
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what bail considerations would be for someone
charged with harassment under the domestic violence statute,
compared to a non-domestic violence harassment charge.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that regarding release on domestic
violence cases, under AS 12.30.027, the main consideration is
whether conditions of release would allow contact or no contact.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what typical bail would be set in the case of
harassment in the second degree, as a Class B misdemeanor,
considering one's criminal history.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that, in a case when the defendant has no
criminal history it would likely be an "own recognizance"
release and would likely include an order for no contact.
2:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the understanding that, under
federal law, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence could
result in a loss of access to firearms. He asked whether the
proposed bill would result in the same.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that she is not familiar with federal
law and deferred to DPS.
SERGENT HENRY offered to follow up to the committee with a
confirmed answer.
2:53:31 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Public Safety, provided invited testimony on HB 325. She
expressed the belief that, for a crime to amount to an
inhibition to possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, a
crime involving domestic violence would need to include an
element of force. She offered to follow up to the committee
with a confirmed answer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether distributing images
would ever involve [the use of] force.
MS. HOWELL expressed the belief that it would not. She deferred
to the Department of Law to provide a confirmed answer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in subsection (6), paragraph (6) in the
proposed legislation, requested clarity on the exception for
images which do not involve nudity. In response to Chair
Claman, he confirmed that he was referring to the proposed
language involving images of a sexual act.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the term "sexual act" is defined in
AS 11.41.470(6), and this is defined as sexual penetration or
sexual contact.
2:57:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned whether the accused would be
subject to automatic arrest under the domestic violence statute,
per the proposed legislation.
MS. HOWELL responded that crimes involving an act of domestic
violence within the preceding 12 hours would result in mandatory
arrest. She deferred the question to Sergeant Henry.
SERGEANT HENRY explained that after a crime has been reported
and an investigation reveals the existence of probable cause,
three criteria would need to be met for an arrest. He listed
those as the existence of probable cause, the crime occurred
between household members, and the crime was within the prior 12
hours. He stated that if all three had been found during the
investigation, a mandatory arrest would occur. If the alleged
crime had occurred more than 12 hours prior to the report, or it
was determined that the definition of household members did not
apply, then a mandatory arrest would not occur.
2:59:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN announced that HB 325 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 11 v. G 5.11.2021.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sectional Analysis v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Supreme Court Phillips Decision 12.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - LISI Article 7.29.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Community Property Trust Act.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| HB 325 v. A 2.16.2022.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM SJUD 5/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Supporting Documents 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM SJUD 5/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.19.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 172 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. W 2.16.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendments #1-4 HJUD Final Votes 2.23.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendment #5 HJUD 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |