Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2012 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB127 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB343 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 343-DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S RECORDS
3:39:30 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to disclosure of records of
the Department of Health and Social Services pertaining to
children in certain circumstances; and providing for an
effective date."
3:39:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that the proposed bill would improve the sharing of information
between Division of Juvenile Justice and the Office of
Children's Services, which would help both agencies, as part of
Department of Health and Social Services, to better protect and
serve their clients. She explained that, although the
affiliation was established in law, the actual relationship was
not always so clearly understood by some staff, attorneys, and
judges, and that the proposed bill clarified that the two
agencies could share information. She stated that the proposed
bill would also improve the ability to share information with
former clients, specifically children who were once in state
custody, and their parents or guardians who had a legitimate
interest in the information. She gave examples of application
to the military, and university studies, as legitimate needs for
access to old records. She described the third aspect of the
proposed bill, which would simplify and streamline the current
law on public disclosure of juvenile information, which she
described as cumbersome. She directed attention to the flow
chart, titled "Current Disclosure Law," which outlined how
cumbersome and time consuming the current practice was for each
client. [Included in members' packets] She explained that the
proposed bill would streamline and improve access to the process
for making information available to the public. She then
directed attention to a second flow chart, "Proposed Juvenile
Disclosure Law - 2/6/2012." [Included in members' packets]
3:43:33 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that
improvement to the abilities for the child protection system and
the juvenile justice system to work together was embraced by
advocacy systems nationwide, and that the proposed bill would
make the statement that the two systems were dedicated to this
goal. Directing attention to proposed AS 47.12.310(f) of the
proposed bill, he pronounced that this would enable Division of
Juvenile Justice to be more responsive to requests by
individuals with a need for background information on juveniles.
He explained that Section 5 of the proposed bill would improve
an understanding by staff and the public for the need of
specific public disclosures of juvenile offenses. He emphasized
that the proposed bill would not change any laws regarding
victim notification, and parents and agencies with "well
established rights to juvenile information" would continue to
receive the necessary information to effectively carry out their
duties. He stated that laws surrounding child abuse and neglect
were not affected by the proposed bill. He summarized by
stating that the proposed bill would improve the ability of
Division of Juvenile Justice to "manage, exchange, and disclose
juvenile information while respecting the state's desire for its
juvenile system to both serve public safety and help kids put
delinquent behavior behind them."
3:47:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 5, line 5 of
the proposed bill, "the public shall disclose information to the
public," if the minor subject was at least 13 years of age, and
had committed any of the listed offenses, and then pointed to
page 5, line 18, "the department has filed a petition seeking
adjudication of a minor as a delinquent on the offense." He
asked for an explanation to its meaning.
3:48:08 PM
MR. NEWMAN, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
police identification of a juvenile suspected of an offense
resulted in a referral to Division of Juvenile Justice, which
was different than the adult system. He elaborated, declaring
that referrals from law enforcement were given directly to
Division of Juvenile Justice, and a juvenile probation officer
was tasked with determining the dispensation of the report. The
proposed bill allowed the probation officer to petition the
court for adjudication on juvenile delinquency, and, if the
court found probable cause, then the information would be
available for public disclosure.
3:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this procedure referenced the
seven offenses listed in proposed AS 47.12.315(a), lines 8 - 15,
or did it also reference offenses similar to and including
multiple truancies.
3:50:54 PM
MR. NEWMAN replied that the seven listed offenses, but not lower
offenses, were eligible for public disclosure if the juvenile
probation officer filed a petition on one of those offenses. He
noted that truancy was handled through the district court, not
the Division of Juvenile Justice.
3:51:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that proposed AS
47.12.315(b) was referring to subsection (a).
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that, although the seven offenses
were eligible for required public disclosure, probable cause had
to be first established. She described that probable cause was
only determined after Division of Juvenile Justice filed a
petition seeking adjudication of the minor as a delinquent, the
court arraigned the minor, and the court entered a finding of
probable cause.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification as subsection (b)
read "may disclose," while subsection (a) read "shall disclose."
CHAIR KELLER, pointing to page 5, lines 16 - 17, said that it
described "may [disclose] only if one, two, and three."
3:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that these were
sequential, not parallel, statements, and that both were
required before any release of public disclosure.
3:54:18 PM
MR. NEWMAN expressed agreement, pointing out that probable cause
had to be established.
CHAIR KELLER, referring to the aforementioned flow charts, asked
if there was less information required for disclosure under the
proposed bill.
MR. NEWMAN, in response, explained that under the current
system, the intake probation officer determined whether to
petition the offense to the court; whereas, under the proposed
bill, the court would need to establish probable cause before
any public disclosure.
3:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked to clarify that, under the current
system, there was more public disclosure without a finding of
probable cause.
MR. NEWMAN agreed that no finding of probable cause was
currently required for public disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if, at a finding of probable
cause, the juvenile could then be taken into custody.
MR. NEWMAN stated that the initial advisement hearing for the
juvenile, often after detention, was prior to a final
adjudication hearing. He noted that the state could determine
that a delinquent act had been committed during the advisement
hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, observing that probable cause was the
finding effect, asked if the proposed bill had added misconduct
concerning weapons in the first through fifth degrees, as well
as some drug crimes. She asked if the current law had an
exception for misconduct involving a controlled substance,
except for those listed under AS 11.71.040 and AS 11.71.050.
3:58:01 PM
MR. NEWMAN reflected that the seven offenses enumerated in the
proposed bill, page 5, lines 8 - 15, closely mirrored offenses
which currently existed in law. He pointed out that robbery and
misconduct involving weapons in the first through fifth degrees
were included in the proposed bill, as they were often included
in the use of a deadly weapon. He offered his belief that
misconduct involving a controlled substance was also currently a
requirement of the public disclosure law.
3:59:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about any exceptions to the drug
cases in the current law. She asked for a definition to
misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree.
MR. NEWMAN replied that he would research it.
4:00:17 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, testified in
support of HB 343, explaining that the exchange of information
would be beneficial to all the involved agencies. In response
to Representative Kerttula, he defined misconduct with weapons
in the fifth degree as knowing possession of a deadly weapon,
other than a pocket knife, by someone 21 years of age or older;
knowing possession of a firearm by someone 16 years of age or
younger, without the consent of a parent or guardian; and,
knowing possession of a firearm within the grounds of, or on a
parking lot immediately adjacent to, an entity other than a
private residence.
4:02:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, posing a question, asked to clarify if
an unemancipated minor, fifteen and a half years of age, owned a
gun, would that be within the definition of misconduct involving
weapons in the fifth degree.
LT. DIAL replied that the consent of the parent or the guardian
of the minor was the key to the definition.
4:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a hunting knife, instead of a
pocket knife, was determined to be a deadly weapon.
LT. DIAL, in response, said that the key would be if it was
concealed on the person. He shared that a pocket knife was
generally defined as shorter than 3 inches in length.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern for the inclusion in
the proposed bill of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth
degree, as many people carried hunting knives that did not fit
the definition of a pocket knife, especially as they were often
worn under a coat.
4:05:16 PM
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that this definition would be
considered in the next committee of referral, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
4:05:42 PM
LT. DIAL, in response to Representative Seaton, clarified that
an affirmative defense for this charge was for someone to be "in
their dwelling or on land owned by them, or was actually engaged
in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or another lawful outdoor
activity, that necessitates the carrying of a weapon for
personal protection." He declared that a minor, carrying a
large knife in a lawful outdoor activity, would not pertain
under this law.
4:06:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her belief that neither
misconduct involving weapons nor misconduct involving controlled
substances were currently included in public disclosure laws.
She expressed her concern for the necessity of these for public
disclosure, unless the individual themselves wanted it.
4:07:07 PM
MR. NEWMAN, directing attention to the current law, AS 47.12.315
(b), stated that public disclosure would apply to crimes in
which a minor employed a deadly weapon. He shared of the
struggle to define whether "employed" meant that the weapon was
with the person when they committed the offense. He clarified
that the Division of Juvenile Justice still maintained the
ability to make a decision whether to petition the court for the
offense, and that it was not until after this petition and after
the court had maintained probable cause, for there to be public
disclosure.
4:08:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern that the definition
of the crime was for just having the knife, and not for having a
weapon during the commission of the crime. He stated his
support for the disclosure, but that he did not want it to
become broader in scope than the intention.
4:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked Lt. Dial for a description of
misconduct involving weapons in the fourth degree.
4:10:08 PM
LT. DIAL explained that misconduct involving weapons in the
fourth degree, a Class A misdemeanor, was a crime if the person
possessed a firearm on their person or in the interior of the
vehicle in which they were present, when the physical or mental
condition of the person was impaired by the introduction of an
intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance. He declared that
the discharge of a firearm across a highway, or with reckless
disregard for risk to property or physical injury to a person,
was also defined as a fourth degree violation. He noted that
switchblade or gravity knives, metal knuckles, and knowingly
selling a firearm to someone less than 18 years of age were also
included in the definition.
4:11:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if misconduct involving weapons in
the fifth degree was a Class B misdemeanor.
LT. DIAL expressed his agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mused that the definition for a deadly
weapon used to be "anything that under the circumstances in
which it's used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used,
is capable of causing death or serious physical injury. So,
that could be just about anything." She asked if a Class B
misdemeanor was necessary for public disclosure.
MR. NEWMAN assured that, although he did not have specific
figures for its management in Division of Juvenile Justice,
almost 50 percent of offenses were managed outside the formal
court system. He pointed out that these misdemeanors, unlike
felonies, were a level of offenses that were more likely to be
managed outside the court system, and thereby, were not eligible
for public disclosure.
4:13:18 PM
CHAIR KELLER, agreeing with the concerns for the definition of a
hunting knife as a deadly weapon, pointed out that the issue was
misconduct with that knife, and that the Division of Juvenile
Justice still had to file a petition seeking adjudication.
4:14:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the inclusion for
a knife longer than three inches in the definition of misconduct
involving a deadly weapon allowed for someone who was not
actively hunting to be charged. He expressed his desire to
delete misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree from the
proposed bill.
4:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, as the prime sponsor of the proposed bill,
offered her support for the change.
4:15:58 PM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
4:16:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 5, line 15, following "through"
Delete "fifth"
Insert "fourth"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:16:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report HB 343, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
343(HSS) was forwarded from the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee.