Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 09:03 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 3 MINOR'S CURFEW VIOL. HEARD IN DIST. CT.
COCHAIR PEARCE, Sponsor, testified on behalf of the
bill. Testimony was also heard from CAPT. TED BACHMAN
and MARGOT KNUTH. SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. A
vote was taken and Amendment #1 FAILED by a vote of 4
to 2. COCHAIR PEARCE MOVED CSSB 3(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes. Without objection, CSSB 3(JUD) was REPORTED OUT
with a previous fiscal note from the Court System
(24.3), previous fiscal notes from the Departments of
Administration (indeterminate) and Health and Social
Services (indeterminate), and a zero fiscal note from
the Department of Public Safety.
COCHAIR PEARCE, Sponsor, brought up a news item in Juneau
last fall, in which the Assembly put a curfew aside because
they found they had no avenue to prosecute offenders. She
read the Sponsor Statement relating to SB 3 (copy on file).
Following is an excerpt of the first and last paragraphs:
"Currently, juvenile offenses other than traffic,
tobacco, fish and game, parks and recreational
facilities, or alcohol violations, are handled through
municipal courts where these exist, or are not handled
at all because of the Division of Family and Youth
Services caseload.
SB 3 will mandate that all juvenile curfew
violations be handled in District Court. Alaska
Delinquency Rules will not apply, and the minor accused
of the offense will be charged, prosecuted, and
sentenced in the District Court in the same manner as
an adult. When a minor is charged, prosecuted and
sentenced for an offense under this subsection, the
minor's parent, guardian, or legal custodian will be
present at all proceedings."
COCHAIR PEARCE pointed out the Judiciary CS was before the
committee. She stated there was a "quilt of ability" for
juveniles to be handled in court in the state. Some judges
take a more active interest at the juvenile level, one of
whom was Judge Froehlich of Juneau, who sets aside Friday
afternoons for juvenile cases. He was aggressive in
prosecuting violations of alcohol and tobacco and informed
her that the lion's share of people he has seen on those
charges would also come before him on a curfew violation.
Her intention was to give communities the tools they need to
intervene in children's problems before they become large.
If they can be stopped with a curfew violation, young people
could be diverted from a life in the corrections system.
COCHAIR PEARCE mentioned the Court System fiscal note of $24
thousand, stating they were not sure how many cases they
might see. Anchorage might choose to go with an ordinance
and start prosecuting their curfews at the district court
level rather than at the municipal level.
Section 2 was a suggestion from Anchorage Assemblyman Joe
Murdy which would allow the option for community work in
place of fines. The reason it was permissive was based on a
recent case in which the judge decided if a youth was
sentenced to community work, it was the sort of sentence
that should have a jury trial. She wanted to make sure the
cases didn't automatically go to a jury trial, so it was
made permissive. In some Anchorage cases the parents of the
offender were unwilling to pay the fine. She was hopeful
that between parental and court pressure they could get
young people to do community service to work off their fine.
In response to a question from SENATOR PHILLIPS, COCHAIR
PEARCE did not recall receiving a position paper from the
Anchorage Municipality, but did receive one from Juneau.
She acknowledged the idea came from the assembly.
SENATOR ADAMS brought up a proposed amendment for the
committee's consideration. His understanding was that SB 3
mandates that juvenile curfew violations be handled in
district courts and the minor would be charged, prosecuted
and sentenced in the same manner as an adult. It would
shift the burden for municipal violations from municipal
hearing officers to state district court. The juvenile
would get a criminal record and potential jail time. He
believed it was a municipal rather than a state problem.
Criminal records should not belong to a youth that makes a
mistake with curfew violations. His proposal came from the
Governor's Youth and Justice working group as a
recommendation. He reiterated that curfew violations should
be a civil rather than a criminal issue, a policy issue they
must decide at the table. He wanted to keep the fines to a
maximum of $250.
COCHAIR PEARCE responded to a question by SENATOR PHILLIPS
by stating that SB 3 would not affect the Anchorage
ordinance. They could choose to change it and use the
district court system, but they presently have their own
system. The main problem is in Juneau and other communities
without their own court system and ability to prosecute
curfew offenders. She acknowledged that the Department of
Health and Social Services approached her about the
amendment proposed by SENATOR ADAMS. She believed the
department did not have the manpower to handle all the young
people and questioned the fiscal impact of the amendment.
The presence of SENATOR PARNELL was noted.
SENATOR PHILLIPS questioned if the legislation was assuming
responsibility for local government and adding more to the
state budget. He also inquired why it was different from
other ordinances around the state. He then agreed with
SENATOR ADAMS' point that it had a different attitude, that
of a criminal record versus a fine.
COCHAIR SHARP called for testimony from those on
teleconference. CAPT. TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Trooper,
deferred to Ms. Knuth, and asked to testify after her.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
approached the committee. She outlined two special projects
she had been working on this year. One had to do with the
need for more prison beds and the other was trying to work
on juvenile justice issues and keep facilities from being
filled up. The governor recently sponsored a conference on
youth and justice and asked a group of ninety citizens and
experts around the state to look at the growing problem of
juvenile crime and make recommendations on what could be
done both at the local level and the state level. One of
the most significant findings was that there was a gap in
the system between doing almost nothing for minor offenses
and "then landing with both feet" on juveniles who are
committing the most serious offenses. A need for
consistent, swift and certain consequences has been
identified for the low level offenses. The problem with
utilizing the statewide DHSS system is a growing population
and decreasing budget, and they have been unable to do all
and be all. The department has had to focus their energy on
the serious offenders because of finite resources.
MS. KNUTH testified that there were a number of communities
who have identified their juveniles at risk of becoming
criminal offenders and they wish to do something. The
desire to work with low level offenders was taking different
forms throughout the state depending on the nature of the
community. She briefly described the Anchorage Court system
in which they use a hearing officer, similar to a judge.
The juvenile is cited and required to go before the hearing
officer and be held accountable. In the small communities
of Elim and Koyuk, they started a pilot project that enabled
them to use a village court system, which was different than
the hearing officer, but it focused on the same group of at-
risk kids and created an authority figure who meted out
appropriate consequences for juveniles.
MS. KNUTH continued by stating the problem with SB 3 was
fairly typical of the way the state has been trying to deal
with those at risk of becoming offenders, which was to put
it back on the state. It can be appropriate, but at the
same time, a community response would be more appropriate
and more likely to result in swift, certain and consistent
consequences. She felt there was a need for systems that
could be utilized. SENATOR ADAMS' amendment would increase
the tools that could be used by communities, which was in
the spirit of the need identified by COCHAIR PEARCE.
MS. KNUTH described the proposed amendment. First, it
created a possibility of civil penalties instead of criminal
penalties for kids who are not criminals yet but are at
risk. Rather than use the criminal system for them, it made
more sense to use civil penalties. She noted "We've run
into this problem of if the fine is too big or community
work service is ordered, then it is treated like a criminal
case and there is the right to a jury trial." The amendment
reduces the fine from $1,000 to $250, which is something the
Court of Appeals has identified as the cut-off level for a
civil penalty. Section 2 would require that DHSS was
notified of juveniles who are racking up civil penalties
because they are the youth at risk of becoming serious
offenders and they need some way to make sure there is a
whole profile so they cannot escape. A significant problem
now is there is no accountability or documentation to
identify those at risk. Section 3, the civil penalties
section, is what Anchorage is currently utilizing and wants
to keep using. The municipal prosecutor had expressed
concern that his workload would not allow more cases which
would happen if they prosecuted in district court. The
remaining sections of the amendment allow the department to
delegate to communities the ability to respond to these low
level offenses. That is what would create a formal system
for the Elim and Koyuk agreement, the Mat-Su diversion
panel, and some other systems used statewide. It would
create a reporting mechanism so that DHSS doesn't lose track
of those at risk of becoming chronic offenders. She
believed that state government needed to be doing less and
communities were asking to be empowered to do this work, so
it seemed appropriate to create a new response level for
kids at risk.
CAPTAIN TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Trooper, testified next
via teleconference from Anchorage. He added to Ms. Knuth's
comments regarding the proposed amendment. One of his
concerns was creating another subset of people who are
prosecuted in adult court. He reiterated one of the
findings of the governor's conference on juveniles that
spoke against creating any more laws that would bring
juveniles into adult court. He supported the accountability
the amendment would create at the local level for the lower
offenses. It provides another avenue that would help steer
young people in the right direction.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that he offered the amendment as a
proposal to work with the sponsor. He felt it was good
legislation but needed more work, communities need to be
involved, and there was a middle ground that could be
considered.
COCHAIR PEARCE explained that the Judiciary Committee did
look at the same idea, which had been offered by the HESS
Committee. It was her feeling that a young person who faced
a DHSS procedure is less likely to have an epiphany and
decide they didn't want to be in that situation again than a
person who had to face a judge.
End SFC-97 # 69, Side 1
Begin SFC-97 # 69, Side 2
COCHAIR PEARCE continued with a discussion about unpaid
fines resulting in court contempt problems and incarceration
in a youth facility. That was the reason for adding the
option of community service. She questioned whether DHSS
could handle the workload that would be required by the
amendment. After thinking through the proposal, she saw
there were two directions to go, and she was more
comfortable with the Judiciary CS version of the
legislation.
SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. COCHAIR PEARCE objected.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Phillips, Adams
OPPOSED: Parnell, Torgerson, Pearce, Sharp
And so, the MOTION FAILED (2-4).
COCHAIR PEARCE MOVED CSSB 3(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, CSSB 3(JUD) was REPORTED OUT with a
previous fiscal note from the Court System (24.3), previous
fiscal notes from the Departments of Administration
(indeterminate) and Health and Social Services
(indeterminate), and a zero fiscal note from the Department
of Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|