Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/27/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR16 | |
| HB250 | |
| SB30 | |
| HB224 | |
| HB302 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 224 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(2d JUD)
"An Act providing for the release of certain property
in the custody of a law enforcement agency to a crime
victim under certain conditions and relating to
requests for that release by the office of victims'
rights."
2:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, CO-SPONSOR, provided opening
remarks on SB 30:
Senate Bill 30 is about restorative justice.
When a victim of a crime has their property held as
evidence by law enforcement agencies, it could be
months or even years before they are able to have
their possessions returned.
By holding a victim's property as evidence for a
prolonged period of time, extra burden is placed on
the property owner to replace what has been taken as
evidence. The consequences are even higher for small
business owners who may face bankruptcy if their
property loss is a crucial component of their daily
operations.
SB 30 will introduce a process for victims of property
crime to petition the court for relief in recovering
property held as evidence.
Representative Wilson elaborated that the bill was about a
process that would enable victims to receive their property
more quickly.
CHUCK KOPP, CHIEF OF STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, addressed
the sectional analysis (copy on file). He explained that
currently the return of property was discretionary at the
advocate attorney level; the return of property could take
quite a bit of time if the attorneys did not agree. Often
crime victims were businesses and were therefore unable to
complete a sale or were underinsured on a property, which
could be very problematic. He referred to letters of
support in member's packets (copy on file). The bill
allowed a neutral decision maker the opportunity to weigh
in on the decision and provided the victims with direct
access to courts in order to ask the judge to determine
whether the interests of the victim outweighed those of the
other party. He read Section 1 of the sectional analysis:
1. Provides that a crime victim who is the owner of
property in the custody of a law enforcement agency
may request the agency for the return of their
property through the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR).
2. OVR will file the request with the agency after
conducting an investigation into the request to make
an initial determination if the crime victim is
entitled to return of the property being claimed under
the requirements of proposed 12.36.070(c): the crime
victim provides satisfactory proof of ownership, and
the party that objects to the return of the property
fails to prove that the property must be retained by
the agency for evidentiary purposes.
3. Once OVR makes such a determination, they will request
on behalf of the crime victim that the agency return
the property.
4. Within 10 days after receipt of request and following
reasonable notice to prosecution, defense and other
interested parties, the agency will request a hearing
before the court to determine if the property shall be
released to the crime victim.
5. The court of jurisdiction is identified in cases
involving a pending criminal case and in situations
where no criminal case is pending.
6. Establishes the burden of proof to be a preponderance
of the evidence, for both the crime victim showing
ownership and the objecting party proving the property
must be retained by the agency.
2:43:21 PM
Mr. Kopp continued to read from Section 1 of the sectional
analysis:
7. Establishes that if the court orders the return of the
property to the crime victim, the court may impose
reasonable conditions on the return to maintain the
evidentiary integrity of the property.
8. Identifies the term crime victim as having the meaning
given to victim in AS 12.55.185, the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Mr. Kopp concluded with Section 2 of the sectional
analysis:
1. Establishes within Title 24, Chapter 65 Office of
Victims' Rights the authority of OVR to request a law
enforcement agency for return of property on behalf of
a crime victim claiming property after conducting an
investigation as proscribed in AS 12.36.070(c).
2. Provides that the victims' advocate may use any of the
powers granted to the advocate under Title 24, Chapter
65.
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the preponderance
of evidence in the situations presented in the bill. He
discussed multiple agencies involved. He wondered what
would happen if there was a lien or judgment on property
that an individual was trying to get back.
Mr. Kopp replied that the language "may order the return"
was included on line 7, page 2 of the bill, which allowed
flexibility on contested claims that the court could rule
on. The preponderance of evidence language had been
recommended by the Department of Law; it was more probable
that a party deserved to have their property returned
despite claims to the contrary by other parties. He
delineated that the court could make a determination based
on the provision in the bill or any other law that dictated
when property could be released. He pointed to language "if
the court orders the return of the property, the court may
impose reasonable conditions on the return" (lines 14 and
15, page 2); the specific language was for situations where
a person needed the property back quickly, but conditions
were applied. Conditions could include: a returned item
could not be sold or the condition of the item needed to be
maintained. He used a heavy piece of equipment as an
example of an item that could be photographed and
documented and returned to a business owner to allow them
to commence business activities, but the court may ask the
owner not to sell the item until the case was closed. The
sponsor felt that the language was permissive and broad
enough to allow the court the discretionary authority it
needed in the situations.
2:47:22 PM
Co-Chair Thomas referred to a letter in the packet from Hal
Ingalls (copy on file) who had a vehicle and equipment
confiscated. He discussed deterioration that could result
from leaving a vehicle to sit for too long. He wondered
whether the bill required the state to return property in
the same condition.
Mr. Kopp replied that the bill did not guarantee the
condition of returned property. He explained that the
legislation provided crime victims with an avenue to
directly appeal to the court in circumstances when they
could not get a party to agree to release their property.
Co-Chair Thomas read from the sectional analysis:
"establishes that if the court orders the return of the
property to the crime victim, the court may impose
reasonable conditions on the return to maintain the
evidentiary integrity of the property" (Section 1, line 7).
He thought the court should return the property in its
original condition. He wondered what the point would be to
return a vehicle in a deteriorated condition.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that the bill addressed a small
portion of the problems experienced by property victims. He
believed the process to a solution was incremental and
recognized the hard work of the sponsor. He pointed out
that small business owners could not absorb a loss of their
only working vehicle or set of tools. He had heard
anecdotal remarks by trade union members who were forced to
take a loss because it was too cumbersome to deal with the
legal system.
Mr. Kopp appreciated the comments and noted that it had
taken three years to develop the current bill.
Vice-chair Fairclough referred the committee to letters of
support from the Alaska Homebuilder's Association and the
National Federation of Independent Businesses; both letters
cited battles between the government and smaller
businesses. She read an excerpt from a letter from Hal
Ingalls, CEO, Denali Drilling, Inc., Anchorage:
It has been 13 months since that accident with no
police report or indication that we will be able to
get our equipment back any time soon, nor are we able
to make a settlement with the insurance company. If we
were a smaller business than we are, we would be out
of business by not having access to our equipment to
continue to operate. Renting equipment to replace what
is in impound until the case is settled would be a
financial burden we would have to incur until the
troopers complete their paperwork.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that at present it had been 14
months since the accident had taken place. She observed
that it was difficult to fight the government and that the
bill provided a process to help individuals acquire their
property. She believed that the bill would help with
recourse in the event that property was damaged while in
the possession of the government.
2:52:41 PM
Representative Costello asked whether the legislation would
help Mr. Ingalls and others currently in the same position.
Mr. Kopp replied in the affirmative.
Representative Costello spoke in support of the
legislation.
ANDREW WALKER, OWNER, COMPUTER RENAISSANCE, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), explained that in 2010 the company had
been defrauded of a laptop with a bad check. He relayed
that the $1,100 laptop had been sitting in police custody
since the fraud had occurred. He had received his laptop
during the last week, but the item value was worth less
than half of its original value and had been damaged
cosmetically during that time. He had tried to convince the
court to remove the hard drive and to return the laptop,
but that had not occurred. He explained that he was out the
money as a business owner because of the court system and
the associated delays. He expressed that it would have been
very helpful to have had an avenue to appeal in order to
get his money back.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Mr. Walker for his time. Mr.
Walker replied that he was happy to be part of anything
that would help victims of crime get their property back in
an expedient manner.
2:56:55 PM
VICTOR KESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF
VICTIMS' RIGHTS, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (via teleconference),
spoke in "enthusiastic" support of the legislation. He
believed the bill provided a valuable tool for crime
victims to attain the return of their property held during
the course of criminal prosecution. He highlighted positive
aspects of the legislation. He opined that the bill
provided a balanced means for crime victims to seek return
of their property thereby mitigating the costs associated
with the underlying criminal activity. The legislation
would allow crime victims to seek the return of their
property in a timely manner in accord with principle
decision making through the operation of OVR, the judicial
branch of government, and other criminal justice agencies.
The bill aligned with Article 1, Section 24 of the Alaska
Constitution mandating that crime victims be treated with
dignity, respect, and fairness in a criminal prosecution.
He stated that the bill was fair and established a legal
framework that would consider the institutional
perspectives of the Department of Law, law enforcement, the
judiciary system, and OVR before property was returned to a
crime victim.
Mr. Kester discussed that the bill promoted restorative
justice by putting the victim in the position they had been
in prior to the crime and allowing them to move forward in
a positive and constructive manner. He communicated that
the bill amplified the victim's voice regarding the request
for the return of their property and added clarity and
specificity to the victim's constitutional rights. The bill
required decision makers in a criminal prosecution to hear
and consider a victim's voice regarding the return of their
property. He believed that the justice was improved when a
crime victim's voice was heard and considered in the
criminal justice process. The bill helped victims that may
lack the ability to hire a private attorney or who was
unfamiliar with the legal process. The bill allowed the
expertise of OVR to assist crime victims with attaining
their property. The office was dedicated to helping crime
victims and sought to collaborate and cooperate with others
throughout the criminal justice system. He discussed that
there was a zero impact fiscal note. He thanked the
committee for the ability to testify on the legislation.
3:01:02 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. He referred to
the indeterminate fiscal note from Department of Law and
zero fiscal notes from Department of Public Safety and the
Legislature.
Representative Costello MOVED to report CSSB 30(2nd Jud)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the faster return of
property would impact a victim's insurance claims or
ability to make a civil suit.
Representative Wilson hoped that the quicker receipt of
property would help victims to take care of the issues
sooner. She believed the legislation would result in fewer
court cases because victims would have direct access to the
courts and would receive their property more quickly.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 30(2nd Jud) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three previously published
fiscal notes including, one indeterminate note: FN4 (LAW);
and two zero notes: FN3 (DPS) and FN5 (LEG).
3:04:30 PM
AT EASE
3:07:33 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AFN Support Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 SHELDON JACKSON v. State.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 SCOTUS Voucher.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Rethinking schools.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 DC school article.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HB 250 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 250 |
| HB 250 -Energy Policy.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 250 |
| HB 250 - Supporting Letters.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 250 |
| HJR016-UPDATED NEW-OOG-DOE-2-27-12.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HB302 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS126-I 2.23.12.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HJR 16 Response Memo to Rep Garapdf.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 AK Const Conv pages 1512 to 1525.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Constit. Convention Proceedings pp. 1525-1529.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Zelman v Simmons-Harrispdf.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Sheldon Jackson College v State of Alaskapdf.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Matthews v Quintonpdf.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16-Alaska-K-12---School-Choice-Survey.pdf.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Additional Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |