Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/05/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB23|| SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
3:33:56 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL 32 "An
Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to
controlled substances; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; relating to reports of involuntary commitment;
amending Rule 6, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
He stated his intent to hear the introduction and sectional
analysis. He advised that the committee would review the bill
from both the state affairs and judiciary perspectives because
the judiciary committee chair has declared a conflict of
interest based on [an ethics committee ruling] about House Bill
44.
He invited Mr. Henderson to the witness table and noted who was
available to answer questions.
3:35:32 PM
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Anchorage, explained that at its core, SB 32
is designed to return sentencing classifications to pre-Senate
Bill 91 law. It is intended to ensure that prosecutors, law
enforcement, and the court have the tools to respond to the
general crime trends. The bill focuses on the mandated
sentencing criteria that must be assessed including community
condemnation, reaffirmation of societal norms, general and
specific deterrents, the seriousness of the offense, victim
input, restoration of the victim, and rehabilitation. He said
rehabilitation and treatment are priorities, but not the only
priorities. SB 32 is about balancing those things.
MR. HENDERSON stated that SB 32 returns the statutory scheme for
drugs to pre-Senate Bill 91 law. This is done to combat drug
trafficking. He summarized that Senate Bill 91 reduced all the
sentencing and statutory schemes, which impacted the ability to
address drug trafficking. SB 32 also addresses sentencing for
both felonies and misdemeanors. He noted that the parts of SB 32
that are not related to Senate Bill 91, are designed to close
gaps or loopholes that have been identified. He said he would
point these out in the sectional.
3:38:13 PM
MR. HENDERSON delivered the following sectional analysis for SB
32.
Section 1: Clean up language. Aligns murder in the
second degree when a person dies during the course of
a drug deal with the changes made to the drug statutes
later in the bill.
Section 2: Clean up language. Same change that is made
in sec. 1 is made in sec. 2 for murder of an unborn
child in the second degree.
He explained that Sections 1 and 2 are conforming amendments to
the murder statutes to include the new misconduct involving
controlled substances in the second degree into the "felony
murder rule."
Section 3 10: Removes inflation adjustment from
property crime statutes.
He noted that the inflation adjustment, which was created by
Senate Bill 91, is repealed from the theft and criminal mischief
statutes.
Section 11: Defines "prior convictions" when
evaluating the existence of prior convictions in the
recidivist theft statutes.
He explained that this is a clarifying amendment to rectify the
inadvertent omission of the definition.
Section 12 18: Removes inflation adjustment from
property crime statutes. [Also referred to as the
theft and criminal mischief statutes.]
Section 19: Adds to the crime of escape in the second
degree persons who are under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Health and Social Services for a
felony and restricted to the residence then leave
their residence without permission.
MR. HENDERSON clarified that this is about the Division of
Juvenile Justice jurisdiction. Escape in the second degree is a
class B felony.
3:39:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked him to explain, to the public, the
automatic inflation adjustment.
CHAIR SHOWER requested members limit their questions to key
points during the introduction.
MR. HENDERSON explained that Senate Bill 91 created a mechanism
beginning in 2020, that all the property thresholds for theft
offenses would automatically increase at the rate of inflation,
as determined by the Alaska Judicial Council. SB 32 repeals that
in Sections 3-10 and Sections 12-18 for the following reasons:
1) as the Department of Law outlined in its review of Senate
Bill 91, there may be a separation of powers problem; and 2) it
eliminates the public involvement in determining what the
thresholds should be. He noted that when Senate Bill 54 reduced
the felony thresholds to $750, public involvement was very
important in determining that amount. He reiterated that SB 32
repeals the inflation adjustment.
He continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 20: Makes it a class C felony to remove an
electronic monitoring device or leave a person's
residence while under official detention for a
misdemeanor regardless if under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Corrections or the Department of
Health and Social Services [Division of Juvenile
Justice]. Also makes it a class C felony if the person
is on conditions of release before trial and ordered
to electronic monitoring or house arrest by the court
and the person removes the electronic monitoring
device or leaves one's residence without permission.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what happens if a person on electronic
monitoring doesn't maintain the battery and the monitor stops
working. If that isn't covered in the bill, an amendment is
needed, she said.
MR. HENDERSON replied that would be covered under the tampering
with physical evidence statute.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to follow up with the statute.
SENATOR COGHILL asked for clarification that this is new
language, not a repeal.
MR. HENDERSON said that's correct; both Sections 19 and 20 have
new language to fill gaps that have been identified.
3:43:52 PM
Section 21: Clean up [conforming] amendment for change
that occurs in section 22, making failure to appear a
crime.
Section 22: Removes 30 day grace period for defendants
during which it was not a crime to fail to show up for
a hearing. Under current law, it is not a crime to
fail to appear for a court hearing unless the person
goes 30 days or longer without making contact with the
court or fails to appear with the intent being to
avoid prosecution. This section removes both of those
limitations.
He explained that failure to appear refers to a person on bail
release who is ordered by the court to appear at their next
court hearing and they do not show up. Under Section 22, it is a
class C felony offense for somebody on felony bail release to
fail to show up for a hearing. It is a class A misdemeanor for
somebody on bail for a misdemeanor to fail to show up for a
hearing.
SB 32 repeals the 30-day grace period that Senate Bill 91
created for failing to appear or contact the court or absconding
or fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution.
SENATOR COGHILL said later he will ask how the provisions that
are being repealed have worked, both the pros and cons.
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 23: Amends the crime of violating conditions
of release which relates to conditions imposed by the
court on persons on pretrial release. This section
makes it a class A misdemeanor for a person to violate
their conditions of release if they are on release for
a felony and a class B misdemeanor if they violate
while on conditions for a misdemeanor.
He noted that later on the bill repeals the provision that a
violation of conditions of release (VCR) is five days in jail.
Returning the offense to a class A misdemeanor, given the
changes later in the bill, if you're convicted of a class A
misdemeanor the penalty provision is 0 to 1 year in jail. If
it's a class B misdemeanor it would become 0 to 90 days, given
the changes later in the bill.
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned the reason that the penalties aren't
scaled upward for more serious crimes that a person may commit
while on electronic monitoring.
MR. HENDERSON replied it's about striking that balance he
described earlier. For the escape statutes, the intent is to
ensure that the criminal sanction is adequate to give the
Department of Corrections confidence to use electronic
monitoring when appropriate.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked why violating conditions of release for a
felony conviction isn't a felony offense. "That's one huge flag
I have on this bill," she said.
MR. HENDERSON explained that violating conditions of release are
not standalone new criminal acts. They're criminal acts because
of the conditions set by the court for a person on bail. The
idea is to ensure that a criminal sanction is available to
interrupt that behavior, but it should not be so large that it
is equivalent to the underlying offense.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wants further discussion because
violating certain conditions of release for a felon is very
serious. She cited the example of a felon approaching a victim
after they were told to stay away.
3:50:14 PM
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 24: Makes it a class A misdemeanor to refuse
to provide a DNA sample when arrested for a qualifying
offense. Under current law, those arrested for a
qualifying offense must provide a DNA sample for
inclusion in a DNA database. However, there is no
enforcement mechanism. This section adds that
enforcement mechanism.
He explained that under the current law, a person who is
arrested for a qualifying offense must immediately submit a DNA
sample. Also, a person who is convicted of a qualifying offense
must submit a DNA sample upon conviction; failing to do so is a
class C felony offense. However, current law does not provide a
corresponding enforcement provision for failing to provide a DNA
sample upon arrest. Section 24 closes that loophole by creating
a class A misdemeanor offense for failing to provide the
required DNA sample upon arrest. The conforming amendments are
in Sections 25 and 26.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for clarification that Sections 24-27 are
entirely new.
MR. HENDERSON confirmed that these are new sections; they are
not related to Senate Bill 91.
SENATOR COGHILL recalled the question about privacy on DNA
testing and asked if there had been a court challenge. He said
he believes that was the reason the penalty wasn't provided
initially.
MR. HENDERSON said the State of Maryland took its statute on the
issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and it was found constitutional.
It did not violate the Fourth Amendment to seize a DNA sample
for introduction into CODIS if the person is charged with what
the court characterized as a "serious offense." He explained
that it is not a violation of constitutional rights because
technology has made the DNA sample no different than
fingerprints or other identifying information.
CHAIR SHOWER said he has a slight disagreement but would discuss
it later.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she supports the provision as a way to
prevent wrongful convictions.
3:53:33 PM
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 25: Clarifies that refusing to provide a DNA
sample after conviction, as a part of a person's
sentence, or because the person is required to
register as a sex offender or child kidnapper, is a
class C felony.
Section 26: Classification section. Classifies the
crime of violating an order to submit to DNA testing
upon arrest is a class A misdemeanor.
Section 27: Enacts a generalized threat statute to
cover when an individual threatens to commit a serious
crime which reasonably places another person in fear.
Covers real threats of violence and not simply false
threats.
MR. HENDERSON clarified that Section 27 is not related to Senate
Bill 91.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that this should be carefully vetted
because it could be very contentious. He added that for this
committee he will focus on protecting citizens' rights. "As you
get to the point where we dig deeper, be prepared to answer
those constitutional questions, because they're going to come up
her," he advised.
MR. HENDERSON opined that this generalized threat statute should
hold up to constitutional challenge because similar statutes
challenged under the First Amendment have not been successful.
There are two reasons: 1) the mental state employed here is a
reckless disregard; and 2) the person must be placed in
reasonable fear.
CHAIR SHOWER said he was just warning to be prepared because the
questions would be hard and deep. He added that he takes the
constitutional obligation to protect citizens' rights "as
seriously as anybody you're ever going to see in this building."
3:56:33 PM
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 28: Makes the crime of disorderly conduct a
class B misdemeanor punishable by not more than 10
days.
He noted that Senate Bill 91 reduced the penalty for disorderly
conduct to 24 hours and SB 32 returns it to [not more than] 10
days.
Section 29: Reenacts class A felony level crime for
the distribution of [any amount of] schedule IA
controlled substances [opioid derivatives including
heroin, Fentanyl, and Carfentanil] and making
methamphetamine.
He said Sections 29-37 collectively return the drug laws to the
pre-Senate Bill 91 statutory scheme. He said he would try to
point out the repealed the provisions as he goes along.
SENATOR REINBOLD shared that she has ridden along with both the
Anchorage Police Department and the Alaska State Troopers and
this section is important to them. She said later she will ask
what rights law enforcement has when they know that
[methamphetamine] is being manufactured and likely distributed
in a building.
MR. HENDERSON said he made a note of the request. He continued
the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 30: Renames AS 11.71.030, misconduct involving
a controlled substance in the second degree to
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the
third degree. Amends the statute to include
manufacturing or distribution of any amount of a
schedule IIA or IIIA controlled substance. Also
repeals section of law regarding the delivery of 1g or
more of a schedule IA controlled substance or 2.5
grams or more of a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance as the amendments in the bill focus on the
type of drug being distributed and not necessarily the
amount.
He explained that this removes the threshold in the drug
statutes that [Senate Bill 91] created and returns it to
previous law where the amount of drugs being trafficked becomes
a factor (not the factor) in determining the significance of the
drug trafficking behavior. He noted that many of the repealers
found in Section [51] come from Section 30. These include AS
11.71.030(a)(1) on page 16, (a)(4), (5), and (6) on page 17.
SENATOR REINBOLD mentioned a park in her community where drug
dealing occurs and said she would like a discussion about the
prohibition for possessing schedule IA and IIA controlled
substances within 500 feet of a school [page 17, line 15]
because that's fairly close.
CHAIR SHOWER added that he wanted a discussion about whether
government has flexibility to react to changes in drug use
patterns.
MR. HENDERSON asked if he was referring to response to new drugs
that come on the market.
CHAIR SHOWER said yes.
MR. HENDERSON highlighted that House Bill 312 from last session
allowed the attorney general to schedule new drugs at they came
onto the market.
CHAIR SHOWER said he just wanted to make sure that any loopholes
that have come to light receive attention this year. We want to
get this right, he said.
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 31: Conforming amendment to the changes made
in section 30.
Section 32: Makes the possession of any amount of a
schedule IA (heroin) or IIA (methamphetamine, cocaine,
PCP, etc.) controlled substance and various amounts of
IIIA, IVA, and VIA controlled substances a felony.
He said this section returns possession of the most serious
drugs to a felony offense. It also returns possession of larger
amounts of schedule IIIA, IVA, and VA controlled substances to a
class C felony offense.
Section 33: Conforming amendment to the changes made
in section 32.
Section 34: Removes possession of most dangerous
controlled substances from the crime of misconduct
involving a controlled substance in the fifth degree,
as those possessory crimes would be a class C felony
under the bill.
4:05:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was thinking about inserting an
exception for legal cannabis. Because a number of people are
concerned, it's worth clarifying that this does not refer to the
legal cannabis industry. He said he'd follow up to discuss where
that should be inserted.
MR. HENDERSON agreed it would clarify the intent.
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 35: Renames AS 11.71.060 "misconduct involving
a controlled substance in the sixth degree" to conform
with the changes made to the drug offense statutes.
Section 36: Conforming amendment to ["Good Samaritan"]
statute prohibiting prosecution of individuals who
seek medical or law enforcement assistance for a
person who is overdosing.
Section 37: Increases the maximum period of probation
for felony sex offenses from 15 years to 25. Also
increases the maximum period of probation for any
other offense to 10 years.
He noted that Senate Bill 91 limited the time a person could be
placed on probation. Section [37] changes that to allow the
court to impose probation for the time necessary to conform
their behavior and meet their probation conditions.
CHAIR SHOWER said he assumes these provisions align with the
changes in other bills but wonders what happens if they don't
all pass.
MR. HENDERSON said all the bills act in concert and if they
don't all pass, conforming amendments will be needed.
4:08:26 PM
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 38 40: Enhanced sentences for making
methamphetamine around children or engaging children
in the sale of methamphetamine are reenacted. Also
increases the presumptive sentencing ranges for class
A, B, and C felonies.
Felony
Current Law SB 32
Level
Class A First Felony: 3-6 First Felony: 5-8
(20 max) (20 max)
Second Felony: 8-12 Second Felony: 10-14
(20 max) (20 max)
Third Felony: 13-20 Third Felony: 15-20
(20 max) (20 max)
Class B First Felony: 0-2 First Felony: 1-3
(10 max) (10 max)
Second Felony: 2-5 Second Felony: 4-7
(10 max) (10 max)
Third Felony: 4-10 Third Felony: 6-10
(10 max) (10 max)
Class C First Felony: 0-2 First Felony: 0-2
(5 max) (5 max)
Second Felony: 1-4 Second Felony: 2-4
(5 max) (5 max)
Third Felony: 2-5 Third Felony: 3-5
(5 max) (5 max)
He explained that under felony sentencing rules, the presumptive
range is dictated by a person's criminal history and the level
of offense for which they're convicted. The range of
incarceration the judge may impose for the offender who commits
the typical offense appears as a grid. Senate Bill 91 moved all
the presumptive ranges down and Sections 38-40 seek to move them
back. The sectional has a chart that includes that and a matrix.
Section 38 amends the presumptive ranges for all non-sex class A
felony offenses to pre-Senate Bill 91 law. It also reenacts the
enhanced penalty provisions for manufacturing methamphetamine
around children.
Section 39 increases all presumptive sentences for non-sex class
B felony offenses. It's about a two-year shift, he said.
Section 40 increases all presumptive sentences for all non-sex
class C felony offenses.
4:10:26 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it's fair to describe this as the
controlling document for all the other crime bill.
MR. HENDERSON agreed it is foundational.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she finds it ridiculous that somebody who
commits their first felony potentially has zero jail time. She
said she isn't asking for the discussion today, but she's
flagging it.
4:11:29 PM
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 41: Prohibits the suspension or reduction of
the period of mandatory probation outlined in statute
for sex offenders.
He said this is a provision that directly ties to some of the
other crime bills the committee has heard.
Section 42: Returns sentencing range for class A
misdemeanors to 0-[365 days]. [It also repeals the 30-
day cap placed on some misdemeanors found in Senate
Bill 91.]
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted it on the record that the
sentencing range was reduced from 0-365 days down to 0-30 days.
She described that as a major pet peeve and the 0-10 range for
class B misdemeanors outrageous. She said overall, she loves SB
32.
4:12:48 PM
MR. HENDERSON pointed out that in Section 42, the aggravating
factors that were created for misdemeanors are repealed. The
need for and how to apply the aggravators becomes unnecessary
with the return to the overall range of one year in jail at the
court's discretion.
Section 43: Returns sentencing range for class B
misdemeanors to 0-90 days.
Section 44: Reenacts prohibition on jail time for a
first marijuana offense if the person is not on
probation or parole at the time of the offense.
He noted that this is outside AS 17.38, the regulation of
marijuana provision.
Section 45: Repeals requirement that a person serve
their sentence for a first DUI on electronic
monitoring or house arrest. Returns discretion to the
commissioner of corrections to place the person on
electronic monitoring at a private residence or at a
community residential center.
Section 46: The same changes in section 45 are made in
section 46 to the statute governing refusal to submit
to a chemical test.
Section 47: Conforming amendment due to the enactment
of the class A felony level offense for drug
distribution. Adds that conduct to the definition of
"illegal activity involving a controlled substance" in
the landlord tenant statutes.
Section 48: Conforming amendment. Adds all felony
level drug distribution to the list of crimes
involving a minor which the Department of Health and
Social Services will disclose information to the
public.
Section 49: Requires the Alaska Court System to
transmit information regarding involuntary commitments
that have occurred since October 1, 1981 to the
Department of Public Safety.
He clarified that this provision is not related to Senate Bill
91. Current law does not allow transmission of information
earlier than 2014 and this allows that sharing to ensure that
DPS and the national database has the information necessary
regarding involuntary commitments.
4:15:28 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what problem the provision was trying to
solve since involuntary commitments don't necessarily have
anything to do with criminal activity. He opined that it seems
like a disincentive for families to get someone needed help if
it ends up in DPS records.
MR. HENDERSON said this tries to close a gap in current law. If
somebody has been involuntarily committed, that person is
prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Sharing
the information with DPS authorizes that agency to share the
information with the national instant background check system.
This ensures that the prohibited person cannot obtain a firearm.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he needed to understand more details, but
it seems that there could be potential for misuse.
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that her perspective was a little
different. She mentioned the zookeeper and Orlando murders and
emphasized the importance of closing loopholes. She acknowledged
that this was beyond the scope of Section 49, but she believes
that fixing that loophole it an important part of the discussion
of SB 32.
SENATOR COGHILL added that he wants the courts to talk about
what they can and can't do regarding involuntary commitments
because this will be no small task.
Section 50: Allows a person's rap sheet to be used at
grand jury to prove the existence of prior convictions
when prior convictions are an element of the offense.
He said Section 50 is not related to Senate Bill 91. It amends
Court Rule 6(r) to allow a person's electronic criminal history,
which is technically heresy, to be used at grand jury (not
trial) to prove a predicate offense. Rule 6(r) currently allows
the use of this information at grand jury only in felony DUI
cases.
4:19:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she understands that it's the law, but she
has a hard time accepting that information on a person's rap
sheet related to sexual assault is heresy. She advised that she
was considering an amendment to allow law enforcement to enter
victims' testimony as evidence, not heresy.
MR. HENDERSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 32.
Section 51: Repealer section.
Section 52: Applicability section.
Section 53: Retroactivity section. Makes section 49
retroactive.
Section 54: Conditional effect section for court rule
change.
Section 55: Immediate effective date for sections 49
and 55.
Section 56: July 1, 2019 effective date for all other
sections.
4:21:32 PM
CHAIR SHOWER stated he would hold SB 32 in committee for future
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA .pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Agenda |
| SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN1-DPS.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN2-DOL.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN5-DHSS.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN6-DOC.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-Court System.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-DOA-Public Advocacy.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-DOA-Public Defender Agency.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB32 - Version A.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
DOR PFD Info |
| 23&24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written Testimony (IN FAVOR) |
| 23&24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written testimony (not in favor) |
| 23&24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written Testimony (various comments) |
| SB 32 Support Crime Bills AACOP.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - PSEA Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |