Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/09/2019 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 | |
| SB92 | |
| SB10 | |
| SB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
4:29:46 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 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 that this is the third hearing and the purpose today
is to get answers to the questions that have been raised.
4:31:57 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI read the first question:
Section 28: What was the average sentence length for
disorderly conduct both pre- and post- SB 91? From the
time of arrest, what is the average amount of time
that a person is in custody for a disorderly conduct
charge? (Presume no prior convictions or mitigators or
aggravators)
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law,
Criminal Division, Anchorage, said DOL did not have that
information, but they were checking to see if the Department of
Corrections had it. He added that pre-Senate Bill 91, the
maximum term for disorderly conduct was 10 days. Prior
convictions, mitigators, and aggravators didn't change that
maximum. Under the current law, the maximum term of imprisonment
for disorderly conduct is 24 hours, regardless of the number of
prior convictions or whether there are mitigators or
aggravators.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he was trying to understand the impact of
returning the maximum term of imprisonment for disorderly
conduct to ten days.
4:33:51 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI read question 2:
Section 32: How was the threshold for 1A and 2A drug
position determined? How did the Department determine
the threshold to show personal use versus intent to
distribute?
MR. HENDERSON explained that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC) initially proposed a 2.5 gram threshold for
schedule IA and IIA controlled substances, but the thresholds
were changed during the legislative process. Under current law,
trafficking under 1 gram of a schedule IA controlled substance
is a class C felony and trafficking under 2.5 grams of a
schedule IIA drug is a class C felony. Trafficking more than
that amount is a class B felony.
The Justice Reinvestment Report to the Legislature said the
rationale for the changes to the drug laws was that post-
conviction admissions to prison for drug offenses had grown 35
percent in the 10 years prior to criminal justice reform and
that felony drug offenders were spending more time in jail than
they were 10 years ago. The proposal to reduce the sentences
available to drug offenders was based on the commission's
determination that there was little evidence of a deterrent
effect in the sentencing scheme for drug offenders.
Reclassifying drug trafficking of schedule IA and schedule IIA
controlled substances achieved the intended goal to reduce
sentencing and the prison terms available to drug traffickers.
The reduction of presumptive sentencing for most offenses also
reduced the availability of prison and jail as a sanction for
drug trafficking.
CHAIR SHOWER asked the department representatives to follow up
with responses to any lingering questions by Thursday, 4/12/19,
and not later than next Tuesday.
4:37:09 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he agrees in part about the intended effect
of less charges but he also recalls there was discussion about
charges that were bargained down pre-Senate Bill 91. He
suggested it would be helpful to have a graph that shows the
difference between the initial charge and the bargained down
offense. Then maybe we can see how that has changed the existing
law, he said. The point is to look at where the failure was to
ensure we don't return to a failure.
MR. HENDERSON asked him to describe the graph he was requesting.
SENATOR COGHILL clarified that he was looking for a graph that
shows the pre and post-Senate Bill 91 possession and trafficking
charges, the convictions on the original charges, and the plea
bargains. He recalled discussions about the felony charges that
were bargained down to misdemeanors.
MR. HENDERSON said getting the information that includes both
the charge and whether or not it was resolved at a lower charge
for both pre and post-Senate Bill 91 will be difficult to get in
the allotted time but he'd try.
SENATOR COGHILL said the bill goes to finance and it could be
answered there. He recalled that the Criminal Justice Commission
discussed that bargaining from a felony to a misdemeanor was
quite significant pre-Senate Bill 91. You need to show in a
chart how it was working before, how it doesn't work now, and
how going back will be better, he said.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Henderson if he could get that
information to the committee for Senator Coghill.
MR. HENDERSON said yes; it's a good point. He added that between
2015 and 2017, the Department of Law saw felony drug
prosecutions drop about 70 percent. In part that was because DOL
didn't have the tools to address some of the drug trafficking.
It was also partially due to reducing felony possession offenses
to the misdemeanor level. He suggested it might be helpful for
the committee to hear Deputy Commissioner Duxbury describe this
phenomenon with drug prosecutions.
SENATOR COGHILL said he'd like to hear that and how the felony
charge for possession helped police get dealers.
4:43:10 PM
MICHEAL DUXBURY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, asked him to repeat the two
questions.
SENATOR COGHILL said the discussion is about returning
possession and trafficking schedule IA and schedule IIA drugs to
felony level offenses. His question is how many cases were
bargained pre-Senate Bill 91 versus now. He said he's trying to
find out if the problem was the drug amount or the felony
charge on possession and if it was a police problem or a
prosecution problem.
MR. DUXBURY said that when possession of small amounts of these
drugs were no longer felonies, they found that the small dealers
weren't interested in cooperating because the sanctions weren't
impactful. There was systematic inertia. Then the prosecution
didn't have the resources to handle the rising person on person
and violent crimes. This all made it difficult for law
enforcement to have an impact on the amount of drugs coming into
communities.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's come to understand that a felony
hanging over a small user encourages them to cooperate but he's
still interested in looking for ways to help someone turn their
life around after they've been charged with a felony.
4:48:21 PM
MR. DUXBURY said the best thing they can do for a small time
user is to get the person into some form of treatment. When
somebody is going to be charged and they decide to cooperate,
the negotiations usually involve the prosecutor and the
investigator whether it's the local police or the troopers. He
said he can't gauge what the impact would be on the individual
but DPS is focused on getting the large amounts and maintaining
quality of life for the community. He restated that any plea
negotiations involve a prosecutor and pre-Senate Bill 91 there
was also the discretion to target places to make an impact on
the amount of drugs coming into the community.
SENATOR COGHILL said he wanted it to be very clear that this is
charging people with a felony to get to people who are
committing felonies. He agreed that downward pressure is needed
but this disregards those people who have been cooperative and
need help to turn their lives around.
4:52:15 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he understands what Senator Coghill is
saying and it's one reason he supported Senate Bill 91, but it's
not working. He's talked to the troopers in his community about
the drug house issue and their hands are tied. He said we're
also not thinking about the user/dealer. He hopes to see more
use of suspended imposition of sentence to try to negotiate with
low level first-time users and help them turn their lives around
but meanwhile the carrot won't work if there isn't a stick. He
talked about the crime meetings in his community and related
that the provision in the disorderly conduct statute to be able
to hold someone was important because disorderly conduct can be
a precursor to domestic violence. He asked Mr. Duxbury to
comment on increasing the maximum hold for disorderly conduct
from 24 hours to 10 days.
MR. DUXBURY said taking the people who repeatedly victimize
others out of circulation for a few days provides a cooling down
period that seems to be helpful in breaking the cycle.
SENATOR MICCICHE highlighted that a common theme among people
who have turned their lives around after convictions for
possession of small quantities of drugs is that they didn't
realize how far they'd fallen until they were faced with a
significant charge. That's why he believes in combining the
carrot of treatment with the stick that's the threat of a
felony. He expressed hope that prosecutors will use the
suspended imposition of sentence tools on first-time offenders.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that without the tools to get people into
the system, law enforcement is not able to get help for them.
SENATOR COGHILL added that the police have said that they can
only pick up somebody up and take them to jail. There aren't
enough treatment facilities and certainly not enough to divert
someone the day they're picked up. He stressed that charging
somebody for one thing to encourage them to do something else
means that charge will follow that individual for the rest of
their life. [Senate Bill 91] intended to avoid that but what
happened was there was no longer any leverage to get offenders
to change their behavior. The police feel hamstrung because
people bounce right out if they go to jail. He reiterated the
caution that "we're charging somebody something, to do something
else." He said he wanted people to understand, "that's why we're
doing this."
4:58:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his perspective that the only way to
get hold of the problem is to impose a consequence for
possessing a small quantity of drugs. If the arrest is for
possession of meth, for example, the arresting officer probably
won't know how the person, who may be a user/dealer, is funding
their habit or if they're spreading that habit to others. If
they're spreading the habit, their behavior will never change
without a substantial consequence. But if the person really is a
first timer who is in possession of just a small quantity, he
said he hopes law enforcement will use the tools of suspending
entry and give the person another chance.
SENATOR COGHILL said the proposed statute doesn't provide that
latitude but he does agree that there is thievery associated
with drug use.
CHAIR SHOWER transitioned the discussion by advising both the
Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety that he
had problems with some of the language in Section 27 regarding
terroristic threats. He asked both agencies to be prepared to
speak to that section on Thursday. He warned that he would "dive
pretty hard" on the DNA swabbing and associated personal privacy
issues. He also asked DOC if they had data that shows the
numbers of drug possession felonies both pre and post-Senate
Bill 91.
5:02:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said his request was for clarification that the
legal marijuana industry authorized in AS 17 is excepted from
the increased penalties involving a controlled substance in
Title 11. He said he will also ask about the constitutionality
of separating revoked licenses from suspended licenses. If
that's not possible, he would evaluate returning both to an
arrestable offense.
5:04:08 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 32 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| SB 92 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| CS for SB 92 - Ver. M.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 - Explanation of Changes V.A to V.M.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/24/2019 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 10 |
| SB0010A.PDF |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 10 |
| SB 10 Supporting Document 2018 Leg Audit Report ASPC.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 10 |
| SB10 Support Letters.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 10 |
| SB 10 - Fiscal Note - DHSS.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 10 |
| SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 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 |
| SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf |
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 - FN#1 - DPS.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#2 - DOL.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#5 - DHSS.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#6 - DOC.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Advocacy.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - Court System.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Defender Agency.pdf |
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 |
SB 32 |