Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/02/2019 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to pretrial release; relating to
sentencing; relating to treatment program credit
toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating
to electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and
45(d), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
2:22:24 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the committee was hearing the
bill for the first time.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, discussed SB 33, which was focused on pretrial issues.
He read from the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Summary: This bill requires that a person be
arraigned within 48 hours after arrest, eliminates the
use of the risk assessment tool as a factor when
determination bail and conditions of release; and
allows judges to use third-party custodians more
freely. It also eliminates the requirement that a
judge find by clear and convincing evidence that no
less restrictive means will reasonably ensure the
person's appearance in court or the safety of the
victim or community before imposing monetary bail. The
bill moves the supervision functions of the pretrial
services program under the probation statutes rather
than having a separate program in statute. Finally,
the bill encourages the Alaska Court System to use
videoconferencing for all pretrial hearings.
Section 1 Legislative intent. Expressing intent that
the Alaska Court System, Department of Corrections,
and Department of Public Safety continue to make
efforts to find efficiencies in the criminal justice
system and use contemporaneous two-way video
conferencing for pretrial hearings wherever possible.
Section 2 Increases the amount of time available for
an arraignment to happen from 24 hours to 48 hours
from the time of arrest. Eliminates language related
to proceeding with an arraignment regardless of the
availability of a risk assessment conducted by a
pretrial services officer.
Section 3 Eliminates language related to a risk
assessment conducted by a pretrial services officer.
2:26:07 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 4 Eliminates language requiring a judicial
officer to review any condition of release that has
prevented the defendant from being released. Also
eliminates language requiring a judicial officer to
find by clear and convincing evidence that a less
restrictive condition cannot reasonably ensure the
defendant's appearance or the safety of the victim.
Section 5 Eliminates inability to pay as a reason for
a judicial officer to conduct subsequent bail hearings
and a review of the person's conditions of release.
Section 6 Conforming amendment. Eliminates reference
to AS 33.07.
Section 7 Largely reenacts the bail statute as it was
prior to January 1, 2018. Eliminates the requirement
that the release decision be tied to a person's risk
assessment score. Eliminates the presumptions of
release and the requirement that a judicial officer
find by clear and convincing evidence that no less
restrictive condition can ensure the appearance of the
defendant or safety of the community or victim before
a judicial officer can impose monetary bail.
2:29:05 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 8 Eliminates the requirement that a pretrial
services officer not be available in the area before a
third-party custodian can be appointed.
Section 9 Reenacts the prohibition on appointing
individuals who may be called as a witness in the case
from being appointed as third-party custodians.
Establishes that a person cannot be appointed as a
third party custodian if the person has been
unconditionally discharged within the previous five
years from a felony or a crime against a person.
Section 10 Requires the court to state orally on the
record the terms of a person's sentence including the
minimum term the defendant must serve before becoming
eligible for discretionary parole.
Section 11 Prohibits the court from granting jail
credit for time spent on electronic monitoring before
trial.
Section 12 Conforming amendment to the changes made by
section 11.
Section 13 Adds prosecuting authority to the list of
entities that can be notified if a person is
discharged from a treatment program for noncompliance.
Section 14 Limits the amount of jail credit that can
be granted for time spent in a treatment program to
180 days.
Section 15 Requires the prosecutor to notify the
victim if the defendant has been discharged from a
treatment program for noncompliance before trial.
Section 16 Conforming amendment. Conforms to the
change made in section 2.
Section 17 Adds authority for the commissioner of the
department of corrections to supervise pretrial
defendants.
Section 18 Requires the commissioner of the department
of corrections to make officers available to the
courts for pretrial supervision. Also allows the
commissioner to contract with private entities for
electronic monitoring services.
Section 19 Clarifies that probation officers may be
made available to district courts.
Section 20 Adds pretrial supervision to the list of
duties which a probation officer may perform and
clarifies that when performing those duties probation
officers are pretrial services officers.
Section 21 Lays out the duties of a probation officer
when acting as a pretrial services officer. These
duties include arresting defendants and filing
criminal complaints for violations of conditions of
release.
Section 22 Conforming amendment. Eliminates the
reference to AS 33.07, which is where the pretrial
services program is currently located. AS 33.07 is
repealed in the bill.
Section 23 Eliminates the requirement that the
Department of Corrections report to the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission on pretrial defendant risk
levels and charges and pretrial recommendations made
by pretrial services officers.
Section 24 Conforming amendment to the changes made in
section 25.
Section 25 Requires the use of contemporaneous two-way
video conferencing at all arraignments, pleas, and
non-evidentiary bail hearings in misdemeanor cases and
initial appearances and nonevidentiary bail reviews
and arraignments in felony cases. Also allows the
court to order the defendant to appear by
contemporaneous two-way video conferencing at any
other hearing.
Section 26 Allows a defendant or the defendant's
counsel to consent to a continuance of trial.
Section 27 Repealer section.
Section 28 Applicability section.
Section 29 Transition section. Ensures that the
Department of Corrections can still monitor any
defendant that is currently on pretrial release and
under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
despite the transfer of that authority from the
pretrial services program to probation
Conditional effect due to the direct court rule
change.
Section 30 Conditional effect section.
Section 31 Effective Date. This Act takes effect on
July 1, 2019.
2:35:42 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about page 8, Section 10, and
recalled that there was currently both an oral and written
report. He wondered whether the bill changed that
specification to an oral report only.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the negative. He stated that the
currently required a written report in the form of a
judgment, and that remained. The bill added a requirement
that, not only it be in the judgment, but also be announced
orally at the time of sentences.
Co-Chair Stedman asked who received the report.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the judgement was distributed to
the Court System (Court), prosecutor, defense counsel, and
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Co-Chair Stedman wondered about the victim's families and
the reports. He wondered also about the media.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the media obtained a copy from the
Court. The families of victims were not required to receive
a copy, but the DOL would contact all victims and sends a
copy of the judgment in a letter.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about fiscal notes.
Mr. Skidmore commented on the zero fiscal note.
Co-Chair von Imhof recalled that there were some people
available for presentation. She wondered whether there were
any questions.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Section 2, and asked
whether there was ever a time when someone was not
available to taken before a judge or magistrate within 24
hours.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the law had most recently
required that it occur within 24 hours, and was unaware of
a case where that did not occur.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Section 7 and the
elimination of the risk assessment tool. He understood the
rationale, but wondered why it was not still available for
judges.
Mr. Skidmore noted that Section 7 did not include the risk
assessment tool. The Department of Law was not opposed to
the idea of the using the risk assessment as tool. He noted
that the concept of coupling it with the statute was
problematic.
2:41:18 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the ability to continue
cases. He specifically wondered about the experience when
LAW may want a continuance, and the defendant was against
that ide.
Mr. Skidmore replied that it does occur, but did not know
the frequency. He recalled a case when the defendants in a
murder case wanted to go to trial immediately, but their
counsel stated that they were not ready for trial. The case
did go to trial, but after those individuals were
convicted, they filed for Postconviction Relief, stated
that they had ineffective assistance or counsel, because
their counsel was not ready for trial.
Senator Wielechowski asked how their filing was found.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he did not believe that the post-
conviction relief was rewarded, but stated that there was
time put in by all sides for a frivolous claim. He stated
that the bill fixed future frivolous claims.
Senator Wilson remarked that the risk-assessment tool was
initially established without a regulatory process, and
wondered whether the regulatory process had since occurred
after its establishment.
Mr. Skidmore did not know the answer.
Senator Wilson wondered who might know that answer.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the DOC was responsible for the
risk assessment tool.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that SB 34 would be heard the
following day.
2:44:25 PM
JEN WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PRETRIAL,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, offered to answer questions.
Senator Wilson asked about the risk assessment tool.
Ms. Winkelman deferred to Ms. Goode.
2:45:30 PM
KELLY GOODE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR DOC, wondered whether
Senator Wilson was referring to the regulations for the
pretrial risk assessment tool.
Senator Wilson agreed.
Ms. Goode responded that the validation would be finalized
in a couple of months. The commissioner had restarted the
regulation process.
Senator Micciche stated that the risk assessment tool was a
high profile case. He queried the reason for stopping
without the regulatory process.
Ms. Goode responded that the regulations codified what was
in the law. She stated that the tool was intended to be
validated, and the validation was intended to be complete
in the upcoming months.
Senator Micciche noted that the issues were current
problems. He remarked that the pretrial risk assessment
tool had returned people to the street who were possible
high-risk individuals. He asked whether the system was
working, or whether there should be an elimination of the
risk assessment tool.
Ms. Goode replied that the administration had serious
concerns with the risk-assessment tool, which is why the
administration proposed removing the risk-assessment tool.
Senator Wielechowski queried the number of people in the
DOC system were currently considered pre-trial, and
wondered how those numbers would change in the bill.
Ms. Goode replied that she did not know, but that there
were approximately 2000 a day on pre-trial, with half on
electronic monitoring. She agreed to provide the exact
percentage.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether the staff was at an
appropriate workload, and whether they could absorb more
cases.
Ms. Winkelman replied that the staff could take additional
cases. She stated that in SB 54, there was a cap placed on
probation caseloads of 75.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered when the fiscal note would be
ready.
Ms. Goode replied that the fiscal note was available, but
there would be an updated fiscal note for SB 32, which
would be available that evening.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether it could be addressed.
Ms. Goode stated that she was not prepared to discuss the
fiscal note.
2:50:22 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, reviewed
the fiscal note. She stated that the release would allow
the effect of keeping people in jail. She pointed out the
legislative intent regarding video conferencing. The
legislature has the right to change the court rules.
Co-Chair von Imhof queried an explanation of the fiscal
note.
Ms. Meade discussed FN 7 trial courts Alaska Court system.
She noted that the legislative intent would receive the
support. The fiscal note addresses two issues. The video
conference coordinator and IS technician to better handle
the issues that occur. $224,800
2:56:07 PM
Senator Wilson asked about the video conferencing.
Ms. Meade explained that if video conferencing occurred for
certain hearings, certain proceedings, they would address
arraignments over video conferencing.
Senator Wilson asked about the location.
Ms. Meade stated that the defense counsel was not yet
appointed in these situations. She stated that they did not
visit the facility. Client and attorney are not together.
She stated that the privacy for communication was
necessary.
Senator Wilson appreciated the additional information. He
wondered about the funding.
Ms. Meade replied that the funding in the fiscal note
reflected the request of the legislature.
Senator Micciche asked about the conferencing equipment
from different facilities. He noted the video conferencing
would offset the cost.
Ms. Meade replied that the court system did not save money,
but she believed that the simplicity was in checking
inmates in and out of the facility.
3:02:15 PM
KELLY HOWELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, responded further to
Senator Micciche's question. She stated that the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) was statutorily required to
transport prisoners, and moved approximately 85,000
prisoners per year with the assistance of the Alaska State
Troopers, municipal police officers, and village public
safety officers (VPSOs). She stated that there was an
anticipation that pretrial hearings conducted via
videoconferencing would increase with some cost savings.
Prisoners, however, would be transported for a myriad of
reasons beyond the pretrial hearings, and much of that was
outside the department's control. She stressed that a judge
always had the discretion to order the appearance of the
defendant. She explained that there would not necessarily
be a savings.
Senator Micciche looked at Section 1, and wondered who was
"pushing" the additional teleconferencing. He also queried
the intent of the additional teleconferencing.
Ms. Meade responded that the addition was not from the
Court, but was from the governor.
Ms. Howell added that the public safety transported
prisoners.
Senator Wilson followed up regarding the quantification of
prisoners.
Ms. Howell responded that it was difficult to know for
sure. She stated that there was an additional increase in
video conferencing.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Section 2 and the DOC
fiscal note, which showed a likely modest increase in the
cost of incarceration, but it was not quantified. He
wondered whether it was a problem for the Court to bring
people before a judge or magistrate within 24 hours after
arrest.
Ms. Meade responded that it was not a problem for Courts.
She noted that over the last two years, the number had gone
from 24 to 48 to 24 then now back to 48. She stated that,
in all cases, arraignments were scheduled every day. She
stated that everybody was arraigned within 24 hours, unless
there was a particular reason. She stressed that the law
required 24 hours, but there was a provision that allowed
for the prosecutor to ask for additional time under certain
circumstances.
Senator Wielechowski asked about section 10 and different
language.
Ms. Meade responded that she wished the section was removed
because compliance was difficult. She noted that the
information allows the victim to find the identification
network.
3:10:30 PM
Senator Hoffman asked about transporting prisoners from
Anchorage to Bethel and back. He wondered about the
guardians and why different numbers of troopers were
necessary.
Ms. Howell deferred to Mr. Greenstreet.
3:11:45 PM
MAJOR ANDY GREENSTREET, AK STATE TROOPERS, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), responded that the criminal history of the
individual helped establish the number of troopers.
Senator Hoffman asked if the DPS considered a less costly
method of transporting prisoners.
Mr. Greenstreet responded that the transports were
conducted by core officers as a first preference.
3:14:37 PM
Senator Hoffman asked about the potential for escape from
custody when alcohol was the majority of the charges.
Mr. Greenstreet replied that many transports from the
Kotzebue area during his time there incurred risk to the
troopers.
Senator Bishop asked about section 10 and the reading of
sentence and terms.
Ms. Meade responded that the judge would typically accept a
plea bargain, which would apply a statute to the sentence.
She noted that the additional issue of consideration of a
parole date under the sentencing criteria.
Senator Micciche asked about the administration's objective
Ms. Meade responded that the section was not in the
administration's initial bill, and was added in the
Judiciary Committee.
3:20:11 PM
Mr. Skidmore agreed that the provision was added in the
Judiciary Committee, with the concept that victims ought to
know what is going on.
Senator Micciche wondered about the amendment that changed
the bill in the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Meade replied that the victims rights' statutes were
addressed by the Department of Law.
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the committee would work on
crime and capitol bills on Saturday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|