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 FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 2, 2019
1:31 p.m.
1:31:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair von Imhof called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson
ALSO PRESENT
James Stinson, Director, Office of Public Advocacy; John
Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Jen Winkelman, Director of Probation, Parole and Pretrial,
Department of Corrections; Kelly Goode, deputy commissioner
for DOC, In Room; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska
Court System; Kelly Howell, Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety;
Senator Cathy Giessel, Senator Mia Costello, Senator Shelly
Hughes, Senator Laura Reinbold.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Beth Goldstein, Interim Public Defender; Major Andy
Greenstreet, AK State Troopers, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 32 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 33 ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 34 PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
SB 34 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
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."
Co-Chair von Imhof introduced the bill.
1:33:17 PM
BETH GOLDSTEIN, INTERIM PUBLIC DEFENDER (via
teleconference), discussed that the American Bar
Association recommended amount was used. Four attorneys to
handle the caseload. The Department of Law (LAW) support
staff positions. She remarked that there was an anticipated
increase in new felony drug cases, with the anticipation
that there would be approximately 740 new cases based on
the rollback and statistics. She assumed that approximately
19 percent would not come to the Public Defender Agency,
because either the defendants would not be eligible for
appointed counsel or they would have a conflict with the
agency. Therefore they would go to the Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA) or contracted counsel. She stated that there
would be a remaining 600 new felony drug cases that the
agency would handle under the legislation. She remarked
that the agency used the American Bar Association
recommended amount of 150 felony cases per attorney per
year to determine what would be needed with respect to the
felony drug cases. As a result, there would be four
attorney to handle the increased case load. She noted that
one additional attorney would be needed to handle the
recriminalizing of the driving without a license cases. The
department was also seeking five additional support staff
positions. She stressed that, currently, the Public
Defender office was understaffed with respect to law office
assistants and paralegals. She felt that in order to avoid
requesting more attorney positions, four new staff were
needed for the new drug felony cases and one new staff for
the driving cases.
1:35:38 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the review of the fiscal note
8 OMB 1631. She stated that it was approximately $1.4
million a year to handle the new caseload of 600 new cases.
Senator Bishop asked if the fiscal note was adequate for
the bill.
Ms. Goldstein that there would be an updated fiscal note
was actually $1.3 million
Senator Bishop asked about the new cases ever year. He
asked if the cases would all go to trial. He wondered if
the state could execute the proper action.
Ms. Goldstein responded that it was not anticipated that
all the cases would go to trial. She explained that the
most drug cases were basic felony cases, but some were more
complicated than others. She stated that the American Bar
Association determined that a reasonable caseload for a
felony-level attorney was 150 cases per year. She explained
that, because the cases would move through the system, the
agency could handle 600 more cases with four felony-level
attorneys.
Senator Bishop stated that he would discuss the issue with
the Co-chairs.
Co-Chair von Imhof corrected the fiscal note 8 amount to
$1.3 million.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Section 47 and the switch
to allow for hearsay evidence to be presented to the Grand
Jury. He queried support for that section.
Ms. Goldstein responded that she also had concerns about
the section. She noted that the cases may take longer
without the certified judgements. She stated that the
agency did not typically participate in Grand Jury
proceedings. She remarked that it may take a little longer
to plead out the cases, because there would not be
certified judgments from the Grand Jury.
Senator Wielechowski asked if there would be an increased
fiscal note as a result, or only an increased workload.
Ms. Goldstein replied that she believed that it would only
slightly increase the workload.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Section 29 and a change in
time to be served for possession. He understood that the
first two offences for simple possession were currently a
Class A misdemeanor with no jail time, and the section
changed it to a Class C felony with up to five years in
jail.
Ms. Goldstein agreed.
Senator Wielechowski asked about the policy perspective.
1:41:02 PM
Ms. Goldstein noted that the directed measure could
increase litigation and caseloads.
Senator Wielechowski asked how many cases could be expected
to be first time possessors of drugs. He noted that the
felony provision.
Ms. Goldstein responded that the first time cases could not
be predicted. She noted that tracking future cases would be
easier with new software. She stated that the philosophy
that treatment available was necessary.
Senator Shower pointed out the analysis. He wondered if a
section might be missing.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered whether there was work with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative
director to acquire new fiscal notes.
Ms. Goldstein noted that the mistake on the fiscal note was
being corrected.
Senator Shower stressed that it seemed to be a recurring
theme, so wanted to be sure it was correct.
1:44:42 PM
Senator Wielechowski expressed concern about the
terminology related to possession. He asked about the
perspective of the long-term impacts of someone getting a
felony arrest. He specifically asked about job, education,
and housing opportunities.
Ms. Goldstein noted that conviction of a felony had many
major ramifications from not being able to vote to getting
a job. She noted that there were some ramifications with
respect to child custody issues and needed public housing.
She reiterated that a felony conviction could put a person
behind in many areas of life.
Senator Wielechowski stated that the prosecutors understood
that possession could be pled down to a misdemeanor. He
queried that rational, and the experience about pleading
down simple possession.
Ms. Goldstein agreed that the felony caused additional
issues when compared to a misdemeanor. She stated that the
ramifications in life.
Senator Wielechowski commented on the argument about a
suspended entry of judgment. He queried the percentage of
drug possession cases that were dealt with in that manner,
and whether it was a reasonable way to deal with future
cases.
Ms. Goldstein replied that she would provide the numbers.
She noted that there were some useful tools that would help
people to gain treatment. She noted other components to
help succeed. She added that the different challenges to
receiving treatment.
1:49:15 PM
Senator Micciche asked about incentive to seek treatment.
He remarked that someone may not want to seek treatment
without a suspended entry of judgment. He felt that issuing
a violation would not have a higher incentive for
rehabilitation.
Ms. Goldstein noted that a person has to want to have the
treatment. She stressed that the addictive cycle showed
that people regularly try to get sober, but built into the
recovery is a failure rate before they can get back into
recovery.
Senator Micciche stated that the state was at war because
of drug related crime. He noted that crimes related to
supporting requirement. He stated that the change was a
lifesaver. He felt that someone who has
1:51:37 PM
Ms. Goldstein believed that the charge versus the
conviction. She commented that the obstacles to overcome
were, and not everyone who possesses is addicted.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that a specialist regarding
mental health and addiction would be presenting to the
committee.
Senator Hoffman agreed with the chair that another
contributing entity might be necessary. He felt that new
treatment centers were likely necessary. He stated that the
doors could be open by the individuals to seek treatment.
The provision might provide false hope.
1:54:52 PM
Senator Wilson stated that the without incentive for
treatment the facilities do not succeed. He stressed that
without the supportive infrastructure there would be to
patient incentive. The lingering time can affect.
Senator Wielechowski asked about treatment incentive
experience as the public defender and punishment.
Ms. Goldstein responded that the approach much be holistic,
and multiple things were asked of the people that were
overwhelming.
Senator Bishop wanted to have a difficult conversation
about addiction. He thought that the dialog was very
important.
Co-Chair von Imhof agreed that the holistic approach was
very important. She noted that federal funds were available
for behavioral health therapy.
1:59:14 PM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, echoed
the statements made by Ms. Goldstein. He remarked on the
increase in caseload for the legislation. He stated that
OPA was requesting $694,700, which equated to three
attorneys and two support staff. He believed that was
needed to absorb the increase in caseload.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted the fiscal note, OMB 43, at
approximately $350,000.
Mr. Stinson stated that it was incorrect, because it was an
older fiscal note. She queried the new fiscal note number.
Senator Hoffman replied that it was OMB 694.
Senator Bishop asked if the fiscal note was accurate.
Mr. Stinson replied that he believed it was accurate. The
fiscal note was based on the numbers that were most easily
monetized. He noted that there were probably additional
costs, that were still uncertain. He felt the money allowed
for a distribution to the key areas and offices for the new
cases.
Senator Bishop asked about the new fiscal note and the
elimination of the DNA testing.
Mr. Stinson was in agreement. He remarked that there was no
anticipated cost increase as a result of the DNA testing,
so there would be no impact on the fiscal note.
Senator Micciche asked about the contract to staff funding
shift. He wondered whether there was work to resolve some
of the conflict problems with the Public Defenders Agency.
Mr. Stinson replied that the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) relied on expensive independent contractors. He
remarked that there was a proposal to remove $500,000 out
of the contractor line, and utilize additional PCNs for
attorneys. He noted that the request did not consider SB
32. He stated that OPA was attempting to find efficiencies
to bring the taxpayer the best value for their dollar. He
noted that contractors were more expensive than inhouse
attorneys in almost all circumstances. He stressed that
there was an attempt to find a balance, while also being
conscious of large overhead with a large amount of
employees.
2:04:10 PM
Senator Wilson asked about different jurisdictions that
were more conflicted out.
Mr. Stinson replied that there were localities with higher
conflict rates. He shared that Kenai was a smaller
community, and remarked that an increase in felony drug
prosecutions would result in more codefendants and
additional drug cases. He was not completely sure where the
positions would be placed geographically, but the positions
were based on raw numbers.
Senator Wilson requested the rates of the conflicted cases.
He remarked that, in Palmer, he may prefer to conflict out
as a public defender for the person who had the contract.
He felt that it would be a better attorney's office than
the Public Defenders Agency.
Senator Wielechowski asked about an expired narcotic
prescription, and whether that be a crime under this bill.
Mr. Stinson replied that, presuming it would meet the new
definition, it would be the zero to two year presumptive
range up to five years.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether it would be a felony.
Mr. Stinson replied in the affirmative, but would further
examine the exact answer.
Senator Wielechowski queried was considered a Class 6A
controlled substance. He wondered if marijuana was in that
class.
2:06:52 PM
Mr. Stinson asked for the location within the bill
Senator Wielechowski stated that he was looking at page 19,
lines 22-24.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered whether this question was
better for a different testifier.
Senator Wielechowski agreed.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that Mr. Skidmore might be better
to provide the requested information.
Mr. Stinson deferred to Mr. Skidmore.
2:08:19 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof recalled a presentation about Fentanyl.
She noted that any weight of Fentanyl seemed almost deadly,
but a small amount of oxycontin of similar weight may have
a different impact on the body. She wondered if the drugs
were treated similarly under the legislation.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, stated that a schedule 6A drug was marijuana. He
stated that Fentanyl and oxycontin were both considered
schedule 1A substance, but SB 32 did not differentiate
based on weight. He stated that there were different
factors within the law, both aggregators and mitigators
that both applied. He stated that the amounts and the
seriousness of the amount was treated differently, which is
why there was a range in sentencing. He referred to the
Knight Case, which addressed those different considered
factors within the current Alaska law.
Co-Chair von Imhof remarked that there was a consideration
of both sentencing and also having a felony on someone's
record. She did not know whether there was a way to sever
those two drugs, and treat each one differently.
2:10:44 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked if an expired prescription for
oxycodone, and that was given to someone in pain, whether
that would be a felony under the bill.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the concept of giving another
person a controlled substance without a prescription would
qualify as a felony. He noted that in his 20 years of
prosecution, there was no case with those referred facts.
He stressed that all the prosecutors state that, with that
hypothetical, that they would decline that case. He
remarked that his division did not evaluate those drugs,
rather the Controlled Substance Advisory Board made those
determinations.
Senator Wielechowski requested statement from Department of
Law (DOL) that they would not be prosecuting someone
because of an expired prescription.
Mr. Skidmore noted that he was not in a position to make
such claims.
2:13:11 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the schedule 6, four
ounces or more of marijuana was now a felony under the
legislation.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the possession outside of the
legal amounts within the industry was affirmative. He noted
the exceptions on page 18, line 19, which showed more
complications than the one subsection addressing the
amount.
Senator Micciche wondered whether the intent of the
administration was to pass the bill in order to prosecute
the person who takes another person's controlled substance
for some temporary relief from pain.
Mr. Skidmore replied that it the intent was not the intent
of the administration.
Senator Micciche asked whether the state's drug problems
were a associated with a single oxycodone provided to
someone is a necessary pain relief situation.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he did not believe so.
Senator Micciche asked for the difference between the legal
and black market marijuana industry.
2:15:53 PM
Mr. Skidmore noted that the black market for marijuana
remained a crime. He noted that outside of the industry
regulation remained a crime.
Senator Micciche wondered whether the bill was clarified
that legal marijuana was not a part of the increased
sentences.
Mr. Skidmore replied that it was on page 18, and was
repeated in a number of sections.
Senator Wielechowski cited the language in Section 29,
which said, "if a person possesses any amount of a Schedule
1A controlled substance, they are committing a felony." He
understood that there may not be an attempt to prosecute
with a felony, but wondered whether a trooper or police
officer could arrest and charge a person with a felony and
put that person in jail requiring that person to post bail
and possibly lose their housing, child custody, and
housing, under the bill made it possible under the bill.
Mr. Skidmore agreed that the law stated that it was
illegal, but his experience showed him otherwise.
Senator Wielechowski wondered why a trooper could authorize
with a heavy hand, and advised that the felony portion be
changed. He
2:19:50 PM
Mr. Skidmore responded that Oxycodone was scheduled as a
controlled substance. He stated that a prescription was
necessary to obtain the drug. He stressed that the bill was
focused on the seriousness of the drug.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that it was the intent to hear
public testimony at a later meeting.
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
3:24:18 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|