Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/22/2019 06:00 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SJR3 | |
| SJR4 | |
| SB33 | |
| SB34 | |
| SB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
6:33:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She announced that the next
order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 34, "An Act relating
to probation; relating to a program allowing probationers to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation;
relating to early termination of probation; relating to parole;
relating to a program allowing parolees to earn credits for
complying with the conditions of parole; relating to early
termination of parole; relating to eligibility for discretionary
parole; relating to good time; and providing for an effective
date."
She noted there was a new committee substitute.
6:33:22 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SB 34, labeled 31-GS1031\K, Radford,
4/22/19, Version K, as the working document.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
6:33:58 PM
At-ease.
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
6:35:11 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed the changes in the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SB 34, from Version U to K.
6:35:27 PM
REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, testifying on behalf of the Chair Hughes,
introduced herself.
MR. WHITT reviewed the first change in the committee substitute
for SB 34, Version K.
Title Changes: The following has been added to or
removed from the title in order to conform to changes
and added provisions;
? relating to restoration of a driver's license
6:35:39 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Sections 4 and 5.
Sections 4 and 5: Amends AS 28.35.030(o) and AS
28.35.032(q) to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles
to restore a person's revoked driver's license when 10
years have elapsed since the revocation and the person
has not been convicted of any criminal offense during
the intervening 10 years. A license revoked pursuant
to a conviction of certain crimes against persons will
not be eligible for restoration. (Page 3 Line 14
through Page 4, Line 21)
MR. WHITT explained that in current law if someone is convicted
of a felony DUI and the person's license is revoked, even a
minor infraction would result in a lifetime revocation.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that it was not a small
thing to drive without a valid driver's license. She pointed out
that this provision would raise the bar since a person convicted
of a serious felony not related to driving could have his/her
license restored. This provision would expand revocations to all
criminal offenses but allow a reset with a 10-year clean record.
6:38:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether this would include misdemeanor
offenses.
MR. WHITT said he did not hear the question.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that this language
currently includes misdemeanors and felonies.
CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to page 3, line 23 of Version K.
MR. SKIDMORE reviewed the language and said that it would
broaden it from a driving-related criminal offense to any
criminal offense. In further response, he answered that it would
include misdemeanors and felonies.
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that she considered this to be a big
change since it would remove "driving-related" offenses. She
said this causes her pause. She asked whether the administration
supports this change.
MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure if the administration has a
position on this change and that it was not a change the
Department of Law requested.
6:42:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the "clock gets set
once for 10 years," so a person with a driving-related criminal
offense cannot obtain a driver's license unless the person goes
through the therapeutic court for a subsequent driving under the
influence (DUI) offense.
She stated that she has a conflict of interest until SB 89,
related to legislative ethics passes because she has [a family
member who interacts with therapeutic courts]. She highlighted
the concern that this remedies. She said that some clinic
providers indicated that offenders who attend therapeutic courts
can have their licenses restored, but other offenders indicated
the only way that they could have their driver's licenses
restored would be to commit another DUI and have that offense
referred to the therapeutic court. She remarked that is not a
good option and this language would remedy it.
MR. WHITT emphasized that this would not eliminate the
department's discretion. He directed attention to page 3, line
19, which states the department "may" restore a person's
driver's license, but the person must meet certain thresholds.
When a person's driver's license has been revoked due to a
felony DUI or other crime, a ten-year time clock starts. At the
end of ten years, the person would be eligible to apply, and the
department would review the application, he said. However, the
department may or may not restore the person's driver's license,
he said. For example, a "bad actor" would not be issued a
driver's license, he said.
6:44:44 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 3, line 20, which read "(A) the
license has been revoked for a period of at least 10 years;" but
on page 3, line 26 it also reads, "shall restore the driver's
license if" and lists conditions that must be met.
6:45:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related a scenario in which a person lost
his/her driver's license and makes it to year nine without any
criminal offense, but then shoots a moose whose antlers are just
shy of the legal 50-inches. He offered his belief that this
provision is a huge change since it does not limit it to felony.
He offered his belief that this would be a major obstacle for
people who have actually turned their lives around and are
successful. He said he did not think he could support this
language. In response to Chair Hughes, he offered his belief
that it should not include misdemeanors and he would like to
consider if some minor felonies should also be excluded. He said
he preferred the previous language because it was "driving
related" and this language relates to driver's privileges and
broadening the range of offenses means it is no longer about
driving. Further, the reason licenses are revoked is typically
due to driving-related offenses. Although his goal is to never
break the law, he could envision that he could accidentally take
an under legal size bull moose, he said.
6:47:18 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether vehicle theft was a driving
offense.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no.
6:47:39 PM
MR. WHITT clarified that in the scenario Senator Micciche
mentioned related to a fish and wildlife violation, the
individual would lose driver's license privileges for life with
no recourse under current law. This language would pave the way
for an individual to have his/her driving privileges reinstated.
He recapped that if an individual's license was revoked for a
period of ten years and the person committed a subsequent
criminal offense, the person would lose his/her driver's license
for life.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that it is limited to driving-related
criminal offenses, which was Senator Micciche's point.
MR. WHITT said he understood the distinction.
6:48:31 PM
At-ease.
6:54:23 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
6:54:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained Conceptual Amendment 1. On page 3,
line 22, after the word "a" add the language "driving-related
criminal offense or felony."
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected in order to have the Department of Law
provide the administration's view.
6:55:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said should Conceptual Amendment 1 be adopted,
the language on page 3, line 22 would now read: "the person has
not been convicted of a driving-related criminal offense or
felony in the 10 years preceding the request for restoration [of
the license; and ?.]
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that the proposed wording made sense.
He said that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would allow someone to get
[his/her] driver's license back more easily. The elimination of
the "driving-related" criminal offense made this more
restrictive, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on "easier to
get [his/her] license back" and whether it was relative to the
bill or to the amended amendment.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that under current law, when a person's
driver's license is revoked, the driver's license can be
restored if at least 10 years has passed, and the person has not
been convicted of a criminal-related offense. Conceptual
Amendment 1 would add to the "10 years has passed" but the
person must not have committed a driving-related offense or a
felony offense.
He referred to lines 16-18, "unless the revocation was ordered
in a case in which the person was also convicted of a crime
under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.210, 11.41.280, 11.41.282, or a
similar law in another jurisdiction ?." He said if a person was
convicted of crimes listed in the language on lines 16-18, the
person could not restore his/her driver's license but could
under other circumstances. He explained the conduct that would
disqualify a person would be conviction of another felony. It
makes it clear restoration occurs after ten years and it also
limits the categories of eligibility.
6:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON joined the meeting.
6:58:24 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked who would be impacted by this language.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that this language would apply to a
person who committed a felony DUI that did not harm someone.
That person would be eligible to get their driver's license back
after ten years as long as they didn't commit another driving-
related offense or another felony, he said.
He said that this language, [Conceptual Amendment 1], would make
it easier for an individual to restore his/her driver's license.
This also supports what Chair Hughes mentioned, that some
individuals who had committed felony DUIs and had their licenses
revoked have had difficulty restoring their driving privileges
without going through the therapeutic court process. The
language [in Conceptual Amendment 1] would give these
individuals the ability to restore their licenses without going
through the therapeutic court process.
7:00:15 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the language on line 24 needed to
be revised.
MR. SKIDMORE said no.
SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that she wanted to be certain this
will not impact the license revocation issue addressed during
the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee meeting last week.
MR. SKIDMORE said that he was not present at the aforementioned
meeting, so he was unsure of the effect.
7:01:51 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, said that an
amendment was passed in another crime bill, SB 32, to
recriminalize driving with a license that had been canceled,
suspended, or revoked. She answered that it could be considered
a driving-related offense, which would make the person
ineligible for license restoration and would restart the clock
for another ten-year period.
7:02:23 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 would make
it more difficult.
MS. SCHROEDER responded if the person committed a driving-
related offense with a license that had been canceled,
suspended, or revoked, the clock would restart. She offered her
belief that it would be easier to restore the person's license
than under current law.
CHAIR HUGHES said that a person entertaining the thought of
committing another DUI in order to use the therapeutic court
avenue for license restoration would not be a good outcome. She
stated that staying clean for 10 years is a pretty good
standard.
7:03:16 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that he personally knows a pastor who
has helped people turn their lives around. He said this license
issue is a major problem since people face permanent license
revocation. He recapped that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would
allow a 10-year reset so people whose records have been clean
for a lengthy time can get back to driving. He offered his
support for Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected to ask how many people this would
impact and whether it would increase or decrease public safety.
MS. SCHROEDER said that she was unsure. She suggested that the
Division of Motor Vehicles may have those figures. She said the
people affected would not have any driving-related offense or
felony offense in 10 years, essentially a ten-year streak of
good behavior. It would allow them to restore their driver's
licenses. She said the Department of Law (DOL) does not have any
concerns, but it would not impact the department.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that right now a
misdemeanor would move them out of the ten-year period. She
suggested that this language would make it tougher by adding the
felony language.
MS. SCHROEDER said that the way she interprets the current
statute, people whose licenses have been revoked for a 10-year
period without incurring any new offenses would be eligible for
license restoration. However, if these individuals commit any
new offenses, they would incur a lifetime ban on their driving
privileges. This provision would allow these individuals to have
a new ten-year license revocation period. If they commit any
crime, it would restart the clock for another 10 years, she
said.
7:06:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted that current law imposes a lifetime
ban and this language would reduce it dramatically to ten years.
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged this is one solution. He pointed
out that many of the people whose licenses are revoked drive
anyway. He said [Conceptual Amendment 1] would apply to "the
best of the best." This language would apply to people who have
a "squeaky clean record" who would otherwise be banned for life
due to a single driving-related offense. This provision would
apply to a small subset of people who had a felony DUI. It would
give them a second chance, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD stressed that this is important, emphasizing
that she does not want to increase risks to the public. She
recalled reading statistics that indicate people typically drive
seven times with increased blood alcohol levels before they are
charged with a DUI. Further, people are not charged with a
felony DUI until their third DUI offense. She expressed concern
that this policy change could increase risks to the public.
MS. SCHROEDER acknowledged that this type of conduct occurs
without people being arrested. However, the department cannot
comment on conduct that would not come to the DOL's attention,
nor can it estimate how often that conduct occurs, she said. She
characterized it as a policy call for the legislature to make.
She said the DOL is comfortable with the requirement for a 10-
year clean record. She noted that the recidivism rate after 10
years is very low.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the therapeutic
court includes treatment and a requirement for ignition
interlock devices. She asked whether the 10-year period would
create a higher standard or be equivalent.
MS. SCHROEDER said that 10 years is a long time. The therapeutic
court program allows offenders to obtain a limited license;
however, she stated that licensing is not her area of expertise.
7:10:41 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, explained that people with a felony DUI
are subject to a permanent license revocation. However, those in
the therapeutic court may obtain limited licenses. They must be
enrolled in the court, in compliance with all treatment, show
proof of insurance, and use an ignition interlock device. If
therapeutic court is not available, these individuals can ask
the court for a hearing to obtain limited licensure, but they
must prove they have been sober for 18 months.
She said that under current law, if 10 years has lapsed since
sentencing and the offender has not been convicted of any
driving-related criminal offense, the offender's driving
privileges can be restored. She related her understanding that
the issue being addressed is that some people are subsequently
charged with driving with license suspended (DWLS), which
disqualifies driving privileges for life. She said [Conceptual
Amendment 1] would allow a person with a DWLS, as described, to
restart the 10-year clock. If the person does not have any
driving-related criminal offenses during a 10-year period, the
individual could get his/her license restored. She related that
usually those with an alcohol problem will have committed
another driving-related offense during that timeframe, which
would disqualify them. She characterized this as opening an
avenue to those who made a mistake early on.
7:13:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that the shortest
timeframe to obtain a limited license would be for those
individuals who spend 18 months in therapeutic court with
treatment.
MS. MEADE responded that limited licenses could be issued
earlier than that since the law only requires them to
"participate in therapeutic court."
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that this language creates a
high standard since it requires people to have a clean record
for 10 years.
7:13:36 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether a DUI offense would include
alcohol, marijuana, and drugs.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
SENATOR REINBOLD explained that her concern is whether some of
the 43 percent of misdemeanors that are dismissed are DUIs. This
increases risk to the public, she said.
MS. MEADE said a person who has gone 10 years after a felony
without incident can provide the state some assurance that
he/she is upstanding enough to deserve a driver's license. She
added that the language on lines 17 and 18 would disqualify
those whose DUIs are affiliated with death or a serious assault.
She said that language is stronger than current law.
7:15:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that the most important
change is that it captures non-driving felony offenses. He said
this captures many other crimes and makes it stricter. However,
"for the best of the best" it resets the clock.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that people might be confused about
"incidents" and conviction. She offered her belief that many
people who drink and drive are sneaky. She reiterated that 43
percent of misdemeanors are dismissed. She emphasized that the
bill says conviction. She stated that she would support
Conceptual Amendment 1.
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
7:17:28 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE directed attention to page 4, line 18, after
the word, "a" and before "criminal" add "driving-related." After
the word offense, add "or felony."
He read the revised language on page 4, line 18: "[(2)] the
person has not been convicted of a driving-related criminal
offense or a felony in the 10 years preceding ?."
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected to ask for input from the Department
of Law and the Alaska Court System.
7:18:35 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said that Conceptual Amendment 2 is a good
amendment. It actually makes the law consistent since
previously, the law was inconsistent between DUI and refusal.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification that this
language would amend Section 5 on page 4, lines 18-19 of the
bill.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that Nancy Meade, Alaska Court System,
was agreeing by nodding her head.
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
7:20:11 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 6.
Section 6: Amends AS 33.05.020(h) to establish by
regulation a program that front-loads earned
compliance credits where probationers are presented
with the total credits the probationer is eligible to
maintain if the probationer is compliant with the
conditions of probation. (Page 4 Line 22 through Page
5, Line 13)
MR. WHITT said Senator Micciche recommended this change.
7:20:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on Section 6.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that SB 34 would reduce the amount
from a one-to-one to one-third of the probation credits. He
highlighted that this had strong support. During discussions on
incentives, consideration was given to providing incentives for
those who are "good for a while" and are fully compliant, and
whether those probationers should be allowed to bank that
compliance. Section 6 would allow those who are on probation to
"bank" some of the credits. He said he learned that if offenders
lose all of their compliance credits, they unravel and will
exhibit non-compliant behavior. He recapped that this provision
would reward offenders for doing "the best they can" and allow
them to earn compliance credits if they meet the conditions of
probation. He pointed out that the earned compliance credits
have been reduced by 66 percent.
CHAIR HUGHES recalled one of her teachers once said that
students come into class with an "A" and if they complete their
assignments, they will keep the grade. In this instance, the
person will not earn any more credit, but the individual will
get to keep the time since it is front-loaded.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the probationers must still earn the
credit. He said people learn that they will receive benefits for
being compliant, which makes them more likely to exhibit good
behavior.
7:23:59 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections, Juneau, said that front-loading
earned compliance credit as explained by Senator Micciche will
work. She said that "front-loading" means it is theirs to lose.
She referred to it as similar to the statutory good time in
current statute. Those in custody get one-third off for good
time but if they have any violations, they lose some of the
earned-compliance credits.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether people would get out of jail
sooner under this change.
MS. WINKELMAN answered no, since this provision would only apply
to those on probation or parole.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the person would get off
probation earlier.
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.
SENATOR MICCICHE disagreed. He said that the probationer
previously received a day off for every day of compliance. This
has been reduced to one-third of a day for each day of
compliance. Thus, the person would get out later than before, he
said.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that is different than front-loading
compliance credits. She maintained the person would get out
earlier.
MS. WINKELMAN responded that the probationer would "front-load"
the compliance credit. Currently the probationer would get 30
days off for 30 days of good behavior. Under Section 6, the
person would get one-third off, but the person would receive
added time for non-compliance.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that this change
would not mean the person gets out a day earlier, by front-
loading the credits. She related her understanding that as the
days pass, the person would accrue compliance credits, but the
person would not be released earlier.
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.
7:27:33 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that she is frustrated because the bill
contains many changes and she wanted to make sure that it does
not have unintended consequences.
7:28:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the mechanics of the credit in Section
6. He asked whether a parolee or probationer who follows all the
rules for a year then "messes up severely" could retain any of
the front-loaded time.
SENATOR MICCICHE related a scenario in which a person was on
probation for 90 days. Currently, the probationer would earn 30
days off for earned compliance credit. If the person messes up
[and is considered non-compliant] for one day, the person would
earn 29 days of earned compliance credit. If the person is non-
compliant for 30 days, the person would have zero days of earned
compliance credit, he said. He characterized it as an incentive
with an expectation that the person will make it 90 days without
any noncompliance and thus be off probation in 60 days. He
explained that previously any non-compliance would result in a
complete loss of earned-compliance credits. He agreed that this
front-loads compliance credits, but the person would be off
probation or parole in 60 days if compliant.
SENATOR KIEHL said that he struggles with the notion. He said he
was unsure that people are thrilled with the way that good time
currently works. He offered his belief that this would apply the
same good time model for probationers, and he was hesitant to do
so. He said that the science of behavior modification is to
reward the behavior as it happens to build habits and behavioral
change. He wondered whether front loading would reflect the best
practice in terms of changing people's behavior.
CHAIR HUGHES offered that she has discussed good time with Ms.
Winkelman, and they plan to review the definition of "good
time," primarily for incarceration but it could extend to
probation or parole. Currently, inmates earn good time by not
doing something wrong, she said. However, she expressed interest
in allowing good time to be earned by taking classes, obtaining
training, or going through treatment. She indicated that an
ongoing discussion will happen for good time.
7:32:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that this is a pretty
important discussion. She acknowledged that the Department of
Law and Department of Corrections seem to be comfortable with
this section.
CHAIR HUGHES characterized it as an accounting process, but it
does not get anyone out earlier.
7:32:58 PM
MR. WHITT said Section 7 and Section 20 coincide with one
another.
Section 7: Amends AS 33.05.020(i) to exclude from
eligibility in a program to earn compliance credits
probationers who are on probation for felony crimes
against a person, sex offense, unclassified felonies
or for crimes involving domestic violence. (Page 5,
Lines 14-21)
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 5, line 20, which read, "(4) a
crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990,
that is an offense under AS 11.41." She asked whether this
expands the category or if it replicates the language on lines
9-13, that are being deleted.
MR. SKIDMORE related his understanding the question is whether
the change would alter the statute. He asked for further
clarification on the specific cite in the bill.
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to the deleted language on page 5,
lines 9-13. She said that Section 7, lines 14-21, makes changes.
She asked for clarification on the changes.
MR. SKIDMORE said the language in the new subsection is
inclusive of domestic violence (DV), but it is limited to DV
under AS 11.41. In the language [on line 10], the DV is not
limited to AS 11.41, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification since the
language on line 10 requires treatment programs be completed.
7:37:08 PM
At-ease.
7:42:42 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
7:42:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3,
on page 5, line 8, [after AS 33.30.013] to remove ";" and add
paragraph (4) to read, "require that a probationer convicted of
a crime involving domestic violence as defined in as 18.66.990
complete all treatment programs required as a condition of
probation before discharge based on credits earned under this
subsection." He said that he is removing "SEX OFFENSES AS
DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR".
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted certainty that probationers
will have access to treatment programs as a condition of
probation.
There being no further objections, Conceptual Amendment 3 was
adopted.
7:44:41 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed the language in Section 8, which was brought
forth by Senator Shower.
Section 8: Amends AS 33.05.040(a) to remove ambiguity
with respect to the duties of a probation officer
clarifying that there is an affirmative duty to make a
recommendation to the court either to revoke or to
maintain probation. (Page 5 Line 22 through Page 7,
Line 3)
MR. WHITT, in response to Chair Hughes, said that the Department
of Corrections consulted with Ms. Largent.
MS. LARGENT stated that the department did not necessarily share
the concern but found the language an appropriate remedy.
7:46:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether Section 7 was discussed.
CHAIR HUGHES said it was wrapped up in an earlier discussion.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether that language was in the original
bill. He asked to focus on the reason to remove all crimes
against a person and the difference in the types of domestic
violence (DV) that would be eligible.
MR. WHITT asked for further clarification on the question.
SENATOR KIEHL said he understood the rationale used for
unclassified felonies and sex offenders. However, he was unsure
about removing all felony crimes against a person. He
anticipated that a tremendous number of people would be
released, and it is imperative to change their behavior once
they were out of prison. He asked for further clarification on
why DV crimes against a person are treated differently than
those that are not, in terms of compliance credits.
MR. WHITT said he probably would be unable to answer the
question fully. He related his understanding that Senator
Reinbold wanted to add unclassified felonies and Senator Shower
wanted the rest of the language. He said he could not speak to
why Senator Shower wanted that language. He suggested the
Department of Law could respond.
SENATOR REINBOLD deferred to Mr. Skidmore to explain the
language on line 19, "a crime involving domestic violence, as
defined in AS 18.66.990, that is an offense under AS 11.41." She
asked whether this was more limited.
MR. SKIDMORE turned to page 5, Section 7 to answer Senator
Kiehl's question. He explained that the original bill did not
limit earned compliance credits in the manner that Version K
uses. The original bill limited compliance credits only for sex
offenses. That was expanded in the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee to include unclassified felonies, in addition to the
sex offenses. He said he did not recall the discussion of crimes
against a person under AS 11.41. He said that in addition to the
sex crimes this would include assault, robbery, and crimes in
which a person is injured rather than to property. He recalled
that the previous committee did not want earned compliance
credits to apply to those types of offenses.
He recalled that Senator Reinbold and Senator Kiehl had
questions on page 5, line 20 of Version K, related to the crime
of DV as it applies to crimes against a person. In addition to
the felonies under AS 11.41, the DV crime against a person in
[paragraph] (4) would be a low-level offense in the fourth
degree. He said that would not include all sorts of other DV
crimes such as criminal mischief or other types of DV crimes
found throughout the statutes. He explained that this would only
apply to those misdemeanor crimes in AS 11.41. The rationale for
the distinction was a policy call. He reasoned that assault in
the fourth degree, which deals with injury to a person, must
have been deemed more significant than damage to property.
7:52:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to lines 20-21, and read, "(4) a crime
involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990, that is
an offense under AS 11.41." She said that AS 11.41 is a massive
section of law.
MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure whether the Department of Law or
the administration took a position on the policy decisions the
previous committee made, but the DOL will not take a position on
it here. He explained that the only crimes the DOL has taken a
position on are sex crimes and unclassified felonies. This is
not something the administration has sought or opposed, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD suggested that Senator Shower may wish to weigh
in on this provision.
7:54:18 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether these crimes were more egregious
ones.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that when the DOL considers prosecution
of crimes, it tries to focus first on the crimes that are
felonies and felonies against a person that are categorized in
AS 11.41. This includes assault in the first degree and sexual
abuse of a minor, which are more serious crimes.
7:55:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for references to the Senate State Affairs
Standing Committee CS since he was not finding that language.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Whitt to explain. She recalled that this
was discussed in the previous committee and decided to allow
this committee to also address the issue.
7:55:50 PM
MR. WHITT pointed out two things. First, he read a request from
Senator Shower's office, [not distributed to members]. It read:
"a probationer may not be enrolled in the program, established
under (h) of this section, if the probationer (1) is on
probation or parole for a sex offense, or (2) is on probation or
parole for felony crimes against a person or DV assault." He
said Senator Shower indicated that this change would make it so
that sex offenders, felons, and domestic violence perpetrators
will not be eligible for earned credits while on parole or
probation. This keeps the most violent people under the
supervision of a probation officer longer.
He clarified that the change in proposed Section 7(i)(4) is a
crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990,
that is an offense under AS 11.41. He emphasized that it does
not say it is a felony offense. It would be any crime in AS
11.41, including crimes against a person. It would match up with
DV crimes. He said that felony crimes are addressed in paragraph
(3). It says: "a felony crime against a person under AS 11.41;"
and this language would be for any crime coupled with a DV
charge.
7:58:13 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD described AS 11.41 as "a pretty significant
law."
MR. WHITT agreed that all crimes against a person are located in
AS 11.41, including rapes, assaults, and murders. In further
response to Senator Reinbold, he agreed that this language was
not in the State Affairs CS.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was not comfortable with the proposed
language without clarification from the sponsor.
7:59:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports the language. He explained
that this pertains to offenders who have served their prison
time and are on probation. The language indicates that certain
crimes are not eligible to earn compliance credits. He said that
reviewing the types of crimes on the list led him to believe
that this was the right way to proceed. Further, he said he
thinks it fits well with the changes the committee made to other
aspects of earned compliance credits. It basically indicates
that offenders are not going to earn compliance credits if
convicted of one of these crimes
CHAIR HUGHES commented that those offenders will serve 33
percent longer under the proposed language.
8:00:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that the point of
compliance is to change behavior. He said the containment model
is used for sex offenders. He said that DV behaviors need to
change. He was unsure the reason the only non-felony domestic
violence would fall under misdemeanor assault as opposed to some
of the other pretty significant crimes that are considered
domestic violence. He said he would like to change the behavior
of all of those who are committing abusive offenses so limiting
it does not make sense to him.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that the effect would be to
essentially create cascading penalties, which was not previously
done. He said this language indicates that an earned compliance
program would result in a one-third credit unless the person has
been convicted of certain crimes. Other discretionary measures
also apply. For example, a person could still have his/her
probation revoked. The probation system is still conditional. He
characterized it as a staged approach. He said he thinks this
will drive compliance because very few people want to go back to
prison.
8:02:58 PM
MR. WHITT clarified that the State Affairs CS addressed AS
33.05.020(i). It reads: "A probationer convicted of a sex
offense, as defined in AS 12.63.100, may not be enrolled in the
program established under (h) of this section." He said this
amendment expands who may not be enrolled in the program.
MR. WHITT continued.
Section 10: Amends AS 33.16.090(a)(1)(D) & (E) by
clarifying that where an offender is serving multiple
sentences any consecutive or partially consecutive
sentence to the primary crime is eligible for
discretionary parole after serving ? of the sentence.
(Page 8, Lines 8-17)
MR. WHITT said that this language was requested by the DOL.
8:04:37 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked the department for an explanation.
MR. SKIDMORE said that Section 10, on page 8 clarifies that when
an offender is serving multiple sentences that the consecutive
or partially consecutive sentence to the primary crime is
eligible for discretionary parole at one-quarter. He said that
when the department has a case in which someone is charged with
multiple crimes, the one-quarter should apply to the lower
crimes instead of applying the same calculus to every crime for
which the person is convicted. He said that this would help
ensure that the person serves the larger portion of his/her
sentence on the primary crime.
MR. WHITT deferred to Mr. Edwards to weigh in.
8:06:25 PM
JEFF EDWARDS, Director, Parole Board, Department of Corrections,
Anchorage, said that Mr. Skidmore covered Section 10 pretty
well. He directed attention to page 8, line 8, to subparagraph
(D), that would establish the eligibility for discretionary
parole. Subparagraph (E) offers some clarifying language that
applies to those who do not earn statutory good time. The
intention was they would not be eligible for discretionary
parole, which seems logical, he said. This language also
provides that any consecutive sentence that would disqualify a
person for good time would also make them ineligible for
discretionary parole. He offered his belief that the intent was
to omit the eligibility for early release on mandatory or
discretionary parole.
8:07:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for confirmation that the one-fourth
reduction does not conflict with the important changes that were
made in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he did not believe any conflict
exists.
8:08:31 PM
MR. WHITT turned to Section 20, to page 13, lines 21-28 and then
reverted to Section 19. He said the conceptual amendment that
was offered on page 5, for Section 6 would also be appropriate
to offer in this section. It would conform the language in the
two sections. Section 6 applies to probation and Section 19
applies to parole.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification of the cite.
MR. WHITT referred to [page 13,] line 15, and suggested it
should delete the bracket and semi-colon and on line 16, [after
"CONVICTED OF"] delete "A SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100
OR". The language would read, "[3] require that a parolee
convicted of a crime involving domestic violence complete all
treatment programs required as a condition of parole before
discharge based on credits earned under this section." He added
that the bracket would be deleted at the end of line 20.
8:10:28 PM
At-ease.
8:12:16 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
8:12:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, on page
13, lines 15. Delete ";" and on line 16 delete "(3)" which would
become paragraph (4). In addition, delete "A SEX OFFENSE AS
DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR". After the phrase "notifying a
victim under AS 33.30.013," the language would read: "(4)
require that a parolee convicted of a crime involving domestic
violence complete all treatment programs required as a condition
of parole before discharge based on credits earned under this
section."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for confirmation that this is a
conforming amendment similar to ones in the other two sections.
CHAIR HUGHES answered yes.
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:14:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES noted that Senator Reinbold had a question for Mr.
Skidmore related to a conflict that may exist regarding the one-
fourth provision in Section 10.
8:14:17 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to the explanation of changes for the
committee substitute (CS) for SB 34 [the sectional analysis],
which read:
Section 10: Amends AS 33.16.090(a)(1)(D) & (E) by
clarifying that where an offender is serving multiple
sentences any consecutive or partially consecutive
sentence to the primary crime is eligible for
discretionary parole after serving [one-fourth] of the
sentence. (Page 8, Lines 8-17)
She expressed concern with the language "the primary crime is
eligible for discretionary parole after serving [one-fourth] of
the sentence." She recalled that language was changed [in
Section 11] on page 8, line 25 of Version K, "has served the
mandatory minimum term under AS 12.55.125(a) or (b), one-half
[ONE-THIRD] of the active term of imprisonment ?." She asked
whether any conflict exists throughout the bill since several
changes have occurred.
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not immediately see any conflict in the
section, but he would defer to Mr. Edwards.
8:15:44 PM
MR. EDWARDS responded that the reference in Section 11 turns to
one-half for unclassified offenses and in Section 10 it is one-
quarter for class B and class C felonies. He said the types of
crimes are differentiated. He noted that Section 11 makes
unclassified felonies eligible at one-half [of the active term
of imprisonment] for crimes such as murder in the first degree,
murder in the second degree. The others would remain at one-
quarter. He asked for confirmation that he was comparing the
right sections.
CHAIR HUGHES agreed. She referred to page 8, lines 8-17, which
relates to class B and C felonies whereas Section 11, lines 22-
26, talks about [discretionary parole] for unclassified
felonies.
MR. EDWARDS clarified the page and line number references were
on page 8, lines 8-12 [of Section 10] and line 25 of Section 11.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for confirmation that he saw no conflict.
MR. EDWARDS said he did not see any conflict.
8:17:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted assurance because these
sections were definitely strengthened after multiple hours of
discussion in terms of one-third versus one-half credit. She
said that she still has pause with discretionary parole and she
is thrilled with truth in sentencing in courts to be sure that
people understand the eight ways people can get out of jail.
8:18:35 PM
MR. WHITT continued:
Section 24: Adds a new section of uncodified law
requiring the Department of Corrections to develop a
needs assessment of all rehabilitative services for
each institution including but not limited to
education, treatment, vocational education, secular
and faith based, and pro social programs and provide a
written report to the legislature by January 31, 2020.
8:19:04 PM
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that the needs assessment report is
necessary as the committee and department work to possibly
redefine good time. Further, it can help [with the goal] to
incentivize those who are incarcerated to get up out of bed and
not watch television or play cards but start applying
themselves. It will help the legislature have a sense of the
type of services available in the institutions throughout the
state. This section would ask the Department of Corrections
(DOC) for their wish list to help those incarcerated become
productive and improve themselves before they are let out of
jail. This report would be available for that purpose, she said.
8:19:59 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled that Chair Hughes mentioned she wanted
to be sure that prisoners are active. She said this request
appears to be a needs assessment and report. She said she has no
idea whether this language ensures that prisoners obtain
treatment. She said she was hoping that best practices were
being used on the best programs available. However, this appears
to develop an assessment of rehabilitative services.
CHAIR HUGHES responded that the DOC helped develop this
language. She added that SB 33 has a provision that asks DOC to
develop a matrix based on evidence-based best practices so the
legislature can correlate inmate participation and lower
recidivism. She acknowledged that [Section 24] is an assessment
so the legislature can decide next year about ensuring the
options are available. This changes the definition of good time
to ensure that inmates must do things to improve themselves. The
legislature wants to know what options are available at
institutions. For example, she said that treatment programs are
available at some institutions and not others. She pointed out
that with the drug problem and associated crime, it is important
to make treatment available to inmates to the greatest extent
possible. The purpose here is to find out what is available at
the institutions and address it further next year.
8:22:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed an interest in continuing to take up
the additional amendments in members' packets.
8:22:37 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding that the DOC would
develop an assessment of rehabilitation services available in
each institution and to assess education, treatment, vocational
education, secular and faith based, and pro social programs in
the state by January 31, 2020. She asked whether this report
would identify what is available or if it will identify what the
DOC needs.
CHAIR HUGHES answered that the report would identify both what
institutions have and what the department feels is appropriate
at the various institutions. She mentioned that the department
was already working on this, but this provision would make
certain that it will be ready for the legislature.
8:23:44 PM
At-ease.
8:27:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
8:27:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1. He
related that his amendments were prepared for a different
version of the bill. He asked members to make two changes. On
page 5, line 16, after, "for," add "unclassified" and on Page
13, line 23, after "for," to add "unclassified." Conceptual
Amendment Kiehl 1 read as follows:
Page 4, line 23, through page 5, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(h) The commissioner shall establish by
regulation a program allowing probationers to earn
credits for complying with the conditions of
probation. The credits earned reduce the period of
probation. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the
department from recommending to the court the early
discharge of the probationer as provided in AS 33.30.
At a minimum, the regulations must
(1) require that a probationer earn credit
against the term of probation for compliance [A CREDIT
OF 30 DAYS FOR EACH 30-DAY PERIOD SERVED IN WHICH THE
DEFENDANT COMPLIED] with the conditions of probation
and lose earned credit for violation of the conditions
of probation;
(2) include policies and procedures for
(A) calculating and tracking credits earned
by probationers;
(B) reducing the probationer's period of
probation based on credits earned by the probationer;
and
(C) notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013;
(3) require that a probationer convicted of
a [SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR A] crime
involving domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990
complete all treatment programs required as a
condition of probation before discharge based on
credits earned under this subsection."
Page 5, line 16, following "for unclassified felony
offenses":
Insert "a sex offense as defined in
AS 12.63.100."
Page 5, lines 17 - 21:
Delete all material.
Page 12, line 29, through page 13, line 20:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 33.16.270. Earned compliance credits. The
commissioner shall establish by regulation a program
allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with
the conditions of parole. The earned compliance
credits reduce the period of parole. Nothing in this
section prohibits the department from recommending to
the board the early discharge of the parolee as
provided in this chapter. At a minimum, the
regulations must
(1) require that a parolee earn credit
against the period of parole for compliance [A CREDIT
OF 30 DAYS FOR EACH 30-DAY PERIOD SERVED IN WHICH THE
PAROLEE COMPLIED] with the conditions of parole and
lose earned credit for violation of the conditions of
probation;
(2) include policies and procedures for
(A) calculating and tracking credits earned
by parolees;
(B) reducing the parolee's period of parole
based on credits earned by the parolee; and
(C) notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013;
(3) require that a parolee convicted of a
[SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR A] crime
involving domestic violence complete all treatment
programs required as a condition of parole before
discharge based on credits earned under this section."
Page 13, line 23, following "for unclassified felony
offenses":
Insert "a sex offense as defined in
AS 12.63.100."
Page 13, lines 24 - 28:
Delete all material.
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
8:28:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 would
take a different approach to the compliance credits. He offered
his belief that the system of compliance credits could use fine
tuning and the expertise of the department. He said this
conceptual amendment would instruct the department to create a
program for compliance credits by regulation. He surmised that
the DOC would use best practices and it would give the
department the flexibility to tailor the compliance credits
where they will do the most good. For example, if it is most
important to focus on the first few months outside the
institution, the DOC could front-load the credits. However, if
it is most important to provide a steady stream of credits over
time, the department could do that. He said that this would
apply to probation and parole. The exclusions from eligibility
would go back to unclassified felons and sex offenders. This
would give the department the ability to work on behavior
modification to get offenders back on the path to become
successful members of society and not reoffending across the
broadest range of people where it makes sense.
CHAIR HUGHES paused to removed her objection. Finding no further
objection, the committee substitute (CS) for SB 34, work order
31-GS1031\K, Version K was adopted.
CHAIR HUGHES returned attention to Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1
and asked Mr. Skidmore if the Department of Law supports it.
8:30:58 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said DOL does not support Conceptual Amendment
Kiehl 1 because it provides for earned compliance credits to
unclassified felonies.
SENATOR KIEHL clarified that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 was
adjusted to make "unclassified" felonies ineligible for earned
compliance credits.
8:32:08 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
8:32:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment Kiel 1 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and
Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1
failed by a 1:3 vote.
8:32:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2 that
reads as follows:
Page 5, line 20, through page 7, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 8. AS 33.05.040(a) is amended to read:
(a) A probation officer shall
(1) furnish to each probationer under the
supervision of the officer a written statement of the
conditions of probation and shall instruct the
probationer regarding the same;
(2) keep informed concerning the conduct
and condition of each probationer under the
supervision of the officer and shall report on the
probationer to the court placing that person on
probation;
(3) use all suitable methods, not
inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the court,
to aid probationers and to bring about improvements in
their conduct and condition;
(4) keep records of the probation work,
including administrative sanctions and incentives the
probation officer imposes under AS 33.05.020(g), keep
accurate and complete accounts of all money collected
from persons under the supervision of the officer,
give receipts for money collected and make at least
monthly returns of it, make the reports to the court
and the commissioner required by them, and perform
other duties the court may direct;
(5) perform duties with respect to persons
on parole as the commissioner shall request, and in
that service shall be termed a parole officer;
(6) use administrative sanctions and
incentives developed under AS 33.05.020(g) to respond
to a probationer's negative and positive behavior,
including responses to technical violations of
conditions of probation, in a way that is intended to
interrupt negative behavior in a swift, certain, and
proportional manner and support progress with a
recognition of positive behavior;
(7) upon determining that a probationer
under the supervision of the officer meets the
requirements of AS 12.55.090(g), consider recommending
[RECOMMEND] to the court [AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE] that
probation be terminated, and the probationer be
discharged from probation;
(8) for each probationer who owes
restitution and who is under the supervision of the
officer, create a restitution payment schedule based
on the probationer's income and ability to pay if the
court has not already set a restitution payment
schedule;
(9) accommodate the diligent efforts of
each probationer to secure and maintain steady
employment or to participate in educational courses or
training programs when prescribing the times at which
a probationer shall report;
(10) permit each probationer to travel in
the state to make diligent efforts to secure and
maintain steady employment or to participate in
educational courses or training programs if the travel
is not inconsistent with other terms and conditions of
probation."
Page 14, line 30, through page 15, line 1:
Delete "[THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF SANCTIONS ISSUED
UNDER AS 33.05.020(g) BEFORE A PETITION TO REVOKE
PROBATION OR PAROLE IS FILED;]"
Insert "the average number of sanctions issued
under AS 33.05.020(g) before a petition to revoke
probation or parole is filed;"
Page 15, line 9:
Delete "12.55.100(a)(2)(H),"
Page 15, line 10:
Delete "AS 33.05.020(g), 33.05.080(1);"
Page 15, line 11:
Delete "33.16.180(8),"
Page 15, line 12:
Delete ", 33.16.900(2)"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that this relates to the system of
administrative sanctions and incentives, so the department has
swift "carrots and sticks" available. This administrative
sanction and incentive program would regularize what testimony
indicated was inconsistent across the state. This would provide
quick, certain punishments for minor violations and still
provide incentives and benefits for those who are doing the good
things that they need to do to get their lives turned around.
They are not just marking time.
He said the department could implement this by regulation in
order to fine tune the system of administrative sanctions and
incentives to provide the most effective tool to assist inmates
in turning their lives around, so they do not commit new crimes
and create new victims.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore whether the Department of Law
supports or opposes the amendment.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that administrative sanctions are handled
by the Department of Corrections.
8:34:39 PM
MS. WINKELMAN said that the DOC does not want "a cookie cutter
approach" to deal with offenders. Rather, they want to tailor
the response to an offender's needs. Thus, the DOC opposes
[Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2].
8:34:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
8:35:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
adopting Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2 and Senators Reinbold,
Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment Kiehl 2 failed by a 1:3 vote.
8:35:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3:
Page 1, line 5, through page 2, line 4:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "[SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS SET OUT IN
AS 12.55.110]"
Insert "subject to the limits set out in
AS 12.55.110"
Page 2, line 19:
Delete "[SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS SET OUT IN
AS 12.55.110]"
Insert "subject to the limits set out in
AS 12.55.110"
Page 12, lines 4 - 27:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "[PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES ADMITTED
SOLELY FOR A TECHNICAL VIOLATION;]"
Insert "probationers and parolees admitted solely
for a technical violation;"
Page 15, lines 13 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"AS 12.55.100(a)(2)(H), 12.55.110(f);
AS 33.05.020(g), 33.05.080(1); AS 33.16.090(b)(2),
33.16.100(f), 33.16.180(8), 33.16.210(b), and
33.16.900(2) are repealed."
Page 15, line 30:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 15, line 31:
Delete "sec. 2"
Insert "sec. 1"
Page 16, line 1:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 16, line 2:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 16, line 5:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 2"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 16, line 7:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 16, line 8:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 7"
Page 16, line 11:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 12"
Page 16, line 13:
Delete "sec. 14"
Insert "sec. 13"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 16, line 15:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 16, lines 16 - 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 16, line 18:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 16, line 19:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 16, line 20:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 16, line 21:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 11"
Page 16, line 22:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 11"
Page 16, line 24:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 3"
Page 16, line 25:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 4"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
8:35:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that this returns the technical violations.
He explained that these are for the comparatively small
violations by probationers and parolees that help ensure the
effective and efficient administration of justice for those in
under supervision. He said this would mean that the same level
of resources would not be used for those who are late for an
appointment as for ones who skip out on their supervision. He
said this give the department the ability to scale what it does
with technical violations.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore whether the Department of Law
supports the amendment.
8:37:19 PM
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the department is vehemently opposed
to this amendment. He said that technical violations for 3, 5,
and 10-day caps did not end up being swift nor do they end up
being proportional. It is a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter
approach that line prosecutors resoundingly said was one of the
most ineffective provisions in Senate Bill 91.
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
8:38:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3 and Senators Reinbold (via
teleconference), Micciche, and Hughes voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3 failed by a 1:3 vote.
8:38:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4:
Page 13, line 29 - page 14, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 21. AS 33.20.010(c) is amended to read:
(c) A prisoner is entitled to a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any time spent
[UNDER ELECTRONIC MONITORING OR] in a residential
program for treatment of alcohol or drug abuse under a
prerelease furlough as provided in AS 33.30.101. A
prisoner may not be awarded a good time deduction
under (a) of this section for any period spent in a
private residence or on electronic monitoring.
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4 would
apply to inpatient drug and alcohol abuse treatment. It is
written such that no one can receive good time for going to
their weekly appointment for drug and alcohol abuse treatment.
This is limited to inpatient residential settings where freedom
is restricted. This is an opportunity to create more incentives
for people in such treatment programs. He pointed out specific
language on line 7, "A prisoner may not be awarded a good time
deduction ? in a private residence or on electronic monitoring."
This language would ensure that this is specifically about
inpatient treatment and the more intensive work to get people
off of drugs and alcohol. He said that treatment can be critical
in turning people around. He offered his belief that not
providing a good time deduction makes it much more difficult to
get people to be sober and productive members of society instead
of addicted and much more likely to commit crimes.
MR. SKIDMORE said the DOL is opposed to Conceptual Amendment
Kiehl 4 While he understands the sponsor's position, the
administration has been opposed to offering good time except for
anything other than a "hard bed."
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
8:40:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment Kiel 4 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and
Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4
failed by a 1:3 vote.
8:40:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5.
Page 15, line 10:
Delete "12.55.110(f),"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that this relates to a petition to
revoke when someone has not completed treatment. He said that
this would remove a section from the repealers and return an
affirmative defense when someone cannot afford treatment or
cannot get into a free treatment program despite good faith
effort. He said that if someone is doing what they can to get
into a treatment program but cannot afford it, it is imperative
to make treatment available. He clarified that this amendment is
not meant for someone who is slacking. He said that showing good
faith is an affirmative defense and this language would restore
that affirmative defense when someone faces a petition to
revoke.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the department does not have a
position. He said that if someone is not able to pay, the DOL
would not seek to revoke his/her probation.
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
8:42:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5 and Senators Reinbold (via
teleconference), Micciche, and Hughes voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5 failed by a 1:3 vote.
8:43:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 6 would not
be offered since it was addressed in earlier discussions.
8:43:56 PM
At-ease.
8:44:55 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She moved to adopt
Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1031\K.4, Radford, 4/22/19.
AMENDMENT 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 34(JUD), Draft Version "K"
Page 8, line 13:
Delete "notwithstanding (b)(7)(C) of this
section, a sentence"
Insert "a prisoner sentenced to a single
sentence, including a consecutive or partially
consecutive sentence,"
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WHITT explained that Amendment 7 pertains to Section 10 and
was requested by the Department of Law. It addresses the
potential confusion that can arise from the "notwithstanding"
language and clarifies that this specific bar to discretionary
parole applies to sentences which include consecutive sentences.
8:46:38 PM
MS. SCHROEDER explained this change would clarify the language
in Section 10, page 8, lines 13-17. The department originally
requested this language because of a potential conflict between
the language in subsection (b)(7)(C) and Section 10. However,
the DOL recognized it might add more confusion and decided to
instead insert the language, "consecutive or partially
consecutive sentence."
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
8:47:59 PM
CHAIR HUGHES stated that SB 34, Version K as amended, was before
the committee.
8:48:04 PM
At-ease.
8:49:42 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
8:49:48 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that the bill has moved a little
faster than she had envisioned. However, she said she was a
strong believer in the crime bills as a crime package to improve
public safety in the state. This bill would also help to ensure
that the departments are working together to coordinate efforts
to improve public safety. She said that Alaska is one of the
most dangerous states in the nation. She said that she is a
little uncomfortable moving the committee substitute at this
pace. However, she heard the bill in the prior committee [Senate
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee], so she is very
comfortable with the overall bill. She offered her belief that
this bill is a critical step in the right direction for law
enforcement and to the DOL and DOC. She offered her support for
the bill.
8:51:17 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he supports the changes. He was
uncomfortable with one section on the license return issue, but
the committee worked together and fixed some minor issues in the
drafting. He said that he is a "do pass."
8:51:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he appreciated the work on the DUI
section, which was an issue he felt needed to be addressed. He
said that on the whole, the bill has a lot of fiscal impact. He
said it returns a lot of inconsistent administration of justice,
which he believes is a recipe for bad administration. He offered
his belief that it will be all fiscal note and no crime
reduction. He said that he will object to moving the bill.
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that the public has expressed concern
about offenders on the street, but when offenders are
incarcerated the public does not have to be concerned about them
committing crimes. She said when offenders are on probation or
parole that it is incumbent to tighten the reins for the sake of
the public. She said she will be a "yes" vote. She thinks that
the state can achieve some of the things that people who
supported Senate Bill 91 wanted to achieve and also improve
public safety. She emphasized that the crime bills are a
comprehensive package and the pieces fit together. She thinks
that as work continues in the coming year that improvements in
public safety will occur. She said that the pre-2014 data, prior
to Senate Bill 91 showed that recidivism was dropping. She said
she hoped that recidivism would continue to drop.
8:54:36 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report the committee substitute (CS)
for SB 34, work order 31GS1031\K as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
SENATOR KIEHL objected.
8:55:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and
Hughes voted in favor of reporting the CSSB 34(JUD) from
committee and Senator Kiehl voted against it. Therefore, the
CSSB 34(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee by a 3:1 vote.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that Legislative Legal
Services has permission to make any technical and conforming
changes necessary to implement the adopted amendments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 3 Version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 4 version A.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| CSSB 33(JUD) Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB33 Explanation of Changes from Version M to U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB 33 Amendments.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB 34(JUD) Version K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| CSSB34 Explanation of Changes from Version U to K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 52 Version U.PDF |
HL&C 3/11/2020 3:15:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sectional Analysis 2.19.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Title 4 Bill Summary Changes SB 76 (2018) to SB 52 (2019).pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 52 Sectional Analysis v.U.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Summary of Proposed Penalties.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Summary of Goals.pdf |
HL&C 3/9/2020 3:15:00 PM SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |