Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/15/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB88 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 54 | ||
| = | SB 88 | ||
| = | SB 20 | ||
SB 54-PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
3:55:36 PM
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 54 to be up for
consideration. He noted the proposed committee substitute (CS).
3:56:38 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor, said the intent is to add sexual
assault to the list of crimes on which a judge may issue a
protective order. He noted that the original drafting copied the
domestic violence statute and the proposed CS, version \S,
copies the stalking laws. This is more appropriate because most
sexual assault doesn't take place in the context of a domestic
relationship.
JASON HOOLEY, staff to Senator Dyson, added the bill concerns
restraining orders for victims of sexual assault that aren't
already covered under domestic violence.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked for a motion to adopt the \S version CS.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER motioned to adopt the \S version CS as
the working document. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
3:59:19 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the drafter presented a technical
amendment.
SENATOR DYSON said he'd like the Department of Law to speak to
the amendment.
4:01:06 PM
ANNIE CARPENETI, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
explained that when the domestic violence protective orders bill
passed, the intention was to make it a crime to violate a
protective order only if the violation was made in a most
serious manner. The reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to
make all kinds of protective order violations criminal.
Thus, the department suggested that for SB 54, violations of AS
18.66.105(c)(4) shouldn't be a crime. Those are possible orders
for repayment to the victim and the catchall "other remedies".
She suggested the proposed language on page 2, lines 24-25 might
not be clear enough.
4:03:32 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the proposed change on page 1, line 10
references "18.66.105(c)(1)-(3)" and she spoke to (c)(4), which
isn't included.
MS. CARPENETI replied she assumes most stalking protective
orders have one of the provisions in (c)(1)-(3) and what it
would say is, "...containing a provision in (c)(1)-(3) attempts
to commit an act in violation of the order so it might be the
act that's in violation of (c)(4), which we want to make clear
would not be a criminal act."
CHAIR THERRIAULT said he still didn't understand how you would
get to (c)(4) if the limitation is (c)(1)-(3).
MS. CARPENETI acknowledged it's a minor drafting point.
SENATOR DYSON said 105(c)(4) allows the judge to order the
perpetrator to reimburse the victim for assault bills. If that
is deleted, he questioned the leverage a judge might have to
force payment from the perpetrator.
MS. CARPENETI replied that remedy wouldn't be deleted; it just
provides that it wouldn't be a crime if the perpetrator didn't
pay the expenses the judge ordered to be paid. Other remedies
exist and could be imposed because if a person violates a court
order, the judge may hold the person in contempt.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Senator Dyson whether he had any comment
on the modification of the amendment.
SENATOR DYSON replied he did not.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Carpeneti to restate the
modification.
MS. CARPENETI explained it may be conceptual but the idea should
be, "issued under AS 18.65.850, 18.65.855 or 18.65.860 and
containing a provision listed in 18.65.850(c)(1)-(3) and
knowingly commits an act in violation of the order issued under
18.65.850(c)(1)-(3)."
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked the members if they understood the impact
of the suggestion.
SENATOR WAGONER stated his preference was for the amendment to
be written out.
4:07:55 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT set SB 54 aside.
SB 54-PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced the committee would return to SB 54.
The \S version CS was before the committee and Ms. Carpeneti was
working on a proposed amendment. He questioned whether she had
consulted with the drafters.
MS. CARPENETI said she hadn't, but Mr. Hooley and the
legislative lawyers addressed her concerns. She explained the
proposed amendment. On page 1, line 10 delete "18.66.105(c)(1)-
(5)" and insert "18.66.105(c)(1)-(3) and on page 1, line 14
delete "in violation of the order" and insert "that violates or
would violate a provision listed in AS 18.65.850(c)(1)-(3).
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked his comfort level always goes up when
the legislative attorneys weigh in. With that he motioned to
adopt the new handwritten language as Amendment 1. He asked Ms.
Carpeneti to state her concern and how the amendment addresses
it.
MS. CARPENETI explained her concern was that it hasn't been and
it "shouldn't be a crime for a person to commit an act in
violation of a protective order where the judge has adopted a
provision in the protective order that's in a catchall provision
that's not stated by the Legislature." She clarified that the
amendment only deals with stalking protective orders.
CHAIR THERRIAULT recapped it would not be an additional crime
for violation of something that the committee couldn't fully
contemplate what the judge might choose.
MS. CARPENETI agreed. What the judge comes up with might be
perfectly appropriate, but the violation of it shouldn't be a
crime.
5:21:01 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that without objection, Amendment 1
passed. He asked Ms. Robinson to come forward.
CAREN ROBINSON, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence, said the
network continues to contend that it fits best under the
stalking provisions rather than the domestic violence
provisions, but they want the bill to move and are willing to
work with the sponsor and clear that point up in the Judiciary
Committee.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said he was aware of the debate regarding which
section of statute the bill should be under, but he wasn't clear
on the arguments.
SENATOR ELTON said he understood the CS moved it into the
stalking provisions.
SENATOR DYSON said he too was confused. The CS adopted the
stalking language but it isn't under the stalking provision as
Ms. Robinson suggests. He acknowledged that others share her
opinion.
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted three zero fiscal notes and one for
$7,500 from statewide support in Public Safety and asked for a
motion.
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 54(STA), \S version as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|