03/20/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY

                SB  55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:19:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   COGHILL  reconvened   the   meeting   and  announced   the                                                              
consideration of SB  55. He noted that this is  the second hearing                                                              
and there is a proposed committee substitute (CS).                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:19:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COSTELLO moved  to adopt  the work  draft CS  for SB  55,                                                              
version 30-LS0119\N, as the working document.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:20:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation of the changes.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:20:18 PM                                                                                                                    
JORDAN  SHILLING,  Staff,  Senator   John  Coghill,  Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature,  explained  that  since   the  last  hearing  several                                                              
agencies offered  technical changes  to SB  55. He clarified  that                                                              
the  amendments   are  intended   to  smooth   out  some   of  the                                                              
implementation   issues  and   drafting  errors;   they  are   not                                                              
recommendations  from  the  Alaska   Criminal  Justice  Commission                                                              
("Commission").                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  directed attention  to Section  4, which  amends the                                                              
misdemeanor  drug possession  statute.  He  explained that  Senate                                                              
Bill 91 reduced  simple possession of a controlled  substance to a                                                              
class  A  misdemeanor,  but  it   failed  to  make  all  forms  of                                                              
possession  a misdemeanor.  For  example, it  did  not repeal  the                                                              
statute  that  makes  it  a felony  to  recklessly  possess  drugs                                                              
around schools  or on a  school bus or  near a youth  center. This                                                              
corrects  the oversight and  references the  two additional  forms                                                              
of felony possession.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  asked what the penalty is  for possession of                                                              
hashish.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  replied  hashish  is  a  schedule  IIIA  controlled                                                              
substance  and possession  would  be a  class  A misdemeanor.  The                                                              
distribution  and manufacture  are both felonies.  He deferred  to                                                              
the Department of  Law any discussion about whether  the agency is                                                              
pursuing  prosecutions   since  that  conflicts  with   the  voter                                                              
initiative and the language in Title 17.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  directed attention  to Section  7, which  aligns the                                                              
restitution  requirements for  suspended entry  of judgment  (SEJ)                                                              
and  suspended imposition  of sentence  (SIS).  He explained  that                                                              
current statute  says that the order  to pay restitution  in a SIS                                                              
is  not   discharged  once  the   requirements  of  the   SIS  are                                                              
completed.  It  was  an oversight  that  the  suspended  entry  of                                                              
judgment statute that  was created in Senate Bill 91  did not make                                                              
a  similar  stipulation.  Section  7 corrects  the  oversight  and                                                              
clarifies that  the order for  restitution is not  discharged once                                                              
the SEJ proceeding is dismissed.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Section 8  Clarifies that  imprisonment may  not be imposed  in a                                                              
Suspended Entry of Judgement.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Section 9 clarifies  that a person who has  successfully completed                                                              
probation and  the requirements of  a Suspended Entry  of Judgment                                                              
is  not convicted  of  a  crime. Again,  the  SEJ  is supposed  to                                                              
largely mirror the  SIS, with a few differences. One  of the major                                                              
differences  between  the two  is  that SEJ  was  not intended  to                                                              
appear  in CourtView.  The notion  was to allow  an individual  to                                                              
legally, factually  say on an employee application  that they have                                                              
not  been convicted.  He  said there's  been  some question  about                                                              
that and  this CS  clarifies that  an individual whose  proceeding                                                              
has  been discharged  under an  SEJ has  not been  convicted of  a                                                              
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  said Sections  12 and 13  are statutes  that require                                                              
certain  information   to  be  given   to  the  respondent   of  a                                                              
protective  order.  This  includes  the  potential  penalties  for                                                              
violating  the protective  order. That  is a  class A  misdemeanor                                                              
and the  penalty is up  to a year in  prison and the  maximum fine                                                              
is $25,000.  It is an  oversight that the  form the  respondent is                                                              
given still says  the maximum fine is $10,000. Senate  Bill 91 was                                                              
amended on  the House floor increasing  the maximum penalty  for a                                                              
class A misdemeanor from $10,000 to $25,000.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He opined that  the implications of that floor  amendment on other                                                              
parts  of  the   statute  weren't  analyzed  at   the  time.  This                                                              
important cleanup  item allows  the respondent  to know  that they                                                              
could  be fined  up  to $25,000  if  they violate  the  protective                                                              
order.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING advised  that Section 16 adds to the  list in statute                                                              
the persons  under age 21 who may  be referred to and  accepted in                                                              
the  Department  of  Health and  Social  Services  Alcohol  Safety                                                              
Action Program  (ASAP). These two  Title 4 references  should have                                                              
been  listed in  the  statute after  Senate  Bill  65 passed  last                                                              
year.  They  were overlooked  -  probably  because the  two  bills                                                              
passed at the same time, and this corrects the omission.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING explained  that Section  17 deletes  a statute  that                                                              
was  inadvertently repealed  in the  last CS.  This corrects  that                                                              
error.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:28:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  COGHILL   listed  the   individuals  available   to  answer                                                              
questions and  asked if the  committee was comfortable  moving the                                                              
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MEYER asked  about the fiscal impact of  these changes and                                                              
noted that he didn't have a copy of the fiscal note.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING said  the fiscal note isn't in members'  packets, but                                                              
the general  understanding is that  the changes will  not increase                                                              
the fiscal impact on the Department of Corrections (DOC).                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  COGHILL asked  Senator  Meyer if  he  wanted to  wait on  a                                                              
fiscal note before moving the bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MEYER answered no.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  advised that the next  committee of referral  is the                                                              
Finance Committee.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:30:20 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COSTELLO  moved to  report the CS  for SB 55,  version 30-                                                              
LS0119\N,  from  committee  with  individual  recommendations  and                                                              
attached fiscal note(s).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:30:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  COGHILL  removed  his  objection  to adopting  the  CS  and                                                              
announced  that   CSSB  55(JUD)   is  reported  from   the  Senate                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.