Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/06/2023 01:30 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 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 66-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
1:32:55 PM 50
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the crime of
patron of a victim of sex trafficking; relating to the crime of
human trafficking; relating to prostitution; relating to
sentencing for sex trafficking, patron of a victim of sex
trafficking, and human trafficking; establishing the process for
vacating judgments for certain convictions of prostitution and
misconduct involving a controlled substance; relating to the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to
permanent fund dividends for certain individuals whose
convictions are vacated; and providing for an effective date."
He asked Angie Kemp to introduce the bill.
1:33:43 PM
ANGIE KEMP, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
Juneau, Alaska introduced SB 66 on behalf of the administration.
She stated that human and sex trafficking are forms of modern
day slavery. The term slavery is used universally to describe
the crimes. Human and sex trafficking involve manipulation of
another human for financial and personal gain, sometimes induced
by force, fraud and coercion. The human and sex trafficking
industry earns approximately $32 billion annually, surpassed
only by the illicit sale of controlled substances. The industry
preys on vulnerable people including children. The average age a
child is pulled into commercial sex is between 12 to 14 for
girls and 11 to 13 for boys. The estimated number of people
trafficked worldwide is 27 million.
MS. KEMP continued that human and sex trafficking is insidious
conduct that often occurs in private. She shared statistics from
the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) stating the number
of prosecutions in the United States increased by 84 percent
from 2011 to 2020. The number of referrals for human trafficking
offenses increased in the same time period by 61 percent.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the DOJ statistics broke down the state
versus federal prosecutions.
MS. KEMP replied that the statistics were only related to
offenses referred and prosecuted by DOJ.
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that she only described federal statistics
and no state data was collected.
MS. KEMP said that's correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the number of federal prosecutions of human
and sex trafficking in Alaska for the study period she
described.
MS. KEMP clarified that the federal prosecutions did not pull
statistics from individual states.
CHAIR CLAMAN queried the number of federal prosecutions from
2011 to 2020 were brought in Alaska.
MS. KEMP replied that she believed that the models provided that
level of detail and she would provide that information after the
hearing.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested the number of federal sex trafficking
prosecutions in Alaska. He asked for similar statistics from 10
more states for comparison. He specifically mentioned Hawaii,
Wyoming, and rural states such as Nevada.
MS. KEMP agreed to provide the information.
1:38:22 PM
MS. KEMP continued that human and sex trafficking does not
happen in a vacuum. The statistics remain consistent in the
reporting. Risk factors for sex trafficking victims include
substance use, runaways, homeless youth, unstable housing,
mental health concerns and migration. Risks for human
trafficking include migration, economic hardship, unstable
housing, criminal records and substance abuse. She pointed out
the overlap in risk factors. She cited the Polaris Project as an
entity that conducts research about trafficking and maintains a
hotline where individuals can call to report sex or human
trafficking. Much of the data presented is derived from the
Polaris Project. She reported that 42 percent of trafficking
victims are recruited by a family member, while 39 percent are
recruited by intimate partners. The legislation before the
committee attempts to address events that lead a person into
human and sex trafficking.
1:40:46 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the risk factor "migration" referred to
immigrants.
MS. KEMP replied yes, immigration migration is a universal risk
factor for both categories of trafficking. She continued that
the industry is driven by demand. One legislative goal is to
address the demand. She added that traffickers assess the
landscape when targeting victims. During the Covid-19 pandemic,
the use of social media as a means to identify trafficking
victims increased by 22 percent. She pointed out separate
statistics from Facebook and Instagram that show increases of
125 percent and 95 percent respectively. Trafficking
perpetrators are adapting with creative means to target victims.
MS. KEMP stated that the law attempts to ensure no safe passage
in Alaska" for sex trafficking. The proposed legislation ensures
that the state protects the most vulnerable citizens while
targeting the perpetrators creating the demand. The law
reorganizes the crimes allowing more effective tools for
prosecution and law enforcement. She provided an example of
classification changes that lead to the appropriate prosecution
of the most serious crimes.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked which section of criminal code sex
trafficking falls in currently.
MS. KEMP replied it's under AS 11.66.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the differences between Chapter 41 and
Chapter 66. He wondered if the change in chapters added to the
seriousness of the crimes or if the classification of felonies
was the reason for the change.
MS. KEMP replied that this changes the penalty for sex
trafficking in the first degree and it reorganizes the statute
and puts the crimes in AS 11.41. The change provides additional
protection for victims. She provided an example from AS
12.45.042, which offers protection when a psychiatric evaluation
can be ordered by the court. These changes are possible if the
trafficking is categorized as an AS 11.41 offense. That's one
reason for the chapter change. She added that AS 12.45.046
allows for a guardian ad litem to be appointed when a child is a
victim of an 11.41 offense or is a witness to an AS 11.41
offense. She continued that under AS 12.30.055, there is no
right to bail in a petition to revoke probation when the person
committed an AS 11.41 offense. By recategorizing the crime as an
AS 11.41 offense, victims have the benefit of all the additional
statutes calling out AS 11.41. She highlighted a provision in AS
12.55.011 allowing a victim to propose a negotiated sentence to
the court. That wouldn't be available under an AS 11.41 offense.
Under AS 12.55.027(g), an offender cannot receive electronic
monitoring credit toward their sentence if they are serving a
sentence pursuant to an AS 11.41 offense.
1:47:46 PM
MS. KEMP spoke further about the current legislation. She
mentioned the introduction of concrete concepts to better
understand recruitment. The concepts are designed to address
several risk factors that increase the likelihood that a person
will become the victim of sex trafficking. She provided an
example of a threat to destroy a persons passport. The example
is based on reports from the Polaris house and the DOJ. She
noted the concrete distinction in the legislation between sex
trafficking and human trafficking. Under current law, within
human trafficking there is a cross reference to sexual conduct.
The proposed legislation breaks out sex acts from labor and
adult entertainment. The bill increases penalties for several of
the offenses and focuses on the demand side of trafficking.
1:49:39 PM
MS. KEMP noted that the bill does not increase penalties for the
average sex worker. She explained that the prostitution statute
remains a B misdemeanor for people who are offering themselves
willingly. Penalties are increased for the purchaser (John), but
not for the prostitute. The legislation increases the penalty
for people convicted in the last five years. If an individual
has been convicted twice in the last five years of prostitution,
the potential penalty will be a C felony.
MS. KEMP continued that the legislation addresses the factors
that cause the victim to be at greater risk. She spoke about a
provision in the bill allowing a person to have an offence for
prostitution and or a controlled substance removed from their
record. The provision is an option when evidence is available
proving that the person was a victim of sex trafficking at the
time they created the offense. The person can appeal to have the
prostitution and or controlled substance conviction removed from
their record.
1:51:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN wondered about a hypothetical cocaine possession
conviction from 10 years ago. He wondered if the person could
sign an affidavit reporting the use of cocaine while the victim
of sex trafficking.
MS. KEMP replied that the court would require the standard of
proof by preponderance of the evidence. She clarified that
preponderance of the evidence is the lowest burden of proof
available under the law. She added that the law allows for the
prosecutor to have an opportunity to be heard and contest the
assertions of fact. She speculated that the process might
require more than an affidavit. The criminal rules will address
the burden.
1:53:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN hypothesized about older drug convictions lacking
circumstantial evidence. He pointed to concerns raised in public
testimony. His experience with the legislature showed minimal
support for expungement. He found it interesting that the
administration was proposing an open-ended expungement.
MS. KEMP responded that the committee might choose to place
additional limitations on the expungement proposal. The effort
is to help victims of human and sex trafficking.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the expungement provision works. He
wished to understand the problem the provision is meant to
address.
1:55:45 PM
MS. KEMP referenced research identifying reasons a person is
recruited into the industry. Examples include withholding or
threatening to withhold the use of controlled substances.
Persons who are dependent upon a controlled substance might be
further manipulated and sold. The provision is an attempt to
help people motivated by controlled substances to enter the
business.
1:56:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL appreciated the description. He agreed that some
people end up in the sex and human trafficking arena because of
drug addiction. He asked about other criminal endeavors that are
closely linked to a person forced into trafficking.
MS. KEMP replied that prostitution and controlled substance use
are the two predominant risk factors.
1:58:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed that people with drug addictions can find
themselves in compromised situations leading to human and sex
trafficking. He stressed that human and sex trafficking create
huge problems for society. He remarked about the notion of
passing the bill with the expungement opportunity. He viewed the
proposed legislation as an administrative policy decision to
advocate for expungement, which heretofore received no support.
He raised questions about the administration bringing the issue
to the committee. He asked about the process in the governors
office during the drafting of the legislation.
2:00:05 PM
MS. KEMP replied that as a former district attorney she
recognizes the procedural challenges ahead. She noted that the
expungement is contingent on proof that the person was a victim
of sex trafficking. She responded to the question about the
origin of the provision. She explained that she was not involved
in conversations catalyzing the provisions in the bill. She
opined that there were good reasons to make the expungement
opportunities available. She provided a real-life example during
her time as a prosecutor on cases related to child pornography.
She expounded that her job entailed verifying evidence and
reviewing the materials. She revealed that the observations were
alarming and difficult to forget. She found herself wondering if
it was worse to see the child victim crying out in pain or to
see the child victim engaging in the practice. Through
reconciliation of her thoughts and feelings, she revisits
similar provisions in the law that may someday benefit these
people.
MS. KEMP acknowledged the challenges and reasons why the
legislature might choose to add appropriate limitations to the
bill. She stated that the balance was difficult to strike. She
empathized with the legislators working through the process and
seeking a balance.
2:05:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed that reviewing disturbing child pornography
evidence is overwhelming. He asserted that the proposed
legislation does provide a balance. He understood that a person
trafficked in their childhood or early adulthood has diminished
ability to speak up about the abuse. The trafficking environment
encourages people to serve their time, only to be picked up by
the traffickers when they are released from prison. He reflected
on the notion that a person would come forward twenty years
following a conviction to seek expungement of a drug or
prostitution charge. He agreed that the system should support
the person and expunge the charges from their record with proper
evidence. He wished to avoid expungement of drug charges for
anyone with a 20 year old drug conviction.
2:07:03 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL wondered about the burden of proof allowing the
court to make the decision about expungement of prostitution or
controlled substance charges. She provided a hypothetical
example with a person who experienced sex trafficking at eight
years old and sought expungement twenty years later.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that an 8 year old with drug issues would
be overseen in juvenile courts. He explained that the issue
could get quite complicated.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that addiction does not resolve leaving a
person introduced to controlled substances at eight years old to
struggle with addiction.
2:08:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that he was raising questions because he
thought they were likely to arise.
MS. KEMP stated that Ms. Schroeder was available to provide the
sectional analysis.
SENATOR KIEHL discussed his time spent on a similar bill last
year. He wondered about comparing the two pieces of legislation
in committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the legislation Senator Kiehl referred to
was also introduced by the governor.
SENATOR KIEHL replied yes, the bill had a Senate Judiciary
Committee Substitute. He wondered how closely this proposal
reflects the work of the legislature last year.
CHAIR CLAMAN was not able to speak in response to last years
proposed legislation, but he suggested asking the invited
testifiers.
2:10:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked Ms. Kemp if she was prepared to answer the
query.
MS. KEMP deferred the question to her colleague, Ms. Schroeder.
2:10:28 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, responded to the question
from Senator Kiehl. She stated that the proposed legislation
resembles the version that passed out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee last year. She mentioned notable changes related to
the sex trafficking statutes. She stated that the prior
legislation delineated sexual contact and sexual penetration,
which SB 66 does not. The sections were returned to their
introduced language, which provides the major difference. She
agreed that the proposed legislation closely resembles that of
last year.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the difference between sexual contact
and penetration as related to the newly introduced legislation.
MS.SCHROEDER responded that the version that left the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee last year had higher levels of
charges for people forced to engage in sexual penetration versus
those forced to engage in sexual contact. She stated that SB 66
does not provide the delineation and instead considers all
coercion to engage in commercial sexual acts, as an unclassified
felony.
2:12:30 PM
MS.SCHROEDER paraphrased the sectional analysis for SB 66.
SB 66 CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
Section 1. This section makes a conforming change to
reflect the amendments made in section 4.
Section 2. This section makes confidential
communications between a victim of sex trafficking and
a victim counselor privileged.
Section 3. This section makes a conforming change to
reflect the amendments made in section 4.
Section 4. This section enacts a new offense series:
sex trafficking in the first, second, and third
degrees. In essence, a person is guilty of sex
trafficking in the first degree (unclassified sex
felony) if the person (1) uses force or the threat of
force to coerce someone to engage in a commercial
sexual acts; (2) traffics a person under the age of 20
or who is in the person's legal custody; or (3)
manages, supervises, or controls a prostitution
enterprise or a place of prostitution. A person is
guilty of sex trafficking in the second degree (class
A sex felony) if the person induces or causes another
person to engage in commercial sexual acts. Sex
trafficking in the first and second degrees would be
sentenced under the enhanced penalties for sexual
felonies and the person would be required to register
as a sex offender. A person is guilty of sex
trafficking in the third degree if the person provides
resources in furtherance of the commission of sex
trafficking. Sex trafficking in the third degree is a
class B felony if the value of the resources provided
in furtherance of trafficking is $200 or more or a
class C felony if the value of the resources is less
than $200. Sex trafficking in the third degree is
sentenced as a class B or C sex felony and is not a
registerable sex offense. This section also enacts the
new crime of "patron of a victim of sex trafficking."
A person is guilty of being a patron of a victim of
sex trafficking if they solicit commercial sexual acts
with reckless disregard that the person, they are
soliciting is a victim of sex trafficking, or if they
solicit sexual acts from a person under the age of 18.
If the person solicited is under 18 years of age, this
offense will be a class B sex felony. If the person
solicited is an adult, this offense will be a class C
sex felony. This crime would be sentenced under the
enhanced penalties for sexual felonies and the person
would be required to register as a sex offender.
Section 5. This section amends the crime of human
trafficking in the first degree to be an unclassified
felony when the person induces or causes a person to
engage in adult entertainment or labor through the use
of force against the victim or if the victim is under
the age of 20.
Section 6. This section denotes that human trafficking
in the first degree is an unclassified felony.
Section 7. This section amends human trafficking in
the second degree to include situations in which the
person induces or causes another person to engage in
adult entertainment or labor by (1) exposing or
threatening to expose confidential information or a
secret, whether true or false, tending to subject a
person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; (2)
destroying, concealing, or threatening to destroy or
conceal an actual or purported passport or immigration
document or another actual or purported identification
document of any person; (3) threatening to report a
person to a government agency for the purpose of
arrest or deportation; (4) threatening to collect a
debt; (5) instilling in another person a fear that the
actor will withhold from any person lodging, food,
clothing, or medication; (6) providing or withholding
controlled substances from the person; or (7)
deceiving the victim. Under this section, human
trafficking in the second degree is a class A felony.
Section 8. This section enacts the new crime of human
trafficking in the third degree. A person is guilty of
human trafficking in the third degree if they provide
resources in furtherance of human trafficking. Human
trafficking in the third degree is a class B felony if
the value of the resources is $200 or more and a class
C felony if the value of the resources is less than
$200. The section also clarifies that human
trafficking does not include normal caretaker
interactions with a minor (for example, asking a child
to shovel the driveway in exchange for an item of
clothing etc.). The section also clarifies current law
that corroboration of a victim's testimony is not
necessary. A jury has the ability to convict based on
a victim's testimony alone. This language is simply
relocated to AS 11.41 along with the rest of the sex
trafficking statutes. The section also makes clear
that any property used to commit sex or human
trafficking may be forfeited.
Section 9. This section clarifies that the crime of
coercion is only to be used if the sex trafficking or
human trafficking elements are not present.
Section 10. This section is a conforming change which
references the new sex trafficking statutes in the
prostitution statute.
Section 11. This section increases the penalty for
being a "John" from a class B misdemeanor to a class A
misdemeanor. Upon a third conviction within five years
for being a "John", the offense is again elevated to a
class C felony.
Section 12. This section states that if a "John" is
convicted under the class C felony provision in
section 11, any property used in order to commit the
offense may be forfeited.
Sections 13 and 14. These sections make conforming
changes related to the amendments made in section 4 -
9.
Section 15. This section adds the definitions that
apply to the prostitution statutes and the sex
trafficking statutes to the general definition statute
in Title 11 (AS 11.81.900).
Section 16. This section establishes that there is no
statute of limitations for sex trafficking and human
trafficking in the first and second degrees. However,
the statute of limitations for sex trafficking in the
third degree and human trafficking in the third degree
is ten years.
Section 17. This section makes conforming changes
reflecting the amendments to sex trafficking and human
trafficking.
Section 18. This section makes confidential
communications between a victim of sex trafficking and
a victim counselor privileged.
Sections 19 - 21. These sections make conforming
changes to sex trafficking and human trafficking
references that appear in those statutes.
Section 22. This section establishes that human
trafficking, as an unclassified felony, will be
sentenced between 5 and 99 years.
Section 23. This section amends AS 12.55.125(i) (the
sex offense sentencing statutes) incorporating the new
sex trafficking statutes and patron of a victim of sex
trafficking statute. This ensures that these offenses
will be subject to the higher sentences associated
with sex offenses. This section also corrects an error
in the citation of unlawful exploitation of a minor
under AS 11.41.455(c)(1) and indecent viewing of a
picture under AS 11.61.123.
Section 24. This section establishes mandatory minimum
terms of imprisonment for repeat "Johns." Upon the
second conviction with five years, the person will be
subject to a class A misdemeanor with a mandatory
minimum of 72 hours to serve. If the person is
convicted three times within five years, the person is
subject to the class C felony sentencing provisions.
Section 25. This section makes conforming changes to
the definition of "most serious felony" reflecting the
new sex trafficking statutes.
Section 26. This section adds sex trafficking and
patron of a victim of sex trafficking to the
definition of "sexual felony" and corrects the
citation to indecent viewing of a picture under AS
11.61.123.
Section 27. This section makes changes to the
definition of "serious offense" reflecting the new sex
trafficking and human trafficking statutes.
Section 28. This section adds sex trafficking in the
first and second degrees and patron of a victim of sex
trafficking to the list of registerable sex offenses.
This section also corrects the citation to indecent
viewing or production of a picture under AS 11.61.123.
Section 29. This section establishes a process whereby
a person who has been convicted of prostitution can
get that conviction or a conviction for possession of
a controlled substance vacated if they are able to
show that they were a victim of sex trafficking at the
time that they committed the offense. If the
conviction is vacated, the court system may not
publish records relating to the conviction on
CourtView nor may the Department of Public Safety
release that information as part of an employment
background check.
Sections 30 - 32. These sections add the prevention of
sex trafficking to the subjects that the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault should consider
and develop educational materials and programs for.
Sections 33 and 34. These sections make conforming
changes to the limitations on privileged
communications and add a victim of sex trafficking to
the definition of "victim."
Section 35. This section adds victims of sex
trafficking to the list of victims whom a crisis
intervention and prevention program is designed to
assist.
Section 36. This section adds victims of sex
trafficking to the list of victims who can receive
assistance from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board.
Section 37. This section allows the public defender to
represent an indigent person during a vacation of
judgment proceeding.
Sections 38 and 39. These sections make conforming
changes referencing the changes made to the sex
trafficking statutes.
Section 40. This section makes a person who has had
their conviction for prostitution vacated eligible for
a permanent fund dividend.
Section 41. This section authorizes administrative
subpoenas for sex trafficking in the first, second,
and third degrees.
Sections 42 - 45. These sections make conforming
changes referencing the changes made to the sex
trafficking statutes.
Section 46. This section is the repealer section.
Section 47. This section is the applicability section.
The majority of this bill will apply to offenses
occurring on or after the effective date.
Section 48. This section makes the vacation of
judgment sections of the bill effective on January 1,
2024.
Section 49. This section makes the remainder of the
bill effective July 1, 2023.
2:25:45 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked how "inducement" was defined.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the bill specifies that a person
must induce or cause an individual to engage in a commercial
sexual act. The definition of inducing or causing as they relate
to sex trafficking is found on Page 4 of the bill. She stated
that Page 4 includes a list of examples of inducing or causing a
person to engage in a commercial sex act. She added that the
list was not exhaustive.
2:27:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about moving both sex trafficking and human
trafficking from Chapter 66 to Chapter 41. He wondered about
changes to definitions or the basic structure of the bill.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that the human trafficking statutes were
already located in AS 11.41. The sex trafficking statutes were
indeed moved to AS 11.41. The department broadened the language
and increased penalties. The bill adds factors that are
currently not regularly considered by courts, so she believes it
was helpful to have those considerations defined in statutes.
She added that human and sex trafficking conduct were
manipulative and insidious, which led the administration to
outline the factors and raise the penalties.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Schroeder she was referred to the list on
Page 4 when she spoke about factors.
MS. SCHROEDER replied in the affirmative.
CHAIR CLAMAN understood the seven factors in the human
trafficking provision. He asked about federal prosecutions in
Alaska. He requested statistics related to the frequency of sex
and human trafficking prosecutions in Alaska over the last ten
years.
2:29:48 PM
MS. KEMP suggested that prosecutions for human and sex
trafficking in Alaska are infrequent and typically handled by
the Office of Special Prosecutions. She added that federal
prosecution data is unknown to her, but she offered to research
and provide further information to the chair and committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked why state-level prosecutions were infrequent.
MS. KEMP opined that the lack of reporting leads to infrequent
prosecution. Research shows that victims do not report human or
sex trafficking. She spoke about challenges in immigration
scenarios where language access is barred. One intervention is
to provide increased access to the court system for victims of
trafficking.
2:31:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed to the definition of "adult entertainment"
on Page 11. He noted that the bill that the Senate Judiciary
Committee passed last year referenced Title 23. He wondered
about substantive differences between the two bills in relation
to Title 23.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that the change was made last year,
because the definition of adult entertainment in Title 23
discusses actual or stimulated. The administration chose another
definition that does not include the word actual.
2:32:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 66.
2:32:33 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self, Juneau, Alaska testified in
opposition to SB 66. She stated that the legislation
criminalizes sex workers and clients. She suggested amending
Section 4 of AS 11.41 by adding new sections to read manages,
supervises, controls or owns either alone or with others a
prostitution enterprise or a place of prostitution. She added
that a place of prostitution means a place where a person
engages in commercial sex in return for a fee. She feared that
working indoors would become an unclassified felony. Sex workers
would be charged with unclassified felonies if they own a place
of prostitution. She stated that working in isolation makes
prostitutes vulnerable for robbery, assault, rape and murder.
The bill also criminalizes customers as sex traffickers. She
opined that clients should be granted the same immunity
protection as sex workers including the ability to report when
they are victims or witnesses to crimes such as sex trafficking.
Under SB 66, Alaska uses resources and funding to create
fictitious prostitution sting operations shaming Alaskan
residents before they are found guilty.
2:34:38 PM
KATIE BOTZ, self, Juneau, Alaska testified in support SB 66. She
thanked the administration for introducing the bill despite the
challenging nature of the topic. She stressed that passage of SB
66 was vital to protecting vulnerable populations. She
acknowledged that the effort was introduced in previous
legislation. She stated that she was a concerned constituent who
was sexually assaulted as a child. She found it vital to
increase penalties for sex trafficking.
2:37:12 PM
TERRA BURNS, self, Community United for Safety and Protections,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 66. She stated
that she was trafficked as a minor in Alaska and she worked in
Alaska's sex industry for two decades. She completed her
graduate research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the
lived experiences and policy recommendations of people in
Alaska's sex trade. She noted that she attempted to participate
in task force meetings when the bill was being created. She was
denied entry to the public task force meetings, which she
believes violates the Alaska Open Meetings Act.
2:38:49 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, self, Community United for Safety and Protection,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 66. She
informed the committee that she was a prostitute of 30 plus
years and she hoped to work for 30 plus more. She opposed the
legislation because it recriminalizes clients as sex
traffickers, which she finds disrespectful and inappropriate.
She stated that the fiscal note creates a slush fund to arrest
sex workers and clients under the guise of rescuing sex
trafficking victims. She opined that police crackdowns on sex
work do not reduce the incidence of sex trafficking. She opposed
referring to her clients as Johns as the term is pejorative.
2:41:22 PM
BELLA ROBINSON, Coyote RI, Rhode Island, testified in opposition
to SB 66. She stated that many sex workers and sex trafficking
victims are more afraid of the police than of violent
perpetrators. She noted that clients of sex workers are the
people most likely to encounter sex trafficking survivors but
recording them might mean criminal charges. She remarked that
trafficking victims are arrested, which subjects them to
judgement and the traumatic arrest and media coverage subject
them to discrimination.
2:44:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 66.
2:44:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that public testimony indicated that those
who purchase commercial sex are criminalized if they report sex
trafficking that they observed. He asked how that works in
Section 10 of the bill, immunity for reporting.
MS. KEMP stated that clients purchasing sex do not have separate
immunity, so they can be prosecuted if they attempt to file a
report under the current language.
2:45:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that Section 10 appears to say that a
person might not be prosecuted under (a)(1) of the prostitution
statute. He recalled that's buying sex.
MS. KEMP replied that (a)(1) applies to the person selling sex.
SENATOR KIEHL asked about individuals who weren't trafficked,
being guilty of trafficking if they collaborate. He asked for an
explanation of how those provisions work.
MS. KEMP replied that the issue with subsection (3) of sex
trafficking in the first degree is the requirement that the
prosecution proves the prostitution enterprise. A prostitution
enterprise means that they are organized to render sexual
conduct in return for a fee. The definition of sexual conduct
establishes that the fee cannot be shared via apportioned
spaces. She provided an example where two individuals selling
sex agree to rent a hotel room; they could not be prosecuted
under the theory of a prosecution enterprise. In the case of
prosecution, it cross references commercial sexual conduct,
which carves it out as a theory.
SENATOR KIEHL wished to make sure that the carve-out was not too
broad. He understood that if a person took a share of the
revenue, then the charge would fall under the criminal act.
MS. KEMP replied yes, and the process would be different than
the shared apportioned space carve-out.
2:50:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about paragraph (3) under AS 11.41.340 on
Page 3. He recalled the example stated in public testimony was
one person owns a two bedroom apartment and rents a spare room
to another prostitute. He asked if the apartment owner is
subject to sex trafficking in the first degree as a result of
owning the apartment and renting a room to another prostitute.
MS. KEMP replied no; the scenario depicted shared apportioned
spaces. She clarified that one person renting from another
person without facts to support any additional payment does not
meet the definition of provider of a place of prostitution.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about evidence that the price charged for
renting the apartment reflects payment to the roommate. He
hypothesized that if a room in a home routinely costs $1000, it
might be suspicious if the rent was $2500 monthly.
MS. KEMP replied that the language for commercial sex acts does
not include compensation for apportioned shared expenses. She
pointed to Page 11 and the term reasonable under the
circumstances. She offered hypothetically, if one individual was
charged $5000 for a one-bedroom apartment, a prosecutor might
make the argument that the rent was unreasonable, which does
meet the definition of commercial sexual act.
2:52:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN wondered if Ms. Nancy Meade might provide
statistics related to frequency of federal prosecutions for sex
trafficking in Alaska.
MS. KEMP responded to the concerns voiced in public testimony.
She referred to the opposition letter listing two principal
concerns related to changes in the criminal law. She stated that
the concern related to the patronage of sex trafficking would
unnecessarily expose individuals to heightened penalties. She
clarified that the prostitution statute under AS 11.66 remains
the same. For the patronage of victim sex trafficking, several
aspects must be proved prior to a criminal charge. Evidence for
sex trafficking involves proof that the individual knowingly
solicits commercial sexual acts with reckless disregard for a
person who is engaging in the sexual act. She supposed that the
public testimony concerns missed elements that the state must
show in order to meet that particular statute. She added that
the court must prove a mental state related to paragraphs (1)
and (2) under the patronage of victim sex trafficking.