Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/2007 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| SB89 | |
| SB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD)
"An Act relating to requiring electronic monitoring as a
special condition of probation for offenders whose offense
was related to a criminal street gang."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:11:04 AM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, the bill's sponsor, explained that
this legislation would require gang members on probation or
parole to wear electronic monitoring ankle bracelet devices.
Increased gang activity in and around the Anchorage area in
recent years and the concern that such activity would spread to
other areas of the State were factors in this effort.
Senator Wielechowski reported that 122 gang related cases were
reported in 2006 and 20 have been reported to date in 2007.
Senator Wielechowski informed that this legislation, which is
modeled on the "innovative approach" San Bernardino California
has taken to deter gang activity, is an effort to address
citizens requests that "something be done". Requiring gang
members on parole or probation to wear electronic ankle
monitoring devices has proven to be a successful deterrent in
San Bernardino.
Senator Wielechowski explained that the movements of the
individual wearing the ankle bracelet would be tracked by global
positioning system (GPS) technology.
Senator Wielechowski noted that several monitoring options were
available, including one that could trigger an alarm and alert
the probation officer if the parolee or probationer entered a
restricted zone, such as a high school. The probation officer
could either contact the parolee or send police to the area. He
stressed that GPS monitoring systems have been successful in
prohibiting gang members on parole or probation from re-
associating with other gang members.
Senator Wielechowski advised that the Anchorage Police
Department, the Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage
School District considered this legislation a top priority".
Letters of support from the Anchorage and Fairbanks Police
Departments are included in Members' packets [copies on file].
"They recognize that it's better to nip this problem in the bud
rather than see it spread into outlying areas." He thought it
unlikely that the gang problems being experienced today in the
State would have been foreseen 20 years ago.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to the bill's indeterminate fiscal
note. Two types of expenses are associated with this program.
The first is the cost of the ankle monitoring device, which
ranges from eight dollars to $17 per day. That cost "would be
paid by the parolee or probationer.
Senator Wielechowski identified the second expense as being the
cost of monitoring individuals. The original version of the bill
called for "continuous monitoring". That effort would require
having a person monitor paroled or probationary gang member's
movements 24 hours a day. One individual could realistically
monitor 15 to 20 individuals. Either police or a probation
officer would respond the moment an individual traveled into a
prohibited zone.
9:15:25 AM
Senator Wielechowski communicated that the Senate Judiciary
Committee considered continuous monitoring to be too expensive,
and opted for computer monitoring rather than live monitoring.
Computer monitoring technology has advanced to a level that
could easily monitor of up to 100 individuals. This system would
send an alarm to an authorized individual via a small
communications device, such as a Blackberry, when someone moved
into a restricted area. That individual could either call the
offending individual or send a probation officer or a police
officer, depending on the severity of the situation.
Senator Wielechowski stated that the Judiciary Committee
supported a more passive monitoring approach primarily to
contain program costs. The analysis section of the Department of
Corrections indeterminate fiscal note #5 depicted the costs
associated with each of the three monitoring options. The costs
ranged from $157,000 to $195,000.
9:17:09 AM
Senator Olson asked whether those were annual costs.
Senator Wielechowski affirmed.
Senator Olson inquired to the length of time a probationer would
be required to wear a monitoring device.
Senator Wielechowski advised that the length of an individual's
probation or parole period would be the determining factor.
9:17:46 AM
Senator Dyson understood that, to date, the State has not
experienced "classic patterns" of gang activity such as turf
wars or "the control of a particular criminal activity" such as
drug distribution or prostitution.
Senator Dyson declared that this technology could be useful in
monitoring individuals who had committed other types of crimes
such as sexual assault and domestic violence. To that point, he
asked the reason that the scope of the bill was limited to
individuals associated with gang activity.
Senator Wielechowski agreed that the devices could be effective
in controlling other crimes. They have been successful in other
places in deterring "sexual offenders; particularly sex
offenders of little children". The devices could be programmed
to alert authorities when the wearer crossed into a place such
as a school zone.
Senator Wielechowski qualified that the bill's focus on gang
related offenders was strictly in consideration of cost. While
he would not object to expanding the scope of the bill to
include other criminal activities, he cautioned that doing so
would significantly increase the fiscal note.
Senator Wielechowski suggested that monitoring parolee and
probationer activities be considered a first step. If
successful, it could be expanded to include other offenses.
9:19:49 AM
Senator Dyson concluded from discussions with law enforcement
personnel that gang related activities in Alaska were not
geographically centered and is spreading outside of the area
where the parolee or probationer might reside. Thus, effective
monitoring activities might be limited.
Senator Dyson asserted that restraining orders on domestic
violence (DV) "have very little demonstrated effectiveness on
keeping the abusers from going where they shouldn't go". Law
enforcement often responds after the "order has been violated
and or the damage is done…" Thus, while he thought that this
legislation would assist in curtailing gang related activities
in the future, he thought "it would have marginal affect on the
criminal gang activity now". The monitoring device "could be
hugely helpful, particularly in DV cases and the other ones
where somebody has been terrorized by sexual assault and has no
clear way without this of knowing where their perpetrator is in
relationship to them".
9:21:23 AM
Senator Wielechowski agreed that this type of monitoring would
be effective in addressing DV cases. Nonetheless, utilizing the
device to address gang related activities was the top priority
of the Anchorage and Fairbanks Police Departments, the Anchorage
School Board, and the Municipality of Anchorage including people
in his Senate District. He stressed that monitoring gang related
parolees and probationers would be a "strong deterrent" in
containing gang related activities.
9:22:14 AM
Senator Thomas asked whether research has shown that monitoring
paroled gang members is effective in reducing the pressure on
such an individual to re-associate with a gang.
Senator Wielechowski communicated there being "strong indicators
that when gang members get out of jail, there is a tremendous
tremendous peer pressure" to rejoin the gang. However, research
indicates that gang members seek to avoid having someone who is
being monitored around them, as that person's movements could be
tracked. This has assisted the paroled gang member "to get back
into society" and distance themselves from a gang.
Senator Thomas asked whether the cost of expanding the bill to
include the monitoring sex offenders had been investigated.
Senator Wielechowski replied in the negative.
9:23:50 AM
SHARLEEN GRIFFIN, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, spoke to the Department's
indeterminate fiscal note #5. The costs of three different types
of monitoring options were depicted in the fiscal note analysis.
The experience of San Bernardino with the continuous monitoring
system or "active GPS" monitoring" is one monitor per 15
offenders. The expense associated with that system is likely the
reason the Senate Judiciary Committee supported replacing that
system with another monitoring option.
Ms. Griffin explained that "a Passive GPS system with intensive
supervision" would allow a probation officer to monitor 20
probationers. This system was not "real time" though. It would
download a tracking of the probationer or parolee's movements
every 24 hours. However, this system could be programmed to
alert the probation officer "in real time" if the parolee
entered a restricted zone.
Ms. Griffin stated that the third option, Passive GPS without
intensive supervision, would require one probation officer per
40 offenders.
Ms. Griffin stated that fiscal note #5 is an indeterminate
fiscal note because the type of monitoring system and therefore
the number of parolees who would be monitored is unknown.
9:25:42 AM
Senator Elton asked whether the use of the devices would be
limited due to availability.
Ms. Griffin understood otherwise. The State could contract with
a provider for whatever number was required. She could
investigate this further if desired.
Senator Elton asked that the issue be further reviewed. He also
inquired as to which communities could utilize the devices.
Ms. Griffin communicated that electronic monitoring (EM) devices
are currently being utilized in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan,
and Kenai. She would investigate whether there were areas in the
State in which EM devices would not work.
Senator Elton inquired to the process for determining who would
be required to wear the monitoring device.
Ms. Griffin responded that the Department currently used EM
devices "as a form of incarceration". The Department was
uncertain as to the number of individuals the Court would
identify for this program.
Senator Elton asked, for sake of clarity, whether the Alaska
Court System or the Department of Corrections would make the
determinations.
Ms. Griffin understood that the Court would make the
determinations. Further questions in this regard should be
directed to the Department of Law.
9:28:10 AM
Senator Wielechowski informed the Committee that, in order to
have an individual wear the EM device, an aggravating factor
must be proven in Court. In other words, it must be proven that
the defendant had been involved in an offense or benefited from
the activity of a criminal street gang.
9:29:07 AM
CHUCK COPP, Chief of Police, Kenai Police Department and Member,
Anchorage Violent Crimes Task Force Law Enforcement
Subcommittee, testified via teleconference from an offnet
location. He noted that the Anchorage Violent Crimes Task Force
was formed to specifically address youth and gang violence in
the city.
Chief Copp voiced his support for the bill. EM is a proven tool
in many states in monitoring violent crime parolees and
probationers. It has specifically been beneficial in allowing
probation officers to monitor the activities of 17 to 22 year
olds as it has allowed officers to "provide positive
reinforcement when their behavior patterns are in compliance".
This age group is "amenable to positive reinforcement when
behavioral patterns do change".
Chief Copp affirmed that the EM device is a deterrent to re-
associating with a gang as gangs do not welcome being monitored
and tracked. "It is a good tool".
Chief Copp informed the Committee that Kenai law enforcement, in
partnership with the Department of Corrections, has been
operating a pilot monitoring program for approximately two
weeks. Up to 15 individuals are effectively being monitored at
this time. Good data would be available in approximately 12
months. The program would be beneficial to other areas of the
State.
9:31:37 AM
Senator Dyson asked the type of individuals being monitored in
the Kenai program.
Chief Copp reminded that the pilot program had only been
operational for two weeks. Offenders being monitored to date
have committed lower level violent crimes such as assault or
crimes determined by the Court to be worthy of monitoring. The
program, which is undergoing an approximate two-month evaluation
period, is utilizing several types of technologies. The system
is functioning properly in regards to monitoring such things as
offender's locations and "the ability to monitor breath samples
remotely". The program would be modified to address higher level
offenders after this initial period.
Senator Dyson understood therefore that the Kenai pilot program
did not currently include gang related offenders. He asked
whether the higher level offenses being referred to would
include violent crimes with victims living in the area.
Chief Copp understood that the program would be expanded to
include individuals who had committed violent sex crimes and
violent assaults. A list of qualifiers has been developed by
adult-probationary officers and the Court.
Chief Copp informed that Kenai, at the moment, did not have many
gang related offenders in its prisons. Kenai law enforcement
officials have worked diligently with the Anchorage Police
Department to deter gang activity from spreading to the area.
Chief Copp reported that Kenai has taken "a very active role" in
implementing this pilot program. In addition to the goal of
having its own program in place, the hope is that this effort
would support the effort to implement a similar program in
Anchorage.
Senator Dyson asked whether the probationers would pay for the
program in Kenai.
Chief Copp was unsure of the manner in which probationers and
parolees would support the program.
9:34:58 AM
Senator Thomas asked whether the Court or law enforcement
agencies might be liable if, due to equipment failure or another
reason, a person being monitored committed a serious crime.
Chief Copp expressed that "government entities will always have
liability" since the nature of their task is to provide for
public safety. The technology has worked well in other parts of
the country and should work in Alaska. He did not anticipate
liability increasing beyond current experience.
9:36:12 AM
CAPTAIN GARDNER COBB, Anchorage Police Department, testified via
teleconference from an offnet location in support of the bill.
He suggested that the narrow scope of this bill would present
the opportunity to determine whether the program would work in
Alaska. If successful, the program could be expanded.
Captain Cobb supported the Active Monitoring method as it would
allow law enforcement officers to catch a parolee or probationer
in the act of violating. There is also value in changing an
individual's behavior and keeping them from re-associating with
a gang.
Captain Cobb attested to the gang problem in Anchorage. There is
no "inexpensive solution to mitigating the violence here".
Because he is the coordinator of the gang response effort in
Anchorage, he is aware of national efforts in this regard. "The
way to get the violence under control to begin with is that you
identify the gang leaders, the hard core members, the ones that
are committing most of the violence, and you put them in jail
for a long long time."
Captain Cobb also announced that in order to counter the
"conveyor belt" that is producing "these hardened thuds that are
committing the violent crimes", investments must be made to help
families at risk.
9:38:35 AM
Senator Dyson concluded that the likely outcome of this
monitoring effort would be to revoke probations rather than to
protecting public safety.
Captain Cobb shared that the experience in Anchorage is that
people out of jail on bail or on probation are committing
violent crimes. This program "would help mitigate that" by
keeping those individuals separate from people and areas which
influence that activity.
Senator Dyson understood therefore that law enforcement
officials would be able "to intercede" were a perpetrator to
approach a victim.
Captain Cobb clarified that the Department of Corrections would
conduct the monitoring activities. APD would respond if the
Department of Corrections required assistance.
9:40:29 AM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District and
Member, Anchorage Violent Crimes Task Force, testified via
teleconference from an offnet location in support of the
legislation. It would be both an intervention and a preventive
measure to having gang activities on high school grounds. Many
gang "wannabes" are in schools. This bill would assist in
deterring people who are out of high school from getting on
school grounds.
Ms. Comeau advised that many school students are currently
wearing ankle monitoring bracelets for a variety of reasons. The
School District has an excellent relationship with police
officers who work in the schools and probation officers. Passage
of this legislation would provide an additional tool through
which to deter gang related activities.
9:42:08 AM
Senator Elton asked whether the Judiciary Committee action of
including "parole" in the bill would require a title change. He
also asked whether that inclusion would affect the fiscal note.
9:42:29 AM
Senator Wielechowski clarified that the subsection pertaining to
parolees was added by the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the
request of the Department of Law. The expense associated with
that should be included in the fiscal note as it was developed
after that action occurred. The bill title might require a
change to reflect the addition of the parole subsection.
9:43:14 AM
Ms. Griffin stated that the Department would continue to support
an indeterminate fiscal note. The cost would be dependent on the
number of people being monitored and the type of monitoring
methodology.
9:43:38 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman observed that the fiscal note denoted there
being 96 offenders on probation with 36 of those under intensive
supervision. There were 50 juvenile probationers with another 23
pending. He asked whether the monitoring system would focus on
juveniles or adult probationer/parolees.
Senator Wielechowski communicated that the goal would be to
monitor anyone meeting the definition. While this could be
further addressed by the Department of Law or the Department of
Corrections, he thought that the program would apply more to
adults and juveniles tried and convicted as adults under law.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked which of the three monitoring methods was
preferred by the Department of Corrections.
9:45:14 AM
Ms. Griffin stated that the Department's position would depend
on the version of the bill adopted. The Department would likely
support the "passive GPS with intensive supervision" monitoring
system were the word "continuous" not included in the final
version of the bill. The "active GPS with intensive supervision"
monitoring system would be supported otherwise.
Co-Chair Stedman ordered the bill HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
9:46:07 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|