Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/02/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB200 | |
| SB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 210-VIOL. OF ALCOHOLIC BEV. LAWS/FORFEITURE
9:51:43 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 210 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor, introduced the bill and said
SB 210 makes changes to current law to better assist law
enforcement in protecting communities that have chosen to limit
the sale or possession of alcohol under local option laws.
HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, further explained
that in 2004, Congress established the Alaska Rural Justice and
Law Enforcement Commission, recognizing that many rural
communities face the highest alcohol abuse and family violence
rates in the country. The Commission presented recommendations
to the Alaska Legislature and SB 210 was drafted in response to
some of the recommendations of the Commission.
The bill would make it clear that alcohol transported by common
carrier in violation of local option laws could be seized and
forfeited. It allows the authority to seize property determined
to have been purchased or obtained through illegal importation
or sale of alcohol. It proposes to streamline forfeiture
proceedings for a person who may claim an interest in property
that has been seized. SB 210 provides a definition for
manufacture of alcohol in the statutes and clarifies
inconsistency in statutes as it relates to the quantity in
possession.
There are over 100 communities that have chosen a local option
to limit or completely ban the sale or possession of alcohol.
According to the Department of Public Safety's 2004 annual
report, bootlegging remains a lucrative business in rural
Alaska.
9:55:41 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS referenced Page 1, line 6, and the word
"municipality" and recollected a couple of years ago the
Legislature used the word "community" and allowed a community of
20 or more to adopt alcohol possession limits. He said at the
time he wondered why they would allow a community of 20 or more
people to make a decision as to what constituted a felony in
terms of possession, sale, and importation of alcohol.
9:58:05 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS called for public testimony.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
clarified that the term "established village" is the term of art
used in Title 4, which is being amended by Section 1 of SB 210.
The definition is found in AS 04.21.080(B)(9). An established
village means an area that does not contain any part of an
incorporated city or another established village. The definition
is very clear in statute.
10:00:18 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH referred to the forfeiture timeline. He
asked whether someone could explain the minimum timeline between
the seizure of alcohol and some property, and the sale of the
property.
10:02:02 AM
CAPTAIN ED HARRINGTON, Alaska State Troopers, responded and
informed the committee the way that property is currently seized
is through adjudication of the case through the court system.
Typically the property is not forfeited to the state until the
case is decided through the court, which typically takes between
6 and 12 months.
10:03:06 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Captain Harrington whether SB 210 would
change that timeline.
CAPTAIN HARRINGTON said it could. He said the bill would make
the procedure for seizing alcohol consistent with the procedure
that the state uses for seizing property related to drug
activity. It could shorten the timeframe for seizure if handled
in the civil manner.
10:04:33 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the witness to explain the changes in the
seizure timeframe.
CAPTAIN HARRINGTON replied he has not experienced using the
civil process and could not describe the steps. He said it was
cumbersome to use and the troopers generally forfeit the
property through the criminal prosecution of the case. He could
not say exactly how long the process would take.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that it was important to know the time
frame between the time of the arrest and the time that the
property would be disposed of. He said many people leave Alaska
in the winter and their property could be used for illegal
activity. He expressed concern that people should have the
opportunity to assert claim of their property before it is sold
by the state.
10:06:48 AM
CAPTAIN HARRINGTON offered his experience was that property
owners have always had ample opportunity to respond. The
Department of Public Safety (DPS) does a good job with keeping
people informed.
ANNE CARPENETI, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
the DOL worked with the sponsor on the bill and they support it.
The DOL already has the opportunity to proceed civilly to seize
and forfeit property used in violation of Title 4. The bill
doesn't give additional authority; it just defines some of the
procedures to make it clearer of how to proceed. Once the
property is seized and the DOL does not know who owns it, the
current statute dictates after 30 days the DPS would publish it
in the newspaper. People who are acting illegally will tend to
not claim that property.
10:08:48 AM
The new provisions clarify the length of time a person has after
the notifications have been posted in the newspaper, to file an
answer to the complaint filed in court, and they have recourse
to litigation to recover the property. SB 210 gives people a
timeline to file an answer in court.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Carpeneti the number of days after the
seizure that the property would be sold and the money forfeited
to the state.
MS. CARPENETI replied at a minimum it would take 30 days plus
the time that it takes the court to schedule the hearing, which
would usually take about 60 days. It would probably take 6-12
months.
10:10:45 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the bill would do anything to
interrupt the rights of lien holders.
MS. CARPENETI replied that it would not.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 3 lines 26-27 and asked
whether that language mirrored the language that dealt with drug
forfeitures.
MS. CARPENETI said lines 26-27 were actually a statement of
current law. Alaska state law presently allows the DOL to
proceed in connection with a criminal prosecution or in
connection with an "in rem" proceeding against the property
itself.
10:12:50 AM
MR. GRIFFIN testified in support of SB 210 and offered to answer
questions.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whether a fiscal note accompanied the
bill.
MS. BRAKES advised the fiscal note was pending.
MS CARPENETI reported the DOL does not believe SB 210 would have
a fiscal impact.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to report SB 210 out of committee with
individual recommendations and a pending fiscal note. Hearing no
objections, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|