Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/2000 10:16 AM House 067
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 67 - BAIL HEARING FOR SEX OFFENDERS Number 0001 CO-CHAIR TAYLOR called the Conference Committee on HB 67 meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Murkowski and Kerttula and Senators Taylor and Ellis. Before the committee is CSHB 67(JUD)am, the version passed by the House, and SCS CSHB 67(JUD), the version passed by the Senate. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt the proposed Conference committee substitute (CCS) for HB 67 labeled LS0197\V, Luckhaupt, 4/25/00. SENATOR ELLIS objected. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that the CCS removes Section 2 from SCS CSHB 67(JUD) and inserts a new Section 2. He pointed out that the bill packet contains two memorandums from Gerald Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services. Mr. Luckhaupt's memorandum [dated April 20, 2000] indicates that there are difficulties regarding the unclassified felonies of [AS] 11.41.410 and 11.41.434, which were included in subsection (1) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD). [Subsection] (1) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD) is in conflict with subsection (3) of the SCS CSHB 67(JUD). Mr. Luckhaupt's memorandum [dated April 19, 2000] indicates that although Section 2(b) of SCS CSHB 67(JUD) is constitutional, it is awkward. Co-Chair Rokeberg suggested that the new language in Section 2 of the proposed CCS would demand that [electronic monitoring] be reviewed as a condition of release, although it doesn't demand that it be done. Number 0232 CO-CHAIR TAYLOR referred to page 1, line 11, subsection (b) of the CCS. That subsection references AS 11.41.410, which has been deleted from the granting of bail provisions. Co-Chair Taylor said that section is a complete rewrite of the existing law. He inquired as to why AS 11.41.410 would be included [in subsection (b)] if that person is not allowed to have bail. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he did not have an answer to that. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR remarked that perhaps he could answer the question. He explained that Section 1 of CCS addresses release before trial. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this was brought to his attention by a situation in which the alleged violator plead no'lo [conten'dere] and was released. Therefore, the violator went from alleged to convicted due to his plea. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected that AS 11.41.410 is not included in Section 2 because that section addresses mandatory nonrelease. Number 0395 SENATOR ELLIS asked if [the cimmittee would hear] other comments from the Department of Corrections or the courts. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he had talked with Candace Brower, Parole Board Officer, Parole Board, Department of Corrections [DOC], who had offered to be present. However, Co-Chair Rokeberg offered to review [DOC's] two points of concern with this legislation. First, DOC is concerned that utilizing electronic monitoring may create an unlevel applicability because that type of monitoring is not available in certain areas of the state. In regard to that concern, Co-Chair Rokeberg indicated that the legislature [should be able] to expand that service where applicable. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG informed the committee that DOC's second area of concern is in regard to the [fact] that the department, per its current policy, doesn't release high risk offenders with electronic monitoring. However, Co-Chair Rokeberg pointed out that without providing the courts with this ability, they could release these [high risk offenders] without [any monitoring]. He related his belief that this would actually help monitor [a high risk offender's] activities rather than hinder, especially when the offender would have otherwise been released. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked, "I think the good thing here is that this expands, by legislative policy call, the electronic monitoring program." He believes that to be appropriate. Furthermore, as a six-year member to the House Finance subcommittee, he noted that it has been like pulling teeth to get DOC to adopt this program. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the courts had any comments. Number 0549 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska State Court System, stated that the court has no problems with the proposed language other than the aforementioned concern that this [type of monitoring] is not available in all areas of the state. In response to Co-Chair Taylor, Mr. Wooliver noted that he had a conversation with Justice Carpeneti yesterday and to Justice Carpeneti's knowledge he didn't believe electronic monitoring is available in Southeast Alaska. However, Justice Carpeneti was not certain and thus Mr. Wooliver offered to check again. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR informed the committee of a gentleman in Petersburg, who was convicted under the federal system and wore an ankle bracelet for about seven or eight months. Therefore, he questioned why the federal government could do electronic monitoring in such a remote location and the state could not. He pointed out that electronic monitoring is done through private enterprise not the police department; the police department merely receives the automatic alert if the person wonders outside the specified parameters. Co-Chair Taylor reiterated his disbelief as to why this would not be applicable statewide; if the same satellite works in Anchorage, why wouldn't it work in Kotzebue, Ketchikan, et cetera. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that he thought Ms. Brower mentioned Juneau [as one of the areas that has electronic monitoring]. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR commented that at least the amendment relieves a major portion of the fiscal note, which was of concern for the House. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to the new language on page 2, lines 25-28, of CCSHB 67 and asked if his prior interpretation was correct. In other words, does the language merely mean that the court shall consider requiring participation, but the court does not have to do that. MR. WOOLIVER agreed that is how he would read that language. Number 0735 LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), turned to the discussion regarding not wanting to make it easier to release people. She asked if the courts can already consider giving electronic monitoring. She referred to page 2, lines 19-20, and questioned whether providing this opportunity to use electronic monitoring would result in the feeling that these individuals can safely be released with the use of the electronic monitor. Therefore, she asked if, due to the availability of electronic monitoring, these individuals would be more likely to get released or less likely. She pointed out that AS 11.41.420 is sexual assault in the second degree, a class B felony that is a serious crime, and thus the desire would be to have such an offender to stay [incarcerated] versus having this opportunity to be released. Ms. Hugonin clarified her concern, "If they aren't already able to offer the electronic monitoring, and we're putting in statute that now they have to consider it, if that in fact wouldn't release more people than keep more people in jail." CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it is a good question, but he couldn't speculate as to the results of this legislation. He related his belief that this legislation illustrates the difficult job of the judge in reviewing the fact patterns and alternatives in each case. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR informed Ms. Hugonin that currently, the courts are releasing people under that condition [electronic monitoring]. He explained that this legislation was intended to tighten up those categories of crimes and conditions of release in order that there would be more people serving [jail time] not less and the time would be served earlier. The Senate added a provision, which was part of the original bill, that caused a fiscal note from the Department of Corrections. He remarked that the he believes the only way that the department could have an honest fiscal note is if the department believes more people will be [held in custody]. Therefore, the attempt has been to reach a compromise. Co-Chair Taylor related his belief that what will happen is that some of those people may still be released, but they will only be released with an electronic monitoring device. However, prior to this legislation those individuals probably would have been released to third party custody or another arrangement that is difficult to enforce. Co-Chair Taylor stated that it is his intent for this to enhance the overall level of surveillance and monitoring, while those that reside in areas that don't have access to electronic monitoring will remain incarcerated. He further remarked that [with the electronic monitoring] he believes more people are being put in or are being placed in a more secure program. Number 0998 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted her agreement [with Co-Chair Taylor]. She commented that the class B felonies could be excluded, although those felons are rarely going to be released anyway. CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG said, "To put something down there to effectuate Ms. Hugonin's concern would be a little bit gratuitous; wouldn't it? I mean, if we gave directions to the court here in the statute, 'Don't let them out, you weren't going to let them out anyway.'" CO-CHAIR TAYLOR replied, "Well, in essence you've done that. All this is just directions to the court ...." Co-Chair Taylor noted that the Senate only received powers of free conference on Sections 2 and 3. He asked if there was further discussion or comments. There being none, he announced that the chair would entertain a motion. Number 1077 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved that the committee [report] CCS HB 67 labeled LS0197\V, Luckhaupt, 4/25/00, [out of committee with individual recommendations]. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Therefore, CCS HB 67 was reported out of committee. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR pointed out that the committee needs to determine which fiscal note will be forwarded along with the CCS. JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the House had two fiscal notes from two different departments, both of which were indeterminate, while the Senate had only one fiscal note. It was determined that both the House and the Senate had a fiscal note from the Department of Corrections, but only the House had a fiscal note from the Public Defender's Office; it was indicated that all fiscal notes were indeterminate. CO-CHAIR TAYLOR asked if there was any objection to adopting the Senate's Department of Corrections fiscal note. There being none, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|