Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519

05/01/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:34:01 PM Start
01:34:53 PM HB49
04:18:40 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
<Pending Referral>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                        May 1, 2019                                                                                             
                         1:34 p.m.                                                                                              
1:34:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting                                                                      
to order at 1:34 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair                                                                                    
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Kelly Merrick                                                                                                    
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard                                                                                         
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
John  Skidmore, Director,  Criminal Division,  Department of                                                                    
Law;  Kelly   Goode,  Deputy  Commissioner,   Department  of                                                                    
Corrections;   Kelly    Howell,   Director,    Division   of                                                                    
Administrative  Services,   Department  of   Public  Safety;                                                                    
Representative Steve Thompson; Representative Matt Claman.                                                                      
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Katherine Monfreda, Director of Division of Statewide                                                                           
Services, Department of Public Safety.                                                                                          
HB 49     CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                             
          HB 49 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the meeting.                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 49                                                                                                             
     "An  Act  relating  to   criminal  law  and  procedure;                                                                    
     relating   to   controlled  substances;   relating   to                                                                    
     probation; relating to  sentencing; relating to reports                                                                    
     of  involuntary  commitment;  amending Rule  6,  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure; and  providing  for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
1:34:53 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
1:35:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  relayed  the committee  would  be  hearing                                                                    
public testimony for HB 49 at 5:00 p.m.                                                                                         
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW,  would  be  providing  a  sectional  analysis  for  the                                                                    
committee substitute  (CS) for  HB 49 that  came out  of the                                                                    
House Judiciary  Committee. Co-Chair Wilson directed  him to                                                                    
distinguish what  was in  the original  version of  the bill                                                                    
and the Judiciary version.                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore began  with Sections  and Section  2 found  on                                                                    
pages 1 through 3 of  the bill. The sections were conforming                                                                    
laws for  changes in the  drug laws  that came later  in the                                                                    
bill. They  were conforming changes made  to Alaska's murder                                                                    
statutes  that  referred to  drug  crimes.  It was  slightly                                                                    
different than what was in  the original version of the bill                                                                    
due to  the differences in  the drug laws. The  changes made                                                                    
in  each  of them  were  the  statute numbers.  The  numbers                                                                    
differed  between the  2 bills  because  of the  differences                                                                    
made  in  the  original  HB 49  and  the  Judiciary  version                                                                    
currently before the committee.                                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore   moved  to  Section   3  pertaining   to  the                                                                    
elimination of  the marriage  defense. The  marriage defense                                                                    
was  not  found  in HB  49  but  was  found  in HB  52.  The                                                                    
provision in  HB 49  was different  than that  of HB  52. He                                                                    
explained that  for certain  sexual assaults,  being married                                                                    
in Alaska  provided a complete  defense to an act  of sexual                                                                    
assault. It  occurred in various sections  of sexual assault                                                                    
that had to do with the  mental functioning of the victim at                                                                    
the time  of an  assault. Alaska  had certain  statutes that                                                                    
talked  about   when  a   victim  was   mentally  incapable,                                                                    
incapacitated, or unaware  that a sex act  was occurring. It                                                                    
was those  type of provisions  that made marriage  a defense                                                                    
in  current   Alaska  law.  He  described   the  concept  as                                                                    
outdated.  He argued  that the  issue  needed updating.  The                                                                    
bill  still allowed  marriage as  a defense  in 4  areas and                                                                    
eliminated  it in  2  instances. The  2  instances that  the                                                                    
marriage  defense  was  eliminated  was if  the  victim  was                                                                    
incapacitated or  if the  victim was unaware  a sex  act was                                                                    
occurring.  Both terms  were  defined  in statute.  Marriage                                                                    
defense was  left intact when penetration  or sexual contact                                                                    
between 2  people and  one of  the individuals  was mentally                                                                    
incapable and in the care of the other.                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore continued that in  statute [AS 11.41.470(4)], a                                                                    
person was mentally incapable when  they were suffering from                                                                    
a mental disease  or defect that rendered  them incapable of                                                                    
understanding  the nature  or  consequences  of the  persons                                                                    
conduct  including  the  potential  for  the  harm  to  that                                                                    
person.  He  clarified he  was  talking  about Subsection  4                                                                    
rather than 2  which he misstated. He used the  example of a                                                                    
person  suffering  from  dementia or  Alzheimer's  that  was                                                                    
placed  in  the  legal  care   of  their  spouse.  A  person                                                                    
suffering from dementia or  Alzheimer's, although they might                                                                    
not understand  the circumstances or nature  of the conduct,                                                                    
could  be a  victim because  -  the spouse  caring for  them                                                                    
could still  engage in sexual  behavior with them  even when                                                                    
the person did  not fully understand what  was happening. He                                                                    
used  his   grandmother's  situation  as  an   example.  His                                                                    
grandmother  had Alzheimer's  and did  not know  on a  daily                                                                    
basis who  his grandfather  was, who  her children  were, or                                                                    
who her grandchildren were. At  times, it would cause her to                                                                    
be  combative.  The bill  indicated  that  if it  was  their                                                                    
spouse that  was taking care  of them,  it was okay  for the                                                                    
person  to satisfy  their  sexual  desires or  gratification                                                                    
even  though   the  person  they   were  going   to  satisfy                                                                    
themselves with did not recognize  who they were or what was                                                                    
going on. HB 49 would allow the behavior.                                                                                       
Mr.  Skidmore  continued  that   what  was  removed  by  the                                                                    
provision had to  do with the person  that was incapacitated                                                                    
or  unaware.  A  person  was incapacitated  when  they  were                                                                    
temporarily incapable of appraising  the nature of one's own                                                                    
conduct. An example  would be when a  person was intoxicated                                                                    
and passed  out. Marriage  would no longer  be a  defense in                                                                    
that circumstance.  He thought  the bill was  a step  in the                                                                    
right direction.  The policy  decision that  the legislature                                                                    
would have to  make would be whether the bill  took the step                                                                    
far  enough.  In  the  other   bill  he  had  refenced,  the                                                                    
provision was eliminated  for all but sexual  assault in the                                                                    
fourth degree. Sexual Assault in  the fourth degree was when                                                                    
there   was   criminalized   sexual   behavior   between   a                                                                    
corrections  officer  and  somebody in  custody,  between  a                                                                    
Department  of Juvenile  Justice  Officer  with somebody  in                                                                    
custody, between a law enforcement  Officer with somebody in                                                                    
custody,  between  a  probation   officer  and  somebody  in                                                                    
probation,  or between  a  juvenile  probation officer  with                                                                    
somebody on probation. In those  situations, if the 2 people                                                                    
were married, then marriage could  be used as a defense. One                                                                    
person's  employment would  not criminalize  sexual behavior                                                                    
if  they  were  married.   Only  the  two  circumstances  he                                                                    
mentioned remained in the bill.                                                                                                 
Vice-Chair  Johnston  asked  how  the law  would  apply  for                                                                    
someone in a  coma. Mr. Skidmore responded that  a person in                                                                    
a  coma   would  be  considered  temporarily   incapable  of                                                                    
appraising the  nature of one's own  conduct. Marriage would                                                                    
not  be  a defense  to  someone  in  a  comma under  HB  49.                                                                    
Currently, under  law it was  a defense, but the  bill would                                                                    
change it for a coma.                                                                                                           
Vice-Chair Johnston clarified that  a coma meant a temporary                                                                    
condition or a vegetative  state. Mr. Skidmore restated that                                                                    
the  definition of  incapacitated was  temporarily incapable                                                                    
of appraising the nature of  one's own conduct or physically                                                                    
unable to express willingness to  act. It was different from                                                                    
suffering  from  a mental  disease  or  defect. He  did  not                                                                    
believe a  coma would be  characterized as a  mental disease                                                                    
or defect.                                                                                                                      
Representative  Josephson  did  not  believe  the  provision                                                                    
solved the issue. He asked  about a person with dementia who                                                                    
might initially  consent then not recall  giving consent. He                                                                    
asked Mr. Skidmore to comment.                                                                                                  
Mr.   Skidmore   thought    Representative   Josephson   was                                                                    
describing someone who at one  point had consented but could                                                                    
not recall  consenting later on.  In such an  instance, when                                                                    
he  thought  of  prosecution, he  typically  walked  himself                                                                    
through  how the  criminal justice  system worked.  He began                                                                    
with  the report  to law  enforcement. He  looked at  how an                                                                    
incident was  reported to  law enforcement  as a  crime that                                                                    
needed  to be  investigated. Once  an incident  was reported                                                                    
and investigated,  it would be referred  to the prosecutor's                                                                    
office.  He would  then look  at how  the prosecution  would                                                                    
demonstrate how  a sexual  act occurred  if the  person that                                                                    
was  the  victim  had  mental   issues  and  had  difficulty                                                                    
remembering  that  they   provided  consent.  Assuming  that                                                                    
hurdle could be cleared, the  prosecution would have to have                                                                    
confidence  that  the person  with  the  mental illness  was                                                                    
capable of providing consent. Another  question would be, in                                                                    
the scenario  where a person  had a mental  illness, whether                                                                    
they  were  capable of  providing  consent.  The choice  was                                                                    
whether the  state would have  a law that would  protect the                                                                    
individual  or whether  the caretaker  would  be allowed  to                                                                    
have  sex with  their spouse.  He returned  to his  personal                                                                    
experience  with   his  grandmother  with   Alzheimer's.  He                                                                    
understood the point Representative Josephson was making.                                                                       
Representative  Josephson  indicated  that it  was  not  his                                                                    
point, but one that had  been raised. Mr. Skidmore corrected                                                                    
himself, that  it was  a point  that had  been raised  and a                                                                    
policy call the legislature would have to make.                                                                                 
Representative  Knopp referred  to  Section 3,  line 21  and                                                                    
line  27  of the  bill  where  it mentioned  separation  and                                                                    
divorce. He wondered  about a couple that  was separated and                                                                    
whether marriage defense would  apply. Mr. Skidmore referred                                                                    
to Section 3(a)(1),  lines 24-25, and pointed  out that they                                                                    
were  the same  laws that  existed previously.  He furthered                                                                    
that  what was  being changed  began in  Section 2  where it                                                                    
talked about  being married  to a  person and  neither party                                                                    
having  filed with  the court  for  separation, divorce,  or                                                                    
dissolution of the marriage. He  clarified that if there was                                                                    
not  paperwork filed  in the  courts indicating  separation,                                                                    
divorce, or  dissolution, then marriage  could be used  as a                                                                    
1:52:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  understood how marriage defense  went back                                                                    
significantly  in  time.  He   pointed  out  that  both  the                                                                    
governor's version of the bill  and the version that emerged                                                                    
from   the    House   Judiciary   Committee    reduced   the                                                                    
circumstances in which the marriage  defense would apply. He                                                                    
wondered if  it was fair  to say that the  Judiciary version                                                                    
was  less restrictive.  Mr.  Skidmore  responded that  Vice-                                                                    
Chair Ortiz's statement was accurate.                                                                                           
Vice-Chair  Ortiz   asked  what  prompted  the   change.  He                                                                    
wondered if  there had  been a  significant increase  in the                                                                    
number  of cases.  Mr.  Skidmore  responded that  Vice-Chair                                                                    
Ortiz was correct.  In the previous 2 to 3  years, there had                                                                    
been  several cases  reported to  the department  by victims                                                                    
claiming to  have been sexually assaulted  by their spouses.                                                                    
The Department  of Law  had to inform  the victims  that the                                                                    
law stated  that it  was not a  crime. Many  things occurred                                                                    
simultaneously  bringing  the  issue to  the  forefront  and                                                                    
contributed  to  the  department's  decision  to  propose  a                                                                    
change in law.                                                                                                                  
1:54:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Merrick  noted   that   Mr.  Skidmore   had                                                                    
mentioned  occupational  scenarios  in  which  the  marriage                                                                    
defense  was  not a  defense.  Mr.  Skidmore responded,  "In                                                                    
which marriage is a defense."                                                                                                   
Representative Merrick  clarified, "So, is that  if they are                                                                    
under the  care of that  person?" Mr. Skidmore  responded in                                                                    
the negative. He referred to  the applicable statute, sexual                                                                    
assault in  the fourth  degree (AS 11.41.427).  He indicated                                                                    
that Subsection (a)(1-5) created  a series of crimes. Sexual                                                                    
assault in the third  degree (AS 11.41.425(a)(2-6)), had the                                                                    
same relationships. The difference  between the two was that                                                                    
the  higher level  encompassed  sexual  penetration and  the                                                                    
lower  level   was  limited  to  sexual   contact.  In  both                                                                    
scenarios,  for   example,  it   would  be  illegal   for  a                                                                    
corrections  officer  to  engage in  sexual  penetration  or                                                                    
sexual contact  with someone in  the care of  the Department                                                                    
of Corrections (DOC) because it  was considered an imbalance                                                                    
of power.  Marriage would be  a defense to  those particular                                                                    
crimes. Therefore, in the instance  of a corrections officer                                                                    
being married  to a  person in the  custody of  DOC, whether                                                                    
imprisoned or  on electronic  monitoring, marriage  would be                                                                    
an  acceptable  defense.  The elimination  of  the  marriage                                                                    
defense  helped to  define  where it  was  not acceptable  -                                                                    
under   circumstances   where   a  person   was   incapable,                                                                    
incapacitated, or unaware or under  the care of a spouse. It                                                                    
would be  illegal for a spouse  to engage in sex  with their                                                                    
spouse in  the instance  where only the  spouse knew  that a                                                                    
person was incapacity and in their care for protection.                                                                         
Representative Merrick  asked how  often there was  a parole                                                                    
officer  married to  a  parolee. She  thought  it made  more                                                                    
sense that  person would  be under the  direct care  of DOC.                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  responded that  it  would  be a  conflict  of                                                                    
interest to  assign a  parole officer to  their spouse  as a                                                                    
parolee.  He thought  it was  broad  enough to  say that  it                                                                    
could  not be  any parole  officer for  any parolee  even if                                                                    
they were not direct supervision.                                                                                               
1:58:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to Section  4 -  Section 6  which dealt                                                                    
with online enticement.  The sections were not  found in the                                                                    
original  version of  HB  49. However,  they  were found  in                                                                    
HB 52. Currently, if  a person tried to entice  a minor over                                                                    
a computer online  to engage in sexual activity  it would be                                                                    
criminalized.  If the  same person  tried to  engage with  a                                                                    
minor  face-to-face it  would not  be  criminalized. In  the                                                                    
committee  substitute enticing  a minor  was not  limited to                                                                    
online activity,  it applied to  enticing a minor  to engage                                                                    
in sex.                                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore  moved to Section  7 - Section 23  which talked                                                                    
about the  removal of adjusting  for inflation.  The removal                                                                    
of  adjusting  the threshold  between  a  misdemeanor and  a                                                                    
felony  by  inflation  every  5 years  was  removed  in  the                                                                    
current version the committee had in  front of them in HB 49                                                                    
and  was removed  in the  original version  of HB  49. There                                                                    
were two  differences found  in Section  14 and  Section 17.                                                                    
Those versions  were not  found in  the original  version of                                                                    
HB 49, and  some additional language  was added.  Section 14                                                                    
added an identification document -  the term to the crime of                                                                    
misuse  or  fraudulent  use  of   an  access  devise  or  an                                                                    
identification  document.  The  language   was  not  in  the                                                                    
original version. Section 17, pages  9-10, added a new crime                                                                    
for  possession  of  vehicle tools.  Possession  of  vehicle                                                                    
theft tools was similar to  a statute that was possession of                                                                    
burglary  tools. Particular  items  frequently  used by  car                                                                    
thieves were  described and became criminalized.  It was not                                                                    
originally found in HB 49 but was in the Judiciary version.                                                                     
2:01:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Josephson   welcomed    Mr.   Skidmore   to                                                                    
editorialize  the section.  Mr.  Skidmore  relayed that  the                                                                    
bill noted motor  vehicle theft tools such as a  slim Jim, a                                                                    
master  key, an  altered or  shaved key,  a trial  or jigger                                                                    
key, a  lock puller, or  an electronic unlocking  devise. He                                                                    
thought  the provisions  would provide  additional tools  to                                                                    
law enforcement and to the  prosecution to try to combat the                                                                    
rise in vehicle thefts that had occurred across the state.                                                                      
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked Mr.  Skidmore to  comment on  all of                                                                    
the  sections   with  changes  including  Section   14.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore replied that Section 14  was found on page 7 having                                                                    
to do with  fraudulent use of an access  devise. The section                                                                    
added  an identification  document  that was  used with  the                                                                    
intent to defraud. It was an excellent addition.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked if  finding  a  driver's license  on                                                                    
someone  other than  who it  belonged to  was okay  if fraud                                                                    
could not  be proven. Mr.  Skidmore responded that  a person                                                                    
possessing someone else's identification  would have to have                                                                    
the  intent  to  commit  a   fraud.  Simply  having  another                                                                    
person's driver's  license would not  be a crime  by itself.                                                                    
He could have his wife's  driver's license or his daughter's                                                                    
license.  He could  find someone's  driver's license  on the                                                                    
ground intending to  return it. None of  those examples were                                                                    
crimes. He would have to  possess an identification with the                                                                    
intent to commit a fraud with it.                                                                                               
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  how intent  would  be  proven.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore  relayed that  the  person would  have  to use  the                                                                    
access  devise or  obtained property  or  services with  the                                                                    
knowledge that the access  devise or identification document                                                                    
was  stolen or  forged. The  person would  have to  know the                                                                    
access  devise   or  document   was  expired,   revoked,  or                                                                    
canceled, or any  other reason that the person's  use of the                                                                    
access device  or identification document  was unauthorized.                                                                    
It  had to  be that  a  person had  to use  the document  to                                                                    
commit a fraud.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson relayed a  personal experience. Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
reiterated  that  a person  would  have  to use  a  driver's                                                                    
license with the intent to commit a crime or fraud.                                                                             
2:04:26 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  moved to Section  24 on  page 12 of  the bill.                                                                    
The  section talked  about aggregating  the value  of thefts                                                                    
over a  period of time to  allow the aggregated value  to be                                                                    
used  in  a  felony  or  higher-level  charge.  The  section                                                                    
specifically   talked  about   the  aggregation   being  for                                                                    
property being taken from a  commercial establishment over a                                                                    
6-month  period. The  amount was  between  $750 and  $25,000                                                                    
(the threshold  to put a  crime into a felony  level). There                                                                    
was already  a statute  in place that  allowed the  state to                                                                    
aggregate  the  value  of   property,  but  that  particular                                                                    
statute was not  expressed in the way the one  in section 24                                                                    
was  regarding  it  being  over a  6-month  period.  It  was                                                                    
intended  to   help  commercial  establishments   that  were                                                                    
repeatedly  seeing someone  take a  little bit  one day  and                                                                    
come back  the next.  The repeat  thief's offenses  could be                                                                    
aggregated  to the  point of  being a  felony which  had the                                                                    
potential for more serious  consequences. The statute seemed                                                                    
to  be a  good idea.  He was  unclear how  it would  work in                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  provision was included in the                                                                    
original bill. Mr. Skidmore responded that it was not.                                                                          
2:06:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore continued to Section  25 on page 12 which dealt                                                                    
with   the  generalized   threat   statute  or   terroristic                                                                    
threatening  as defined  by law.  The current  law suggested                                                                    
that if  a person  called in  a bomb threat  to a  school or                                                                    
other place and  the person had no intention  of carrying it                                                                    
out,  it was  a false  threat and  the crime  of terroristic                                                                    
threatening. If  a person called in  a threat to shoot  up a                                                                    
movie theatre or  the school with the  intention of carrying                                                                    
it out, it  would not be a terroristic threat,  nor would it                                                                    
become a  crime of  attempted assault  until the  person had                                                                    
taken  a  substantial step.  The  proposed  threat, with  no                                                                    
intention of  carrying it  out, would result  in a  crime in                                                                    
the  proposed  statute. The  language  was  in the  original                                                                    
version of  HB 49 as  well as  in the Judiciary  version. He                                                                    
indicated that the other body  wanted to add some sideboards                                                                    
to the bill. However, they were removed on the House side.                                                                      
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if he  was talking about  a companion                                                                    
bill. Mr. Skidmore confirmed that  he was referring to SB 32                                                                    
which currently sat in the Senate Finance Committee.                                                                            
Representative Sullivan-Leonard  was looking at  the removal                                                                    
of subsection (d) and suggested  that there was the presence                                                                    
of biological  warfare and terroristic acts  that might take                                                                    
the  form  of  a  chemical or  radiological  component.  She                                                                    
wondered why that language was removed.                                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that the  language  in the  proposed                                                                    
bill included the  threat of placing a  substantial group of                                                                    
the public in  fear of serious injury. The  language was not                                                                    
limiting like  the previous description;  it was  broader. A                                                                    
threat   of   bacteriological,  biological,   chemical,   or                                                                    
radiological  warfare were  still covered,  but the  section                                                                    
was  broader  because  of  some  of  the  things  that  have                                                                    
occurred in society more recently.                                                                                              
Co-Chair   Wilson   thanked    Representative   Claman   and                                                                    
Representative Thompson for joining the meeting.                                                                                
Representative  Josephson suggested  that the  references to                                                                    
biological  and chemical  remained in  the first  degree. He                                                                    
thought they  had been  untouched in any  bill. He  asked if                                                                    
those items were higher offenses.  Mr. Skidmore replied that                                                                    
what   Representative  Josephson   was   referring  to   was                                                                    
terroristic threatening  in the  second degree. There  was a                                                                    
terroristic  threatening   in  the  first  degree   and  the                                                                    
concepts  might be  found in  the higher  level. He  had not                                                                    
looked at the statutes, but it made sense.                                                                                      
2:10:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson asked if  the other body wanted the                                                                    
sideboards  severe enough  that first  responders took  some                                                                    
step,  in response  to the  threat.  Mr. Skidmore  explained                                                                    
that it  required some  sort of  emergency response.  It did                                                                    
not have to be first responders  but some action, such as an                                                                    
evacuation  of  a  building, resulting  from  the  step.  He                                                                    
mentioned it because of the discussions occurring.                                                                              
Co-Chair Wilson appreciated the information.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  Judiciary version of the bill                                                                    
made it more  of a crime if someone called  in, even if they                                                                    
had  not taken  any steps  to  carry out  their threat.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore responded that he was  correct. Part of the impetus                                                                    
for a change in the law  was some of the school threats that                                                                    
occurred in  Anchorage and in Ketchikan.  The provision gave                                                                    
law enforcement an additional tool in response to a threat.                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  moved to Section  26 on pages  13-14 regarding                                                                    
harassment  to  the second  degree.  The  language that  was                                                                    
added (beginning  on page 14, lines  1-4) addressed repeated                                                                    
sending of images  of genitalia to another  person when they                                                                    
did  not want  it.  It was  not something  that  was in  the                                                                    
original version of HB 49 but was found in HB 52.                                                                               
Co-Chair  Wilson  clarified  the  section  and  pages  being                                                                    
discussed.  Mr.  Skidmore  indicated  he  was  referring  to                                                                    
Section  26, pages  13-14. She  confirmed that  the language                                                                    
was not in the original version  of HB 49, but it existed in                                                                    
HB  52. Mr.  Skidmore responded  that she  was correct.  She                                                                    
asked if  the language was the  same in HB 52.  Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
believed  it was  the same.  He  would have  to compare  the                                                                    
bills  side-by-side. However,  in general,  it was  the same                                                                    
2:14:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  moved  to   Sections  28-34  addressing  drug                                                                    
crimes. He  would review each section  individually. Section                                                                    
27  created a  new crime  that  did not  currently exist  in                                                                    
statute called misconduct  involving controlled substance in                                                                    
the  second  degree. The  section  would  create a  Class  A                                                                    
felony for  distribution. The distribution would  be a Class                                                                    
A felony  if it was  greater than  100 grams of  schedule IA                                                                    
substance (heroin, fentanyl, and  other opioids) or over 200                                                                    
grams   of  a   schedule  IIA   substance  (methamphetamine,                                                                    
cocaine,  or   other  similar  drugs).  Tablets   were  also                                                                    
referred to - 200 tablets or  400 tablets. The idea was that                                                                    
the current  scheme the state  had for drug  trafficking was                                                                    
being broken  down by  distribution of  drugs by  weight for                                                                    
both  schedule IA  and  IIA drugs.  Previously  the law  was                                                                    
written such that under a certain  weight it was a C felony,                                                                    
over a  certain weight it  was a  B felony. However,  once a                                                                    
person   reached   the  B   felony   level   there  was   no                                                                    
consideration  of quantity.  However, once  a certain  level                                                                    
was reached,  the charge would  become a Class A  felony. He                                                                    
indicated  that  the  language   proposed  was  not  in  the                                                                    
original version of HB 49.                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore continued  that another  proposal had  been to                                                                    
remove the quantities  and simply have a Class  A felony and                                                                    
a  Class B  felony without  a weight  attached. He  recalled                                                                    
having  reviewed  the  Knight   case  that  had  taken  into                                                                    
consideration all of the differing  factors. The language in                                                                    
the  Judiciary  version  did  not  fall  in  line  with  his                                                                    
previous  comments. The  revised version  tried to  build on                                                                    
what was currently in statute.  He clarified that the policy                                                                    
decision the  legislature had to  make was whether  to build                                                                    
on  what was  currently in  law or  shift back  to what  the                                                                    
state had in statute previously.                                                                                                
2:16:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative     Sullivan-Leonard    asked     about    an                                                                    
accountability measure  for a person  caught with  100 grams                                                                    
of heroin  or fentanyl. She  asked if they would  have their                                                                    
hands slapped and assessed a fine.                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore reported  that under  current law,  a Class  A                                                                    
felony  had  a sentencing  of  3  to  5  years for  a  first                                                                    
offense. A  sentence would  be ratcheted up  on a  second or                                                                    
third offense.  He would not characterize  the punishment as                                                                    
a slap on  the wrist. He would have to  finish analyzing the                                                                    
bill  to make  sure  no other  changes  were made  regarding                                                                    
Class  A felony  sentencing.  The next  decision that  would                                                                    
need to be  made would be whether the  legislature thought 3                                                                    
to 6 years was sufficient time.                                                                                                 
Representative Josephson recalled  Mr. Skidmore's reading of                                                                    
the Knight  decision and the  key word  he took from  it was                                                                    
nuance. He  opined that the  judge had been  very thoughtful                                                                    
and  talked  about  weight not  necessarily  mattering.  The                                                                    
judge suggested looking  at the size of a  community and the                                                                    
chemical make-up  of a drug.  He wondered how to  codify the                                                                    
judge's  decision. He  asked  about the  100  grams for  the                                                                    
schedule IA  drugs and  the 200 grams  for the  schedule IIA                                                                    
drugs and wondered whether all the boxes were filled.                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore responded that whether  the weight of the crime                                                                    
was  the correct  mark was  not  his area  of expertise.  He                                                                    
suggested  Representative Josephson  seek  answers from  the                                                                    
Department of  Public Safety  (DPS) and  Deputy Commissioner                                                                    
Duxbury  who  had  worked  in  narcotics.  He  believed  the                                                                    
quantities to  be significant.  His understanding  of heroin                                                                    
was that  a single dose  was a tenth  of a gram.  He relayed                                                                    
that  100 grams  equaled 1000  doses  before it  would be  a                                                                    
Class  A felony.  His opinion  was that  the number  was too                                                                    
high. He  suggested returning to  the old system.  He argued                                                                    
that as far  as codifying the judge's decision  went, it was                                                                    
already codified. It  was already built into  the system for                                                                    
aggravators and  mitigators for  the different  levels. When                                                                    
discussing amounts,  the values were different  depending on                                                                    
location. He  thought having something written  into statute                                                                    
in such a large state did not allow for nuances.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Wilson  suggested  that  members  would  have  the                                                                    
opportunity to address questions to DPS.                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  departments had been afforded                                                                    
the opportunity to  weigh in on the issue.  Mr. Skidmore did                                                                    
not know.                                                                                                                       
2:22:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter   asked  if  the  strength   of  a                                                                    
prosecutor's case was based  on quantitative evaluations. He                                                                    
wondered if  quantity was  the best  indicator of  intent to                                                                    
distribute or sell drugs to other people.                                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore  replied that when prosecutors  built cases for                                                                    
drug  distribution  prior to  the  change  in the  law,  the                                                                    
quantity was  one factor. However,  other things  were taken                                                                    
into  consideration  such   as  packaging  materials,  large                                                                    
amounts of  money, and  ledgers showing  distributions being                                                                    
made.  He   reflected  on  a   case  that  dealt   with  the                                                                    
distribution of marijuana before  it had become legalized. A                                                                    
large amount of  product was not found on  the premises, but                                                                    
ledgers  were found  documenting  hundreds  of thousands  of                                                                    
dollars. It  was not about  the quantity of drugs  that were                                                                    
found,  rather, it  was about  the quantity  a business  was                                                                    
engaged  in. He  indicated that  having the  aggravators and                                                                    
mitigators allowed  prosecutors to more readily  assess what                                                                    
was going on in a particular case.                                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore  reported that Section  28 and Section  29 were                                                                    
conforming language for the changes made in Section 27.                                                                         
Mr.   Skidmore  referred   to  Section   30  which   created                                                                    
conforming  language.   It  also  added  the   reference  to                                                                    
AS 17.38  which  talked  about Alaska's  marijuana  industry                                                                    
currently. It  included "Except as  authorized" on  page 16,                                                                    
line  29.   The  state  would  not   prosecute  someone  for                                                                    
marijuana under the statute,  it simply added clarification.                                                                    
He referred to  page 18, which added Subsection  12. It made                                                                    
a change  in the state's  drug laws that was  different than                                                                    
what was proposed in HB 49.  The change was that, similar to                                                                    
a DUI, a  person could commit a certain  number of offenses,                                                                    
the third of  which would be a felony. He  read a portion of                                                                    
the subsection. The original HB  49 had a different approach                                                                    
where it  stipulated that all possession  crimes would start                                                                    
at  the Class  C felony  level. The  current version  used a                                                                    
graduation method  like DUI's. It  was an approach  that had                                                                    
significant  merit   and  was  one  for   the  committee  to                                                                    
consider. He  opined that the  trick to the approach  had to                                                                    
do  with the  sentencing  of the  misdemeanor offenses.  The                                                                    
first 2  offenses did not  have jail time, which  he thought                                                                    
should  possibly   be  changed   in  order   to  incentivize                                                                    
2:27:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston  asked  if  Section 30  was  in  HB  49                                                                    
changing the statutes to conform  to the marijuana laws. Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore  responded that  HB 49  originally did  not include                                                                    
the protection  provisions. The Senate  version of  the bill                                                                    
sitting  in Senate  Finance contained  similar language.  He                                                                    
thought that  bill expanded it  beyond AS 17.38.  He thought                                                                    
it  also  included industrial  hemp.  He  confirmed that  it                                                                    
existed in the other body.                                                                                                      
Representative Josephson  thought one of the  vital parts of                                                                    
the bill  had to  do with serious  drugs. He  suggested that                                                                    
prison  was  a way  in  which  to  withdraw from  drug  use.                                                                    
However, there was a tendency for  a person to return to the                                                                    
use of  the drug. He thought  that if there was  active jail                                                                    
time   under  a   Class  A   misdemeanor,  a   person  might                                                                    
effectively  sober  up. However,  a  sentence  might be  too                                                                    
short  and resources  too limited  for a  person to  receive                                                                    
adequate help. He  was trying to figure out what  to do with                                                                    
a   recreational  drug   user  who   had  no   intention  to                                                                    
distribute. He needed clarification.                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  relayed that the state's  current response for                                                                    
recreational drug  users was no  response. He  thought there                                                                    
needed to be an adjustment  to create incentive. He listed a                                                                    
number of potential approaches.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  whether  treatment  was offered  and                                                                    
defined  in statute.  Mr. Skidmore  clarified Representative                                                                    
Wilson's question.  He suggested she was  asking if Alaska's                                                                    
statutes  and the  sanctions in  statute required  treatment                                                                    
currently  or assumed  that it  happened. He  indicated that                                                                    
the statutes  authorized treatment  as something  that could                                                                    
be imposed as  a condition. However, they  did not stipulate                                                                    
that treatment would be required  in every case. He provided                                                                    
an  example. As  a prosecutor,  when he  encountered a  case                                                                    
with  someone in  possession  of drugs  or  alcohol with  an                                                                    
illegal  component, he  might view  the person  as having  a                                                                    
substance  abuse  problem. However,  he  was  not a  trained                                                                    
expert. The  criminal justice system might  require a person                                                                    
to be evaluated by a  professional to determine whether they                                                                    
had a  substance abuse problem  and, if so, to  what degree.                                                                    
The  evaluator  would  suggest  the  appropriate  course  of                                                                    
action including outpatient or residential treatment.                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  wondered who  was actually  at fault  for a                                                                    
person reoffending if  they were assessed and  referred to a                                                                    
program  but were  unable to  enter the  program immediately                                                                    
because of  a backlog.  She was  concerned with  people that                                                                    
were making  a good faith  effort to comply but  were unable                                                                    
to.  It  was her  understanding  that  there was  a  greater                                                                    
demand  for treatment  than there  was available  resources.                                                                    
She asked Mr. Skidmore to comment.                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore  thought   the  bill  was  a   first  step  in                                                                    
addressing  the issue.  Many steps  would need  to be  taken                                                                    
that were not addressed in the current bill.                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson   asked  what   kind  of   flexibility  was                                                                    
available  to  those  individuals  trying  to  comply  while                                                                    
treatment  beds were  not available.  She  asked whether  an                                                                    
automatic lock-up  would occur. She  asked if there  was any                                                                    
discretion involved and about evidence.                                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that there  was discretion  based on                                                                    
how long  someone was on probation  or how long they  had to                                                                    
complete their  conditions. There were things  the court and                                                                    
prosecutors  would  take   into  consideration.  There  were                                                                    
certain things  defense attorneys would be  arguing as well.                                                                    
Corrective action  would be  needed in a  case of  a willful                                                                    
violation where  a person had the  opportunity for treatment                                                                    
and did not take it.                                                                                                            
2:35:15 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore thought it was  unfortunate to have to exercise                                                                    
discretion as  much as  the Court  System had  to presently.                                                                    
Discretion  was  built-in  and the  courts  did  not  punish                                                                    
people  when  they made  good  faith  efforts and  had  been                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  asked about a  person who had  served their                                                                    
time  (either in  jail or  on probation  or parole)  without                                                                    
being  able to  get into  treatment prior  to their  release                                                                    
date.  She  noted   that  at  the  time   of  their  release                                                                    
corrections would no longer have control of the individual.                                                                     
Mr.  Skidmore   replied  that   there  were   some  programs                                                                    
available inside  the walls  of jail. He  agreed that  if an                                                                    
individual was unable to get  into a program, they would not                                                                    
be  held in  jail  longer to  complete  treatment. A  person                                                                    
could be released on discretionary  or mandatory parole with                                                                    
a  stipulation  that  they complete  treatment.  In  such  a                                                                    
circumstance,  they would  likely  have a  longer period  of                                                                    
parole or  probation. If a  person made a good  faith effort                                                                    
to  get into  a treatment  program  to no  avail, and  their                                                                    
sentence and  parole and probation  periods came to  an end,                                                                    
nothing  could be  done to  ensure treatment  for them.  The                                                                    
Department of Corrections would  no longer have control over                                                                    
2:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to Sections  31 through  34 which  were                                                                    
conforming amendments.  Section 31 changed third  to fourth.                                                                    
Section 32 contained protections  and clarifications for the                                                                    
marijuana industry. Section 34, found  at the bottom of page                                                                    
18, was another conforming amendment.                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore  moved to  Section 35 on  page 20.  The concept                                                                    
contained  in  the  section regarding  AS  12.55.015  talked                                                                    
about the types  of probation conditions that  a court could                                                                    
impose in  a sentence. The  court was to presume  that there                                                                    
should be no contact between  the offender and the victim if                                                                    
the crime was a sex  offense or domestic violence crime. The                                                                    
presumption could  be overcome if  it was necessary  for the                                                                    
victim and the  offender to have contact.  The provision was                                                                    
not originally  in HB 49  and could not  be found in  any of                                                                    
the  proposals  by the  administration.  It  was a  valuable                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore continued  to Section 36 on page  20. It talked                                                                    
about credit for pretrial electronic  monitoring. It was not                                                                    
in  the original  version of  HB  49 but  was in  HB 50.  He                                                                    
indicated  that HB  50 would  eliminate any  pretrial credit                                                                    
for  electronic monitoring  applied  to a  sentence. It  was                                                                    
based  on the  concept  seen in  the  Justin Schneider  Case                                                                    
where someone  had been  on electronic  monitoring pretrial,                                                                    
and by the time they  were sentenced the entire sentence was                                                                    
satisfied  by  electronic  monitoring.  Section  36  took  a                                                                    
different  approach than  in HB  50.  The section  indicated                                                                    
that  the  court  might  grant  credit  for  time  spent  on                                                                    
electronic  monitoring  pretrial  as  long  as  it  met  the                                                                    
requirements  of AS  12.55.005, the  statute that  set forth                                                                    
the  goal of  sentencing.  He mentioned  some  of the  goals                                                                    
otherwise known as the Chaney  Criteria. The Chaney Case was                                                                    
the  case   in  which  the  courts   first  articulated  the                                                                    
sentencing  goals  found  in the  Alaska  Constitution.  The                                                                    
section was  outlining that the courts  would decide whether                                                                    
a person  got credit,  but the  credits were  dependent upon                                                                    
meeting  the Chaney  criteria. It  was a  different approach                                                                    
than taken in other bills -  its success would depend on how                                                                    
the courts  interpreted the concept. He  was skeptical about                                                                    
whether  it  would  result  in a  change  over  the  current                                                                    
Representative   Knopp   referred   back  to   Section   32,                                                                    
lines 26-27 on pages  18 and 19. He asked  about the various                                                                    
changes  in  penalties.  Mr.  Skidmore  called  the  changes                                                                    
conforming because they did not  change the substance of law                                                                    
in  any  way.  The  sections were  renumbered.  He  provided                                                                    
further explanation but reiterated  that the changes did not                                                                    
alter  the classification,  elements, or  sentencing of  the                                                                    
offense.   It  was   simply  making   the  language   follow                                                                    
2:43:04 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Carpenter  asked about the language  that the                                                                    
courts "may"  decide. He  wondered if  the judge  or another                                                                    
individual  decided.  Mr.  Skidmore  replied  that  when  he                                                                    
referred to the courts he was referring to a judge.                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  if the  adoption  of  the  section                                                                    
raised the bar for someone  to receive credit for electronic                                                                    
monitoring. Mr.  Skidmore responded  that it  was more  of a                                                                    
changed  criterion  versus  raising the  bar  which  implied                                                                    
making  it  more difficult.  He  indicated  that the  Chaney                                                                    
Criteria were  very broad,  and any  of the  5 circumstances                                                                    
could  apply in  almost  any instance  that  someone was  on                                                                    
electronic monitoring.  He believed that a  defense attorney                                                                    
could  make the  case to  a judge.  He did  not believe  the                                                                    
provision made it more difficult to award a credit.                                                                             
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if he  was skeptical about giving the                                                                    
judge  more discretion.  Mr. Skidmore  thought  it was  very                                                                    
easy  to  craft  an  argument   that  stated  that  pretrial                                                                    
electronic  monitoring  would  meet  one  of  the  5  Chaney                                                                    
Criteria.  It was  possible that  a court  could reject  the                                                                    
argument. However, he  was skeptical that it  would have the                                                                    
type of outcome the public was looking for.                                                                                     
Representative   Josephson   asked   if   the   clause   was                                                                    
effectively  stating  not  to  forget  the  thing  that  was                                                                    
supposed to be remembered.                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that currently  the  law set  forth                                                                    
criteria  for  a  judge to  evaluate  whether  they  thought                                                                    
electronic monitoring would qualify  under the statute to be                                                                    
given  credit.  The  court was  not  currently  required  to                                                                    
consider the  Chaney Criteria in  making an  evaluation. The                                                                    
provision added  something for a  judge to consider,  but he                                                                    
did not  see it making it  less likely that the  court would                                                                    
award it.  Rather, he thought  it was  one more box  for the                                                                    
court to have to check.                                                                                                         
Representative  Josephson  suggested  that  the  reason  the                                                                    
Chaney Criteria did  not apply was that it  applied at first                                                                    
sentencing,  not   in  the  context  being   discussed.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore responded, "Correct."                                                                                                  
Representative Josephson  thought it might have  given Judge                                                                    
Corey  the ability  to do  something different  but probably                                                                    
not.  Mr.  Skidmore did  not  want  to  put words  in  Judge                                                                    
Corey's mouth.  He could not  anticipate how  any particular                                                                    
judge  would  decide any  one  particular  case. As  he  had                                                                    
previously  indicated,  he thought  it  was  possible for  a                                                                    
judge to claim  that certain circumstances did  not meet the                                                                    
Chaney  Criteria.  He  believed  that on  a  broad  spectrum                                                                    
across the  state for all cases,  he did not think  it would                                                                    
be as effective as other options.                                                                                               
2:48:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson indicated  the  administration was  getting                                                                    
rid  of electronic  monitoring credit.  She  asked how  many                                                                    
individuals were given  credit in the previous  year and for                                                                    
how  long. She  wanted  to  have an  idea  of the  potential                                                                    
fiscal impact. Mr.  Skidmore did not know the  answer to the                                                                    
representative's question.                                                                                                      
Co-Chair Wilson thought  it was important to  hear from DOC.                                                                    
She thought the deputy  commissioner from the department was                                                                    
available. She  relayed her question again.  She wondered if                                                                    
the  department  kept  track of  individuals  on  electronic                                                                    
monitoring that  did not  receive credit  versus individuals                                                                    
that did.                                                                                                                       
2:49:40 PM                                                                                                                    
KELLY    GOODE,   DEPUTY    COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT    OF                                                                    
CORRECTIONS, responded  that the  department would  be aware                                                                    
of  individuals that  were out  and  being supervised  under                                                                    
pretrial.  The department  did not  monitor the  numbers for                                                                    
individuals that returned to the courts.                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson asked  Ms. Goode if she knew  of anyone that                                                                    
tracked  the  numbers. Ms.  Goode  did  not know  of  anyone                                                                    
monitoring the numbers.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that Ms.  Mead from the Court System                                                                    
was in the  audience shaking her head no.  She was concerned                                                                    
because  everyone was  under  the  impression that  everyone                                                                    
that was on electronic  monitoring would receive credit. The                                                                    
statement was  inaccurate. There were other  provisions that                                                                    
had to be  met as well. She thought such  data was necessary                                                                    
in crafting the associated fiscal notes.                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked  Mr. Skidmore if he saw  value in the                                                                    
possibility of  a person  being able  to receive  credit for                                                                    
electronic monitoring.                                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore responded affirmatively.  He argued that if DOC                                                                    
thought that  electronic monitoring  was not  an appropriate                                                                    
sentence for  an offence,  it would not  make sense  for the                                                                    
offender  to receive  credit. Conversely,  if DOC  suggested                                                                    
that an  individual should be on  electronic monitoring, and                                                                    
they had already  been on electronic monitoring  for a time,                                                                    
it  would make  sense for  them to  receive credit  for time                                                                    
served.  Currently, there  was a  provision in  statute that                                                                    
allowed  electronic  monitoring   pretrial  credit  but  was                                                                    
limited to  1 year for  certain offenses. He  suggested that                                                                    
instead of  limiting the period  to 1 year,  the legislature                                                                    
could define  which offences could be  served via electronic                                                                    
monitoring.  The legislature  could also  carve out  certain                                                                    
offences   that  would   not   be   served  via   electronic                                                                    
monitoring.  He reaffirmed  that, for  certain offenses,  it                                                                    
made  sense  to  allow   credit  for  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked  about the level of  supervision as it                                                                    
applied  to  electronic  monitoring. Mr.  Skidmore  answered                                                                    
that the  limitations currently in statute  were appropriate                                                                    
limitations based  on crime type. Co-Chair  Wilson asked Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore   to   provide    additional   detail   about   the                                                                    
limitations. Mr. Skidmore  had to look at  the statute book.                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  commented that  there had  been significant                                                                    
discussion on the issue.                                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore turned to AS 12.55.027:                                                                                            
      (d) A  court may  grant credit  against a  sentence of                                                                    
     imprisonment   for   time    spent   under   electronic                                                                    
     monitoring if  the person has not  committed a criminal                                                                    
     offense  while  under  electronic  monitoring  and  the                                                                    
     court imposes  restrictions on the person's  freedom of                                                                    
     movement  and  behavior   while  under  the  electronic                                                                    
     monitoring program,  including requiring the  person to                                                                    
     be confined to a residence except for a                                                                                    
      (1) court appearance;                                                                                                     
      (2) meeting with counsel; or                                                                                              
      (3) period  during which the  person is at  a location                                                                    
     ordered by  the court  for the purposes  of employment,                                                                    
     attending    educational   or    vocational   training,                                                                    
     performing  community volunteer  work,  or attending  a                                                                    
     rehabilitative activity or medical appointment.                                                                            
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked about  an  example  provided on  the                                                                    
House  Floor.   Mr.  Skidmore  responded  that   the  answer                                                                    
depended upon  why, in Representative Wilson's  example, the                                                                    
person was walking  down the trail. If the  person was going                                                                    
for a  hike that was not  court ordered, then they  would be                                                                    
in  violation. However,  if the  person was  walking on  the                                                                    
trail to get to an  appointment he had described, they would                                                                    
receive  credit. The  answer depended  on the  circumstance.                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson appreciated the distinction.                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter understood  what Mr.  Skidmore had                                                                    
read from statute. He had  not heard anything in relation to                                                                    
the victim. He  thought the reason for sentencing  had to do                                                                    
with the Chaney Criteria. In  the constitution the goals for                                                                    
sentencing  had  to do  with  protection  and some  sort  of                                                                    
punishment.  He  was  concerned that  victims  would  see  a                                                                    
disparity for  those allowed  to serve  time at  home versus                                                                    
serving  time  in  jail.  He wondered  if  the  judge  would                                                                    
consider   the    victim's   perspective    in   determining                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore responded that the  consideration of a victim's                                                                    
perspective  on sentencing  was  required  by law.  However,                                                                    
when the court  decided on sentencing, it was not  up to the                                                                    
court  to  determine  whether  the   offender  served  in  a                                                                    
maximum,  medium,  or  minimum-security  facility  or  in  a                                                                    
halfway house. Rather, DOC made  determinations based on the                                                                    
classification  of  the  crime  and what  they  thought  was                                                                    
appropriate for a  particular offender. He did  not have all                                                                    
of the  department's criteria with him.  He suggested posing                                                                    
the questions  to DOC.  They would  make the  decision about                                                                    
the appropriate  placement of an  individual to  serve their                                                                    
sentence. The court  decided how long a person  needed to be                                                                    
in   the   custody   of  the   department.   He   understood                                                                    
Representative Carpenter's  sentiment. He had  heard similar                                                                    
2:57:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  continued  to Section  37  which  dealt  with                                                                    
presumptive  sentencing ranges  for felonies.  Under current                                                                    
law, a  Class B felony  had a  sentencing range for  a first                                                                    
offense of  zero to 2  years. Section 37 altered  the amount                                                                    
to be  90 days  to 2  years which  was not  in HB  49. House                                                                    
Bill 49 altered presumptive sentencing  for Class B felonies                                                                    
for a  first offense  to be  1 to  3 years  and subsequently                                                                    
changed  the  ranges for  a  second  and third  offence.  It                                                                    
essentially returned it  to what it was prior to  SB 91. The                                                                    
current  version  of  HB  49   did  not  adjust  presumptive                                                                    
sentencing for  Class C  felonies or  Class A  felonies. The                                                                    
presumptive  sentencing  for  both   were  adjusted  in  the                                                                    
original  version  of  HB  49.   The  second  change  was  a                                                                    
sentencing range from 2 to  4 years for misconduct involving                                                                    
a  controlled   substance  when  the  person   to  whom  the                                                                    
substances were  being distributed was either  under the age                                                                    
of  18  or the  person  assisting  in the  distribution  was                                                                    
causing the  person under 18  to engage in such  conduct. It                                                                    
was different  than what was  found in the  original version                                                                    
of HB 49.                                                                                                                       
Representative  Josephson asked  if it  could have  been the                                                                    
intent of  the Judiciary Committee, because  of an amendment                                                                    
to amplify  Class C felonies  in SB  54, to leave  the first                                                                    
presumptives matched with Class  B felonies. He suggested it                                                                    
was an  attempt to leave  some separation, which  he thought                                                                    
was a good thing. He  believed Mr. Skidmore's point was that                                                                    
it still did not restore the period prior to SB 91.                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore was not in a  position to comment on the intent                                                                    
of the  Judiciary Committee. However,  Class B  felonies, in                                                                    
addition  to the  discussion  that Representative  Josephson                                                                    
mentioned during  SB 54  in October 2017  about Class  C and                                                                    
Class B  felonies, had  the same  sentence for  a first-time                                                                    
offence of  zero to 2  years. He  had heard from  the public                                                                    
that zero  to 2 years was  not a long enough  sentencing for                                                                    
strangulation.  He  could not  speak  to  the intention.  He                                                                    
could  only explain  what the  law  did and  what the  other                                                                    
proposed provisions would do.                                                                                                   
3:01:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair   Ortiz  queried   about  another   statute  that                                                                    
contained  a  limitation  for time  served  with  electronic                                                                    
monitoring.  Mr.   Skidmore  responded  that  there   was  a                                                                    
limitation of 1 year  for certain types of  offences. He had                                                                    
suggested  that  instead  of  limiting it  to  1  year,  the                                                                    
legislature  could  specify  whether  it  wanted  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  available at  all. He  agreed there  was another                                                                    
statute that limited it to 1 year.                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore  continued  to  the  conforming  amendment  in                                                                    
Section  38  on  page  21. The  conforming  portion  of  the                                                                    
amendment could be  found on page 22 which  removed the term                                                                    
"online" from  the crime of  enticement of a minor  which he                                                                    
had  mentioned earlier  in the  presentation.  There was  no                                                                    
other substantive  changes. There  was a similar  change for                                                                    
the subsection on page 23.                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore continued  to  Section 39  on  page 4  halfway                                                                    
down. It changed  the sentencing for a  Class A misdemeanor.                                                                    
Prior  to SB  91 sentencing  for a  Class A  misdemeanor was                                                                    
zero  to 365  days.  In current  law and  in  SB 91  certain                                                                    
offenses  were  limited  to  zero to  30  days.  The  change                                                                    
increased the  range to  zero to 90  days. Also,  there were                                                                    
categories of offenses that were  excluded from the limit of                                                                    
30 to  90 days  and added  to the  category of  all domestic                                                                    
violence crimes.  Currently, there were some  crimes against                                                                    
a person  that were in  the excluded category.  However, not                                                                    
all  domestic  violence  crimes   were  included.  It  could                                                                    
include  things  such  as  criminal  mischief,  damaging  of                                                                    
property,  and  other  things that  were  domestic  violence                                                                    
crimes but not necessarily an assault.                                                                                          
3:04:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  referred  to page  25  which  was                                                                    
added  to  the  bill   through  the  amendment  process.  He                                                                    
wondered if all crimes of  domestic violence would trump the                                                                    
90-day limit. Mr. Skidmore responded  that Section 39 carved                                                                    
out all domestic violence crimes  so that they were excluded                                                                    
from the 90-day period.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if there  was an unlimited  time that                                                                    
the judge  would be able  to sentence. Mr.  Skidmore replied                                                                    
that the  judge would be looking  at zero to 365  days which                                                                    
was the  limit for  a misdemeanor. The  technical definition                                                                    
between a misdemeanor  and a felony was serving  more than a                                                                    
year in jail.                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if  any  of Section  39  was in  the                                                                    
current  version of  HB  49. Mr.  Skidmore  answered in  the                                                                    
negative. He  indicated that in  the original version  of HB
49 the  sentence for  all Class A  misdemeanors was  zero to                                                                    
365 days. In  the newer version the cap was  expanded, and a                                                                    
certain type of  crime was excluded. It was not  as broad of                                                                    
an expansion as in the original HB 49.                                                                                          
3:05:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked whether  Mr. Skidmore  supported the                                                                    
section. Mr.  Skidmore responded  that whether it  went from                                                                    
zero to 90  days depended on what was being  done with other                                                                    
provisions of law.  He provided some examples.  The bill did                                                                    
not  go as  far  as what  the  administration had  proposed,                                                                    
however, it was a step in the right direction.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson asked which data  the administration used to                                                                    
determine what to  change in the bill.  Mr. Skidmore thought                                                                    
the Co-Chair  was asking an  excellent question  about where                                                                    
the  discretion  was  appropriately placed  for  judges.  He                                                                    
remarked that  by including the  zero to 90 days  and adding                                                                    
the  exception of  domestic violence  cases the  legislature                                                                    
was  providing more  discretion  to  judges and  eliminating                                                                    
problems  prosecutors had  found. For  instance, in  some of                                                                    
the Driving Under  the Influence (DUI) cases  the 30-day cap                                                                    
limits the  prosecutor's ability  to negotiate  some things.                                                                    
The 90  days allows for  more time for negotiations.  It did                                                                    
not  completely resolve  the  scenario in  which  a Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanor  might  be  deserving  of  more  than  a  90-day                                                                    
sentence. However, it was a step in the right direction.                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore continued that  the data prosecutors considered                                                                    
prior  to SB  91 was  flawed  and called  into question  the                                                                    
changes that were  originally made. Also, in  looking at the                                                                    
data  that   indicated  the  system   and  the   ability  to                                                                    
incarcerate people and the judge's  discretion in making the                                                                    
determination  were  things that  worked  for  a long  time.                                                                    
However,  there   were  currently  diminishing   returns  in                                                                    
increasing  sentencing.  Lastly,  the  data  the  prosecutor                                                                    
looked at were the ways in  which the new version had worked                                                                    
under law.  The data  that he  relied on  was communications                                                                    
with law  enforcement and prosecutors over  the previous few                                                                    
years  about the  problems they  had  with the  way the  law                                                                    
read. The courts  needed the discretion of zero  to 365 days                                                                    
on a case-by-case basis.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson asked if it was  normal for a person to have                                                                    
more  than  one   charge.  Mr.  Skidmore  did   not  have  a                                                                    
statistical report.  In his long  career as a  prosecutor he                                                                    
had seen both scenarios very frequently.                                                                                        
3:11:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore spoke to Section 40  which had to do with Class                                                                    
B misdemeanors. Under  current law the sentence  for a Class                                                                    
B misdemeanor  was zero to 10  days. Prior to SB  91, it was                                                                    
zero to 90  days. The original version of HB  49 returned it                                                                    
to zero to 90 days. The  version under review was zero to 30                                                                    
days.  It  was an  improvement  from  zero  to 10  days.  He                                                                    
suggested zero to 30 days might be a good compromise.                                                                           
Representative   Josephson   referred  to   Subsection(b)(3)                                                                    
regarding  violation of  conditions of  release. He  relayed                                                                    
that the  issue was a  large item  in 2017. The  state moved                                                                    
from  a  violation  to  a   short  sentence  of  a  Class  B                                                                    
misdemeanor. He  wondered what  the administration  bill did                                                                    
in the subsection.                                                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore  answered that one  of the  differences between                                                                    
the original  version of  HB 49 and  the version  before the                                                                    
committee was there were things  not found in the newest CS.                                                                    
One of  the things missing  was violations of  conditions of                                                                    
release. There  were no changes  or adjustments made  in the                                                                    
CS. The original  version of HB 49 returned them  to a Class                                                                    
A misdemeanor  for a  violation on  a felony  and a  Class B                                                                    
misdemeanor for  a violation on a  misdemeanor combined with                                                                    
the changes  in the  sentencing. Instead  of serving  5 days                                                                    
for a  violation, a person  would serve  zero to 90  days or                                                                    
zero to 365 days depending upon the underlying crime.                                                                           
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked   if  Representative  Josephson  was                                                                    
talking about the current section or another.                                                                                   
Representative Josephson was talking  about the concept page                                                                    
25,  line   18.  He  explained  that   offenders  frequently                                                                    
violated  their conditions  of release  and  entered into  a                                                                    
spiral.  He asked  Mr. Skidmore  to  comment as  to why  the                                                                    
provision in the bill was important.                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that Section 40  was being discussed                                                                    
regarding  violations of  conditions  of  release that  were                                                                    
pretrial  conditions -  different from  probation or  parole                                                                    
where there were  also conditions. He explained  that when a                                                                    
person had violated their conditions  of release the concept                                                                    
contained in SB  91 reduced it to a violation  rather than a                                                                    
new crime. The  result was that people were  not being held,                                                                    
and  bail  was not  being  adjusted  as predicted  with  the                                                                    
change. It was changed back to  a crime with a sentence of 5                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore explained  that  the sentence  of  5 days  was                                                                    
imposed  in an  attempt  to  bridge the  gap  from when  the                                                                    
arrest was made  until the bail hearing could  occur. It was                                                                    
an improvement and  a step in the right  direction. He still                                                                    
heard from folks that 5  days resulted in some sanction, but                                                                    
still  did   not  take  into  consideration   the  scope  of                                                                    
sanctions  that occurred,  nor did  it adequately  allow for                                                                    
adequate response to egregious violations.                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore  presented an example  prior to the  passage of                                                                    
SB  91. There  was an  individual who  had set  his wife  on                                                                    
fire. He  was released from jail  and bail and was  told not                                                                    
to contact  his wife.  He ended up  contacting his  wife and                                                                    
charged him with violation of  conditions of release but was                                                                    
released again. He  contacted her again. He  had committed 2                                                                    
violations  of conditions  of release  before the  case ever                                                                    
made  it  to trial.  Immediately  after  the fire  had  been                                                                    
extinguished and she was in  the hospital, the wife provided                                                                    
multiple  statements to  first  responders, family  members,                                                                    
and other.  However, once  the husband was  out of  jail and                                                                    
contacting her again,  the court had to arrest  the wife and                                                                    
escort her to trial to  ensure her appearance. The court did                                                                    
not  have sufficient  evidence to  allow  the prosecutor  to                                                                    
charge anything  like tampering with  a witness. It  was the                                                                    
prosecution and  conviction of a violation  of conditions of                                                                    
release  that allowed  the  courts to  hold  the husband  in                                                                    
custody until the  time of trial. He offered  the example to                                                                    
help members understand what could  happen in the system and                                                                    
why  violation  of  conditions  of  release  could  be  very                                                                    
important.  His example  was a  success story  prior to  the                                                                    
implementation of SB  91. It was not an  instance that could                                                                    
be repeated with the current laws.                                                                                              
3:16:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston   asked  if   the  case   Mr.  Skidmore                                                                    
presented was prior to SB 91. Mr. Skidmore replied, "Yes."                                                                      
Vice-Chair Johnston thought that  in Mr. Skidmore's example,                                                                    
the husband  had violated conditions  of release  twice. She                                                                    
asked   if  she   was  accurate.   Mr.  Skidmore   responded                                                                    
affirmatively.  Regarding  his  example, he  clarified  that                                                                    
violation of  conditions of release  prior to SB  91 allowed                                                                    
the  prosecutor to  prosecute the  husband for  violation of                                                                    
conditions  of  release  and  to  hold him  in  jail  for  a                                                                    
substantial period  of time until  the prosecution  could be                                                                    
conducted. He reported that in  current law, it could not be                                                                    
handled in the same way.                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Johnston thought embedded  in the example was the                                                                    
fact  that  someone  violated their  conditions  of  release                                                                    
twice.  She   wondered  about  how  the   state  dealt  with                                                                    
violations of  conditions of release to  avoid what happened                                                                    
in Mr. Skidmore's  example. She continued that  prior to the                                                                    
passage of SB 91  the amount was 5 days and  did not seem to                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore shared  the representative's  frustration that                                                                    
it took 2 violations to occur  before the person was able to                                                                    
be  held in  jail.  His example  illustrated how  frequently                                                                    
people  already  got  off jail  pretrial  and  the  problems                                                                    
prosecutors  encountered.  He  advocated the  importance  of                                                                    
having  tools  to  respond to  a  problematic  circumstance.                                                                    
Since  the time  the specific  case occurred,  bail statutes                                                                    
were  changed  (prior to  the  bail  statutes being  altered                                                                    
again in  SB 91). Outside  of the bill being  considered, he                                                                    
thought  bail  issues needed  to  be  further addressed.  In                                                                    
answer to the representative's  question, he did not believe                                                                    
5  days was  sufficient  for a  violation  of conditions  of                                                                    
release.  He believed  a greater  sanction  was needed  than                                                                    
what was in current law.                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Johnston asked how the  original version of HB 49                                                                    
compared  to what  was  being proposed  in  Section 40.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore explained that  the original version of  HB 49, the                                                                    
governor's version, stated that  violations of release would                                                                    
be  returned to  what it  was prior  to SB  91 -  a Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanor if  the crime the  person had been  charged with                                                                    
was  a felony.  In his  previous example,  the offender  had                                                                    
been charged  with a felony. He  was charged with a  Class A                                                                    
misdemeanor twice. The sentence  for the Class A misdemeanor                                                                    
was zero  to 365 days.  Therefore, by the time  he committed                                                                    
the violation  twice, the  prosecutor could  ask a  judge to                                                                    
impose  up to  2 years.  Under current  law, the  prosecutor                                                                    
could only ask for up to 10 days.                                                                                               
3:21:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to Section  41, 42,  and 43  which were                                                                    
conforming amendments.  Words were  being changed  that were                                                                    
consistent  with language  that was  changed earlier  in the                                                                    
bill. No substantive law was being altered.                                                                                     
Mr.  Skidmore  reported  that Section  44  required  DOC  to                                                                    
notify a  victim of domestic  violence or sexual  assault of                                                                    
the option to  obtain a protective order and  to advise them                                                                    
of some of the victim resources available in the state.                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore continued  to Section  45, page  27 -  another                                                                    
conforming  amendment.  He  indicated  that  sections  45-50                                                                    
dealt with sex offender registration.                                                                                           
Vice-Chair Johnston asked  if most of the  language was also                                                                    
in SB  52. Mr. Skidmore  replied that the language  found in                                                                    
the  specific sections  was not  found  in SB  52. He  would                                                                    
describe  them  together,  then   attempt  to  describe  the                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston asked  if HB 52 dealt  with sex offender                                                                    
crimes. Mr.  Skidmore confirmed that  HB 52  primarily dealt                                                                    
with sex offences.                                                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore  explained that in  HB 52 the bill  proposed to                                                                    
say that a person required to  register as a sex offender in                                                                    
another  state  would  be  required to  register  as  a  sex                                                                    
offender  in Alaska.  The concept  behind  the language  was                                                                    
that  Alaska did  not want  to encourage  people from  other                                                                    
states  to move  to Alaska  simply to  avoid a  registration                                                                    
requirement. He  continued that HB  49 utilized some  of the                                                                    
language from HB 52 that  would require a person to register                                                                    
in Alaska. However, Section 46  went on to create provisions                                                                    
that would allow  an individual to register  and to petition                                                                    
to be removed from the  requirement of registry if the crime                                                                    
they committed in another state  would not have been a crime                                                                    
in  Alaska. Currently,  if  a person  committed  a crime  in                                                                    
another  state that  was not  currently a  crime in  Alaska,                                                                    
they might have  to register but could petition  to have the                                                                    
requirement waived.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if there  was a  court process.  She                                                                    
wondered if a judge would  be involved. Mr. Skidmore replied                                                                    
that Section  46 discussed the  petition. He  clarified that                                                                    
the  petition was  not petitioning  the court  but DPS.  The                                                                    
administrative decisions made by DPS  could be appealed to a                                                                    
court.  In the  previous  year, several  decisions had  been                                                                    
made by  DPS that  were appealed to  the courts.  The courts                                                                    
decided the person  did not have to  register. He referenced                                                                    
a  case.  He  reiterated  that the  petition  was  initially                                                                    
submitted to DPS,  but a subsequent appeal could  be made to                                                                    
the courts.                                                                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson requested that someone  from DPS come to the                                                                    
table. She wondered if the department had been consulted.                                                                       
3:27:01 PM                                                                                                                    
KELLY   HOWELL,   DIRECTOR,   DIVISION   OF   ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT   OF  PUBLIC  SAFETY,   reported  that                                                                    
Kathrine  Monfreda was  online and  could better  answer the                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson restated her question.                                                                                          
3:27:30 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHERINE  MONFREDA,  DIRECTOR   OF  DIVISION  OF  STATEWIDE                                                                    
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),                                                                    
explained  that   one  of   her  responsibilities   was  the                                                                    
management  of  the  sex offender  registry.  She  had  been                                                                    
consulted  about  the  provision  and  stated  that  it  was                                                                    
something  the department  could work  with. The  department                                                                    
would continue  to evaluate sex offender  registrants in the                                                                    
same  way they  were currently  being evaluated.  A petition                                                                    
would be similar  to an appeal they  presently received. The                                                                    
wording of  the bill would  allow the department to  look at                                                                    
the facts  of the case  for an underlying  conviction, which                                                                    
the  department  currently  could  not  do  because  of  the                                                                    
Supreme  Court decision.  It would  allow the  department to                                                                    
look at the  actions that were taken to  determine whether a                                                                    
particular person should continue to register in Alaska.                                                                        
Representative  Josephson asked  if there  were states  that                                                                    
considered  public  urination  a  sexual  offense  act.  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore was  not in attendance,  nor did he observe  any of                                                                    
the House  Judiciary hearings and  could not comment  on the                                                                    
thinking  of  the  committee.  In  answer  to  his  question                                                                    
regarding public urination  in Alaska, it was not  in and of                                                                    
itself  a sex  offense.  However, if  someone exposed  their                                                                    
genitalia to  others under  age, it could  be a  sex offense                                                                    
and  cause for  registration.  He had  heard concerns  about                                                                    
what   other   states   criminalized  that   might   require                                                                    
registration. He would want to see specifics.                                                                                   
3:30:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard  asked Ms.  Monfreda  about                                                                    
provisions in  statute that oversaw sex  offenders and child                                                                    
kidnappers when an offender moved  from one state to Alaska.                                                                    
She   queried   whether   the  department   monitored   such                                                                    
individuals. She wondered if Section 46 was necessary.                                                                          
Ms. Monfreda replied  that the issue was that  the state had                                                                    
to compare the  offenses committed in another  state and the                                                                    
elements of the  offenses to determine if  they were similar                                                                    
to elements  of a sexual  offense in Alaska. In  some cases,                                                                    
it had  been determined  that even though  a sex  offense in                                                                    
another  state did  not  contain all  of  the elements,  the                                                                    
courts  did not  allow the  underlying of  the offense.  The                                                                    
department had  been told  they had to  use the  elements of                                                                    
the   offense.  She   reported  there   had  been   numerous                                                                    
circumstances  in which  a  person had  to  register in  one                                                                    
state but not in Alaska.                                                                                                        
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard asked  if Section  46 would                                                                    
assist    the    department.    Ms.    Monfreda    responded                                                                    
affirmatively. The  underlying actions  could be  taken into                                                                    
3:33:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore turned attention to Sections 51-54.                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Ortiz asked  if Mr.  Skidmore supported  the sex                                                                    
offender registration  sections. Mr. Skidmore  supported the                                                                    
idea of sex  offenders being required to  register in Alaska                                                                    
when they  were already registered  in other states.  He did                                                                    
not think  the administration would support  a petition. The                                                                    
petition would  allow a person  to avoid having  to register                                                                    
because  Alaska had  not criminalized  certain conduct.  The                                                                    
administration wanted  to discourage  anyone from  coming to                                                                    
Alaska to avoid registration.  He stressed that the petition                                                                    
would  also be  additional  work  by DPS  to  carry out  the                                                                    
petition idea.                                                                                                                  
Vice-Chair   Ortiz  suggested   there   would  be   negative                                                                    
consequences.  Mr.  Skidmore   agreed  there  were  negative                                                                    
consequences  associated with  someone failing  to register.                                                                    
He reiterated  the concept  that the state  did not  want to                                                                    
encourage people to come to Alaska to avoid registration.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  about  the  administration's  crime                                                                    
bills and why they introduced  four of them. She wondered if                                                                    
the administration hoped to have separate discussions.                                                                          
3:37:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  reported that the administration  offered four                                                                    
separate crime bills  in order for them to  be moved through                                                                    
with more  concise deliberation.  Currently, the  bill being                                                                    
discussed  included several  topics making  the conversation                                                                    
more unwieldy.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if, by  combining them,  it made  it                                                                    
more difficult to  deliberate based on the time  left in the                                                                    
session. Mr. Skidmore had  expressed empathy for legislators                                                                    
having to understand and digest  the vast amount of subjects                                                                    
contained in  the legislation. He appreciated  the effort of                                                                    
the  legislature  in  trying to  assess  the  bill  quickly.                                                                    
Having  a number  of items  in  the bill  work together  was                                                                    
extremely important.  He was hopeful, in  the time remaining                                                                    
in the session,  that he could sit down  with legislators to                                                                    
explain  the  concepts in  the  bill  making it  easier  for                                                                    
members to make informed decisions.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  conveyed she  voted in favor  of SB  91. At                                                                    
the time the bill was  voted on, she believed she understood                                                                    
it.  Otherwise, she  would not  have voted  for it.  Looking                                                                    
back, she  realized she did not  understand certain portions                                                                    
of  the bill.  She  would  not move  the  current bill  from                                                                    
committee  without thoroughly  understanding  it. She  would                                                                    
rather do nothing than something  that would place people in                                                                    
a bind similar  to the previous few years. She  did not care                                                                    
how much time was left in  the session, it was her intention                                                                    
to  understand what  was in  the bill  that would  be passed                                                                    
from committee. The disagreement  would be about policy. She                                                                    
asked  members to  let her  know if  they were  not informed                                                                    
enough to  pass the bill  from committee. The  subject could                                                                    
not be rushed, and the  committee needed to make an informed                                                                    
decision on the  bill. She mentioned that  a special session                                                                    
might be in order to get the legislation right.                                                                                 
3:39:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson   thought  it  sounded   like  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore was  relatively satisfied with the  contents of the                                                                    
bill other than the petition  section. He asked Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
to  comment  on  the  current  bill  versus  the  governor's                                                                    
original version and juvenile registration requirements.                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the  concept was in the bill before                                                                    
the committee. If not,  she thought Representative Josephson                                                                    
wanted  to  know what  bill  it  existed in.  Representative                                                                    
Josephson  responded affirmatively.  Mr.  Skidmore drew  the                                                                    
committee's attention  to page  29, Section  48, line  30 at                                                                    
the  bottom of  the  page. The  language  included a  person                                                                    
charged  and  convicted  as  an adult  of  an  offense  that                                                                    
required registration  as a sex offender  or child kidnapper                                                                    
in  another  state.  The bill  limited  the  requirement  to                                                                    
adults who  were obligated to  register in other  states. He                                                                    
continued that HB 52 did  not limit the requirement to adult                                                                    
Representative Knopp  commented that  many of  the decisions                                                                    
were   policy  calls   and  that   there  was   not  perfect                                                                    
legislation. He  surmised that the legislature  fixed things                                                                    
when  needed.  There  were no  guarantees.  Co-Chair  Wilson                                                                    
appreciated  Representative Knopp's  remarks. She  commented                                                                    
that  it was  important  to be  comfortable  with one's  own                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  addressed Sections 51-54. They  did two things                                                                    
for a  felony DUI and a  felony refusal. Sections 51  and 52                                                                    
repeated in Sections 53 and  54 regarding a refusal. Section                                                                    
51  talked about  where a  person  was required  to serve  a                                                                    
sentence  for   a  first-time  DUI.  When   he  first  began                                                                    
practicing, the  law stated  that a person  had to  spend 72                                                                    
consecutive hours  in a  jail facility  if they  committed a                                                                    
first DUI. Since then, the  law changed allowing a person to                                                                    
serve 72 hours at a  community residential center (CRC) or a                                                                    
halfway house.  He continued  that when  SB 91  was enacted,                                                                    
the  law  changed allowing  a  person  to be  on  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  or  on  home  arrest   for  the  72  hours.  The                                                                    
provision in  Section 51 returned it  to a CRC. It  was left                                                                    
to the  discretion of the  commissioner of DOC to  decide on                                                                    
another appropriate  place for  a person  to serve  their 72                                                                    
hours.  Although   not  mandated,  a  person   could  be  on                                                                    
electronic monitoring  at a private residence.  He wanted to                                                                    
provide historical information.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  Mr.  Skidmore  to  comment  on  the                                                                    
administration's position.                                                                                                      
3:44:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  replied that Section  51 was the same  as what                                                                    
was found  in the original version  of HB 49. He  thought it                                                                    
was something  the administration supported. He  referred to                                                                    
Section 52 which addressed felony  DUIs. However, the newest                                                                    
version  of the  bill made  it easier  for a  license to  be                                                                    
returned to an  individual when it was revoked  for a felony                                                                    
DUI.  It  stated that  a  person  could have  their  license                                                                    
returned  after 10  years if  they  had steered  clear of  a                                                                    
subsequent criminal offense. He  suggested that while it was                                                                    
a provision  that was not  in the original  HB 49, it  was a                                                                    
concept that  provided a  way back to  having a  license for                                                                    
those convicted of a felony  DUI. He had heard stories about                                                                    
people who  should not have  had their license  restored but                                                                    
heard  many more  stories about  people  who benefited  from                                                                    
their  license being  restored. In  many cases  it played  a                                                                    
critical role in  a person's ability to  function in society                                                                    
including being  able to  have a  job or  go to  the grocery                                                                    
store. He relayed a personal  experience of hiring a painter                                                                    
with  a  felony  DUI  who   had  difficulty  conducting  his                                                                    
business. It was a provision that could be helpful.                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  countered that the people  who had offended                                                                    
twice  would be  subject  to loosing  their  license upon  a                                                                    
third DUI.  She wondered if  it would diminish  the severity                                                                    
of getting 3 DUI convictions.                                                                                                   
3:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  responded in the  negative. He  explained that                                                                    
at the third DUI in 10  years a person received a felony and                                                                    
would  encounter  significant  additional  consequences.  He                                                                    
explained  that  when  he first  started  as  a  prosecutor,                                                                    
revocation of a  driver's license was about  10 years. Later                                                                    
it was  changed to a  lifetime. The provision was  trying to                                                                    
strike   a  balance.   The  felony   carried  a   much  more                                                                    
significant  jail  sentence,  a   greater  fine,  and  other                                                                    
provisions associated with a felony offence.                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson saw  the  provision  as a  win-win                                                                    
from   both  a   prosecutor's  and   a  defense   attorney's                                                                    
standpoint. He asked if he was accurate.                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore highlighted lines 13-15  that limited who could                                                                    
apply  for  their  license to  be  returned.  He  referenced                                                                    
Alaska Statute  11.41.100, a crime of  murder; AS 11.41.210,                                                                    
an  assault crime;  AS 11.41.280,[an  assault  on an  unborn                                                                    
child in  the first degree];  and AS 11.41.282,  [an assault                                                                    
of  an unborn  child in  the second  degree]. The  provision                                                                    
outlined that  a person committing  certain types  of crimes                                                                    
would not be eligible to  have their license reinstated. For                                                                    
individuals that  were eligible, the reinstatement  of their                                                                    
license would  help to fulfill  the goal  of rehabilitation.                                                                    
He  reiterated   that  it  was  an   appropriate  compromise                                                                    
striking a balance in the system.                                                                                               
3:50:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  reported that  Section 53  did the  same thing                                                                    
for  a felony  refusal. He  explained that  if a  person was                                                                    
arrested for a  DUI and refused to provide  a breath sample,                                                                    
it would be criminalized in the  same way as a DUI. The same                                                                    
restrictions  on a  driver's license  would  apply, and  the                                                                    
same proposal  to allow  a driver's  license to  be returned                                                                    
would apply.                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore addressed  Section 55 on page 34,  line 23. The                                                                    
section created  a statute  that required  a risk  and needs                                                                    
assessment for a  person sentenced for more than  90 days in                                                                    
jail.   The  assessment   required  the   coordination  with                                                                    
community reentry  and a subsequent report.  The section was                                                                    
partially  in  law  but  was amended.  He  referred  to  the                                                                    
sections on  page 35, line  29 in Subsection 7.  He reported                                                                    
that the risk  assessment used to be required  after 30 days                                                                    
but  was changed  to  90 days  staying  consistent with  the                                                                    
change in  Class A misdemeanors. There  were similar changes                                                                    
on page 36, lines 7-8 that  took into account what was going                                                                    
on after sentencing and discussed the rest of the program.                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore continued to discuss  Section 55 moving to page                                                                    
37, lines 4-5 about the  coordination of reentry programs, a                                                                    
new  addition to  the  bill. Lines  15-25  included the  new                                                                    
information requiring the report  he had mentioned regarding                                                                    
the risk assessment needs and  the coordination of community                                                                    
3:52:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  moved to  Section 56  on page  37 which  was a                                                                    
conforming  amendment   regarding  drugs.  It   changed  the                                                                    
statutes related to changes made  earlier in the bill. There                                                                    
were no substantive rights that  were changed, it only added                                                                    
another statute number.                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore continued to Section  57 which added law to the                                                                    
departments that had to provide  data to the Alaska Criminal                                                                    
Justice  Commission in  other reports  that were  previously                                                                    
mentioned in  statute. He reported  that Sections 58  and 59                                                                    
on page  38 addressed  a report that  the Department  of Law                                                                    
had  to provide  in  conjunction with  DPS  relating to  sex                                                                    
offenses. Certain  information was requested to  be provided                                                                    
including the  number of cases  reported to  law enforcement                                                                    
that were not  referred to prosecutors; the  number of cases                                                                    
that were  referred by law  enforcement to  prosecutors that                                                                    
were not  prosecuted; the number  of sex offense  cases that                                                                    
were prosecuted that were resolved  as non-sex offenses; and                                                                    
the   number  of   victims   that   participated  in   court                                                                    
proceedings. He  relayed that  Sections 7-59  were reporting                                                                    
requirements  not originally  found in  HB 49.  Some of  the                                                                    
requirements were  added to SB 35 [Short  Title: CRIMES; SEX                                                                    
CRIMES; SENTENCING;  PAROLE], in the other  body, that dealt                                                                    
with sex offences.                                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to Section  60  having to  do with  sex                                                                    
assault  kit examinations.  It was  not originally  found in                                                                    
HB 49. However, it  was found in HB 20  [Short Title: SEXUAL                                                                    
ASSAULT  EXAMINATION  KITS]  that   had  been  discussed  in                                                                    
another meeting.  The bill  was sponsored  by Representative                                                                    
Geran  Tarr. Generally,  what was  found in  Section 60  was                                                                    
that sex  assault kits were required  to be sent to  the lab                                                                    
within  30  days.  Once  received  by  the  lab,  they  were                                                                    
required to  be tested  within one  year. He  continued that                                                                    
within two  weeks of  the testing it  was required  that the                                                                    
victim  be notified  that the  testing  was complete.  There                                                                    
were some  exemptions found in  Section 63. He  would review                                                                    
Section 61 first.                                                                                                               
Mr.  Skidmore explained  that Section  61 required  that all                                                                    
kits  be accounted  for  each year.  Section  62 required  a                                                                    
report of  the accounting of  all kits found in  Section 61.                                                                    
Section  63  exempted  kits from  testing  requirements  for                                                                    
three  reasons: If  they  were  scientifically unviable,  if                                                                    
they  did not  meet the  requirements for  entry into  CODIS                                                                    
(the program in which DNA  was entered for other felonies or                                                                    
sex offences  for the purpose  of solving  unsolved crimes),                                                                    
or if they were anonymous  kits. He explained that in Alaska                                                                    
and under  federal law  the state was  required to  report a                                                                    
sexual  assault  to  a  medical  provider  and  not  to  law                                                                    
enforcement. A victim could have  a medical provider collect                                                                    
evidence  in a  sexual assault  kit but  could specify  that                                                                    
they did  not want to  pursue the prosecution of  the sexual                                                                    
assault. Therefore,  the assault  would not get  reported to                                                                    
law enforcement and the kit  would be collected anonymously.                                                                    
If a person wanted the evidence  to be helpful, it had to be                                                                    
collected quickly  after the  incident occurred.  There were                                                                    
times  a  victim might  go  through  significant trauma  and                                                                    
might be  trying to process  and deal with what  happened to                                                                    
them.  They  might not  be  prepared  to  take on  what  was                                                                    
involved in a  criminal prosecution, but they  might want to                                                                    
later. If  the evidence was collected  and held anonymously,                                                                    
it allowed a person to come to a decision later on.                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore moved to Section  64 which contained conforming                                                                    
language  for   the  Department   of  Juvenile   Justice  in                                                                    
disclosing certain information about  crimes that they would                                                                    
charge for juveniles. The section  was conforming because it                                                                    
conformed to the  changes made earlier in  the bill relating                                                                    
to drug offenses.                                                                                                               
3:59:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  moved to Section 65  which had to do  with the                                                                    
ability  of a  prosecutor  to use  an  Alaska Public  Safety                                                                    
Information Network (APSIN) report.  He explained that APSIN                                                                    
was the  place to  look for criminal  history in  Alaska for                                                                    
other  offenders.  At  the  grand  jury  level  one  of  the                                                                    
elements that had to be  established was that the person had                                                                    
a certain  type of conviction in  their history. Prosecutors                                                                    
were allowed  to use APSIN  to establish history at  a grand                                                                    
jury  but not  at trial  for a  felony DUI  or for  a felony                                                                    
refusal. Prosecutors  were not allowed  to use APSIN  if the                                                                    
case had  to do with a  felon in possession. He  provided an                                                                    
example. He indicated that the  rationale in the section was                                                                    
that if  it was good enough  for a felony DUI,  it should be                                                                    
good  enough  for other  offenses.  It  did not  change  any                                                                    
substantive right.  It was an  efficiency concept  for grand                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  indicated Section  66 contained  repealers, of                                                                    
which   there  were   only  three.   Section  67   contained                                                                    
applicability.  Section  68 talked  about  a  report to  the                                                                    
legislature. Section 69 addressed  an uncodified law for the                                                                    
conditional  effect because  some rules  were being  changed                                                                    
that  required a  two-thirds majority  vote, and  section 70                                                                    
contained the effective date.                                                                                                   
Representative  Josephson  asked  if the  last  repealer  in                                                                    
Section 66 was the section  in which the Judiciary Committee                                                                    
stripped  out  petty theft  penalties.  He  wondered if  the                                                                    
effect of  the repealer was to  revert to the 90-day  cap or                                                                    
the 30-day cap  under a Class B misdemeanor. He  asked if he                                                                    
was accurate.                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore clarified  that  Representative Josephson  was                                                                    
referring to AS  12.55.137 (l). The subsection  set caps for                                                                    
low-level theft  crimes. In  SB 91  it had  them at  no jail                                                                    
time. In  SB 54 in October  2017 the no jail  sentences were                                                                    
expanded to be  5, 10, and 15 days  for subsequent offenses.                                                                    
The current bill removed the  caps in the low-level jail and                                                                    
authorized  the  sentence  range  to be  determined  by  the                                                                    
legislature  for   Class  B  misdemeanors.   Currently,  the                                                                    
sentence range  was zero to  10 days.  The version of  HB 49                                                                    
before  the committee  changed it  to zero  to 30  days. The                                                                    
original version  of HB 49 had  a range of zero  to 90 days.                                                                    
Depending  on the  provision of  sentencing the  legislature                                                                    
decided on  for a Class  B misdemeanor would depend  on what                                                                    
range was  decided on for  the low-level thefts.  The effect                                                                    
of  the  repealer  removed  the  caps  and  made  the  range                                                                    
selected for Class B misdemeanors  the effective range for a                                                                    
particular crime.                                                                                                               
4:03:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson noted that  Mr. Skidmore had talked                                                                    
about the  absence of  a restoration  of the  presumptive in                                                                    
the As  and Cs in the  bill. He asked if  there was anything                                                                    
else not  in the  bill. He was  not asking  about probation,                                                                    
parole, or pretrial.                                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that he  was talking about  the bill                                                                    
that was referred to as  sentencing and classification which                                                                    
was  the  original  version  of  HB  49.  He  would  not  be                                                                    
referring  to  the other  bills  that  were introduced  that                                                                    
dealt with  pretrial, probation,  parole, and  sex offences.                                                                    
He  provided a  list  of  things no  longer  in the  current                                                                    
version  of HB  49.  Escape  was not  found  in the  current                                                                    
version of the bill. Escape  in the third degree was altered                                                                    
in  the original  HB 49  so someone  that had  an electronic                                                                    
monitoring device  on them pretrial  would commit a  Class C                                                                    
felony  with the  removal of  it.  If someone  had an  ankle                                                                    
monitor on  for a misdemeanor,  it was a  lower-level escape                                                                    
crime,  and the  original HB  49 elevated  it to  a Class  C                                                                    
felony offense.                                                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore brought  up the second change, a  change in the                                                                    
sentence for  disorderly conduct of  24 hours to zero  to 10                                                                    
days  in the  original version.  The change  was not  in the                                                                    
newer  version.   Another  change  was  made   to  probation                                                                    
periods. The original  HB 49 returned the  maximum period of                                                                    
probation  that could  be imposed  to what  it was  prior to                                                                    
SB 91. For  sex offenses it  was 5 years. Under  current law                                                                    
it was under  15 years. For non-sex offenses prior  to SB 91                                                                    
it was  a 10-year maximum.  Under currently law there  was a                                                                    
cascading approach to the maximum  period of probation which                                                                    
he could not recall. There were various levels.                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore  noted he  had  already  discussed the  felony                                                                    
presumptive ranges, the differences  in Class A misdemeanors                                                                    
and  Class  B  misdemeanors  and DUIs.  He  thought  he  had                                                                    
covered all of the  differences between the original version                                                                    
of HB 49 and the  current one before the committee. Co-Chair                                                                    
Wilson requested  the section numbers in  the original bill.                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  relayed the different  section numbers  to the                                                                    
committee.  He would  be  happy to  find  the other  section                                                                    
number and provide it to the representative.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz   asked  about   the  maximum   period  of                                                                    
probation and  about an impact  on deterrence.  Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
relayed that the  maximum period of probation  was a concept                                                                    
that  could  impact  multiple  issues.   There  had  been  a                                                                    
question  earlier  about  treatment  not being  able  to  be                                                                    
completed in  the set time  period. The period  of probation                                                                    
was  the  timeframe  to  be   able  to  complete  conditions                                                                    
including   treatment.   If   the   probation   period   was                                                                    
insufficient,  time  would run  out  before  a person  could                                                                    
complete treatment. A longer period  of probation provided a                                                                    
greater  period  of  time  for   a  person  to  comply  with                                                                    
conditions. In terms of sex  offenses, the containment model                                                                    
existed  which monitored  people on  probation very  closely                                                                    
and  carefully.   The  containment   model  has   been  very                                                                    
effective.  The period  of probation  being reduced  from 25                                                                    
years to  15 years meant that  10 years of containing  a sex                                                                    
offender for treatment would potentially be lost.                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore  recalled another  item that  was not  found in                                                                    
the  current version  of HB  49  that was  contained in  the                                                                    
original  bill. It  dealt with  involuntary commitments.  He                                                                    
explained that there  was a provision that  required data to                                                                    
be transferred from  the Court System to DPS  which was when                                                                    
someone was involuntarily  committed. The mental commitments                                                                    
disqualified an  individual from obtaining a  firearm unless                                                                    
courts had  decided the person  was currently  acceptable to                                                                    
have a  firearm. A second  hearing would have to  take place                                                                    
revoking the  mental illness  designation of  an individual.                                                                    
He  noted  a  number  of  shootings  that  had  taken  place                                                                    
recently in  the country. The  concept, although it  did not                                                                    
solve all problems,  was important enough to  be endorsed by                                                                    
the National Rifle Association.  He noted that the provision                                                                    
did not change a person's  substantive rights, it was a data                                                                    
transfer. The  court had  been particularly  concerned about                                                                    
the provision  because they had  to go back to  records from                                                                    
1981 when the  State of Alaska began  mental commitments. It                                                                    
would take  effort. There had  been discussions  between the                                                                    
Court  System and  DPS about  whether  there were  available                                                                    
grant funds.  The importance of  a mental commitment  was to                                                                    
ensure  that Alaska  was able  to  actively participate  and                                                                    
comply  with  federal  law for  ensuring  mental  commitment                                                                    
information  was  supplied  to  the Department  of  Law  for                                                                    
ensuring mental  commitment and information supplied  to DPS                                                                    
that they can help gun dealers to comply with federal law.                                                                      
4:11:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  asked if Mr. Skidmore  would provide an                                                                    
email  to members  with  the sections  that  were no  longer                                                                    
included in  the newest  version of  the bill.  Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
relayed that he  was happy to provide an email  and happy to                                                                    
follow up  with individuals. Vice-Chair Johnston  was really                                                                    
interested  in  the things  that  reflected  changes in  the                                                                    
administration's version of HB 49.                                                                                              
Representative  Josephson   relayed  that  the   concept  of                                                                    
involuntary commitment passed in  2014 and was introduced in                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  mentioned areas of the  current version of                                                                    
the bill  that were positive  that the original  version did                                                                    
not  do. He  wondered if  Mr. Skidmore  could comment  about                                                                    
acting on the bill in  its current form. Co-Chair Wilson did                                                                    
not believe  the question  should be  asked of  Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
presently.  She  was  grateful  to him  for  coming  to  the                                                                    
committee on  short notice to  present the  bill's sectional                                                                    
analysis. She would like to  hear his answer to the question                                                                    
after he had the opportunity to further study the bill.                                                                         
4:15:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp  imagined  Mr.  Skidmore's  department                                                                    
crafted  the  original  version   of  HB  49.  Mr.  Skidmore                                                                    
responded that he was involved in the bill drafting.                                                                            
Representative  Knopp  asked  if there  was  a  side-by-side                                                                    
comparison between current  law and the original  HB 49. Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore replied that the department  attempted to produce a                                                                    
matrix showing  law prior to SB  91, the changes made  in SB
91, the changes  in SB 54 or  HB 312, and HB  49. The matrix                                                                    
had  been updated  as it  progressed in  the other  body. He                                                                    
would check if he had the information.                                                                                          
Representative Knopp  was not  interested in  anything prior                                                                    
to  SB 91.  He was  only interested  in SB  91 and  forward.                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson had a copy and would supply it to members.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Wilson provided  the  call-in  numbers for  public                                                                    
testimony  at  5:00 P.M.  She  hoped  to hear  from  several                                                                    
members of the public.                                                                                                          
HB  49  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
4:18:40 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects