Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519

05/09/2024 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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 5:15 PM --
-- Delayed to 2:05 PM --
+ HB 400 CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS; ALLOTMENTS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Public Testimony --
+ SB 205 AHFC AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE BUILDING TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Public Testimony --
+= SB 170 EXTND SR BENEFITS; REPEAL LONGEVITY BONUS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= SB 74 PHYSICAL THERAPY LICENSURE COMPACT TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 74(FIN) Out of Committee
+= SB 75 AUD. & SPEECH-LANG INTERSTATE COMPACT TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 75(FIN) Out of Committee
+= SB 118 CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCES; REPORTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 118(FIN) Out of Committee
+ HB 275 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS/TRACKING TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 223 TAX & ROYALTY FOR CERTAIN GAS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+= SB 104 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
HOUSE BILL NO. 275                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to sexual assault examination kits;                                                                       
     establishing   the  sexual   assault  examination   kit                                                                    
     tracking system; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:26:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LISA PURINTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION  OF STATEWIDE SERVICES AND                                                                    
ACTING  LEGISLATIVE LIAISON,  DEPARTMENT  OF PUBLIC  SAFETY,                                                                    
introduced herself.  She thanked  the committee  for hearing                                                                    
the bill.  She asked a  colleague to provide an  overview of                                                                    
the legislation.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  KANARIS, FORENSIC  SCIENCE  LABORATORY CHIEF,  ALASKA                                                                    
STATE   CRIME  LAB,   DEPARTMENT  OF   PUBLIC  SAFETY   (via                                                                    
teleconference),  relayed that  the bill  would require  the                                                                    
Department of Public  Safety (DPS) to develop  and operate a                                                                    
sexual assault  kit tracking system. Second,  the bill would                                                                    
establish timeframes  for all of the  stakeholders who would                                                                    
handle a  kit including medical providers,  law enforcement,                                                                    
and the crime lab and  testing. Third, the bill would enable                                                                    
victim survivors  to track their kit  through status updates                                                                    
in  the system.  Fourth, the  bill  added a  section to  the                                                                    
Victims Bill  of Rights. He  asked if Co-Chair  Foster would                                                                    
like a review of the summary of changes.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster responded affirmatively.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kanaris  reviewed a summary  of changes (copy  on file).                                                                    
Amendment  A.3  changed  Section  1,  page  2,  line  3  and                                                                    
required  law  enforcement to  send  kits  to an  accredited                                                                    
laboratory  within DPS  within 20  days of  receiving notice                                                                    
from the  healthcare provider.  The amendment  decreased the                                                                    
current  turnaround time  for law  enforcement  by 10  days.                                                                    
Amendment  A.4  changed  Section  1, page  2,  line  20  and                                                                    
required  the laboratory  receiving  the  completed kits  to                                                                    
complete a  DNA test on  the sexual assault  examination kit                                                                    
within  120  days  (reducing the  timeframe  down  from  six                                                                    
months).   Amendment  A.5   added  a   new  section   to  AS                                                                    
12.61.010(a),  the  crime  victim statute,  to  include  the                                                                    
right  for  victims  to  be notified  of  the  location  and                                                                    
testing  date  of the  sexual  assault  examination kit.  He                                                                    
asked  if  Co-Chair  Foster  would  like  a  review  of  the                                                                    
sectional analysis.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster  relayed  that  he  would  move  to  public                                                                    
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:29:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TARA  HENRY, NURSE,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), shared                                                                    
that she had previously  testified and had submitted written                                                                    
testimony. She  was available for  questions related  to the                                                                    
timeframe  from a  medical perspective.  She explained  that                                                                    
forensic nursing  groups were not supportive  of a seven-day                                                                    
deadline and  were hoping for  a 10 to 14-day  timeframe due                                                                    
to the extensive amount of  work after a sexual assault exam                                                                    
was  completed and  the timing  it took  to complete  the 60                                                                    
plus pages of documentation required  in order to finalize a                                                                    
sexual assault kit.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Josephson  looked at  page  3  of the  bill,                                                                    
which  specified  the   healthcare  provider  gathering  the                                                                    
evidence  shall gather  the kit  and notify  the appropriate                                                                    
law enforcement  agency within  seven days.  He asked  if it                                                                    
was the portion of the bill Ms. Henry was referencing.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Henry responded affirmatively.  She explained that after                                                                    
forensic nurses  completed examinations there was  a 60-page                                                                    
document  to fill  out the  medical forensic  documentation.                                                                    
She explained  that it  took several  hours to  complete the                                                                    
documentation. She  detailed that a seven-day  timeframe was                                                                    
not long  enough for nurses  to see patients and  finish all                                                                    
of the documentation due to  the timing of their shifts. She                                                                    
elaborated  that  if  nurses   had  to  meet  the  seven-day                                                                    
deadline  it   would  force  staff  to   work  beyond  their                                                                    
regularly scheduled 12-hour shifts or  to come in to work on                                                                    
their days  off. Financially,  the requirement  would burden                                                                    
hospitals  with overtime  costs  and would  result in  would                                                                    
increase   burnout   and   staffing   shortages.   Hospitals                                                                    
represented  by  union  nurses would  end  up  facing  union                                                                    
grievances. She  relayed that forensic nurses  would support                                                                    
a longer timeframe of 10 to  14 days, which would allow them                                                                    
to finish charting without overtime.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster  asked Ms. Purinton  for any comment  on the                                                                    
topic.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:34:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Purinton  replied that DPS understood  the concerns. The                                                                    
intention of  the bill was  to ensure that time  frames were                                                                    
set up for  each aspect of the tracking process  in order to                                                                    
make the process  more transparent for victims  and to allow                                                                    
them to identify where their  kits were in the process (from                                                                    
the time they  consent to an exam to the  time the kits were                                                                    
processed by  the lab). The  tracking software  started from                                                                    
the time the  kits were logged from  the manufacturer though                                                                    
the time  the lab finished  testing of the kit.  The portion                                                                    
currently  missing was  from the  medical providers  because                                                                    
everyone else  had a specified  timeframe. For  example, law                                                                    
enforcement  would have  20 days  under the  legislation and                                                                    
the  lab  had  120  days.   The  timeframe  for  the  medial                                                                    
providers was not  meant to make anyone  miss timelines. The                                                                    
goal was to include established  timeframes in order for the                                                                    
kits to  be completed  as quickly as  possible. There  was a                                                                    
companion bill in  the Senate and the  timeframe for medical                                                                    
providers  had been  extended. She  explained that  training                                                                    
the previous  summer for all participants  (law enforcement,                                                                    
advocacy groups,  and medical providers) used  the seven-day                                                                    
timeframe, which  would need  to be adjusted  if it  was the                                                                    
will of the committee.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:36:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Hannan  asked  Ms.  Henry  if  the  forensic                                                                    
nurses had expressed  their concern to DPS  that a seven-day                                                                    
timeframe was  unrealistic and that  a 14-day  timeframe was                                                                    
not objectionable.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Henry responded  that DPS  had worked  with a  forensic                                                                    
nurse  named Angie  Ellis. Initially  for  the training  the                                                                    
nurses  started  with  a  seven-day  deadline  to  determine                                                                    
whether the  timeframe was reasonable. The  training started                                                                    
the past  July and  nurses had  determined that  meeting the                                                                    
seven-day  deadline was  very difficult.  She reported  that                                                                    
the  process was  taking nurses  closer  to 10  to 14  days.                                                                    
Other forensic  nurses including  the forensic  nurse expert                                                                    
consulted by  DPS expressed  concerns to  the crime  lab and                                                                    
department. The  nurses had submitted letters  of opposition                                                                    
voicing their concerns.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Hannan  stated  her understanding  that  DPS                                                                    
wanted  some timeline  for medical  providers because  there                                                                    
currently was not one.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Purinton responded  affirmatively. There  was currently                                                                    
no timeline for medical providers.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Hannan asked  for verification  that if  the                                                                    
House  version  of the  bill  included  the Senate's  14-day                                                                    
timeline it  would satisfy  DPS's concern  that there  was a                                                                    
timeline allowing  victims to understand the  parameters and                                                                    
track the process.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Purinton agreed.  The department  was trying  to ensure                                                                    
there was transparency for victims.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAXINE DOOGAN,  COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY  AND PROTECTION,                                                                    
FAIRBANKS  (via  teleconference),   shared  that  the  group                                                                    
represented  Alaska's current  and former  sex workers,  sex                                                                    
trafficking   victims,   and   allies.  She   testified   in                                                                    
opposition to the  bill because she was  concerned about the                                                                    
insufficient  attention to  the  privacy  of sexual  assault                                                                    
victims. The group was specifically  concerned about the law                                                                    
enforcement and  DNA database's access to  victims' DNA. She                                                                    
highlighted a case in San  Francisco where the police kept a                                                                    
rape victim's  DNA and used  it to crossmatch on  a burglary                                                                    
case  five years  later. She  relayed that  did not  support                                                                    
keeping DNA  on file  after sexual assault  examination kits                                                                    
were  processed  for  law  enforcement  agencies  to  access                                                                    
whenever  they  want. She  stated  it  created an  untenable                                                                    
situation  for  sexual assault  victims  to  have to  choose                                                                    
between getting  justice or  maintaining their  privacy. The                                                                    
group  hoped that  the  bill would  include  a provision  to                                                                    
protect  rape victims'  DNA from  being used  by contractors                                                                    
responsible   for   the   databases  for   various   things.                                                                    
Additionally, she  believed the  bill should  be restrictive                                                                    
on   how  law   enforcement  could   access  DNA.   She  was                                                                    
disappointed  that the  bill did  not  include those  things                                                                    
thus far.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster  recessed  the   meeting  for  House  floor                                                                    
session.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:41:53 PM                                                                                                                    
RECESSED                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:18:27 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster  continued with HB  275. He asked to  hear a                                                                    
review  of  the  fiscal  note  before  returning  to  public                                                                    
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:21:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Purinton reviewed  the DPS  fiscal note,  OMB component                                                                    
527 dated May 4, 2024.  She explained that the bill required                                                                    
DPS  to  have  sexual  assault kit  tracking  software.  She                                                                    
detailed  that  the  department took  advantage  of  federal                                                                    
funding  available to  secure the  software  for the  sexual                                                                    
assault  exam  tracking   application.  The  department  had                                                                    
procured the software  and it was implemented  in the field.                                                                    
The  federal   funding  also   fully  funded   two  staffing                                                                    
positions  to enable  the department  to deploy,  implement,                                                                    
and develop the training and management of the software.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Purinton  relayed that  unfortunately the  grant funding                                                                    
was expiring  in September  2024 and  the fiscal  note would                                                                    
cover the cost for the  ongoing licensing and maintenance of                                                                    
the  application  and  to  continue  with  one  of  the  two                                                                    
positions. She  explained that now that  the application was                                                                    
fully   deployed,  DPS   believed   it   could  manage   the                                                                    
application, training,  and outreach with one  position. The                                                                    
FY 25 costs were partially  offset to cover the first fiscal                                                                    
year that  would still be  covered by the federal  grant and                                                                    
the  $177,500  would  continue for  the  remaining  personal                                                                    
services  costs  for FY  25.  The  funding would  cover  the                                                                    
single position and ongoing  maintenance and licensing costs                                                                    
for  the  application,  in  addition   to  some  travel  and                                                                    
handouts  related  to  law enforcement  training  and  other                                                                    
stakeholders  using the  application  throughout the  state.                                                                    
The  outyears included  ongoing costs  for the  position and                                                                    
incremental  annual  cost  for  the  software  licensing  at                                                                    
roughly $1,000 per year.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster returned  to public  testimony. He  thanked                                                                    
Ms. Morton for coming to testify.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
5:24:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LAUREE MORTON,  DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK  ON DOMESTIC                                                                    
VIOLENCE  AND  SEXUAL  ASSAULT, thanked  the  committee  for                                                                    
hearing  the bill.  She shared  that the  Alaska Network  on                                                                    
Domestic   Violence  and   Sexual  Assault   (ANDVSA)  fully                                                                    
supported the legislation. She  was thankful for individuals                                                                    
who had not  had the hard experience of  sexual violence and                                                                    
the experience of gathering evidence  from intimate parts of                                                                    
their  body.   She  stood  with   those  who  had   had  the                                                                    
experience. She hoped everyone could  agree that the ability                                                                    
for  a person  to see  the progress  of the  evidence as  it                                                                    
moved through the system was  critical. She stressed that it                                                                    
should be  a victim's  right. She  asked members  to imagine                                                                    
being able  to use  the small  mercy to  see the  status and                                                                    
location of  the kit at any  time. She stated that  the bill                                                                    
would enable  individuals to check  the status of  their kit                                                                    
without having to  call someone in the system,  wait to hear                                                                    
back,  or  worse to  have  their  request  get lost  in  the                                                                    
shuffle  of the  other person's  busy day.  Establishing the                                                                    
right to  know the status  and location of the  evidence and                                                                    
putting in statute  the mechanism to enact that  right was a                                                                    
small critical step  with a huge impact on  the wellbeing of                                                                    
someone who had experienced sexual assault.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Morton underscored that the  bill would give individuals                                                                    
a  piece  of  their  autonomy  that  was  ripped  away.  She                                                                    
appreciated that  the tracking  also provided for  a systems                                                                    
review  to allow  the state  to  see where  the process  ran                                                                    
smoothly,  where missteps  appeared, and  may indicate  what                                                                    
could be done better. The  agency was invested in seeing the                                                                    
system improved  timeframes to get the  evidence through the                                                                    
process and  believed the  timeframes established  were good                                                                    
first steps.  Additionally, ANDVSA  realized that  with more                                                                    
information  the  timeframes may  need  to  be loosened  but                                                                    
hopefully  they   would  be   shortened.  She   thanked  the                                                                    
committee  for  its time  and  support  for the  victims  of                                                                    
sexual assault.  She urged  the swift  passage of  the bill.                                                                    
She added  that for the  last 20 years  she had been  one of                                                                    
the  trainers for  sexual assault  response  teams. She  was                                                                    
available for any questions about the process.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:27:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Johnson  remarked that there  had been a  number of                                                                    
bills  and  legislation  around  sexual  assault  kits.  She                                                                    
recalled former  Representative Geran  Tarr's bill,  and she                                                                    
thought the  legislature had funded a  substantial amount of                                                                    
money to  ensure backlogs  were cleared  up. She  had called                                                                    
the state crime lab at the  time and had asked how many kits                                                                    
they  had  waiting to  be  processed.  She shared  that  the                                                                    
number  had been  minimal compared  to what  the legislature                                                                    
had been told.  She stated that the crime lab  had not had a                                                                    
chain of  custody for some  of the other kits  because exams                                                                    
were taken in  small village or town  police departments and                                                                    
sometimes  victims had  decided they  did not  want the  kit                                                                    
processed.  She stated  it had  turned into  something where                                                                    
kits had been  tested but there were no  charges pressed and                                                                    
the kits  had lost chain  of custody. She thought  the crime                                                                    
lab was  basically caught  up and  that a  lot of  money had                                                                    
been spent to get to that point.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Morton  responded  that  the   crime  lab  had  done  a                                                                    
significant amount  of work  in getting  caught up  with the                                                                    
backlog. She relayed that  after Representative Tarr's first                                                                    
bill that gave  the crime lab one year to  start getting the                                                                    
kits in order, the timeframe  was reduced to six months. She                                                                    
relayed that  the timeframe in  the bill was reduced  to 120                                                                    
days  (four  months).  She  reported   that  the  crime  lab                                                                    
believed it may  be able to reduce the time  a bit more, but                                                                    
not down to  immediately because the tests run  took time to                                                                    
develop. The  four months and  perhaps a bit  quicker seemed                                                                    
to  be an  appropriate timeframe.  The bill  was about  kits                                                                    
moving forward.  She confirmed  that in the  past a  kit may                                                                    
stay  with  the Municipality  of  Anchorage  or Juneau,  but                                                                    
currently all kits were sent to  and held in the state crime                                                                    
lab. Some of the kits  were directly processed and sometimes                                                                    
victims had the  evidence gathered in an  anonymous kit. She                                                                    
explained that anonymous kits were  not processed unless the                                                                    
victim  decided to  move  forward. She  noted  that in  some                                                                    
cases  kits were  processed and  somewhere along  the way  a                                                                    
victim decided they  no longer wanted to  cooperate with law                                                                    
enforcement.  She   clarified  it  did  not   mean  the  kit                                                                    
information could not be used.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Morton  relayed that a  perpetrator's DNA  evidence went                                                                    
into  the national  CODIS [Combined  DNA Index  System], but                                                                    
the victim's DNA did not. The  crime lab had a process about                                                                    
whether  they  kept  victim DNA  to  perhaps  determine  the                                                                    
difference between  a victim's DNA and  a perpetrator's DNA.                                                                    
She explained  that there was  an information form  that was                                                                    
filled out  so that  victims were  given the  opportunity to                                                                    
understand  how the  system worked  and how  information was                                                                    
contained, which victims had to  agree to. She stated that a                                                                    
lot of  progress had been  made since  former Representative                                                                    
Tarr first  took up the issue.  She shared that there  was a                                                                    
framework   called  "the   six  pillars"   of  appropriately                                                                    
responding to sexual assault; Alaska  had instituted five of                                                                    
the pillars.  The sixth pillar  was to put the  crime victim                                                                    
right into statute, which would  be implemented by the bill.                                                                    
She reiterated that  progress had been made  and the backlog                                                                    
had been  reduced. She  believed more  staff had  been hired                                                                    
and that one  of the fiscal notes talked about  the need for                                                                    
a  given number  of staff.  Strides had  been made  in being                                                                    
able to better move forward with cases.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:33:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnson asked  for verification  that DNA  was not                                                                    
tested in  a scenario  where a  sexual assault  was reported                                                                    
but  law  enforcement  chose  to not  follow  up  or  charge                                                                    
anyone.  She asked  if the  DNA  was kept  as evidence.  She                                                                    
wondered  if DNA  collected from  anyone by  law enforcement                                                                    
was kept on record somewhere.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Morton responded  that someone from the  crime lab would                                                                    
need  to answer  the question.  She clarified  that she  had                                                                    
been  speaking  about  anonymous reporting  kits  where  the                                                                    
victim chose  not to go forward  with the testing of  a kit.                                                                    
She was  not talking  about law  enforcement and  whether or                                                                    
not they were pursuing cases.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnson considered  the federal  funding that  had                                                                    
been  received for  the two  positions and  associated work.                                                                    
She  wondered  if  the expectation  had  been  that  federal                                                                    
funding would be received and  the state would later take on                                                                    
the  funding  responsibility.  She remarked  that  it  would                                                                    
still cost some money to continue on with the work.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Purinton responded  that Mr.  Kanaris, the  state crime                                                                    
lab  chief, could  answer the  questions  pertaining to  the                                                                    
grants. She relayed  that one of the pillars was  one of the                                                                    
recommendations to  address the  significant issue  with the                                                                    
past backlog was to implement  a tracking mechanism allowing                                                                    
transparency  for victims  to address  all of  the questions                                                                    
and issues where kits were  sitting on a shelf somewhere and                                                                    
not   processed  timely.   The   bill   would  provide   the                                                                    
transparency to allow a victim to  track their kit once it a                                                                    
was  taken. She  explained  that it  added transparency  for                                                                    
victims  that did  not exist  before. The  department wanted                                                                    
the  requirement codified  in  law in  order  to ensure  the                                                                    
application  to  better  serve   victims  was  continued  in                                                                    
perpetuity.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:37:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnson considered  artificial intelligence  and a                                                                    
number  of things  that legislators  had  not thought  about                                                                    
having to deal  with before and believed that  at some point                                                                    
a genetic privacy  law would likely be  needed. She wondered                                                                    
about the intended outcome was  when the federal funding had                                                                    
been initially applied  for. She asked if it  was the intent                                                                    
that  data  would  be  collected, and  a  project  would  be                                                                    
completed where the only work  going forward was information                                                                    
entered into a system when  a report was taken. She observed                                                                    
that the  state was  picking up [the  funding responsibility                                                                    
for] a position. She asked for background information.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kanaris  responded that when the  department applied for                                                                    
the  competitive grant  in 2020,  the funding  was meant  as                                                                    
seed money designed for inventory  tracking and reporting to                                                                    
help setup  a kit  tracking system to  help the  lab conduct                                                                    
inventories  and  to  make easier  reporting  of  statistics                                                                    
showing where  kits were in  the process at any  given time.                                                                    
The system was  in place and operational  and the department                                                                    
was  asking  for  continued funding  in  order  to  continue                                                                    
providing the  service, primarily  for victims to  make sure                                                                    
they were able to track their kits.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Galvin   noted  that  one  of   the  earlier                                                                    
testifiers  expressed concerned  about  the  privacy of  the                                                                    
victims' data.  She wondered what  happened with  the victim                                                                    
data.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kanaris understood that the  testifier had highlighted a                                                                    
past  case  in  San  Francisco. He  characterized  it  as  a                                                                    
horrifying  case  that  was an  ethical  violation  using  a                                                                    
victim's  sample to  search  against  current offenses.  The                                                                    
national  DNA  index  system CODIS  hosted  by  the  Federal                                                                    
Bureau of  Investigation (FBI), was extremely  strict around                                                                    
what could and could not  go into the database. He explained                                                                    
that  the   department  had  to   follow  all  of   the  FBI                                                                    
guidelines, which  were publicly available. He  relayed that                                                                    
victim samples could  not go into the  database. He detailed                                                                    
that if the  department violated the rule, it  would run the                                                                    
risk of  not having access  to CODIS, which was  a situation                                                                    
it would never risk. Some  states allowed a local version of                                                                    
a  DNA  database.  He  elaborated  that  those  states  were                                                                    
predominately  the larger  states  with  multiple labs  that                                                                    
input into the CODIS system.  He informed members that those                                                                    
states were  probably the  most at risk  of having  a victim                                                                    
put into  the system.  He explained  that because  the state                                                                    
crime lab was the only crime  lab in Alaska, it did not have                                                                    
a  true  local  [DNA]  database.  The  only  kind  of  local                                                                    
database  in Alaska  was a  staff  elimination database.  He                                                                    
detailed that all of the crime  lab staff with access to the                                                                    
DNA  lab  had  the  DNA  on file  in  a  mini  database.  He                                                                    
elaborated  in the  event of  a contamination  or when  some                                                                    
other DNA  was detected, it  was searched against  the staff                                                                    
elimination database. There were  some other vendors who may                                                                    
have  their DNA  put  in  as well;  however,  there were  no                                                                    
victim DNA  samples in the  staff elimination  database. The                                                                    
crime lab  had written policies  about what kind  of samples                                                                    
could be included.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
5:42:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Galvin  thought  the  information  was  very                                                                    
important. She hoped  that everyone was clear  that the data                                                                    
was safe.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment  deadline of Friday, May 10                                                                    
at 5:00 p.m.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB  275  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
[Note: Co-Chair Foster closed public  testimony on HB 275 at                                                                    
approximately 5:52 p.m.]                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:43:45 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:47:04 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB170 AARP Letter of Support rec'd 4.12.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 170
SB 205 Explanation of Changes Version A to A.A 4.26.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 205 Letter of Support AHFC 1.25.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 205 Letter of Support CIHA 1.30.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 205 Sectional Analysis Version A.A 4.26.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 205 Sponsor Statement Version A.A 4.26.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 205 Supporting Document AHFC Building Information 1.30.24.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 205
SB 170 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050724.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
SB 170
HB 400 version R sectional analysis.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
HB 400
HB 400 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050924.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
HB 400
CSHB 400 Summary of Changes ver U to ver R.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
HB 400
CSHB 400 sponsor statement ver R.pdf HFIN 5/9/2024 1:30:00 PM
HB 400