Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 295 - PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Number 280 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that Lieutenant Bachman from the Alaska State Troopers was present to answer questions. He stated that this bill deals with a statute that has been on the books for a long time unbeknownst to many. It requires that property coming in to possession of law enforcement agencies throughout the state, be held, different properties for different lengths of time, and then be returned to the state in some cases. In Anchorage there was a recent audit of the Anchorage Police Department's property room. Part of the problem was that they were failing to follow state law, unbeknownst to them and almost everybody else. When they tried to figure out what it was they were supposed to do, they called the department that administered the statute and the Department asked, "What statute?" So basically, this is something that needs fixing only because nobody is doing it. What this bill provides is that if a municipality provides itself with an ordinance dealing with the disposition of property that its law enforcement agency receives, that they may do so notwithstanding this obscure state law. JOHN NEWELL, President, Alaska Chiefs Association, testified via teleconference. He agreed with Chairman Porter's opening comments. Sitka, as well as many other cities have existing laws or ordinances that provide for a local manner of dealing with the same property that is discussed in this statute. He totally supports HB 295, to make all of us on a more equal basis. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Newell how it worked in Anchorage. Does it occur on a 15 day basis? If someone had a bicycle, and they were out of town for a couple of weeks, when they come back, the bicycle has been stolen. Under the municipal ordinance, could it have been disposed of already by the time they return home and report the theft? MR. NEWELL answered that he saw that as a possibility with the 15 day holding period. He thought the period in Sitka was longer than that. We get into the due process issue when dealing with the Division of Motor Vehicles. They have other steps and hoops we have to jump through. CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that the 15 day requirement states that property be kept for at least 15 days after the final disposition of a criminal case in which that property had been evidence. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the disposition of property not involved in a criminal case, as unclaimed property, is that governed by the state statute as well? CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that it includes any property. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this is the same statute that governs bank accounts that people do not acclaim. CHAIRMAN PORTER said no, that property is not turned over to law enforcement agencies. Number 300 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated that the Department of Law supports the purpose of the bill and the concept, but they do have pretty serious concerns about the way it is done, which is simply to exempt municipalities from AS 12.36 and AS 34.45. We are concerned that this may do more than the purposes that law enforcement has identified, for example, the question that was just raised. The bill would require that municipalities adopt ordinances, but there is no specifications as to what these ordinances shall provide, and you could have communities setting up ordinances that have what we might consider too short of a time period. Within that, it seems to be dealing with more than simply the abandoned property such as bicycles, or property used in evidence. Section 4 proposed that checks, drafts, currency, and tangible property recovered by a law enforcement agency will go to municipalities now instead of to the State of Alaska. She was not sure what impact that might have but it could have a significant one. If there is any chance that this is interpreted as impacting forfeitures, then we have touched another whole gnarly mess of problems. There is not anything that says forfeitures are not brought up in this context. She felt that the time lines in AS 12.36.030 should simply be changed from one year to 30 days, and in AS 12.36.040 it would read six months instead of two years. She and a staff member of the committee as well as the municipal attorney in Anchorage, all felt much more comfortable just changing those time deadlines, and exempting municipalities from the mandatory reporting requirements. She felt the bill may have some unintended consequences, given its breadth. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that those suggestions were not incorporated because of the obstinacy of the sponsor. He sees nothing in here that would indicate that forfeitures would be handled any differently. A forfeiture is a court order which law enforcement abides by. This is just property that is clogging every property room throughout the state, and now that we have found it, there is concern, but up until about a week ago, nobody in the state knew that anybody was supposed to be turning this property over to the state, nobody has received it. The Department of Revenue never heard of it until we pointed it out to them. The effect on the state is going to be taking them out of the loop they did not know they were in, and received nothing from in the first place. He did not think it was appropriate to have a statute on the books that everybody is violating. Nobody is turning any property over to the state. His obstinacy comes into effect by saying, "Why is the state involved in this in the first place, it seems this is a local matter, of local property being dealt with by local law enforcement, local government. Why should this function go through the state? Number 370 MS. KNUTH said that in terms of what happens to the property, the concern the state has is that it is property that is used as evidence in state prosecuting cases. That type of property is dealt with in AS 12.36.030 and it does require the property be kept as long as necessary for prosecution. The concern she would like to express is we need municipalities if they are going to handle this property through their ordinances, to require that the property be kept long enough for prosecution purposes. CHAIRMAN PORTER argued that is why the bill states that property having been collected as evidence in children's court proceedings, criminal proceedings, or an official investigation, is to be held until at least 15 days after final disposition of the case to which the evidence pertains. MARGOT KNUTH said the committee staff member has just provided her with a draft of the CS, which she had not seen. CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized, and stated that it goes on to say that the municipality will make a reasonable attempt towards locating and identifying the owner of the property that is unclaimed. There are some standards. Number 400 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked what would happen if a municipality came into possession of a local drug deal, involving a house which is confiscated, and it is tried under state statute. Who gets the benefit when that house is sold? CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that is under the forfeiture that the District Attorney's Office administers, and he believed any revenues from those forfeitures are divided. MS. KNUTH stated there is a specific provision for divvying it up under federal forfeiture provisions. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the CS, Version F. Hearing no objection, the CS was adopted as the working draft. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made amotion to move CSHB 295(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, the bill was moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|