Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/04/1996 01:04 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 1830 CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced HB 295 as sponsor to this legislation. He mentioned that the committee probably recollected this legislation since they'd heard it before. This legislation dealt with property residing in municipal law enforcement property rooms. Within statute it says that this property should be turned over to the state. Since then there has been a request to consider one other element of property as it affects municipalities to correct a situation caused by a court case in Fairbanks, Johnson v. Johnson. This new element would return the standard procedure where monies and other properties seized as a result of criminal cases are forfeited through the federal system and provided in a distributive fashion to the state and local communities, based on the state or municipality's participation in the case. Because of another state statute provision as interpreted by the court, this practice was discontinued. PETER RAISKUMS, Internal Auditor, City of Anchorage testified by teleconference from Anchorage on HB 295. He stated that he had conducted an audit on Anchorage's property room and is familiar with the magnitude of property which is processed through the department. Mr. Raiskums said he supports this bill and if the state were to receive all the property which the statutes allow for, it would be phenomenal. The passage of this legislation would eliminate any inconsistencies between the state statutes and current municipal ordinances. Number 1980 DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief of Police, Municipality of Anchorage testified by telephone regarding HB 295. He stated that there are two aspects to this legislation which the department is most interested, one, given the fact that Anchorage has it own municipal ordinance on found property, etc., these provisions are inconsistent with the requirements of state law. He noted that this was not just an Anchorage problem. Secondly, regarding the forfeiture aspect of the bill, the department thinks that it's only appropriate that certain monies or properties come back to the law enforcement entity. Mr. Udland, in response to Representative Toohey's question about these monies going into the municipality's general fund instead, he thought that this was a possibility, but the federal money up until this time has always come back to the police department. Number 2140 DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General provided information regarding HB 295. He began by saying that this legislation addressed a few issues which have been hanging around for a few years with respect to forfeited property. The first is the state's ability to transfer property to the federal government and have it go through their forfeiture procedure. For a number of years this is how this procedure has worked and it was very easy say, for example, when money was found as a result of a large drug forfeiture to turn it over to the federal government. The federal government had a very easy administrative process to forfeit this money, hence they could give it directly to the municipal police agency involved with the case. Every thing was fine until the Alaska Supreme Court interpreted some provisions in Alaska statute to hold that this wasn't allowed. Once a state or municipal agent under the authority of state law seizes property it becomes subject to forfeiture under the state laws. This property can't be given to the federal government until after the forfeiture procedure is done. This often takes a long period of time. MR. GUANELI noted that there are some instances, however, particularly with smaller forfeitures which cannot go to the federal government. The Justice Department won't process claims under $5,000. These have to go through state court. When a forfeiture does go through state court the state statutes interpreted this to mean that this money goes in the state general fund, rather than to the municipal police agency which made the arrest. This agency sometimes spends a fair amount of money to cover operations. The other main thing this bill does is to allow money, once it has gone through a state forfeiture proceeding to be given to the municipal police agency which seized the property. MR. GUANELI pointed out that the legislative legal services division had issued a memorandum or at least expressed some concern that allowing this forfeited money to the state and by operation of the judicial process this money would then go to a municipal agency, rather than the state general fund, that this situation may create some problems with avoiding the appropriations process. He stated that they don't have a resolution to this issue. It's an open question, but there are a number of people who believe that by enacting this law and changing this statute in this way it notes that the legislature has spoken that it is certainly permitting these mostly small forfeitures to go directly to municipal police agencies. If the legislature wants to change this at some point in the future they certainly can. It's doubtful that a drug dealer for example, would challenge the statute on this basis. Whether their property goes to a state police agency, they've lost it. It's not clear who would raise this objection and as long as there is a statute which allows this forfeiture to be done, then they're covered. MR. GUANELI proposed an amendment to this legislation, on page two, line 22, regarding a municipal ordinance to dispose of property and the wait of 15 days before they dispose of the property after disposition of a case. The department felt that this 15 days might be too short and suggested that it be expanded to 30 days. He then discussed the clause relating to forfeiture of weapons. Number 2461 DAN MORRIS, Kenai Chief of Police testified by teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 295. He felt as though it would take care of a lot of small problems or issues which they've had in the past. He did appreciate the option of the city to be able to pass an ordinance to dispose of property. Right now Kenai has a lack of space and as is the current law, they're required to wait two years before they're allowed to dispose of this property. He noted that some of this property can loose it's value over time. He felt as though this legislation would simplify the process of disposing of property. CHIEF MORRIS also spoke to Section 6 regarding the forfeiture of drug assets. He spoke to other chiefs on the peninsula this week and they were in favor of the 75 to 25 split and suggested that this not drop any lower. He thought this split was fair and equitable. TAPE 96-28, SIDE B Number 044 SCOTT CALDER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks against HB 295. He shared a personal experience he had with property stolen from his home. Mr. Calder contacted the local police when this happened and he was informed he could not pursue this matter because it involved a juvenile. The department was not able to search their inventory to see whether or not some of this stolen property was housed there. He felt that in this present legislation they should allow for a reasonable attempt to be made for these police stations to search their inventories for people's property. Mr. Calder said it made him a little nervous when the state and federal government discuss how they'll divide the "loot," regarding these forfeitures. Number 238 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how this legislation would apply in Fairbanks where he understood that Fairbanks doesn't charge under any local statute, but under state statute. He asked that under this scenario, if the state assumes these costs would Fairbanks then be in line for some of these monies. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the monies they've been discussing are used by the law enforcement agencies and Fairbanks does do their own investigations of felony crimes. Costs such as informant fees and "buy money" for drug investigations are incurred. These funds must come from city sources. He made note that all drug crimes would be considered felonious. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt CSHB 295(2d JUD) version G. Hearing no objection it was so adopted. Representative Bunde proposed an amendment to this version regarding line 22 on page 2, instead of property being held for "15 days" after a disposition of the case to read instead "30 days." Hearing no objection it was so moved. Representative Bunde made a motion to move CSHB 295(2d JUD) version G as amended from the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection it was so moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|