Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/09/2001 01:11 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 32 - SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES Number 0095 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced the first item of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 32, "An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense." Number 0150 NATHANIEL ("NATE") MOHATT, Staff to Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. Mr. Mohatt explained the two proposed committee substitutes. The first [Version C, 22-LS0270\C, Luckhaupt, 3/7/01] limits the type of property that can be forfeited to electronic equipment only; it defines "property" with a list of various types of electronic equipment that could be forfeited. The second [Version F, 22-LS0270\F, Luckhaupt, 3/7/01] is a little broader in its limitation; it exempts real property from the forfeiture, and it limits the property to that which can be proven to have contributed directly to the crime. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Hayes whether he had a preference between [Version C and Version F]. Number 0255 REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 32, specified that he would prefer Version F. Having [the property] defined [as in Version C] leaves it open to a legal problem because new technology could arise that is not defined in the statute. However, he would leave the decision up to the committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Hayes whether he agrees that the breadth of the definition of the property in Version C is what he first intended with the bill, and that [the definition] could be broadly interpreted by the courts, in order to take into account new technology. Chair Rokeberg stated his own belief that if Version C were adopted, it would not be a strain for the courts to interpret it [broadly]. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded that both versions are adequate, to him. He again expressed concern that some new type of technology, in the next few years, might not fall under that definition. However, he had no problem with either version, and he was leaving it to the committee's discretion. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained his preference for Version F. He pointed out that [HB 32] seems to be talking about property that aids in any sexual offense or assault. Although there has been a focus on use of a computer, a classic sexual assault would involve some instrument such as a knife or gun. If the statute is drawn narrowly, which Version C does, then the knife or gun couldn't be forfeited. By contrast, that forfeiture could occur under Version F, which addresses a broader problem of forfeiture related to crimes involving sexual assault. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Captain Miller of the Anchorage Police Department whether he had seen both proposed versions and whether he had a preference or recommendation. Number 0355 BILL MILLER, Captain, Anchorage Police Department (APD), testified via teleconference, specifying that [the APD] prefers Version F. He noted that he is in charge of the major crimes unit, which includes the investigation of sexual assaults and sexual abuse of minors. CAPTAIN MILLER explained that Version C is narrowly defined to include computer equipment; it doesn't take into account other types of sex crimes. Cars, for example, are used to facilitate a sexual assault, as are knives, guns, or other [implements]. In Anchorage, there is an increasing prevalence of date-rape drugs, which sometimes can be manufactured by private citizens, but Version C doesn't take into account the manufacturing paraphernalia, for example. That is part of the reason why the APD prefers Version F. CAPTAIN MILLER offered a proposed change to Version F. He referred to page 2, beginning at line 2, which read in part: Property, other than real property, that contributes directly and materially to a violation ... may be forfeited to the state upon the conviction of the offender. CAPTAIN MILLER informed members that the APD would prefer to see the phrase "other than real property" stricken. He cited examples in which a juvenile is taken to a house and sexually assaulted by a predator; an adult female is given a date-rape drug at a bar and is then taken to a house specifically used for the purpose of sexual assault; and a gang rape of a juvenile occurs as an initiation. He explained that the APD believes the houses in those instances, as real property, are directly and materially related to those crimes. He asked: If other things, like guns and knives and vehicles, are at risk of being seized, why shouldn't real property - which is owned free and clear, and which has no innocent third party attached to it - also be placed at risk by virtue of the fact that [its use] was planned as an integral part of the crime? CAPTAIN MILLER reported that the APD sees some safeguards [in Version F] that it believes to be adequate. For example, it requires a conviction, which necessitates the involvement of a neutral third party - the judge. Because there are adequate safeguards, the APD believes that real property ought to also be at risk when it is directly and materially related to the crime. Number 0731 ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. He told the committee that he would echo a lot of what Captain Miller had said, and would be more in favor of Version F because it is not as restrictive as Version C. He also said that the topic of forfeiture of real property, including homes, brought up a whole set of other issues about which he would have to do research before commenting. However, as far as other types of things that could be used directly to facilitate those crimes, he said he believes those should all be subject to forfeiture too; forfeiture should not be limited to electronic mechanisms. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. He closed public testimony and announced that HB 32 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|