Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2001 01:12 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 132 - LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING Number 1440 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal history background check, and relating to the use of criminal justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 132(L&C).] Number 1463 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 132 on behalf of the committee. She explained that HB 132 did three things with regard to bootlegging. For the application of the presumption that a person possesses alcohol with the intent to sell it, HB 132 decreases, by half, the amount of distilled spirits that a person may possess in [an alcohol-]restricted community. Also, HB 132 reduces, by half, the amount of distilled spirits that a package store may send any given person in an alcohol-restricted community during a calendar month. Finally, HB 132 changes the penalty for the illegal sale or transportation of alcohol to a local option community by reducing, by half, the amount of distilled spirits illegally sent to a community that results in a class A misdemeanor or a class C felony. MS. NOBREGA also explained that another provision of HB 132 applies to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, and requires fingerprinting of liquor license applicants for the purpose of submitting the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a national criminal history background check. Currently, all that is allowed by law is an in-state background check, and in order to seek background information nationwide, the FBI requires direct statutory authority. Last, Ms. Nobrega explained there is a provision in HB 132 that requires the ABC Board to review the alcohol server education course every two years, instead of every three years. Number 1558 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that it is not so much an issue of the amount of alcohol that people can ship into a "dry" community; instead, it is an issue of prosecution. He said that he knew of people in his community who have been caught shipping in alcohol for sale, but they never seem to be prosecuted. He added that while he supports the concept [of HB 132] and it looks good on paper, without the funds for the state to follow through on prosecutions, nothing, in reality, is being done [about the problem of bootlegging]. Number 1604 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES offered that the amounts allowed into a dry community - less than 6 liters of distilled spirits, 24 liters of wine, or 12 gallons of malt beverages - still seemed to her to be a lot. CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that it is four cases of beer and two cases of wine, which is not a lot of alcohol for a month's period of time. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES countered that it is a lot; she asked if this amount is for just one person's consumption. CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that for the purpose of HB 132, it is the possession [of that amount] that [results in the presumption] of a violation. He noted that the same conversation took place in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 1656 DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), noted that the DOL was in support of HB 132. He went on to explain that the presumptive level of possession in HB 132 only applies in those municipalities that have banned the sale of alcohol, but have not banned the importation or possession of alcohol. Thus it is a question of how much alcohol a person can have in those areas before the DOL starts to presume that he or she is actually going to sell it. In areas that have banned possession [of alcohol], the amounts listed in HB 132 do not apply; the possession of any amount of alcohol is a violation. He noted that the recommendation [to lower the possession limits] was made by the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission (CJAC), which is a multi-agency commission that has met for the last couple of years, and of which Representatives Berkowitz and Mulder are members. MR. GUANELI said he tended to agree with the point made by Representative Kookesh: the resources available for the investigation and prosecution of these cases are limited. He added, however, that a lot has changed in that regard in just the last month or so. Through U.S. Senator Stevens' office, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was given a federal grant of approximately $1.5 million, and this money will provide several additional state trooper investigators, as well as additional prosecutors. He explained that the enforcement emphasis over the last several of years has been focused on the point when the liquor is already in the village and a sale is taking place. Those cases were very difficult to investigate and prosecute because it was hard to find informants who could go into the villages and buy the liquor once it was already there. He added that more recently, particularly now that the state troopers have more resources, the focus [of investigation and prosecution] has shifted to the places where liquor is sold and shipped into the villages, which means, largely, places in Anchorage. He noted that [the DOL and DPS] are getting better cooperation from the United States Postal Service (USPS) in stopping shipments, as well as getting continued good cooperation from the airlines and package stores. Number 1794 MR. GUANELI said that a point relayed to him by prosecutors was that when the USPS (or other carrier) prevents alcohol from going to a dry village, the most the DOL can prosecute the sender for is an "attempt" to send alcohol. Thus crimes that would otherwise by prosecuted as felonies, had the alcohol actually arrived at the dry village, are dropped down to a misdemeanor level. He added that felony prosecution of bootlegging is important in that it allows more sentencing options to the court and provides that offenders be placed under probation. For this reason, the DOL would find it helpful if the laws relating to bootlegging were structured similarly to laws relating to narcotic offenses, whereby the attempt to send or transport alcohol to a dry village can be prosecuted at the same level as the prosecution of someone who successfully got alcohol to that location. To this end, Mr. Guaneli provided the committee with proposed Amendment 1, which reads as follows [original punctuation provided]: *Sec. ____. AS 04.11.499 is amended to read: Sec. 04.11.499. Prohibition of importation after election. (a) If a majority of the voters vote to prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages under AS 04.11.491(a)(4) or (5) or (b)(3) or (4), a person, beginning on the first day of the month following certification of the results of the election, may not knowingly send, transport, or bring an alcoholic beverage into the municipality or established village, unless the alcoholic beverage is sacramental wine to be used for bona fide religious purposes based on tenets or teachings of a church or religious body, is limited in quantity to the amount necessary for religious purposes, and is dispensed only for religious purposes by a person authorized by the church or religious body to dispense the sacramental wine. (b) In this section, (1) "bring" means to carry or convey, or to attempt or solicit to carry or convey; (2) "send" means to cause to be taken or distributed, or to attempt or solicit to cause to be taken or distributed, and includes use of the United States Post Office; (3) "transport" means to ship by any method, and includes delivering or transferring or attempting or soliciting to deliver or transfer an alcoholic beverage to any person or entity to be shipped to, delivered to, or left or held for pick up by, any person or entity. *Sec. ____. AS 04.16.125(c) is amended to read: (c) In this section, (1) "common carrier" means a motor vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, or railroad car available for public hire to transport freight or passengers; (2) "transport" has the meaning given in AS 04.11.499. Delete Section 4 of the bill and replace it with: *Sec. 4. AS 04.16.200(e) is amended to read: (e) A person who sends, transports, or brings alcoholic beverages into a municipality or established village in violation of AS 04.11.499 is, upon conviction, (1) guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the quantity of alcoholic beverages [IMPORTED] is less than 6 [12] liters of distilled spirits, 24 liters of wine, or 12 gallons of malt beverages; or (2) guilty of a class C felony if the quantity of alcoholic beverages [IMPORTED] is 6 [12] liters or more of distilled spirits, 24 liters or more of wine, or 12 gallons or more of malt beverages. MR. GUANELI explained that proposed Amendment 1 would give definition to certain words in current law in order that an attempt to violate the law can be prosecuted at the same level as an actual violation of the law. Number 1884 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, returning to the topic of amounts listed in HB 132 as they pertain to personal consumption, called those amounts absurd. CHAIR ROKEBERG reminded Representative James that those amounts are for presumption of possession and/or shipment; thus records could be kept of someone shipping those amounts during a calendar month. He maintained that two cases of wine and four cases of beer is not a large amount. He used the example of a hunting party in a rural area taking four cases of beer with them, which he said was not at all unusual. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she understood the concept of presumptive possession, but she countered that people should not take alcohol on hunting trips. Number 1920 MR. GUANELI added that the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee had considerable discussion on this same topic. The ultimate decision was that the presumptive level of "hard liquor" (distilled spirits) needed to be cut in half. Generally, wine and beer are not being bootlegged; the big profit was being made selling hard liquor. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he had heard that a bottle of vodka can sell for $75-80/quart. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH interjected that that price was cheap; he had heard of a "fifth" [of hard liquor] selling for that price. MR. GUANELI added that that was the typical price, but in some remote locations the price is considerably higher. On a case of hard liquor, the profit is easily several hundred dollars, or $1,000/case. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why it is currently allowable to bring in 6 [liters] without [reaching the presumptive level]. Number 1996 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that it was a misdemeanor versus a felony. CHAIR ROKEBERG requested clarification. MR. GUANELI explained that in areas that have banned sale but not importation or possession [of alcohol], the offense is to sell. House Bill 132 establishes the presumptive level if someone is selling. In reality, there is no limit to the amount a person may possess in those areas where possession is not illegal, but at some point, if the amount a person possesses is large enough, [DOL/DPS] is going to presume the alcohol is being sold. He added that current law already has distinctions regarding large/small amounts [of alcohol]. Number 2057 MR. GUANELI, returning to the topic of proposed Amendment 1, said that the accompanying handout presented common examples of scenarios that occur in bootlegging situations. In these examples, under current law, if an attempt to transport large amounts into a local option area fails, the crime drops from a class C felony to a class A misdemeanor. He went on to explain that proposed Amendment 1 would define terms so that bootleggers would still face the higher charge even if their attempt to commit the crime failed. Specifically, the terms of "send", "transport", and "bring" would be further defined to include "attempting" and "soliciting". He also explained that the current definition of "attempt" means that a person with intent to do something takes a substantial step towards its commission. He added that [with proposed Amendment 1] the DOL has covered the gamut of situations that arise in bootlegging scenarios. Also, he said that proposed Amendment 1 would solve the practical day-to-day problems noted by prosecutors, and would help solve some of the kinds of problems broached by Representative Kookesh with regard to prosecution. MR. GUANELI clarified for Representative Rokeberg that the handout pertained to current law; because current law with regard to the terms of "send", "transport", and "bring" does not automatically include an "attempt", it must be specified [via proposed Amendment 1] that "attempt" is included. He added that current definitions in both narcotics and robbery laws include "attempt". CHAIR ROKEBERG followed up this explanation by saying that law enforcement officials could then pursue a conviction rather than just settling for confiscation of the contraband. Chair Rokeberg asked Representative Kookesh what the price of vodka was in Angoon, which is a dry village. Number 2285 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH responded that it was $60/fifth of vodka and $60/"half-rack" of beer. He added that a joke going around Angoon goes like this: "Do you know why you call a quart of alcohol a fifth in Angoon? Because there are only five drinks in it." He said this by way of explaining that in [dry villages], if a person is going to drink from a bottle in a group, that person tries to drink as much possible right then because the bottle won't come back around. This practice was a deciding factor in the decision made by residents to vote Angoon dry, but it has not helped because bootlegging is a thriving business in rural Alaska. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed the concern that as more pressure is put on bootleggers, the procurement of drugs, as opposed to alcohol, will become more prevalent. He said that it was his understanding that drugs, even "harder" drugs, were becoming more available throughout the state, even in small villages. He said he worried that the cost of buying drugs would become cheaper than buying bootlegged alcohol, thus shifting the problem from alcohol to drugs. Number 2378 MR. GUANELI said that shifting to some additional drug use was a possibility. He noted that whenever someone is addicted to controlled substances of any kind, that person will have the desire to feed that addiction with something else [if the person's drug of choice becomes unavailable]. He added that he did not know the extent to which people addicted to alcohol will resort to another type of drug, but an increase in drug use in rural villages is occurring, although drugs are not as readily available. Mr. Guaneli mentioned that there might be an increase in the manufacture of homebrew, but he said the focus should be on trying to cut down both the easy access of bootlegged alcohol as well as the profits bootleggers make, while increasing the penalties that bootleggers are subject to. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he thought interdiction would raise prices and profits [of bootlegged alcohol]. Number 2441 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH added that he had close friends who had quit drinking but had substituted marijuana use in its place. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if [the penalty] of forfeiture had been used much in the area [of bootlegging]; under AS 04.16.220, aircraft, vehicles, or vessels used to transport or facilitate transportation [of bootlegged alcohol] are subject to forfeiture. MR. GUANELI responded that there are a lot of appropriate uses for forfeiture and this is one of them. He added that forfeiture in this instance would be distinct from forfeiture of a vehicle under the DWI laws. He also added, however, that it was his belief that most [bootlegged] liquor comes in through Alaska Airlines or some other commercial carrier. TAPE 01-52, SIDE B Number 2484 MR. GUANELI continued by saying that when people use the USPS or Alaska Airlines to transport contraband, the DOL does not take action against those entities or other commercial carriers. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that proposed Amendment 1 would be set aside until the rest of the testimony was heard. Number 2420 DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference and said that Section 3 of HB 132 is an expansion of the ABC Board's current practice of conducting criminal background checks on liquor license applicants. He noted that currently [background checks] are done just as a "pass though" from the ABC Board to the DPS; the checks are conducted, as required by state law, based on fingerprints, which gives a greater certainty that applicants are who they say they are. He said, however, that the ABC Board feels it would be in the public's best interest to expand and take into account today's more mobile society. He likened a more thorough background check to an ounce of prevention, so that when the ABC Board makes its determination on an applicant, it will have a nationwide criminal history [databank] at its disposal. To this end, federal law requires statutory authorization of the ABC Board to conduct nationwide background checks using the FBI databank. Mr. Griffin added that the cost of going after a "bad licensee" is in the tens of thousands of dollars, whereas not licensing that person to begin with would be more fiscally prudent. He noted that Linda Kesterson and Bill Roche were available at his office for questions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she assumed that there was a charge for getting the FBI report, and she asked if the application fee would be increased to include that cost. Number 2293 MR. GRIFFIN answered that the additional cost of $20-25 would be borne by the applicant, and that the report would take perhaps an additional ten business days to arrive. And while he acknowledged that "time is money" and is a point of concern with some applicants, he said that the ABC Board feels that extra time spent is well worth it in order to have the more thorough background check conducted. Number 2270 CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that Mr. Griffin's testimony in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee indicated that some of the more thorough investigations conducted by the ABC Board have revealed applicants with stateside criminal records, and this information would not have shown up under the current background check procedures. MR. GRIFFIN confirmed that that was an anecdotal example of why the ABC Board wanted to begin doing the more thorough background checks as a matter of course. He added that the ABC Board has no way of knowing how many current licensees would not have been issued licenses to begin with, because a more thorough background check would have revealed a criminal history. He also said, however, that the ABC Board, when considering an applicant's criminal history, treats every licensing question on a case-by-case basis; just because an applicant has a criminal history does not mean an automatic veto [of the application]. He said that in the case he was familiar with, a person from California was convicted of selling alcohol without a license, kidnapping for profit, and a couple of other serious charges. He said that that information came to the ABC Board serendipitously because that individual was employed by the Anchorage Police Department as an informant. Number 2188 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what kind of response is given to the applicant once the background check is completed. MR. GRIFFIN explained that if something comes up during the background check, the ABC Board meets with the applicant in executive session to discuss the incidents surrounding the conviction(s), and every possible step is taken to ensure the applicant's privacy. He added that based on the applicants criminal background, the ABC Board can deny the license transfer, put conditions on the transfer, or require additional background checks on a frequent basis. The ABC Board is not limited to just denying the license. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he'd asked the question because he wanted to know that the applicant could take part in the discussion with the ABC Board if a criminal history check warranted further scrutiny. Number 2102 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if the ABC Board had any objections to proposed Amendment 2, which removes Section 5 of HB 132 and reads as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, Line 4, after "Board;" Delete: providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; Page 3 Delete lines 4 through 6 Renumber remaining section accordingly. CHAIR ROKEBERG further explained that proposed Amendment 2 would remove from HB 132 language that instructs the ABC Board to review the TAM [Techniques of Alcohol Management] course every two years instead of every three years. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why that language was in HB 132 to begin with. CHAIR ROKEBERG responded that he thought inclusion of that language was a mistake. Number 2079 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the language in Section 5 meant that the TAM course would be redesigned every two years instead of every three, or if it meant that the TAM course would be given every two years instead of every three years. She was concerned that if the latter, there might be people wanting to take the course sooner than once every three years. MR. GRIFFIN explained that the ABC Board simply certifies any alcohol server training courses offered to ensure that they include the list of items required by Alaska law. Many of the courses are offered nationwide by associations in the hospitality industry, and the list of items that must be included in those courses is customized to fit Alaska law. Thus, Section 5 simply said that the ABC Board would review those courses every two years instead of every three years. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the courses that are offered stay current with Alaska law. With regard to the question of how often alcohol server training courses are offered, he said that some courses in the Anchorage area are offered on a weekly basis, and perhaps a little less frequently in other urban areas. He added that a challenge has been to offer training in more remote areas of Alaska, although the courses are not a responsibility of the state but are provided by different organizations. Again, he said Section 5 would simply require that the courses offered would be reviewed more frequently than they presently are. He added that the ABC Board did not have any strong feelings, one way or the other, about that change. Doing the review every two years would require more work on the part of the ABC Board, but anything that can be done in the area of prevention is considered time well spent. Number 1962 CHAIR ROKEBERG said that he had put Section 5 in HB 132 to ensure that the alcohol server training courses are updated by a review of the ABC Board to include changes made by HB 132, but upon further reflection he'd determined that perhaps the statutory change would not really be worth the effort that the ABC Board would expend to enact Section 5. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to a recommendation by the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission (CJAC) to remove a statutory cap and increase wholesale license fees in order to fund increased enforcement of Title 4 actions. He asked Mr. Griffin for his thoughts on that recommendation. MR. GRIFFIN said that the ABC Board did not have a position on that recommendation. He added that he thought the topic was somewhat along the lines of other discussions regarding alcohol taxes, which could be used to generate additional revenue so that additional alcohol-specific enforcement could be funded. He acknowledged that the ABC Board did have limited resources; there were three investigators and supervisors servicing the entire state, and the ABC Board is spread very thin. He said that he thought that the ABC Board could do more to assist law enforcement, both local and statewide, if more resources were available. He also said that he thought CJAC was approaching the issue from the point of trying to provide a funding source, rather than just demanding more enforcement; to that end, CJAC had recommended an increase in the wholesale license fees. Number 1832 KACE McDOWELL, Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association (CHARR), testified via teleconference, first affirming for Chair Rokeberg that she had heard his comments about the proposed amendment [Amendment 2] to remove the "TAM [Techniques in Alcohol Management] stuff." She then reported that CHARR, like the ABC board, has no strong feelings either way about this. She added, "If the ABC board wants to review our product every two years, we'll certainly have it available for them." Noting that it would be more work for the ABC Board than for CHARR, she deferred to the board in that regard. In response to a further question from Chair Rokeberg, she indicated CHARR had just come up with a new program, with the TAM program, and therefore already had submitted its information during the three-year process. Number 1800 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Griffin whether, if there is a change in the curriculum, there is a requirement to submit it to the board anyway. MR. GRIFFIN answered yes, if it is a substantial enough change. In the case of the TAM course that CHARR offers, it was a "stem- to-stern" revision; although the information was the same, [CHARR] took an approach that was different enough that [CHARR] wanted to make sure it also would meet the requirements set forth in regulations. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested the provision is a bit redundant, then. Number 1731 ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference. He specified that DPS supports the bill in an effort to give the department some better devices in order to try to control bootlegging and alcohol-related problems in Alaska. He said he hadn't seen Mr. Guaneli's amendment, but just listening to it, he believed it to be extremely positive from an enforcement aspect; he agreed that many times there are cases in which only a misdemeanor can be charged, although the offense is really a felony offense. LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN called attention to Chair Rokeberg's question regarding whether another market is being created for illegal substances. Lieutenant Dunnagan explained that illegal substances are being used more in rural Alaska than before, which he surmised to be generational. Furthermore, it is expensive. In Fairbanks or Anchorage, a person can buy an ounce of marijuana for about $280; to get it out to the villages, however, it is made into joints that contain one-eighth of a gram, and the price rises to $2,000 for the person who sells marijuana in the Bush. He questioned the concept that an increased emphasis on alcohol will increase the use of marijuana. Number 1634 CHAIR ROKEBERG said this is so ironic: The areas that [the legislature] wants to protect, where there is little cash, have the biggest crises in this regard. He then noted that an e-mail received from Lieutenant Dunnagan on March 24 indicated 585.7 gallons of illegal alcohol were seized in the year 2000, and that with five new troopers, the hope is to increase that by 20- 30 percent. He commented, "I hope you do better than that." LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN replied that he believes 25-30 [percent] is very conservative; he expressed the hope of doing far better. Number 1570 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference, noting that he hadn't seen Mr. Guaneli's proposed amendment [Amendment 1] either. He suggested the committee may want to consider that local-option laws making the importation of alcohol illegal are done by elections; what is in the mind of the voters at the time of the election, with regard to what is legal or illegal relating to importation of alcohol, is a pretty important point. He asked: If the definition is changed, how does that affect the election that resulted in the illegality? CHAIR ROKEBERG responded that the substance of the amendment "makes attempting to do so the criminal equivalent." He said that is the only substantive difference, and he believes the rest is just clarifying language. MR. McCUNE replied that the law that makes it illegal, [AS] 04.11.499, says following certification of the results of the election, "may not knowingly send, transport, or bring an alcoholic beverage into the municipality or established village", followed by some exceptions regarding sacramental wine and so forth. He said that issue should be looked at carefully, as far as the amendment is concerned. He urged caution because of possible unintended consequences. MR. McCUNE addressed Representative James' point that this is a lot of alcohol. He noted that people who come into Anchorage perhaps twice a year may use that opportunity to bring back alcohol [to a village], where it lasts for several months. He pointed out how expensive it is to ship alcohol by air freight, and suggested that if people cannot bring much in, they may rethink the wisdom or propriety of having their villages ban importation. He noted that the elections often are decided by just a few votes; in Barrow, for example, the community went "dry," but at a later election decided the opposite by a little more than half [the votes]. He suggested that villages shouldn't be pushed out of the more restrictive situation by making the laws too harsh. Number 1350 CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that there is still a "more modest fiscal note." MR. McCUNE responded that as Mr. Guaneli and Lieutenant Dunnagan had expressed, the Public Defender Agency, without any part of this funding, is "standing on the tracks looking at a train coming at us." He said he had tried to moderate the fiscal note to the policy of this bill. He commented: Mr. Chairman, you asked us to check on whether we could get some of those funds, and I've talked to David Koivuniemi ... and Dan Spencer in the Department of Administration, and they were checking with the Department of Public Safety and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] about that. But I don't think we've got the final word, but I think that this is all, as of now, in the governor's amended budget. And I don't know what could be changed here, right now, but we're looking into that as well. Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the Public Defender Agency represents people without any money to speak of, and that Mr. McCune is talking about "not wanting to push the envelope back so that people would change their mind and decide that it would be okay to have the sale of liquor in the community." Noting that she'd just heard how much money can be made [bootlegging], she asked who the typical person is that the Public Defender Agency would be representing in such a case. MR. McCUNE said that is a good question. In his experience, there aren't "kingpins" in the bootlegging area generally; rather, it will be someone who makes some extra cash by fishing or firefighting, for example. Often it is young people who may pool resources and send someone to obtain alcohol for a party, for instance. That money tends to run out quickly, he remarked, and it really needs to be used for the rest of the year, to buy subsistence supplies and so forth. As far as the Public Defender Agency is concerned, Mr. McCune said alcohol in rural Alaska causes an untold amount of misery; he cited the Barrow example as one of the most striking, noting that when the community went dry, his agency's caseload dropped considerably, as did admissions to the hospital, for example. He said on the one hand, his agency sees the problems from substance abuse, but they do represent people who are charged with these crimes. Number 1118 LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN said he agrees with Mr. McCune that probably the lion's share of bootleggers in the villages do it when they can, when they have the money. However, there are sophisticated networks of marketers, working out of urban areas with family members to send money, alcohol, and narcotics back and forth on a regular basis. He noted that he used to be in the drug- enforcement unit in Fairbanks, which he supervised for two years; there were several substantial key players within the villages who used a fairly sophisticated network of family and suppliers to do that. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the interdiction will focus on these "organized crime families of bootleggers" who will not be hiring public defenders. Number 1040 LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN replied that he has nothing to do with whom they hire; when somebody is charged with a crime, that person goes into court, fills out a report of indigence, and swears to that; regarding what sort of investigation goes into that, he couldn't say, but if the court sees that the documentation supports the assertion that the person doesn't make a lot of money, the court will appoint a public defender. He added that a lot of the money from bootleggers and drug dealers is hidden money and not necessarily claimable - or else a person won't claim it. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that wealthy individuals get free attorneys in that instance, although it isn't always the case. LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN agreed it probably happens once in a while. Number 0981 CHAIR ROKEBERG, noting that there were no further testifiers, closed the public hearing. Number 0972 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text and discussion provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. He asked if the change encompassed by Amendment 1 would affect other imported items. MR. GUANELI responded that Amendment 1 would not affect anything else. He also explained that the last portion of Amendment 1, regarding Section 4 of HB 132, pertained to the penalty of both importing and attempting to import alcoholic beverages. He said that using the language in Amendment 1 was the simplest way to effect that change. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. Number 0878 CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there were no further objections to Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0868 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 [text and discussion provided previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0833 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 132(L&C), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 132(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|