Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/21/2016 05:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
5:03:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the focus would be on reentry into the
community.
5:03:57 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, during her PowerPoint presentation, "Re-
Entry, House Judiciary Committee, HB 205, March 21, 2016," said
the vast majority of these policies exist outside the formal 21
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's recommendations and are
aimed at streamlining the reentry process, finding ways to
reintegrate people released back into communities to be
productive and successful, and not recidivate. Many of these
recommendations came from individual commissioners or work
groups within the commission, and are policy calls for the House
Judiciary Standing Committee to discuss.
5:05:07 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Limited Driver's Licenses," pages 1-2, and
advised that it exists within the state's misdemeanant statute
but is not applied to larger license revocations. The sections
addressed are Sec. 84, 85, 88, and 91. Alaska, she described,
is a driving dependent state and much of a person's livelihood
is dependent upon a driver's license to be employed or an active
member of a family, and many areas have no options for public
transportation. Currently, misdemeanants have access to a
limited driver's and certain restrictions are applied; however,
felony DUI offenders have their license revoked for the rest of
their lifetime, basically. The problem is that this lifetime
revocation is not an effective strategy to prevent someone from
driving or driving sober. Data shows that there are arrests
every day for driving with a suspended license or without a
license at all and when people drive without a license there is
no way of punishing them further other than with jail time. The
limited license allows someone who has completed rehabilitation,
successfully completed the therapeutic court program, has an
interlock breathalyzer device in their car, has a specialty
insurance, and participated in the 24/7 sobriety program. She
offered that this has sideboards such that the court still has
the discretion to revoke the limited driver's license and the
opportunity to deny a request for a limited license if the
person's behavior has not changed. She described it as a tool
at the court's disposal such that when a person has been
rehabilitated and has taken accountability measures to prevent
themselves from driving and drinking, that they might have
access to a license.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that currently misdemeanants can get this
limited driver's license, and this change is basically for
people who have been convicted of felony DUIs. She asked
whether the idea is that they are kept forever on a limited
license with the interlock device, for example, or would there
be some point where it is determined the person has been clean
and sober and the interlock device is no longer required.
5:05:12 PM
MS. ABBOTT responded that the current bill language does retain
the interlock device as a requirement to hold the limited
license and it is not within the court's discretion to remove
it.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what happens if their car is being fixed, can
they drive someone else's car with a limited license or whether
a limited license is restricted to a car with an interlock
device.
MS. ABBOTT opined that it is restricted to a car with an
interlock device.
5:09:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether anyone knows how much the interlock
devices cost.
MS. ABBOTT responded that they are fairly expensive, but she
does not have the exact cost off the top of her head.
CHAIR LEDOUX said the discussion, to a certain extent, is with a
population that stays in prison because they can't afford a
$250, $500, or a $1,000 fine, and she wondered how this would
work with interlock devices. She asked whether this is
basically going to be limited to the more economically affluent
DUI people.
MS. ABBOTT related there is a possibility people will not be
able to afford an interlock device, but most likely the fines
and the insurance are the more expensive portion. She related
that this would be a difficult standard to meet but the status
quo is not receiving a license for the rest of the person's
life.
5:11:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to longer term penalties with the
felony, and asked whether a person becomes felony eligible at
the third DUI or second DUI.
MS. ABBOTT opined that it is a three strikes policy and it would
be at the third DUI.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the question of interlock
devices and opined there are a number of businesses happy to
install the device. He asked whether the device works for the
rest of the life of the car if the person does not sell it.
MS. ABBOTT said she is not an expert on the interlock device nor
whether or not they have a life span, but she could look into
it.
5:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if someone is convicted of
felony DUI with a propensity to drink and drive, all that can be
done is require that the interlock device be on the person's
primary car. In the event friends offer their car to them, it
is beyond the level the state can police anyway.
MS. ABBOTT agreed and said they have found that even without a
license it is not dissuading people from driving. The intent is
to encourage the safe and sober use of the driving privilege,
but with keys and access there are opportunities for people to
get behind the wheel.
5:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that all of these are policy driven
and the DUI and limited licenses portion is a touchy subject.
The state cannot stop someone from having an interlock device
and asking their 15 year old child to blow into it so they can
drive, the state can only ask that they be law abiding citizens.
These are sets of standards for people to follow and get back
into a lawful existence when they've made mistakes. She said
there are also felony DUIs that involve other crimes with a
vehicle. None of this is set in stone and she will not argue
for or against it, and noted there was no consensus on this from
the commission. When a person receives a felony DUI, she asked
how does the state provide them a pathway to becoming lawful
citizens again, and also give communities and previous victims
the comfort level that these people are not going to drive while
drinking. She related that she has two parents in her district
who are sensitive about this subject and she wants to
respectfully honor the victims that have been killed by people
driving while intoxicated.
5:17:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to Sec. 84, [page 51, lines 8-26],
and said it discusses how the court may exercise its discretion
in allowing someone, that is otherwise restricted and not
allowed to have a license, to have a limited license and have
the test. The legislature fully expects that judges in each
case will look carefully at the offender, offense, circumstances
of the offense, and what the person has done to show they can
act responsibly. The interlock device and a restricted license
is an opportunity to show that they cannot drink and drive.
Judges also can determine the person hasn't shown that they are
responsible and to continue riding the bus. The bill points to
those who show they can act responsibly. He explained that the
judge has the opportunity to be sensitive to the victim's
concerns because at some level if someone has turned their life
around, the legislature wants to give them credit for that. He
said this is in contrast to the discussion regarding pedophiles,
and suggested that the legislature generally has more confidence
in people's ability to reform their drug and alcohol habits.
5:19:47 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Administrative License Revocations",
[pages 2-3], Sec. 83, [pages 50-51 of the bill], and noted how
critical driver's licenses can be to the lives of people living
in Alaska. Sec. 83 touches on administrative license
revocations which and it kicks in when a person is initially
charged with a DUI and the charges are dismissed, or the person
has been acquitted of driving under the influence, and the DMV
would be allowed to reissue their driver's license. Currently,
there has been a blank spot in communication between the courts
and the DMV wherein a license can still be revoked
administratively just by the fact that courts have found them
not guilty. This legislation allows for communication and
allows people to retain their driving privileges when found [not
guilty] or the charges are dropped.
5:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to Representative Tammie Wilson's
bill having to do with a person being found not guilty by the
court and yet the DMV revokes the license anyway. He said if
the court finds a person not guilty, they are not guilty and
they don't revoke the person's license. He remarked that before
this bill gets out of committee, the committee needs to locate
Representative Wilson's bill so there is not a conflict.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the committee may consider rolling it
into this bill, although Representative Wilson's bill is a bit
different in that the DMV "may" grant the license again. She
asked whether it is "may" or whether it will be "mandatory" for
DMV to grant the license again.
MS. ABBOTT offered that it was definitely a mistake in her
speaking, and it "shall" grant the license again.
5:22:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that there is a difference
between administrative revocation and revocation by the courts.
Representative Wilson's bill eliminates the administrative
revocation so it is all done in one place, the court.
MS. ABBOTT related that it is the committee's call as to whether
or not that is the appropriate mechanism.
5:22:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to Ms. Abbott statement, when a case has
been dismissed the person has been proven innocent, and advised
that in Alaska's judicial system no one is proven innocent, they
are found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which doesn't
necessarily mean that they are innocent. One consideration when
eliminating the administrative revocation is that one of the
guidelines of this bill is that something is supposed to be
quick and certain and no one has ever accused the court of being
quick; therefore, some of the quickness is eliminated there.
She reminded the committee that in today's society driving is
not really a privilege so by taking it away, it is taking away
something that a person needs in order to function in life and;
therefore, there should be those same due process considerations
as a big fine or anything else. Although, she said, it does go
against HB 205 in that everything is supposed to be really
quick.
5:24:29 PM
MS. ABBOTT noted that one of the greater priorities is having a
meal to eat which is why the next recommendation deals with the
issue of food stamps.
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Food Stamps," [pages 3-4] and Sec. 148,
[pages 92, lines 12-24], said the commission expended quite a
lot of time to promote the provision in Sec. 148, it lifts the
restriction on eligibility for food stamps for a person
convicted of felony drug offenses providing the person is
compliant with their conditions of probation and has completed
treatment or is working toward rehabilitation, she said.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether there actually was pushback
within the commission on this provision, and noted the
commission wasn't able to get this as a unanimous
recommendation.
MS. ABBOTT replied that commissioners in the audience may be
able to speak to the reason and opined that in 2015 the
commission as a whole did write a letter in support of this
policy change which perhaps is why the commission didn't feel it
was necessary to include it within its list of recommendations.
Within the letter of advocacy for this policy, she opined, they
outlined six quick points, as follows: a lifetime exclusion of
all drug felons from food assistance benefits is unduly punitive
- the lifetime exclusion applies no matter how old the offense,
no matter how short the sentence, or how well rehabilitated the
ex-offender ...
5:26:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that she found it interesting there is
a law that if a person has been convicted of a drug offense they
are completely barred from food stamps, yet murder, rape,
incest, and other things that some people may believe are more
serious than cocaine [are not]. The drug offender is totally
barred.
5:27:17 PM
MS. ABBOTT replied that the commission pointed to a reason, in
its third point, that in many ways it is unwarranted due to the
technological advances, issuance of electronic cards for food
benefit, and the requirements for the recipient's photograph
have significantly reduced the risk that food benefits might be
bartered. She added that the persons who still manage to engage
in food/drug trafficking are subject to a life time exclusion.
The second point of the commission's letter is that
disqualification works as a double penalty wherein the offender
has served their sentence and completed any probation or parole
requirements. Another point in the letter related that specific
exclusion of convicted drug offenders from food assistance upon
their release from prison exacerbates a problem. She said that
many ex-offenders reentering their community are destitute and
require short-term public assistance while they seek stable
housing, legitimate work, and try to reunite with their family.
She related there is growing recognition and evidence of the
connection between drugs, sexual assault, and domestic violence,
and denying food assistance to former drug felons may cause
these individuals to return to situations of sexual exploitation
and domestic violence. The final point in the letter relates to
undercutting family reunification rather than supporting it.
She noted that the presence of parents in the home convicted of
a drug offense effectively reduces the household's overall
benefit as any income will be counted. She pointed out that
some of the people being reunified with their families could end
up being the breadwinner for their family or the sole source of
income, and not being able to have food benefits does affect
their children, as well.
5:29:36 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Re-Entry Program" [pages 4-5] Sec. 139
[page 84, lines 30-31 and page 85, lines 1-12 of the bill] and
advised that this section requires the Department of Corrections
(DOC) to establish a program that prepares a prisoner for
reentry 90 days before their date of release. This program must
include a reentry plan, instructions on resources available
within the community, and assistance in obtaining a state
identification. She said the section is about giving people the
tools they might need to succeed upon their release because
people released from prison may immediately become hamstrung as
they do not possess state identification and are not aware of
the services available within their community. Alaska has made
significant strides, especially in the non-profit world, in
coming up with smart and active community-based reentry programs
and assisting people in reentering communities. Anchorage has
"Partners for Progress," that has testified on a myriad of bills
and is a significant resource. She described that DOC helping
to create a reentry plan, directing people toward resources, and
assistance in how to obtain a state identification after leaving
prison, as a significant and fairly small step. She explained
that the sponsor's office has not heard from the Department of
Corrections as to whether that poses a significant financial
burden but described it as a reasonable step in assisting people
in becoming productive citizens. Although, she opined, possibly
this is already being done, but this provides a formal process
through which DOC will provide a program that is helpful to
people during their reentry into a community they may have been
separated from for years.
5:31:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether other components
have been envisioned for what a reentry program might look like
in Alaska, whether there are other states that have enacted
this, and their outcomes and data.
MS. ABBOTT responded that she could get back to him on the data
available in the participating states. She pointed out that
this is a common sense approach in helping people reintegrate
themselves into their community, to specifically provide for
people who may fall through the cracks with state
identification, and also to offer resources specifically within
the community the person will reenter. This committee can
decide how specific it would like to get with what boxes need to
be checked within a reentry program, she said.
5:33:17PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Community Work" [pages 5-6], Secs. 64-66,
[beginning page 37 of the bill], and said the policy deals with
community work service (CWS) and advised that the community work
service statute was likely intended to let judges offer
defendants an opportunity to perform community work service in
lieu of jail, rather than ordering community work service and
then converting it to jail time if the work service was not
performed. However, the way the current statute was being
utilized led to the filing of approximately 494 misdemeanor
Petitions to Revoke Probation in FY14, for failure to comply
with the community work service requirement to the judgment.
She said many cases are driving with a suspended license of
which community work service is a mandatory condition of
probation and in those cases the court converts unperformed
community work service hours into jail time. However, she
noted, these sections allow offenders to pay a fine in lieu of
work determined on an hourly basis based upon the state's
minimum wage, thereby, still contributing and providing a
benefit to communities. The impacts projected from a policy
such as this are the savings of the following: jail days,
prosecutor time, state funded defense, law enforcement, and
judicial and court staff time involved in the time required to
process petitions to revoke for community work service
violations. She added that this provision was discussed by the
commission but there was not unanimous consent.
5:35:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Sec. 66, page 37 [of the
bill], and surmised that this is a significant change because it
is essentially telling the courts that if a judge orders someone
to perform community work service and they don't, that person
will know they will never be sentenced to jail for not
completing their community work service. In that regard, the
worst thing that happens to the defendant is that [the
noncompliance is] converted into a fine at the minimum wage
level, and the judgement is amended to list the amount of the
fine. He reiterated they would never have to go to jail for not
completing their community work service.
MS. ABBOTT replied "No, the penalty for completing those work
service hours would not -- or for not completing those work
service hours would not be jail time."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that it would turn into a fine.
MS. ABBOTT agreed.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is a provision wherein the
state would execute on the person's permanent fund dividend, and
further asked the manner in which the state will collect the
fine monies.
5:37:10 PM
MS. ABBOTT responded that she is not an expert on how the court
levies fines, but she is aware of wage garnishment and that the
permanent fund dividends are a way to collect.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she would like to know the level of
priority the state might have if there are a number of other
claims against a person.
MS. ABBOTT advised that she does not have that information off
the top of her head but there are experts in the room.
5:37:38 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to "Suspended Entry of Judgement" [pages 6-7],
Sec. 67 [page 38, lines 5-31 through page 39, lines 1-27 of the
bill] and said Sec. 67 establishes a process for suspending an
entry of judgment wherein if the person pleads guilty to a crime
the court may, with the consent of the defense and prosecution,
impose conditions of probation without imposing or entering a
judgment of guilt. Subsequently, upon successful completion of
probation the court shall discharge the person and dismiss the
case after one year. She added that this provision was
discussed by the commission but there was not unanimous consent.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether that is only if the person pleads
guilty to a crime.
MS. ABBOTT replied, yes. She then noted that Representative
Claman was shaking his head no, and she may have been incorrect
in her response.
5:38:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related that currently there is something in the
rules that allows a suspended imposition of sentence, and asked
whether suspended imposition of sentence and suspended
imposition of judgment are different.
MS. ABBOTT answered yes, they are slightly different. She then
deferred to Ms. Schroeder, Department of Law (DOL), but said the
difference is that a sentence doesn't have to be entered prior
to the completion of the probation terms.
5:39:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that Representative Claman looked like he
was chopping at the bit to offer insight.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained the reason he was shaking his
head earlier was related to Sec. 67, [AS 12.55.078(a)] page 38,
lines 6-10, which read:
(a) Except as provided in (g) of this section, if
a person is found guilty or pleads guilty to a crime,
the court may, with the consent of the defendant and
the prosecution and without imposing or entering a
judgment of guilt, defer further proceedings and place
the person on probation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that it allows the court, for
someone found guilty at a jury trial, to not enter judgment and
instead put them directly on probation.
MS. ABBOTT responded absolutely, and thanked Representative
Claman for the clarification.
5:40:22 PM
MS. ABBOTT offered the rationale that [judgments] are accessible
via CourtView and word of mouth. She explained that records
being publically available is an obstacle to reintegrating into
the community, and often cause difficulties in finding
employment [and housing]. This section, she offered, gives
people the opportunity to meet the conditions of probation and
not carry that judgment around with them because the case would
be marked as "set aside."
5:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that various Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission Commissioners, experts, and staff were in the
room and to correct him if he is wrong. He then pointed out
that the committee would be making a mistake if it looked at
these last policies as being controversial within the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, and explained that a huge scope of
issues were covered and significant amounts of time were spent
on them but in the end, the commission had to make a decision
and get down to the recommendations. He stated that there
wasn't a prejudice of thinking against any of these suggested
policies, and he invited witnesses to advise whether he had
misrepresented the commission's actions.
CHAIR LEDOUX listed the names of the people invited to testify.
5:43:07 PM
CARMEN GUITIERREZ offered testimony as follows:
I live in Anchorage, Alaska. Just to give you a
little bit of background about myself in order to put,
hopefully, my testimony into better perspective. I
spent my entire adult career working in the criminal
justice field as an attorney, as a Department of
Corrections deputy commissioner responsible for
prisoner reentry, and improve reentry outcomes. I
have been working as a consultant after my retirement
from the Department of Corrections on many of the same
reentry and criminal justice improvement issues that I
started during my time at Corrections.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify
today, I'm here to express my strong support to HB
205. As you all know too well, the way we currently
conduct our criminal justice system in Alaska is
simply not sustainable. This is both in terms of our
financial and human costs as we expend a tremendous
amount of money on our criminal justice system. For
example, in FY16 the DOC budget was roughly $324
million alone, that didn't include courts, public
safety, Department of Law in the (indisc.) of indigent
criminal defense. What have Alaskans received in
return for that great investment? Two out three
inmates returning within the first three-years, most
of these people return in the first six-months. And
that is why reentry is so important. If we had
reentry systems in play that provided a hand-up and
not a hand-out, I firmly believe, because I've seen it
happen in countless other states, that Alaska would
have a far, far improved recidivism outcome rate. We
simply today ... our problem today is that we are
releasing individuals without any community based
support, we release them with innumerable barriers
that hinder their ability to find safe secure housing,
appropriate employment, and the ability to maintain
ongoing sober and mental health support. I
respectfully submit that you cannot maintain these
failed practices of the past and think that we are
actually promoting public safety for Alaskans. So,
why should we care about reentry? Because as I said
earlier, if we want to improve the reentry outcomes of
the individuals leaving prison, and 95 percent of
those folks do leave prison, we have to look at how to
do our criminal justice rehabilitative experts
differently, more cost effectively, and in a manner
that improves reentry outcomes. This is important
because every time a person successfully returns to
their community we have one less crime victim, one
less criminal justice expense, healthier families
because the majority of convicted people are, in fact,
parents, and we have healthier communities. And
importantly, we have earned the goodwill of Alaska's
citizens by pursuing policies that actually promote
public safety.
5:47:24 PM
A key to successful reentry is the ability to find
employment. In Alaska there are far too many barriers
for individuals with criminal records to find
employment. As many of you know, the American Bar
Association in 2013 examined all of Alaska's statutes
and regulations and found that 1,625 Alaska statutes
and regulations imposed collateral consequences for
people convicted of crimes. These collateral
consequences are barrier provisions, impact people's
ability to find housing, employment, and receive
benefits such as food stamps in which Grace alluded to
earlier, and significantly they impede rehabilitated
people's ability to drive legally, a motor vehicle in
Alaska. HB 205 attempts to remedy one of the greatest
impediments to returning citizens, and that is their
inability to drive for a lifetime, or in many other
cases as long as 10 years after conviction despite the
fact that the individual had demonstrated to family
members, the courts, the probation officers, and to
their employers that they are, in fact, rehabilitated.
That they have acquired sobriety, that they have
acquired a responsible approach to the way they
conduct their lives by not taking that first drink or
taking up that first drug. As you can well imagine,
even in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau, cities with
transit systems it would be very difficult to conduct
their lives without a driver's license, much less to
live in a community without a transit system as most
of our Alaskan communities do not have.
So, even when people want to live law abiding lives
they drive, and they do so without insurance. The
provision in HB 205, presented by Grace a few minutes
ago, provides an opportunity to people who have
actually demonstrated their rehabilitation to obtain a
driver's license and become responsible driving
individuals while having a license and the insurance
that is required. HB 205, in my opinion, balances
public safety by giving reformed offenders a chance so
that they are able to conduct the necessities of their
lives in a law abiding ways.
5:50:16 PM
I would also like to briefly mention about the
Department of Corrections need to prepare offenders to
successfully reenter before their release from
custody. During my time at the Department of
Corrections we did, indeed, have a reentry program.
Offenders who had six months to serve were eligible to
be placed into that program and it was a comprehensive
course that attempted to help individuals address
their immediate reentry needs. I'm not sure where
that program is today within the Department of
Corrections, but to answer one of the representative's
questions that were posed earlier, many states do have
successful reentry programs. And the reason is really
self-evident, we can't continue to expect that we can
open the prison house doors and expect individuals,
without identification, without money, and without a
reentry plan, or no positive peer support, to suddenly
become successful on the outside when they were living
on the inside with individuals who may not necessarily
be appropriate role models. The Department of
Corrections should, indeed, have a program in place
that works within the ... at least six months before
the release from custody to help them identify a solid
reentry plan, make contacts for proper employment, and
certainly people cannot function on the outside
without identification.
And finally, I'd like to just very briefly talk about
the suspended entry of judgment. What we currently
have on the books is what we call a suspended
imposition of sentence. And, I would respectfully
submit that the suspended entry of judgment is far,
far superior to the kind of legal fiction we engage in
with a suspended imposition of sentence. With a
suspended entry of judgment an individual as
previously noted can plead guilty, can be found guilty
by a jury of one's peers, but if then the court, the
prosecutor, and the defense agree that the individual
should be given an opportunity to undergo a program of
rehabilitation, they get a specified period of time to
do certain things that have been delineated and agreed
to by all the parties. And if this individual is able
to satisfy all of those, basically, pre-conditions of
probation the actual sentence and judgment is not
imposed. And what that means then is that a citizen
who made a mistake was able to demonstrate a
willingness and the hutzpah to get the rehabilitative
job done, is then not a convicted felon for the rest
of their lives. Under our current system, with a
suspended imposition of sentence you may then complete
all your conditions of probation and have your
conviction set aside but legally, under the law,
according to the Court of Appeals, you remain a
convicted felon when asked on an employment form, have
you ever been convicted of a felony, because the
question [sic] is yes. You were convicted for the
period of time until the judgment was set aside.
So, I really want to applaud the Senate and House
Judiciary for the hard work it has committed to this
bill. I want to applaud the sponsors for their
courageousness in looking at the way Alaska is
conducting its criminal justice system to find
solutions that will indeed do what we all want, and
that is make our communities safer and healthier for
all Alaskans. I thank you very much for this
opportunity.
5:54:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to identification and asked whether
she was discussing something such as a state identification card
that looks exactly like a driver's license, or a social security
card.
MS. GUITIERREZ responded yes, and explained that in criminal
cases an individual's identification is taken as evidence and
they never get it back and people are released from custody.
She noted that during her time at the Department of Corrections
(DOC) a released inmate was given an identification form, that
was viewed by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as a
legitimate document, substantiating a person's identification
and the person was able to obtain a driver's license. Clearly,
she expressed, newly released inmates cannot conduct their lives
on the outside without valid identification and there must be
some way the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of
Administration (DOA), and Department of Corrections (DOC) can
work together to get identification cards for inmates either
before they are released or immediately upon their release. The
identifications card look very much like a driver's license, she
noted.
5:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to the exit period from the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and asked whether DOC could
facilitate this so when the person finally walks out the door
they have the appropriate identification, such as a state
identification card and social security card while in prison.
If not, he asked whether the prison could obtain the proper
forms needed for the prisoner as they walk out the door.
MS. GUITIERREZ responded that DOC has worked hard to explain to
inmates how to obtain their social security card, but she was
unaware of a process to provide inmates with the ability to
obtain their social security card before their release.
Although, she noted, there is one program for people with
significant mental health needs, but it is operated on a limited
basis wherein they attempt to have inmate's benefits restored
before their release from custody. She reiterated, with regard
to obtaining a state identification card, she hoped there would
be a way for DOC and DMV to partner and attempt to make releases
more seamless.
5:58:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Commissioner Dean Williams,
Department of Corrections, for being in the room and suggested
the possibility of discussing this issue, or getting it into the
bill somehow. He asked Ms. Guitierrez to quickly restate her
comments regarding removing a felony conviction from a person's
lifetime record.
MS. GUITIERREZ responded that the last provision Ms. Abbott
explained to the committee deals with a suspended entry of
judgment. She offered a scenario of John Doe being convicted,
if the prosecutor and defense agree Mr. Doe has good prospects
for rehabilitation there would be an agreement between the
prosecutor and the defense that he would have to do A, B, and C,
during a set period of time. The agreement would further state
that if Mr. Doe did the required A, B, and C, the actual
judgment would not be entered. She summarized that Mr. Doe did
complete the requirements and; therefore, without ever being
convicted he would not be a convicted felon.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that someone trying to get a job
that has never committed a felony in their life is competing
with someone who did commit a felony, and he opined the person
who never committed the felony would be the person to hire and
described it as a philosophical argument.
6:01:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that is one of the policy calls the
committee will have to make.
MS. GUITIERREZ commented that when she was a criminal defense
attorney she represented an individual who had had a very
successful life. She described him as a blue collar worker with
a long history of demonstrating a good work ethics, but he got
involved with drugs for a short period of time and was
convicted, and this suspended entry of judgment was not in
place. Gratefully, she said, the prosecutor was able to see
beyond the fact that this individual had violated a drug
provision. They then agreed, with the judge's permission, that
they would continue the sentencing for six months. This person
then proceeded to do a number of rehabilitative conditions and
he completed his rehabilitative efforts within the prescribed
time period and the court's sentence reflected the fact that the
individual had demonstrated significant positive prospects for
rehabilitation. She related that the person received a
suspended imposition of sentence but he was required to report
from that point forward that he had been convicted of a felony.
Therefore, even though he had an outstanding work history, his
ability to continue to work in his field had been greatly
impaired. She opined that the policy call required [of the
committee] is whether or not a person, such as the person she
represented, should continue to be penalized for life because he
was involved in drugs for a short period of time.
6:03:58 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the reentry process and identification
restoration and said that if the identification is taken away
when they are originally charged, why the person can't get their
identification back again, what is the purpose of keeping their
identification when it is not evidence.
MS. GUITIERREZ answered that the identification is taken by law
enforcement as evidence and ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that she assumed it was taken as
evidence so law enforcement knows who they are, but once that is
no longer in doubt, assuming the person stipulates they are the
correct John Doe, she asked why law enforcement would keep the
identification.
MS. GUITIERREZ explained that law enforcement keeps the
identification if the case is appealed, and sometimes people are
released from custody while their cases are on appeal and at
that point they don't release the identification.
CHAIR LEDOUX argued that if they are on appeal for some issue,
such as suppression of evidence or something of that nature,
that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the person's
identity is correct, she again asked why the government is
keeping the identification.
MS. GUITIERREZ acknowledged that she can't answer that question.
The other issue, she commented, is that there is a significant
amount of paperwork required of which normally needs to be
filled out by the person's defense attorney. She remarked that
public defenders are swamped with active cases requiring trial
preparation, and that filling out the necessary paperwork to
submit to law enforcement to have that individual's property
released doesn't fall at the top of their "to do" list.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she understands, and possibly there
is someone in the audience that can answer why the public
defender should even have to request it. She continued that
unless the issue is actually the person's identification why it
shouldn't just automatically happen because it's not like giving
back cocaine, it's just the driver's license.
6:07:25 PM
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department (JPD), City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ), Member, Capital City Chapter - Juneau,
Vice President, Board of Directors, Alaska Peace Officers
Association (APOA), said she represents the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission where she served as a commissioner and that
she has been in law enforcement for 18.5 years. She advised
that when a person is arrested they do not always have a
driver's license on them and law enforcement has to identify
them in other ways, but they will still need a driver's license
when they are released. She offered a case where someone
committed another crime after becoming frustrated when he
couldn't cash a paycheck after living in the shelter and working
through a pay period. It was a horrific crime, and she pointed
out that it can be a real decision point for people when they
are that frustrated and really don't have much.
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed that she understands that, and further
stressed that it is almost Orwellian to try to get
identification when you don't have identification ...
LIEUTENANT SELL interjected that sometimes they don't have
identification when they are arrested, and sometimes
identification is given back when the case is over and evidence
is disbursed, but [JPD} doesn't go through the list to pick and
choose which evidence will be returned and not returned. She
said, "Oh, it's about the traffic stop so we'll just throw this
knife away. We're not going to do that, we're not going to
start splitting up a case not really knowing where this is going
in the court system. So, I don't think that's reasonable to
expect. Okay, it's under appeal but we'll go fish out the ID
from the bloody wallet and give that back assuming it's not an
issue. I don't think that's an appropriate burden for the
evidence custodian to be going through and calling the
prosecutors and the attorneys trying to make that decision."
She acknowledged that anyone released from prison needs
identification. They may get it turned back by the police and
explained the difficulty of standardizing the process.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed that that makes sense.
6:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether law enforcement also takes
social security cards or maybe a Medicaid ...
LIEUTENTANT SELL interjected that it depends upon whether they
have it on them at the time of arrest. Law enforcement may take
a wallet, sometimes it goes with their personal property to
jail, sometimes it's part of the case, if it's left in the DUI
car the whole thing is taken, and everything is case specific
depending upon what they had on them, and whether it is
relevant. She said that law enforcement doesn't go through the
wallet to decide what to keep since it is not something they are
worried about at that point, they are in a criminal case and
have bigger fish to fry.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN advised that he agrees it is not law
enforcement's department, but the DOC facility should obtain
whatever identification a person had when they walk out the
door. Let the Department of Corrections do the work on this
thing ...
6:11:23 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL interjected that it seems as though that is the
point.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN continued that a social security card is
obtained through the mail ...
LIEUTENANT SELL interjected that she forgot to mention that if
it is a DUI offense the identification is sent to DMV;
therefore, administratively it has to go down a different
pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN continued his comment that he does not think
that is the function of the police department. He then referred
to the reentry discussion in that approximately a month before
an inmate's release date, the inmate goes through a process, and
part of the process should be to get whatever identification
they need, or ...
LEIUTENANT SELL interjected that addressing it at that point is
probably the most efficient way. She said she is not trying to
shift her work to the Department of Corrections, but they are in
charge at that point.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that she is the one that keeps
them in business.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that it is the criminal that keeps everyone
in business.
6:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he generally agrees that it makes
more sense for the Department of Corrections (DOC) to try to
make it easier for people to obtain identification. He referred
to Lieutenant Sell's testimony, "Oh well, it's the evidence of
the crime ..." and said he certainly understands when it is a
DUI and it was in the car in the wallet, he then further
referred to Lieutenant Sell's testimony "What's so special about
the ID, how does it trace in the crime," and pointed out that
there are evidence rules allowing duplicates to be admitted if
it is necessary to show that this identification looks like the
person, and the original driver's license isn't ...
LIEUTENANT SELL interjected that the police can arrange with the
prosecutor to submit something such as a picture or photocopy in
lieu of the actual evidence. She said, "But do we really want
... is it worth bogging us down with that? I mean, so you
understand it's like what is the most efficient way to deal with
this particular problem." She explained that the reason for
taking the driver's license is because "who you are" is always
an element of the charge.
6:13:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that Mary Geddes, Administrator for
the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), corrected him
in that the commission unanimously recommended the substantive
law for suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), the repeal of
the food stamp ban, and the changes to the community work
service program. He reiterated that those three things were
recommended by the commission, and he guessed there was no
recommendation on the limited driver's license or the
administrative license.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Lieutenant Sell was shaking her head and
asked whether she would like to put something on the record.
LIEUTENANT SELL agreed that the above three issues were common
sense and non-controversial, but when discussing the driver's
license the commission kicked the can down the road to the Title
28 working group.
6:15:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Lieutenant Sell's earlier
testimony and surmised that she liked the administrative
revocation which is separate from the court revocation. He
explained that under the language of this proposal, it allows a
person whose license is administratively revoked, to go to court
and if the court doesn't convict them, they can then go to DMV
and get their license back. He further surmised that Lieutenant
Sell now supports that approach even though as a law enforcement
officer she sees advantages of the current system.
6:16:40 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL responded that when there is a DUI, law
enforcement is aware of the many reasons cases are dismissed or
settled with something other than a conviction, having nothing
to do with the guilt or innocence of the person. Yes, she
admitted that sometimes she felt satisfied because the person
still lost their driver's license. Lieutenant Sell related that
her mentor once told her to do the right thing for the right
reason; therefore, if you are disciplining someone not because
it makes them better but because it makes you feel better,
that's coming from the wrong place. She related that she has
had to do a lot of soul searching on the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that she does support the
recommendation.
LIEUTENANT SELL agreed that she does, but a lot of the
recommendations are not comfortable which does not mean they are
wrong.
6:18:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Lieutenant Sell to walk through
revocation of a driver's license on the civil side wherein
someone is caught driving three times without insurance or has
not paid a parking ticket or fine. She questioned whether that
rolls into the DMV where they can administratively revoke a
driver's license.
LIEUTENANT SELL replied that her only experience with
administrative revocation is DUIs where law enforcement seizes
the driver's license, sends it in, and the person receives a
temporary driver's license to get them through the first week or
ten days while initiating court. She offered that law
enforcement sometimes submits someone for retesting having to do
with their ability to competently drive safely.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Amy Erickson, Division of Motor
Vehicles, to discuss the process in administratively revoking a
license.
6:21:30 PM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, said the authority for the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) to administratively revoke a driver's license is
set out in statute. In the case of a DUI, the license is seized
by the police officer, the person is issued a Notice and Order
of Revocation and in seven-days, if the arrestee does not
request an administrative hearing, the action is put on their
record and the person waits for their court date.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked, other than a DUI, whether there is any other
reason to administratively revoke a driver's license.
MS. ERICKSON responded that not with revocation, but there are
suspensions for mandatory insurance and other. In response to
Chair LeDoux, answered that an example of "other" would be
"court ordered revocations for DUIs."
MS. ERICKSON said she would not like to offer testimony, but was
available for questions.
6:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there is a difference
between an administrative suspension, such as points or lack of
insurance, and revocation, and the circumstances under which a
license can be suspended without a court action.
MS. ERICKSON deferred to Nichole Tham, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV).
6:23:40 PM
NICHOLE THAM, Manger, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Administration, explained that a
revocation is an expiration or a stop of driving privileges, and
when the driver becomes eligible [to drive] they are required to
reapply. Whereas, she explained, a suspension is a temporary
withdrawal of driving privileges and once the action is over the
driver can resume their driving privilege and pick up where they
left off rather than having to reapply.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the suspension is temporary and
asked who suspends it, and further asked whether he could have
his license suspended by some action at DMV without anything
ever being filed in court or any court action.
MS. THAM replied that DMV would only take action to suspend a
license under the statutes set that would require DMV to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested an example.
MS. THAM referred to an example of mandatory insurance
suspension wherein if a person drives without insurance the
department may take action under AS 28.20 and AS 28.22.
6:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there are any other examples
of when the department might suspend a license other than lack
of mandatory insurance.
MS. THAM said another example would be child support wherein
Alaska State Statutes require that the license be suspended for
failure to comply with child support.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for a third example of a license
suspension not performed by the court but by following statute.
MS. THAM advised that she could not think of a third example off
the top of her head but would get back to the committee with a
full list of issues that would generate a suspension.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether not paying child support
generates a driver's license suspension.
MS. THAM advised that there are statutes requiring DMV to
suspend a license for failure to comply with child support.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the court then reports the
failure to comply with child support to the DMV, and questioned
how DMV knows the child support has not been paid.
MS. THAM opined that child support enters those suspensions
directly onto the driver's record and at that point DMV [has the
information]. In the event the person were to apply for a
license, obtain a driving record, or otherwise inquire, DMV
would become aware and would let the person know.
6:26:57 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the issue of lack of mandatory
insurance and asked whether the police department reports it to
DMV.
MS. THAM responded that usually the mandatory insurance and
financial responsibility is identified either through the
certificate of insurance form a person fills out after a crash,
or on a crash report that is submitted to the department by law
enforcement or on the citizen crash report.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to parking tickets and asked whether that
is an issue a license might be suspended.
MS. THAM answered that DMV does not have a suspension for
failure to pay parking tickets; however, DMV does statutorily
have a suspension for accumulation of too many points on a
person's driving record. Usually, she explained, parking
violations are excluded, but if a person accumulates up to 12
points in 12 months, or 18 points in a 24-month period, DMV is
required to suspend driving privileges.
6:28:49 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said that the
Alaska Court System does not have a position on whether or not
limited license provisions are changed in this bill. She
related that she has worked with the sponsors' offices in the
House of Representatives and the Senate regarding this issue for
a few years in an attempt to craft a system to protect public
safety and help those constituents who might be thought to
deserve their license back at some point.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Meade to briefly walk the committee
through the license provisions.
MS. MEADE responded that according her notes, DMV can suspend a
license for the following: demerit point accumulation; blood
alcohol test above .08; no insurance; an unsatisfied court
judgment; certain medical conditions; minor operating after
consuming; false identification; and child support arrearages.
She noted that the court must suspended for a list of
approximately 9-10 things, including: reckless driving;
manslaughter in which a vehicle was used; a felony in which a
vehicle was used; evading police in which a vehicle was used;
DUI; and refusal [of a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test].
6:30:32 PM
MS. MEADE turned to HB 205, and said three of the provisions
affecting limited licenses are Secs. 84, 85, and 91. She agreed
with the clarification that this is not a provision that was
discussed at length by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
although, someone did bring up the issue just because it has
been the topic of bills for the last few years. She noted there
is a Title 28 work group, within the commission, studying issues
related to administrative revocations and limited licenses. She
then turned to Sec. 85, and explained that chronologically Sec.
85 occurs first, and this section would be an amendment to the
existing law allowing misdemeanants in DUIs and refusal to get a
limited license for some purposes. Sec. 85, she explained, adds
a new section to that statute reading that certain felons can
get a limited license, which is a new idea in the law. This
section only applies for felony DUIs, wherein the felony DUI is
the third time within the last ten years. She explained that in
the event a person has a felony conviction and has successfully
been in therapeutic court for six months or completed
therapeutic court at some point in the past, this would apply.
The person must then have proof of insurance, have the ignition
interlock device installed, go to ASAP, not previously had a
limited license, and go to the 24/7 program. In the event they
have completed these requirements they can get the limited
license. She advised there are a few drafting issues she has
discussed with the sponsors' offices because there is language
that does not exactly work in that felons never go to the Alaska
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP), for example, and there are
several other issues such as that to be adjusted.
6:33:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why felons do not go to the Alaska Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP).
MS. MEADE replied that by statute the ASAP program deals with
misdemeanants with drug or alcohol issues and currently that
statute allows misdemeanant DUI people to obtain a limited
license, but they must be in compliance with ASAP which was
incorporated into this section as an innocent error.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if it is the desire of the committee
that felons participate in ASAP, another statute should be
changed.
MS. MEADE agreed, and she put forth that the Alaska Justice
Criminal Commission recommended the opposite, such as ratcheting
down what ASAP should be responsible for in order to more
appropriately focus just on the misdemeanant DUI type of people.
There has been a bit of mission creep wherein judges order
people to ASAP for things that are not required, and she pointed
out that the commission wants it to be narrowed rather than
expanded.
6:34:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER [humorously] asked the record to reflect
that judges are responsible for the mission creep.
MS. MEADE responded that the court is doing its best for
defendants that appear to have alcohol and drug problems, and
rehabilitating them.
MS. MEADE explained that another issue in the draft for felons
is that it requires those in therapeutic court to comply with
the 24/7 program and that may not be a perfect fit. She pointed
out that it is a policy call, but currently people in
therapeutic court do not also go to the 24/7 program. The
therapeutic court folks consider it to be duplicative or
redundant and, she explained, it is not ever done together with
all the treatment they receive in therapeutic court.
6:35:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Meade to explain the 24/7 program.
MS. MEADE answered that the 24/7 program was placed into statute
two years ago by Senate Bill 64, and is run by the Department of
Health and Social Services through the ASAP office. It is a
program through which defendants in criminal cases, either as a
condition of bail or a condition of probation, are required to
blow into a tube to determine whether they have alcohol in their
system mornings and evenings, 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.
The program is designed to ensure sobriety and give the person a
sense that someone is checking up on them and gives structure to
their life. She said the program has proven effective in other
jurisdictions in helping people maintain their sobriety.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether 24/7 means that their case officer
can call them at 3:00 a.m., and tell them to come into the
office and blow into a tube.
MS. MEADE responded that is not how the program is set up, it
also applies to misdemeanants in the program who do not have
probation officers. In the event a person is ordered into the
24/7 program as a condition of bail, the person receives a
document with the address of the vendors approved by ASAP to
administer these tests. She used Anchorage as the example, and
said that the person is required to report to a vendor's
facility between 6:00 - 9:00 a.m., and 6:00 - 9:00 p.m., every
day, all the time. She explained that when the person blows
into the tube and it registers 000, they leave, and if it is not
000 the requirement for the vendor is to notify law enforcement
that the person is violating one of their terms of bail or
probation.
6:37:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said that technically, a person could blow 000 at
6:00 p.m., and then have a few drinks and blow into the tube at
9:00 a.m., and it would show that the person hadn't been
drinking.
MS. MEADE pointed out that how well the program can actually
detect whether the person has been drinking has been discussed
at length. The fact is that alcohol stays in most people's
systems for the amount of time that it would be detected within
12 hours, but that is not to say there couldn't be the outlier
who takes the test at 6:00 p.m., and waits until 9:00 a.m., so
they have 15 hours rather than the 12 hours. The response is
that the vendors administering these tests are quite in tune to
that possibility and track the times people are coming in and
will advise an individual they are to return at 6:00 a.m., not
9:00 a.m. She opined that the monitoring has been quite
effective and it is definitely something everyone is aware of
and tries to stop from the get-go.
6:39:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to [AS 28.15.201(g)(7)] Sec. 85,
page 52, lines 29-31, which read:
(7) the person is participating in a program
established under AS 47.38.020 for a minimum of 120
days from the date a limited license is granted under
this section.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN then referred to [AS 28.15.201(g)(5), Sec.
85, page 52, lines 24-26], which read:
(5) the person is enrolled in and is in
compliance with or has successfully completed the
alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and
program requirements of the Department of Health and
Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h);
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that from the standpoint of the
commission's recommendation and the ASAP program, it does not
want the program dealing with people in a felony setting. He
asked whether that is also true with the 24/7 program.
6:39:52 PM
MS. MEADE clarified that the commission did not have anything to
do with these provisions of HB 205, and as a matter of course,
statutorily felons are never in ASAP.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that paragraph (5) should be
removed from this section dealing with felonies.
MS. MEADE agreed, and advised that the 24/7 requirement may not
be advisable for people in therapeutic court, but noted that
this limited license provision is also for those who have
successfully completed therapeutic court. Therefore, if someone
finished therapeutic court in 2012, graduated and has a
certificate from the court - which they literally do have, it
could be worded such that paragraph (7), the 24/7 program, would
be required for those individuals to get their limited license.
It would not necessarily be duplicative of the program they were
in, as it would be for those participating in therapeutic court.
6:41:11 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked that when a person graduates from therapeutic
court, as an additional requirement they then have to
participate in the 24/7 program.
MS. MEADE related it would be the committee's call, and flagged
a concern regarding participants required do the 24/7 program
because it is duplicative of therapy in therapeutic court, and
that it would be difficult for the person to comply because they
are already doing a lot of therapy in therapeutic court. She
pointed out that that same reasoning does not apply to those who
have successfully completed therapeutic court at some point in
the past. She said the committee could decide to make them go
to the 24/7 program for a period of time to get their limited
license without over-burdening them because they would not be in
a therapeutic court program that has a lot of time commitments.
6:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that in looking at paragraphs (5)
and (7) and possible amendments, paragraph (5) is not
appropriate because ASAP is not for felons. Although, paragraph
(7) may need review in terms of whether the committee wants to
have that as an option and this may not be the wording that gets
the committee there to make it an option. He said some of the
people that have already completed the program or been involved
in therapeutic court wouldn't be in it at the time they received
their limited license. This particular language is somewhat too
narrow for giving flexibility on that, he said.
MS. MEADE agreed and advised that the people who have graduated
from therapeutic court uniformly have not been in the 24/7
program. She described it as wordsmithing and she did not mean
to raise it as a big issue because she can work with the
sponsors' offices, and that she has discussed some of the small
drafting issues. She said that is the way for a person to get
their limited license.
6:43:20 PM
MS. MEADE turned to Sec. 84, [AS 28.15.181(f)(1)(B)(iii), page
51, lines 21-24], which read:
(iii) has been granted limited license
privileges under AS 28.15.201(g) and has successfully
driven for three years under that limited license
without having the limited license privileges revoked;
and
MS. MEADE explained that if a person has had their limited
license for three years, the court can terminate the revocation.
MS. MEADE turned to Sec. 91, [AS 28.35.030(o), page 56, lines 5-
28], and pointed out that the court doesn't actually deal in
driver's licenses so the court would prepare a termination of
revocation but the person still has to go to DMV to actually
receive their license back. She explained that Sec. 91 is a
subsection of the long DUI statute, AS 28.35.030 and Sec. 91
that lays out how a person gets their license back. AS
28.35.030(n) reads that if a person is a felon their license is
permanently revoked, and AS 28.35.030(o) is how the person can
get their permanently revoked license back, which is a bit
confusing. She pointed to AS 28.35.030(o)(1)(A), Sec. 91, page
56, lines 9-10, which read:
(A)[1] the license has been revoked for
a period of at least 10 years;
MS. MEADE explained that, currently, under AS 28.35.030(o) a
person can get their license back after 10 years if there has
not been any other criminal offenses, and the person can show
insurance. She pointed to Sec. 91, [AS 28.35.030(o)(2), page
56, lines 14-28, which read:
(2) shall restore the driver's license if
(A) the person has been granted limited
license privileges under AS 28.15.201(g) and has
successfully driven under that limited license for
three years without having the limited license
privileges revoked;
(B) the person has successfully
completed a court-ordered treatment program under AS
28.35.028;
(C) the court previously terminated the
person's revocation as provided in AS
28.15.181(f)(1)(B);
(D) the person has not been convicted
of a violation of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 or a
similar law or ordinance of this or another
jurisdiction since the license was revoked;
(E) the person's privilege to drive may
be restored as provided in AS 28.15.211; and
(F) the person provides proof of
financial responsibility.
MS. MEADE explained that the added language lays out how the DMV
will restore a person's license fully.
6:45:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Sec. 91, [AS
29.35.030(o), page 56, line 28, which read:
F the person provides proof of
financial responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS then referred to Sec. 91, [AS
29.35.030(o), page 56, line 13, which read:
(C) [(3)] the person provides proof of
financial responsibility;
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the rationale behind proving
financial responsibility for the person to have their license
back.
MS. MEADE related that that is the wording used in the statute
showing proof of car insurance. She explained that after a DUI
it is sometimes difficult and always expensive to obtain SR 22
insurance from an insurance company, and that DMV has the
responsibility to check before issuing the limited license. She
described it as a policy call made previously.
6:46:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that if a person completes all of the
requirements the DMV shall restore a person's driver's license.
She turned to Sec. 91 [AS 28.35.030(o)(2)(E), which read:
(E) the person's privilege to drive may
be restored as provided in AS 28.15.211; and
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the language reads "may be"
restored as opposed to "shall be" restored.
MS. MEADE referred to Sec. 91 [AS 28.35.030(o)(2), page 56, line
14, which read:
(2) shall restore driver's license if
MS. MEADE explained this is how the DMV restores a driver's
license after a DUI or refusal, and line 8, AS 28.35.030(o)(1),
which read:
(1) may restore the driver's license if
MS. MEADE reiterated that the DMV may restore a driver's license
if 10 years have passed and the person has not had any criminal
offenses. She opined that the DMV would not arbitrarily deny
someone a license even though that is a "may." The drafter was
careful on line 14 to put "shall" restore the driver's license
so there is no discretion, and the person who has jumped through
the hoops "shall" have their license restored by the DMV.
6:47:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to line 26, subparagraph "(E) the person's
privilege to drive may be restored as provided in AS 28.15.211;
and" so the "shall" be restored is on line 14, and "may be"
restored on line 26.
MS. MEADE offered that it is an area in one of the meetings with
the DMV that it decided should have language adjusted. She
explained that subparagraph (E) is supposed to mean that the DMV
is authorized to restore a person's privilege under these other
provisions. Actually, she related, this brings up an issue that
means a person cannot have any other revocations outstanding.
She pointed out that people in this category may have their
licenses revoked for other reasons because by the time a person
gets to a felony DUI, perhaps they have points on their record
and a driving with license suspended or revoked. In speaking
with the DMV, she noted that some people have "stacked
revocations" into the future; therefore, those people may not be
eligible to get a license until 2025 because they have a bad
driving record. Subparagraph (E) reads, she said, that the
person's privilege to drive will only be restored under this
limited license if they are eligible to have it restored and do
not have other time to serve with a revoked license under other
provisions of the DMV laws.
6:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested that "may be eligible" might be
a better phrase because people may have met the qualifications
in this bill, but not met the qualifications of other
revocations they have. She offered that this would tell the DMV
that they can give the license back if all conditions are met,
and they have no other revocations.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she was questioning whether or not they can
get their license back despite their felony DUIs. She asked the
committee whether it wants to word it so a person can get their
license back even when they've had other driving violations.
She questioned whether it makes sense if the language lets them
have their license back despite the fact that they now have
three DUIs, but they did X, Y, and Z.
6:50:40 PM
MS. MEADE advised that she spoke at length with the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) and they are on line to discuss it.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented, it appears the left hand often
does not know what the right hand in government is doing wherein
someone looks good on one side, and they may not look so good on
the other side [of government].
6:51:35 PM
MS. THAM commented that the issue of stacked revocations was a
topic of discussion and that the department does have concerns
that while some people would be eligible under this provision to
terminate a felony revocation, that others, for the reasons
previously discussed, may not be eligible at that time but
possibly in the future.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the DMV has any thoughts one way or
the other whether it is going to be mandatory to give a license
back to someone who has a felony DUI, and whether the
legislature should keep them from getting their driver's license
because they have an excess of points perhaps resulting from a
DUI conviction.
MS. THAM responded that would be a policy call.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that many things in this committee are a
policy call.
6:53:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Ms. Tham to walk the committee
through stacked revocations that may be in place in order to
understand other discretionary policy changes.
MS. THAM offered an example such as, someone with a felony DUI
but had an outstanding suspension for child support, the
[failure to pay child support] would have to be remedied with
child support in order to help the person become eligible to
restore driving privileges.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that it is probably easier to pay off
child support obligations if the person has a license to drive
to work.
MS. THAM noted that the DMV is hopeful issues such as this can
incentivize people to meet the requirements so they can be
eligible for driving privileges or to restore driving
privileges.
6:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that there may be reasons why a person
is not paying child support such that they do not have the money
to do so, and they need to have a car to get the money. He
commented that most of the time a person does not pay child
support because they are deadbeats, although sometimes people do
not pay child support because they really do not have the money
and the legislature needs to help them out.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested that in working with the DMV
that qualifications can be crafted offering a payment plan for
someone once they receive their driver's license and become
gainfully employed.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she likes that idea.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related that the point of this bill is to
get people back into society, out of beds within the Department
of Corrections, to be successful Alaskans, and not give up on
any one particular crime. She described this as a shift in the
legislature's thinking.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that Sean O'Brien, Division of Public
Assistance, is next and will discuss food stamps for drug
felons.
6:57:55 PM
SEAN O'BRIEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance, said he
is available to answer questions relative to Sec. 148, and that
the Division of Public Assistance and the Department of Health
and Social Services support it.
[Chair LeDoux passed the gavel to Representative Keller.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to earlier questions about food
stamps and pointed out that people have to eat and they can't
afford it because they just got out of jail. He pointed out
that it appears obvious that well fed people don't steal as much
as people who are starving, and that this is just common sense
which doesn't seem to be so common.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that he was not sure he understood the
question but offered that the same mission that drives the
Division of Public Assistance to assist a variety of people to
become independent and successful in Alaska is the same heart as
this bill. He explained, it is to help transition individuals
from where they are to where they need to be, and in that sense,
it is common sense, and the Division of Public Assistance offers
a variety of programs to try to help Alaskans successfully
transition. He opined that this is an example of that and the
answer to Representative Lynn's question is yes.
7:00:49 PM
ALYSA WOODEN, Program Coordinator, Division of Behavioral
Health, Department of Health and Social Services, said she is
available to answer questions.
7:01:07 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
[Representative Keller passed the gavel back to Chair LeDoux.]
7:01:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Wooden to explain the reentry program,
such as, support and resources provided to individuals, and
further asked what the division's role would be in the reentry
program.
MS. WOODEN explained that the division has had the anti-
recidivism services contract since July 2015, and the social and
community supports provided by this contract range from housing,
employment, substance abuse, and mental health treatment
referrals. Currently, she explained, this contract is dually
funded by the Department of Corrections and the Department of
Health and Social Services who then partners with a vendor
within the community to assist in reentry and assisting
individuals in receiving the support they need.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she said they contract with a vendor.
MS. WOODEN answered yes.
CHAIR LEDOUX further asked whether it was just one vendor or a
number of vendors.
MS. WOODEN explained that Partners for Progress is the vendor
for the entire anti-recidivism services contract and they do
refer out to other providers within the community, specifically
for substance abuse and mental health treatment.
7:03:21 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her, and anyone in the public, to talk to the
committee about Partners for Progress and what it does pursuant
to this grant.
MS. WOODEN responded that Partners for Progress (Partners) have
a (indisc.) center, and there may be confusion because they do
have funding outside this particular contract. Although, for
this specific contract the supports and deliverables they are
specifically working with are primarily focused on housing,
employment, substance abuse, mental health treatment referrals,
and other support services which include everything from bus
passes to clothing vouchers. She offered that the majority of
referrals the division receives for this contract are from the
Department of Corrections and they work closely with the
department to utilize the risk assessment for this particular
contract. The risk assessment is the Level of Service Inventory
- Revised (LSI-R) and it helps to measure the likelihood of
(indisc.) criminogenic needs. The vendor is able to tailor
their case management process toward the level of needs of the
offender in addition to the risk assessment. She explained that
when discussing this contract the discussion is the vendor
Partners for Progress, as well as the Department of Corrections,
and the Department of Health and Social Services, as well as
other departments who have helped, such as Department of Labor &
Workforce Development for the employment piece.
7:05:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she has been to Partners for Progress
and expressed that it is a great program, and asked how things
will change within their program once the bill has passed.
MS. WOODEN replied that she does not know in particular, but a
lot of the changes do affect the Department of Corrections.
Interestingly, she said, many of the changes, especially when it
comes to reentry, do seem to go along with what Partners for
Progress is already doing. For instance, 90 days before someone
is released from prison, it ensures the inmate has
identification and a plan. She related that this is helpful to
the contract because it encourages communication between the
Department of Corrections and Partners for Progress. She
remarked that she is not sure what it will look like in the
future.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she is interested in the role Partners for
Progress might play in the future, and asked that someone get
back to the committee with the information.
7:06:33 PM
MS. ABBOTT noted there are numerous other services that Partners
for Progress is able to provide through partnerships, such as
job placement resources, housing placement and others. She
opined that Partners for Progress resources could be
transitioned into other helpful services.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her to explain.
MS. ABBOTT responded that the Anchorage Reentry Center through
Nine Star helps with job skills, GEDs, and increased services
for housing. At this point it is a fairly small operation and
it could provide substantially more if it were able to shift
some things that are happening during the incarceration period,
she said.
7:08:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked when the services for partnership ends.
MS. ABBOTT asked whether she meant through the contract they are
working with or through grant funding.
CHAIR LEDOUX answered no, and offered the scenario of someone
released from prison and Partners for Progress helps them, at
what point does the person leave the nest and become totally
independent.
MS. ABBOTT opined that they could speak with Partners for
Progress as to when it might cease assistance, but further
opined that it will help someone reenter until the person has
found housing and a job. At that point, she said, the mission
of Partners for Progress is finished, but she will get a more
thorough answer.
CHAIR LEDOUX suggested bringing Janet McCabe or Kathleen
McLaughlin to the committee to explain exactly what Partners for
Progress does now and how they envision its role changing after
the bill has passed.
MS. ABBOTT offered that they are scheduled for later this week.
7:10:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Sec. 139, the prisoner
reentry provision and noted there may be a drafting error with
the statutory citation which can easily be fixed. He remarked
that there is a lot of potential to assist in reentry and help
inmates become productive members of society after spending
their time in prison and rehabilitation. At risk of going down
a political rabbit hole, he asked, in addition to identification
and other basic needs, whether health care is another
consideration. He opined that most people coming out of prison
don't have ready access to health care but would be Medicaid
eligible, and whether medical resources orientation to the
health care system would be something the committee may want to
consider.
MS. ABBOTT opined that it is not something the commission
considered, and deferred to the commissioners in the room or
online.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that it makes a lot of sense to give
prisoners an orientation as to options that may be available, be
it Medicaid enrollment, community clinics, or whatever.
7:12:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that is a fair assessment and
noted there are opportunities without jumping straight to
Medicaid, such as neighborhood health clinics, free clinics for
people eligible for Indian health services.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that the state should identify all of the
options available for reentry, such as Tribal health, community
health, and/or Veterans benefits, without the state taking the
philosophy that maybe they shouldn't have Medicaid, it is out
there and it should be identified.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that is something Janet McCabe can
speak to as part of its reentry program in getting the released
inmates health care, support and various groups, and the things
Partners for Progress takes care of. She said it is not
necessarily a statute call but it is part of something that
should be considered during reentry.
7:14:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Representative Millett may be correct
and she referred to AS 30.30.095, Duties of the commissioner
before release of prisoner.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said in reading through the long list of
duties, it discusses treatment, residency, employment, and
counseling services.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, and advised Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
that with housing, employment, and treatment that probably
covers it.
7:15:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that there is the
potential to end the negative feedback that seems to exist, and
he is looking forward to hearing from the Department of Labor &
Work Force Development later this week.
7:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that many things have to be
developed here and he referred to Community Resource Centers
(CRC) and the responsibility of their contracts they have and
the possibilities for that. He pointed out that this falls on
the commissioner and the Department of Corrections to work magic
over the next year or two, and it can't all be defined in
statute and [the legislature] cannot continue to look the other
way.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented that in reading HB 205, Sec.
139, pages 84-85, and the question of subparagraph (B) community
resources available for housing, employment, and treatment. He
said that most of the discussion is treatment, which tends to be
drug and alcohol treatment, and whether medical care should be
added to the list of resources available which is different from
treatment, and then said he did not know whether treatment
necessarily includes medical care.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the suspended imposition of
sentence versus the new option, and asked Ms. Kaci Schroeder the
perspective of the Department of Law as to whether the state is
moving away from the suspended imposition of sentence, which
comes with a conviction that is set aside. He asked whether the
state is moving to the new model which would be a finding of
guilt, no sentence imposed, with a period of time on probation,
and at the conclusion of probation if the person has complied
there is never a conviction.
7:17:52 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Legal Services Section, Department of Law, said the suspended
imposition of sentence (SIS) statute was not repealed for a
purpose, and opined that the suspended entry of judgment (SEJ)
is another tool in the toolbox that is appropriate for some
defendants. The suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) would
still have merits for other defendants, which depends upon the
negotiations between the defense and prosecution. She
reiterated that the Department of Law sees it as another tool in
the toolbox.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether she anticipates the SEJ
would be used more than the SIS, or whether she knows.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that it is difficult to know because
this is a new section of law and it does require an agreement
between the defense and prosecution, which is not necessarily
true for the SIS. Therefore, it is difficult to know how often
it would be used and, she opined, defendants would probably
request an SEJ more often than an SIS due to the set aside, and
the SIS has been identified as being somewhat problematic.
7:19:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, at any time, a suspended imposition
of sentence was successfully completed wherein a person could
tell a prospective employer they have never been convicted of a
felony.
MS. SCHROEDER acknowledged that she did not know the legislative
history of the SIS, but suspects that that was part of the
consideration. She opined that the intent was to (indisc.) the
collateral consequences associated with a conviction. However,
the conviction is actually entered and is set aside, and she
believes people in the civil world do not understand what "set
aside" means. Under most circumstances, prosecutors are not
able to use that as a prior conviction and, she opined, there
are civil areas where collateral consequences may not have been
anticipated.
7:20:17 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX recalled that 25 years ago, Kodiak judges told
defendants if they had an SIS and had successfully completed the
terms, they would be able to tell a prospective employers they
had not been convicted of a felony. She said this [provision]
actually comes as a surprise that they are not able to do that.
MS. SCHROEDER opined, that is true for many defendants who
expected to have less collateral consequences. It comes as a
surprise when they have to report their experiences and are
unable to get things such as licenses.
[HB 205 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Re-Entry Presentation 03.21.16.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2016 5:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Backup Documents - ACJC Recommendation RE Food Stamps.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2016 5:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |