Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/26/2018 07:00 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 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
7:01:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to gun violence protective
orders; relating to the crime of violating a protective order;
relating to a central registry for protective orders; relating
to the powers of district judges and magistrates; requiring
physicians, psychologists, psychological associates, social
workers, marital and family therapists, and licensed
professional counselors to report annually threats of gun
violence; and amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."
CHAIR CLAMAN passed gavel to Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins and
presented the committee substitute.
7:01:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the committee substitute is labeled
30-LS0304\R, Martin, 3/26/18, and paraphrased the sectional
analysis as follows:
Section 1.
AS 11.56.740(a) Violating a protective order.
Makes violating a gun violence protective order as
described in section 7 a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 2.
AS 11.56.740(c) Violating a protective order.
Adds the definition of a gun violence protective order
created in section 7 to the list of definitions in
Alaska's criminal code.
Section 3.
AS 12.35 Search and Seizure.
Adds a new section to AS 12.35 allowing for the
warrantless seizure of a firearm from an individual
believed to be dangerous, with reference to the
procedures in AS 18.65.815 18.65.845 in the event of
such a seizure.
Section 4.
AS 18.65.530(a) Mandatory arrest for crimes
involving domestic violence, violation of protective
orders, and violation of conditions of release. Allows
a peace officer to arrest a person, with or without a
warrant, who violates a gun violence protective order.
Section 5.
AS 18.65.540(a) Central registry of protective
orders.
Adds a conforming amendment to existing powers of the
Department of Public Safety to add this to their
existing central registry for a gun violence
protective order. The registry must include, for each
protective order, the names of the petitioner and
respondent, their dates of birth, and the conditions
and duration of the order. The Department of Public
Safety shall retain a record of the protective order
after it has expired.
Section 6.
AS 18.65.540(b) Central registry of protective
orders.
Adds a conforming amendment to existing powers of the
Department of Public Safety to take reasonable steps
to report that the order, modified order, or dismissal
is entered into the central registry within 24 hours
after being received.
Section 7.
Amends AS 18.65 to add seven new sections. The likely
use of the gun violence protective order starts with
an ex parte order under Sec. 18.65.820:
Sec. 18.65.820. Ex parte gun violence protective
orders.
Allows a peace officer to request an ex parte gun
violence protective order. If the court finds that the
petition establishes probable cause to believe that
the respondent is a dangerous individual, the court
shall ex parte and without notice to the respondent
issue a protective order. Defines how that order would
be created. Following the ex parte order and service
of the order, a contested or 20-day hearing would
occur.
Sec. 18.65.815 Gun Violence Protective Orders.
Allows a peace officer to file a petition for a
protective order against a respondent if they
reasonably believe that the respondent is a dangerous
individual.
When a petition for a protective order is filed, the
court shall schedule a hearing and provide at least 10
days' notice to the respondent of the hearing. The
notice of the hearing must inform the respondent of
the option to waive the hearing. The notice must
inform the respondent that if the respondent does not
appear at the hearing, the respondent will have six
months to request a hearing regarding the protective
order. A protective order issued under this section
expires six months after it is issued unless dissolved
earlier by the court at the request of either the
peace officer or the respondent after notice and, if
requested, a hearing. A protective order issued under
this section shall prohibit the respondent from
possessing, owning, purchasing, receiving, or
attempting to purchase or receive a firearm or
ammunition.
If the court issues a protective order under this
section, the court shall direct the respondent to
surrender to the appropriate law enforcement agency,
sell to a firearms dealer, or deliver to a court-
approved third party all firearms and ammunition that
the respondent possesses or owns within 48 hours after
receipt of the order.
Sec. 18.65.825. Modification of gun violence
protective order.
Allows the peace officer or the respondent to request
modification of the gun violence protective order.
Describes how to modify the order.
Sec. 18.65.830. Surrender of firearms and
ammunition.
Allows the court to order the respondent to
temporarily surrender or sell all firearms and
ammunition within 48 hours of receipt of the
protective order. When the protective order is
terminated or expires, the law enforcement agency
shall notify the respondent that return of the
firearms or ammunition to the respondent is available.
Sec. 18.65.835. Service of process; forms for
petitions and orders; fees; warnings; notification;
and pending civil or criminal actions. Requires the
Alaska Court System to prepare forms to file this
protective order, without charging filing fees.
Establishes that violating the order is a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to one year of incarceration and a
fine of up to $25,000. Clarifies that the respondent
is not entitled to court appointed counsel employed at
the public's expense to contest the order.
7:06:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that under Sec. 18.65.830, in the event the
20-day order is a contested hearing, the respondent would have
48-hours to turn in their guns if so ordered. In the event the
hearing is ex parte, a warning would not be required because the
officer would have already seized the guns.
CHAIR CLAMAN continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis as
follows:
Sec. 18.65.840. Notification of law enforcement
agencies.
Requires the court to notify local law enforcement of
the order so it can be enforced.
Sec. 18.65.845. Dangerous Individual
Defines a definition of a dangerous individual for the
purposes of filing a petition for a gun violence
protective order.
Section 8.
AS 22.15.100 Functions and powers of district judge
and magistrate.
Adds a conforming amendment to existing powers of
district judges and magistrates to be able to
administer this new gun violence emergency protective
order.
Section 9.
AS 22.35.030 Records concerning criminal cases
resulting in acquittal or dismissal.
Amends AS 22.35.030 to add a new subsection (b)
stating that the Alaska Court System may not publish a
court record of an ex parte protective order on a
publicly available website.
7:08:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the uncontested ex parte orders
would not be placed on CourtView, the contested hearing would
appear on CourtView if a person was found, at that hearing, to
be dangerous.
CHAIR CLAMAN continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis as
follows:
Section 10.
Indirect Court Rules Amendments Lists court rules
that are affected by the bill relating to court fees
and the process for issuing protective orders.
Section 11.
Conditional Effects Sections 1-9 of this legislation
only take effect if Section 10 gets a two-thirds
majority vote of each house of the Alaska Legislature,
which is required by art. IV, sec. 15, Constitution of
the State of Alaska.
Section 12.
Provides for an effective date of October 1, 2018.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the effective date was at the
request of the Alaska Court System because it required
additional time to prepare the necessary forms and comply with
this particular law, should it pass.
7:09:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the three largest changes in CSHB 75,
are that Version D allowed that individuals, basically non-
police officers, could apply for a gun violence protective
order. Version R allows that only peace officers can apply for
the gun violence protective order, but the public can voice
their concerns to police officers. Also, he offered, Version D
prohibited ownership of weapons, and Version R only prohibits
possession and purchasing, it would not prohibit someone from
owning weapons. Essentially, he explained, the state does not
want to get into the process of prohibiting someone from owning
guns because when that order expires, the person would still own
those same guns. The third change specifically allows that if a
police officer encounters an individual believed to be dangerous
and is in possession of guns, the police officer can seize the
guns without a warrant. Subsequently, and within 72-hours after
seizing that weapon, the police officer would have to file for a
gun violence protective order to explain why the guns were
seized and submit that report to the court.
7:11:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt CSHB75, labeled 30-LS0304\R as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected because he needed more time to
review the new committee substitute before beginning the
timeline on amendments, he said.
7:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the State of Indiana gun violence
protective order law withstood the court's scrutiny [under
Redington v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823], and Version R contains
considerably more due process protections.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she would have preferred
more time in order to review Version R.
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that the
committee will be working with Version R for a while in moving
forward.
7:13:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she sure liked Version R
better than Version D.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she appreciates the work
that went into Version R because she had had an opportunity to
get her "two cents in" and the version was tailored nicely.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
7:14:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Reinbold, Kopp,
Stutes, LeDoux, Kreiss-Tomkins and Claman voted in favor of the
adoption of CSHB 75, labeled 30-LS0304\R. Representative
Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 75 was adopted by a
vote of 6-1.
7:14:39
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 75.
7:15:24 PM
STELLA TALLMON, Sophomore, Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS),
advised that she is strongly in favor of HB 75 because it is a
huge step in the right direction in ensuring a safe future for
citizens and students like herself. She thanked Representative
Tarr for bringing this legislation forward because recently her
peers across the country have been speaking out about the need
for more gun control in our nation. Through the national
student walkout and the March for our Lives, the public has been
shown that students are "sick and tired" of being scared to go
school due to school shootings and regular lock-down drills that
have become the norm. She advised that Alaska's legislature
could provide as many mental health programs as it desires and
put metal protectors in every school, but that wouldn't solve
the problem that guns do the killing in the end. The State of
Alaska's current gun laws do not ensure domestic tranquility,
they do not provide for the common defense, they do not provide
for general public welfare. Most of all, she described,
Alaska's laws do not ensure the blessings of liberty to receive
a public education and not get shot in school for ourselves and
our posterity. She said that she speaks for thousands of her
peers across the state when she says, "enough is enough." It is
time to pass common sense gun laws in Alaska, and to please do
the right thing for the future and vote in favor of HB 75. She
expressed that, "We're saying never again, and we really mean
it."
7:16:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that Ms. Talimon had testified
that "you represent a lot of kids" and asked whether she has a
resolution, whether it was from her classmates or something she
worked on in school.
MS. TALIMON remarked "Actually yes." She advised that she is on
the Student Council and it organized the National Student
Walkout a couple of weeks ago wherein hundreds of students
attended with community support. She stressed that many of her
peers have advised her that they support gun control in the
state and in the nation.
7:17:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether teachers are involved, and
how many school shootings have taken place in Alaska.
MS. TALIMON responded that teachers are not involved in this
because it is the students that are coming together, and she
could not recite the number of school shootings in Alaska, but
there was one in Bethel. She expressed that there are school
shootings in the nation almost every week and it is not safe for
students.
7:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that 21-years ago there was a
school shooting in Bethel and asked whether she could recall any
other school shootings in Alaska.
MS. TALIMON reiterated that she could not recall any other
school shootings in Alaska. Except, she stressed, Alaska should
play its part as a state within the United States to promote gun
control because this is what many of her peers believe is right.
7:18:37 PM
NOAH WILLIAMS advised that he represents an over-looked angle of
this issue, which is gun suicides. There is a lot of focus on
the gun violence against others aspect, but the majority of gun
deaths in the country are self-inflicted. This legislation
would not solely allow for the confiscations of people's guns
who are a threat to others, but also themselves. He opined that
the language will save a lot of lives that society does not see,
and he noted that it is difficult to collect statistics on the
lives saved from measures such as HB 75. He guaranteed that a
lot of students have been set on edge by the events of the last
year, and he is one. He related that, previously, he was in a
state of despair and if he had had access to a gun he probably
would have taken his own life.
7:20:37 PM
KERRI WILLOUGHBY advised that she has lived in Alaska for 15-
years, she is a financial planner, a mother, and is representing
herself and other mothers. Ms. Willoughby advised that her six-
year old son attends Harborview Elementary School in Juneau and
she is one of the millions of Americans who know that thoughts
and prayers are not enough. As law makers, she pointed out,
Alaskans are counting on them to make the needed changes to
protect our children from violence in school. She urged the
committee to please support CSHB 75.
7:21:52 PM
HOLLY HANDLER, Attorney, advised that she is testifying on
behalf of herself and her family, and she is the mother of twin
nine-year old boys. As a mother of children in school, she
advised that active shooter drills are a regular part of her
family's conversation and are part of parent/teacher
conferences. As a constituent, she stated, she not here asking
the committee to fix gun violence in one day or one session, but
she hopes that legislators will consider HB 75 as one step
toward making our communities and schools safer. As an
attorney, she explained, part of her practice is to represent
women in domestic violence protection hearings and one of the
scariest conversations she has to have with clients is that
after receiving a domestic violence protective order, which is a
piece of paper, to discuss safety planning. There have been
situations where an enraged boyfriend, ex-partner, or spouse may
react to the protective order by coming to their home with a
gun. Oftentimes, she related, the protective orders themselves
do not include provisions calling for the forfeiture of weapons,
and she has clients who are terrified each night that their
former partner will shoot them. Even after obtaining a
protective order, and despite this piece of paper in their hand,
they are terrified of their former partner coming in and
shooting them, she reiterated. Clearly, she pointed out, it
does not have to happen in our communities to be afraid of it,
it doesn't have to happen down the street to be afraid of such
situations because society knows it happens in our country. It
is known that one of the problems is that there are insufficient
protections in place, and as a mother and a concerned citizen,
she asked the committee to please support CSHB 75.
7:24:08 PM
JASMINE LEREMIA, Senior, Petersburg High School, advised that
she is in support of HB 75 because it is one step in the right
direction concerning gun control safety laws in Alaska.
Although, she related, she would like to see a bill directly
concerning mental health issues within the state, such as
helping aid and diagnose those individuals with severe mental
illnesses. Throughout the years in the nation, many children
have been subjected to mass murders at the hands of unchecked
rage and aggression, not to mention that Alaska has the highest
rate of suicides per capita in the nation. She noted that she
considers herself lucky to live in Alaska where mass shootings
are not the norm, but she does not want to wait for the day that
those shootings are the norm. It is her belief that CSHB 75
could help lead Alaska and other states to a safer future, and
she urged legislators to pass this legislation.
7:25:16 PM
ABBY HARDIE, Senior, Petersburg High School, advised that she is
in support of CSHB 75 because it is a common-sense measure for
public safety, especially when considering the high suicide
rates and domestic violence rates in Alaska. In view of recent
and tragic school shootings within the United States, the March
for our Lives and student walkouts, she opined that this bill
would be a safeguard in ensuring the feeling of safety in
schools. As a student, she said that she previously always felt
safe in school with her peers and teachers until the recent
events in the nation, and now changes should be made so every
student feels safe in the years to come. She pointed out that
her school has regular lock-down drills because these cases of
school shootings seem so commonplace now. As to mental health,
she opined that CSHB 75 is a step forward in providing a more
preventative measure for public safety and awareness of mental
health, and who should be considered extreme risks. She urged
the committee to pass this legislation for public safety as it
does not infringe on Second Amendment rights and it will be a
step in the right direction for students and general public
safety.
7:26:39 PM
JOSEPH SCHLANGER advised that he represents himself and he is
against this legislation. He opined that there does need to be
some protection for the victim and "that is already in there for
the protective order," in that a person cannot possess a weapon
if they have a protective order against them. He referred to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Art. 1 Sec. 14, which
read as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses and other property, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated. No warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.
MR. SCHLANGER said, "You've got in there that the peace officer
can in there and -- basically go in there with a warrant --
without a warrant," and he asked whether that language could be
changed. He opined that it is a violation of Art. 1 Sec. 19,
which read as follows:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The
individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be
denied or infringed by the State or a political
subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]
MR. SCHLANGER commented that "You guys" are instituting this
bill because they are over-reacting about a school shooting. He
opined that the people on the side of the school shooting do not
want to hear what the other side has to say, which has been seen
by the main stream media and the State of Alaska. The governor
came out and said that he is with the students and "he is with
this, with taking our guns. That's exactly what the students
are talking about is wanting to take our weapons from us to
protect us."
7:29:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
7:30:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered his understanding, regarding the
concerns of the last testifier, wherein any time the term "gun
control" or other language is heard, often that means solely
curtailing Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That,
he commented, always greatly concerns him as he strongly
believes that the Second Amendment was not solely written to
provide for a military. Ultimately, he explained, the Second
Amendment was to protect the people from a tyrannical government
if necessary, and that right is unique to the United States of
America. It is a false dichotomy, he pointed out, that this
debate about gun violence often boils down between those who own
guns and those who do not approve of guns, and it is a
superficial argument. The people who own guns also deeply love
and care about children, and oftentimes the message is that that
is not true. He said that he is not interested in limiting the
freedoms of law abiding and non-dangerous citizens, and during
his 23 years in law enforcement in Alaska, he enforced the
provision of domestic violence sexual assault protective orders,
which are far more limiting than CSHB 75. Domestic violence
protective orders forcibly remove a person from their own home,
forcibly remove their property and vehicles, and if the court so
orders, the person's firearms. He offered that those laws have
been on the books for many decades to keep people alive in
volatile domestic violence situations and due process has been
afforded. He related that he likes the fact that this
legislation moves toward a time-proven model of protecting folks
from violence. Unique to CSHB 75, he explained, is that a crime
need not have occurred. He related that if someone posts on
Facebook several times that they want to be a professional
school shooter, but they have not directly depicted a place,
time, or victim, it is hard for the current protective order to
work. This legislation allows that some action can be
undertaken before tragedy strikes, for example, when someone
manifests verbal language or behavior that they have [a violent]
intent and they possess a firearm, makes them likely to inflict
harm to self or others.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that as to due process, if it is
an ex parte order, within 72 hours a hearing is ordered, the
person is notified and they must respond to the court, a hearing
is then set within ten days, and the judge will make a
determination based on all of the facts, sworn statements, and
circumstances. He opined that this process closely mirrors a
current tool in the law that is actually much more restrictive.
Under this legislation, at any point, the court can reject the
order if the judge did not believe the allegations rose to the
level of the dangerous person definition provided in this
legislation, he said.
7:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that when people makes statements or
post online that they intend to cause harm but leave out, for
example, the identity of the victim and the time and place, the
committee does not want to stand by and wait for victims to
stack up before taking any action. As a parent of children who
have gone through the school system, he wants law enforcement
to, at least, have the necessary tools. Version R allows that
only public safety professionals can request a gun violence
protective order because they are trained to look at the
evidence and facts in the law, and what rises to probable cause,
he commented. He described this as a possible tool to implement
and put the state in a better position to protect our youth and
someone known to be suicidal and obtain a protective order until
that storm had passed. Suicide, he described, is a permanent
solution to a temporary problem and most school shooters were
looking for a permanent solution to a temporary insanity they
were experiencing in their life. He reiterated that he is
pleased to see that this closely mirrors domestic violence
protective orders, which are far more liberty restricting in the
law than this gun violence protective order.
7:37:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that no one wants guns in the
hands of dangerous individuals with the possibility of harming
self or others. The concern is gun free zones and a large
majority of mass shootings have been in gun free zones.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that HB 75 does not create any gun free
zones.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that when confiscating guns
from a household, business, and so forth, technically it can
create a gun free zone.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that this bill would only take guns away
from an individual. He reiterated the earlier testimony wherein
if two individuals lived in a house and the order removed the
guns from one person, that would not remove all of the guns from
the house. He pointed out that for the other individual living
in the house with a gun, they may choose to have someone else
keep their guns. This order, in and of itself, would not create
such a gun free gun zone, he offered.
7:38:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that if there was only one gun
in the house and that gun was confiscated, the household would
not be able to self-defend. She related that she simply wanted
on the record that some people could argue that this legislation
could be creating gun free zones, and it could also help in
certain situations by taking away the guns.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, stated
that the committee is aware that Alaska probably has the highest
per capita gun possession in the country.
7:39:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that guns do nothing alone and
they do not harm anyone, it is because the person has a heart,
mind, soul, physical, and mental breakdown. She asked whether
[laws], other than the State of Indiana, have shown a dramatic
reduction in suicides or murder, and whether law enforcement is
in favor of this tool.
7:40:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, responded
that the State of Indiana gun violence protective order law was
passed in 2005, and the law in the State of Connecticut was
passed in 1999. Within the State of Connecticut, that law has
proven to reduce the number of suicides and it can link the
number of guns confiscated. She opined that for every 11 guns
taken away, one death was prevented. According to the
testimony, she noted that it is difficult to extrapolate whether
preventing that individual from hurting themselves also meant
preventing them from harming another person because those two
events happen frequently, especially in domestic type of
incidents where someone kills the family and then kills
themselves. Interestingly, she offered, the State of Indiana
related that a high percentage of the folks do not try to
retrieve their firearms once the protective order has expired
and they chose to let law enforcement have their guns. She
acknowledged that that is a different sort of evidence, but it
shows that people have realized or chosen afterwards to no
longer possess firearms. The States of Washington, Oregon, and
California recently passed a gun violence protective order law
and those states are in the data gathering phase. The State of
Washington passed the law via a citizen initiative in 2016, the
State of California passed its law in 2015, and the State of
Oregon law passed last year, she advised.
7:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there are any official
statistics such as the Uniform Crime Report in this regard. She
then asked the opinions of peace officers and whether the
Anchorage Police Department (APD) and the Alaska State Troopers
(AST) are in favor of this legislation. She commented that she
found it "pretty intimidating" that without a search warrant,
law enforcement can "dig into people's stuff" and remove their
guns, and that "they are putting them in harm's way."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the sponsor's office worked
with the Department of Law (DOL), Department of Public Safety
(DPS), and there have been conversations with the APD. She
remarked that she was unsure she was the best person to speak on
their behalf. Representative Tarr referred to the indeterminate
fiscal note and pointed out that DPS does not know how
frequently this tool would be used so it cannot predict how
often it would retrieve and secure the firearms, as opposed to
the person voluntarily relinquishing their guns. The DPS
advised the sponsor that the guns would be removed by two
officers and it stressed that an officer would not be sent on
that call alone, she advised. Until such a policy is in place,
it is difficult to know whether it would be used once per week,
month, or year, she said.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is
not available tonight, but he had had conversations with
representatives from the APD and one of the changes in the
adopted committee substitute [Version R] was requested by the
APD. Under the original version of HB 75, if an ex parte order
was issued, typically two officers were sent to serve that
order, which is similar to a domestic violence protective order.
In the event the gun violence protective order was served on day
one and the person advised that they were not turning over their
guns, a warrant would be necessary, whereby a full SWAT team
would arrive with a search and seizure warrant to seize the
guns. The request from APD was that if it was serving these
protective orders, it wanted the authority to remove the weapons
immediately, and if the person did not surrender their weapons
it would be a violation of the gun violence protective order and
allow for an arrest at that time. Thereby, he offered, it would
be tailored to make this similar to a domestic violence
protective order in terms of the procedure when serving the
order. He advised that an effort will be made to locate a
representative from APS or the Alaska State Troopers to provide
further testimony at the next hearing.
7:46:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested that a representative from the
Juneau Police Department (JPD), APD, and the Alaska State
Troopers testify. She added that she would like a
representative who is able to speak on behalf of each entity,
not just one person testifying and "being told what to say by
the majority or the governor." She referred to [Section 3. AS
12.35.200(c)] page 2, lines 30-31, which read as follows:
(c) Nothing in this section authorizes a peace
officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if
a warrant would otherwise be required.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the breadth of that warrantless
search.
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Sec. 12.35.200(c) and noted that it is
a limited exception to the warrant requirement. The main point
is that when law enforcement is presented with an individual it
believes is dangerous, to act right then and not spend time
going to the courthouse to obtain a warrant. Today there are
many occasions when an officer can act to seize a weapon without
a warrant. He referenced the State of Indiana case [Redington
v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823], which was previously distributed to
the committee, and offered that it describes a challenge to the
warrantless seizure of weapon. The facts of the lawsuit are, he
explained, [Robert E. Redington] was sitting in a parking garage
watching a nightclub across the way and he was apparently
watching for someone to exit the nightclub. [Due to the
previous acts of Mr. Redington], the officers believed it was
appropriate to seize the firearm without obtaining a warrant
from the court in that instance, he explained.
7:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that this legislation basically
puts into statute what has been performed in practice for many
decades. In the event law enforcement observed a dangerous
situation, for example, someone threatening to kill their "old
lady," or blow the head off of their boss, and law enforcement
saw the handgun on the counter, it would be beyond poor
judgement to leave that person and that firearm together at the
same time. He pointed out that law enforcement would remove the
firearm for safekeeping, write a report, send it into the
District Attorney's Office, and chances are, the gun may be
released back to the person the following day. He pointed out
that law enforcement frequently makes judgment calls based on,
"should that person and that firearm be still together after I'm
no longer present?" That type of situation would be under the
warrantless seizure, he said.
7:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Section 3, page 2, beginning
line 17, and asked what Version R allows that was not allowed
under Version D.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that Version R allows peace officers to
do what they are already doing, and it provides a process and
procedure that was not required previously. He referred to
Representative Kopp's scenario and explained that the officer
having seized the weapon would need to go to court and file the
request for a gun violence protective order. He noted that a
crime had not been committed, but the process is that law
enforcement seizes the weapon, files the paperwork creating a
record of the circumstances, and the court considers the facts
and evidence to make its determination.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered appreciation for the time limit of
72-hours wherein the gun would not be sitting in safekeeping for
two weeks because the officer was unsure whether the person
continued to be dangerous. Protections for gun owners are in
place because hard timelines are built into Version R versus
simply the judgement of law enforcement or the District
Attorney's Office as to how long they would like to see the gun
in safekeeping. He reiterated that more due process is built
into this legislation that ensure rights are protected on either
end.
7:52:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD summarized her previous questions as
follows: where this has been proven to reduce crime; request
for FBI statistics; whether this bill creates any liability for
the state if people have their guns seized and are unable to
self-defend; whether this legislation creates gun free zones;
federal, state, and local police officers' input; and she would
like to see the fiscal notes for this bill.
7:52:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to a request for clarification
from Representative LeDoux, said there are a total of five
states which have enacted these laws, but she had focused mainly
on the States of Indiana and Connecticut because those two
states passed their laws in 2005 and 1999, respectively. She
pointed out that those laws have been in place long enough to
research whether there was evidence that the law was abused or
whether there was case law. She related that throughout her
research she did not locate where the law had been abused, and
there was one lawsuit regarding the warrantless seizure issue.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the State of Florida passed a gun
violence protective order law within the past three weeks.
7:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested statistics in two categories, as
follows: the number of people injured or killed with guns prior
to, and after, the passage of the law in the States of Indiana
and Connecticut; and the number of suicides prior to, and after,
the passage of the law in the States of Indiana and Connecticut.
She related that she would like to see whether there were
substantial reductions in either category.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to a one-page comparison document
titled "Gun Violence Protection Order [contained in the
committee packet] as to the Alaska proposal prior to the
committee substitute and the States of Indiana and Connecticut,
where information was provided about the retrieval of the guns
and suicides. She pointed out that information came from a more
comprehensive report that discusses all of those different
points and she would provide that report to the committee.
7:55:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the left side, bottom row of the
comparison titled "Gun Violence Protection Order" which read
"Research on success of policy:" and explained that after
enactment of the State of Connecticut law, it was found that for
every ten to eleven-gun removal cases, one suicide was averted
which was an estimated 72 averted suicides. Under the State of
Indiana law, the court retained firearms in 63 percent of the
cases, dismissed 29 percent of the cases, and most individuals
did not request return of their firearm.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX described that information as an
interesting statistic, but it does not show whether crimes using
firearms, hurting self or others with guns, had an effect.
7:56:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Chair Claman, described the
document being discussed as a document comparing the gun
violence protective order statutes in the States of Connecticut
and Indiana to the proposal under consideration for Alaska. The
comparison is in terms of: who can file; length of time; mental
health language included in the legislation/law; warrantless
seizure; seizure of another person's guns; and research on the
success of policy. She explained that this comparison was
drafted in response to several questions asked during the
initial hearings and some of the language listed on the document
was incorporated into Version R, so there are protections in
there. For example, she said, the State of Indiana law read,
and she paraphrased as follows:
Instructions to determine whether the individual is
defined as 'dangerous' includes, but is not limited
to, whether the individual (A) has a mental illness
that may be controlled by medication and has not
demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently
taking the individual's medication while not under
supervision.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR then referred to the paragraph above the
provision and paraphrased as follows:
Having previously been in a mental health facility.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that neither of those can be used
to "establish someone's mental health in themselves." For
example, she said, those provisions have been added into Version
R to include stronger language. The asterisk points to a report
titled "DEVELOPMENTS IN MENTAL HEALTH LAW - The Institute of
Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy - University of Virginia, Volume
36, Issue 2, Summer 2017." She explained that that is where the
data was pulled involving the research on the success of the
policy and it is a lengthy report with much more information.
Representative Tarr agreed to provide the committee with a copy
of the report.
7:58:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that critically missing from
this is that under the State of Indiana, it does not show the
crime rate with guns, the number of people injured or killed
with guns, and the number of suicides, before and after the
enactment of the law. She further commented that she did not
believe it goes to whether the statute is working.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the gun violence was cut in half.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she would like to see whether
it cut the gun violence at all, which is the missing
information.
7:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised that the lengthy report had been
distributed to the members, and the development in mental health
is part of the packet. She turned to page 17 of the report and
noted that it mentions experience under temporary firearm
removal statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the report discusses the
States of Connecticut and Indiana, and how many cases were heard
during the first two years, patterns, and so forth.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the report was distributed by email
because it was too lengthy to print for everyone.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold's question
about fiscal notes, advised that they had been distributed some
time ago and they are posted online.
8:00:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered interest in how it was calculated
that for every ten to eleven-gun removal cases, one suicide was
averted. For example, in 1998 there were 50 suicides using
guns, and in 2013 there were less than that number, and the
increase in population would make a difference. She asked
whether there was a determination that less guns were used in
suicides and what that did for the suicide statistics overall
because if people were killing themselves under other methods
then she questioned that information.
8:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she was unsure the
committee had seen fiscal notes for Version R, and whether there
were changes in the fiscal notes.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that it is not the practice to issue new
fiscal notes when there are new committee substitutes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a previous comment that a
committee member did not want any deterrent for people to
receive mental health assistance. She commented that this bill
is better in that regard, and referred to CSHB 75, Version R,
[Section 7, Sec. 18.65.845(b)] page 9, lines 4-7, which read as
follows:
(b) The fact that an individual has been released
from a mental health facility or has a mental illness
for which the individual has been prescribed
medication does not determine that an individual is
dangerous for purposes of AS 18.65.815-18.65.845.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that that was important to put
on the record. The committee might want to hear from a
prescribing psychiatrist for an overview of which drugs are
highly prescribed and more dangerous, she said.
8:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the University of Virginia
study and asked whether these numbers of people, for example,
saved from suicide or gun violence also take into account the
individuals who became victims of crime in their own defenses
after they lost access to their firearms.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that there was no evidence in the
documents she researched.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that issue was taken into
account.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR (audio difficulties), but she would say that
she spent quite of bit of time trying to find any information or
evidence that these [laws] were abused in any manner or had any
negative outcomes and she has yet to find any information of
those issues, she reiterated.
8:05:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Nancy Meade, Alaska Court System,
whether there is any manner in which to anticipate the degree of
frequency the courts might grant these gun violence protective
orders requested under Version R.
8:05:53 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, responded that
she could not predict how many cases would come, but as to the
three types of domestic violence protective orders, one type can
be filed by a law enforcement officer. The other two protective
orders are short term and long-term that can be filed by a
household member, and the domestic violence protective orders
filed by law enforcement are not terribly common. When domestic
violence protective orders are requested, they are carefully
reviewed by a judicial officer and, just like everything else,
those filed by law enforcement have a higher grant rate than
those filed by household members, she offered.
8:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms. Meade to describe the other
types of documents law enforcement might request from the court
with some degree of regularity, other than search warrants.
MS. MEADE commented that that is better question for someone in
law enforcement to answer, but she knows that law enforcement
officers can file criminal complaints that the district attorney
will then pursue in different areas. She added that certain
types of peace officers and probation officers can file
petitions to revoke probation on a regular basis.
8:07:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms. Meade to describe how often
courts will grant search warrants which, he assumed, were
requested by law enforcement as is this bill.
MS. MEADE responded that she would have to review the data in
order to answer and she would forward that information.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that police officers will periodically
request search warrants to seize blood regarding a driving while
under the influence (DWI) case.
8:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that every state's Department of
Public Safety tracks assaults with firearms and suicides with
firearms and turns the information into the FBI for its annual
report on crime to the nation, the Uniform Crime Report. The
report should offer whether there was any appreciable impact
with this law. He said he appreciates that the standard of
probable cause is used, as that is the standard with which law
enforcement is familiar when establishing whether a particular
fact or circumstance exists. He referred to Section 7, Sec.
18.65.820(a), page 5, lines 2-7, which read as follows:
If the court finds that the petition establishes
probable cause to believe that the respondent is a
dangerous individual, that less restrictive
alternatives have been tried and were ineffective, and
that the police officer has certified to the court in
writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to
provide notice to the respondent, the court shall ex
parte and without notice to the respondent issue a
protective order.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the bill refers to a less
restrictive alternative as to the long-term orders, and the
court asks whether any less restrictive alternatives were
undertaken. He said that he appreciates that the witnesses are
examined under oath. The State of Indiana law requires that the
person whose firearm is removed must petition the court to have
it returned, and under Version R, when the order expires the gun
is returned to the respondent, he said. In the event it is the
ex parte order, the firearm is returned to the respondent after
20-days unless the court had dissolved the order sooner. In the
event it is the long-term order, when the order expires in six-
months, the firearm is returned to the respondent. He described
this provision as a good thing because if the respondent is
truly still dangerous, society does want law enforcement to have
to go back to court and advise the judge that it needs a
continuing order and have to prove its case all over again. The
default should be that the respondent receives their firearm
back again when the order expires, rather than filing a petition
and having a court date set. He opined that as the committee
goes through this legislation, it will receive clarity from the
requested testifiers about data points and public safety.
8:11:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the sponsor how a "dangerous
individual" is treated under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Representative Eastman to refine his
question a bit about the circumstances because it is an overly
broad question. There are many factors, such as, is it a
domestic dispute, is the person in a public place, are they
threatening people, do they have a weapon, and so forth, she
said.
8:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that this legislation does not
require a whole lot of scenarios, it just requires the person to
be "a dangerous person."
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Eastman was
misrepresenting the definition of "dangerous person" in the
bill. The statute specifically proposed under [Section 7, Sec.
18.65.845(a), page 8, lines 24-26], read as follows:
(a) For purposes of AS 18.65.815-18.65.845, an
individual is considered dangerous if the individual
presents
(1) an immediate risk of personal injury to
self or others; or
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Representative Eastman's suggestion that
it is ambiguous is just not true.
8:13:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Sec. 18.65.845(a), page 8,
line 26], and the word "or," and noted that suddenly someone
does not have to be an immediate risk, they can just be "a
risk," and that he is discussing the "a risk" part of that
requirement. In the event a person is a risk, a dangerous
individual, and they come into contact with law enforcement, he
asked how law enforcement would treat them under current law.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative Eastman that his question
could be addressed by a public safety official, and his question
is not within the scope of questions the bill sponsor should be
asked to answer.
8:13:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to [Section 7, Sec.
18.65.845(a)(B)], page 9, lines 1-3, which read as follows:
(B) is the subject of documented
evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violence or
unstable conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the phrase "unstable conduct"
was chosen.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative Eastman that this language
is patterned after the law in the State of Indiana, and the best
source to answer his question would be to read the case from the
State of Indiana [Redington v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823].
8:14:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Chair Claman to described "unstable
conduct."
CHAIR CLAMAN urged Representative Eastman to read the State of
Indiana case.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the "unstable conduct" language
was chosen.
CHAIR CLAMAN reiterated that this section of the bill is
patterned after the State of Indiana law.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked someone to provide the cite to the
committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the State of Indiana law was
distributed to the committee.
8:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there is a definition for
"unstable conduct" somewhere in statute.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked who is going to define that phrase.
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Eastman that part of the
role of the statutes is not to define every single word of every
single statute because that is the purpose of a dictionary. He
opined that "unstable conduct" is defined as common knowledge,
and it has some common parlance within law enforcement which is
something the court would look at and consider the specific
facts of the case.
8:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP added that the entire section Representative
Eastman referred to must be read in context, and he referred to
Section 7, page 8, lines 24-31 and page 9, lines 1-3, which read
as follows:
Sec. 18.65.845. Dangerous individual. (a) an
individual is considered dangerous if the individual
presents
(1) an immediate risk of personal injury to
self or others; or
(2) a risk of personal injury to self or
others in the future and the individual
(A) has a mental illness for which the
individual has been prescribed medication that the
individual has demonstrated a pattern of not
voluntarily and consistently taking while not under
supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented
evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violence or
unstable conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that paragraph (1) is the
immediate risk; paragraph (2) is the risk to self or others in
the future; and subparagraphs (A) and (B) are the qualifiers.
The qualifiers of subparagraphs (A) and (B) are predicated in
paragraph (2), "a risk of personal injury to self or others in
the future". He offered that the difference between the
immediate risk would be when someone makes the direct threat of
harm to self or others specifically, the future risk is when
they post online, "I'm going to be a professional school
shooter." In the event one of the mental health qualifiers
attach, that would give rise to the dangerous individual
definition coming into play. It refers to mental health
facilities and mental illness in this section and he suggested
that a mental health official comment on the section.
8:18:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed to "a risk of personal injury to
self or others in the future" and remarked that "the future"
language appears to be broad. He asked whether there is any
case law that would pare that down, for example, thirty-days,
three months, or six months.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that obviously there is no case law
interpreting this in Alaska because it would be a new statute
that has not yet been applied in Alaska and he reiterated the
reference to the State of Indiana case law. These are issues
wherein judges would apply their usual good judgment in
determining the circumstances, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested that rather than focusing on the
descriptive language Representative Eastman had referred, to
instead focus on the high standard of evidence that must be
proved for probable cause or clear and convincing evidence, of
which the judge must apply in assessing the danger.
8:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to [Section 7, amending AS
18.65.835(b)(2)], page 8, lines 10-11, which read as follows:
You are not entitled to court-appointed counsel
employed at the public's expense to contest the order.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where in the bill it provides that
a person is not entitled to court-appointed counsel.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to recall the earlier
testimonies from several people, including the opinion from the
attorney general, that in a civil proceeding such as this, just
as in a domestic violence protective order proceeding except in
a very limited set of circumstances, there is not a right to
court-appointed counsel. This provision simply requires that
the notice provided to the respondent specifically state that
they are not entitled to court-appointed counsel, he pointed
out.
8:20:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether, under this bill, that
could be changed to allow that the respondent is eligible for a
court-appointed counsel to defend themselves against this new
law.
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Eastman of prior testimony
wherein the committee was advised that to add to the duties of
the Public Defender Agency and provide counsel in these
circumstances, which is not a criminal case or a child custody
matter, would require a change to the statute regarding the
Public Defender Agency, which would bring with it a fiscal note.
8:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to [Section 7, Sec. 18.65.845],
pages 8-9 [previously typed] and paraphrased as follows: "a risk
of personal injury to self or others in the future and the
individual has a mental illness which they are not taking their
medicine for." Representative LeDoux then referred to
subparagraph (b) and paraphrased, "or is the subject of
documented evidence that could give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violence or unstable
conduct." She asked whether the word should read "and" rather
than "or?"
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that prior to drafting the committee
substitute, there had been specific interest in the individuals
who may actually have a propensity for violence and are not
diagnosed as mentally ill. According to previous testimony,
some people may be quite stable and quite angry and have a
history of inflicting violence while angry, he noted.
8:22:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern about the person with a
mental illness who is not taking their prescribed medication,
because simply not taking the medication does not necessarily
mean they will commit a violent act. Clearly, she offered, the
person with documented evidence would give rise to a reasonable
belief that the individual has a propensity for violence or
unstable conduct makes sense in and of itself. She commented
that she was unsure that simply removing a person's guns because
the psychiatrists said the person is supposed to take medication
and they are not taking the medication, is up in the air. There
is a lot of disagreement about some of these medications, she
added.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that subsection (a) must be read in the
context of the overarching subparagraph (A) that it is not just
that the person is off of their medication, but that they are
off their medication and there is either clear and convincing
evidence or probable cause evidence that they are a risk of
personal injury to self or others. A person simply being off of
their medication and talking "wacky" does not get to a gun
violence protective order, there must be additional evidence
that the person is at risk of harm to self or others in the
future. He added that the dangerous factor must be included.
8:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that the future is a nebulous
concept and while it makes perfect sense to have an ex parte
basis if someone is flinging a gun around and saying crazy stuff
that they are going to blow up everyone is one thing, but the
future is another thing, is it a week or a year from now, she
asked.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that the original concerns offered were
about the potential abuse of a domestic violence protective
order, which is why the [Version R] language allows that solely
police officers can apply for a gun violence protective order.
He related that he will do his best to have public safety
officers testify at the next hearing. He opined that the
reassurance is that if a person advises a police officer that a
person may be dangerous in six months when "such and such
happens," the police officer would advise that they had more
pressing needs on the docket right now. The requirement of a
public safety officer being the applicant and the requirement
that the officer convince a court, makes it unlikely that the
officer will request an order for something a long time in the
future.
8:26:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that for purposes of evaluating the
future, the gun violence protective order expires at the end of
the six-month period.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that Representative Tarr had
offered a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that in order to tease out how it is a
"two way so it's not the immediate risk," she referred to
paragraph (2), it is the risk in the future. She explained that
there is one pathway for the person with the mental illness not
taking their medications, and the other is unstable conduct. At
least in the research she performed, she said, the way it might
work is that family members approach law enforcement about a
family member because often they see a pattern of concern and re
hopeful their family member will get back on their medications
and stabilize. Concerned family members have a good
understanding of the timeline of risk due to the pattern of that
family member's behavior as to how quickly they will deteriorate
when they are not medicated for their mental health condition,
she explained.
8:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that his question could be
taken up another time or offline, and he referred to
Representative David Guttenberg's bill [HB 355] when the
committee went down the rabbit hole as to the definition of
peace officer. The term "peace officer" is listed on page 2,
line 18 and page 3, lines 23 and 31, of which is an important
concept in HB 75. He asked whether there is a definition for
peace officer that this bill is tethered to that makes clear
whether it is the Alaska State Troopers and what is normally
thought of as a peace officer.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised that she spent some time on this
very discussion wherein some language in the bill read law
enforcement versus peace officer. She explained that peace
officer is the generally used term in statute to describe local
police, state troopers, or Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO).
8:29:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that specifically spelled out in
this bill is language that if it is an ex parte order, the
information will not be available to the public via CourtView.
He asked why the sponsor left it open that an individual who is
subject to a six-month gun violence protective order would have
their information available for the public wherein someone who
may want to steal from their home could identify that they do
not have any weapons.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that HB 75 has nothing to do with the
scenario of trying to identify houses without guns. He
explained that the intention was to be consistent with the
domestic violence protective orders which are available on
CourtView, and to provide protections for those who are subject
to an ex parte order. Hence, he pointed out, they do not have
the opportunity to contest that proceeding so it would not be
available on CourtView. The information listed on CourtView is
only when there is a contested proceeding and the respondent has
their due process opportunity to proceed as they wish, that is
the only information that would be listed on CourtView, he
reiterated.
8:31:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she has is an issue with
the definition of "dangerous individual," and that medications
"are gonna be the end all, be all" when a lot of medications
have serious side effects and can actually cause violence or
suicidal thoughts. She related that she is glad it is defined,
but this is a slippery slope.
[HB 75 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB075 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver R 3.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/28/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Sectional Analysis ver R 3.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/28/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 4) 3.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 3) 3.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |