Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/05/2020 01:45 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 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
2:25:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
2:27:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
2:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 133. She stated that she was introducing
HB 133 at the request of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
[within the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)].
She said the bill had been heard as House Bill 351 in the
previous legislature. She pointed out that the three main
purposes of HB 133 were to: close loopholes relating to the
sexual abuse of a minor and sexual assault in the third degree,
update terminology that defines and references DJJ facilities
and staff, and codify in law some of the best practices the DJJ
has undertaken in the past couple of decades.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that she thinks the most
important aspect of the bill is that it would close loopholes
relating to sexual abuse and sexual assault of a minor. She
explained that this issue came to light in 2003 [during the
Carey case] when a DJJ staff member had an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a minor, in a DJJ facility, and was unable to
be convicted due to loopholes in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that there is some outdated
terminology used to describe DJJ facilities, and HB 133 would
update the statutes to accurately reflect the authorities and
responsibilities of the DJJ. She explained that HB 133 would
not substantially modify the way the DJJ operates, but the bill
would work to improve the DJJ's ability to complete its mission.
She stated that the majority of HB 133 would update language in
Alaska's statutes, which describes facilities operated by the
DJJ that is inaccurate, outdated, and obsolete. She explained
that this language is used several times throughout the bill,
which is one of the reasons it is so lengthy.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that in addition to updating
definitions, HB 133 would make some policy clarifications which
were raised due to issues that appeared over time and reflect
the standard operations of the DJJ. She said that HB 133 would
add DJJ staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect and would clarify that DJJ
probation officers have the authority to file amended petitions
in court. She stated that HB 133 would add secure residential
psychiatric treatment facilities to the list of facilities for
released juveniles. She said that the bill would correct
language authorizing the DJJ to disclose confidential
information related to the offence, when a minor has received an
adjudication, rather than the offence a minor was alleged to
have committed. She summarized that HB 133 would improve the
DJJ's ability to complete its mission, by codifying best
practices, ensuring juveniles are safe and secure when they're
in the DJJ's custody, and closing loopholes relating to sexual
abuse of minors supervised by the DJJ.
2:33:06 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 133 on behalf of Representative
Spohnholz, prime sponsor. She offered a PowerPoint presentation
titled, HB 133: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-up Bill [hard
copy included in the committee packet].
2:33:47 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation,
said that HB 133 closes two loopholes regarding sexual assault
in the third degree, as well as sexual abuse of a minor relating
to the DJJ staff. She pointed out that these two changes can be
found in section three and Section 6 of HB 133. Section 3
repeals the outdated definition of juvenile probation officer
which, under current state statute, limits them to a person
assigned to supervise another person of 18 or 19 years of age;
this definition is outdated because the DJJ regularly oversees
people ranging from 16 to 20 years old. She stated that the
individual in the Carey case was 17 years old, which allowed the
DJJ staff member to be acquitted of the charge. She explained
that Section 6 of HB 133 closes the loophole related to sexual
abuse of minors, which is accomplished by clarifying that the
DJJ staff are in a position of authority over minors in their
custody. She expressed that even though common sense might
dictate that the DJJ staff are in a position of authority, the
lack of clarification in statute allowed for the acquittal of
the abuser in the Carey case. She expressed that Section 6
contains a statute that was written 30 years ago, which is a
great example for why the statute needs to be updated.
2:35:34 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 3, pointed out a comprehensive
list of the definitions that would be repealed, amended, and put
into place by HB 133. She said some of the definitions were 30
to 50 years old, and HB 133 would update them to reflect the
many changes to the DJJ over that time period.
2:36:08 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 4, pointed out the terms that
would be repealed by HB 133. She said that Section 24 would
repeal the position of youth counselor, which has not been a
part of the DJJ since 2003. She explained that the duties
currently described for a youth counselor are those of a
probation officer, which is not a DJJ position. She stated that
Section 3 of HB 133 repeals the inaccurate definition of
juvenile probation officer, as mentioned previously. She said
that multiple sections of HB 133 would repeal the terms juvenile
detention home, youth detention facility, correctional school,
and juvenile work camp. She explained that these terms are
either antiquated or don't accurately describe the facilities
that the DJJ currently operates. As an example, she said that
Alaska has never had a juvenile work camp and the DJJ does not
currently operate a correctional school; HB 133 would replace
those terms with "juvenile detention facility" and "juvenile
treatment facility" to more accurately reflect the facilities
the DJJ operates.
2:37:40 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide [5], she pointed out the
definitions that would be amended by HB 133. Section 28 would
amend the definition of minor to include a person who was under
the age of 18 at the time he/she committed an offense and
continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the DJJ. She
explained that this would not affect the definition of minor in
other statutes; it would just clarify that after a convicted
minor turns 18, he/she will continue to be treated as a minor
for his/her crime, and not as an adult. Ms. Holland said HB 133
also amends the definition of the term juvenile detention
facility, broadening it to be a secure facility for the
detention of minors. She explained that the current definition
in statute for this term limits it to separate quarters within a
city jail, which does not accurately reflect the facilities the
DJJ currently operates; some communities don't have a city jail
that meets the standards for separation of sight and sound from
adults.
2:38:58 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 6, pointed out the new
definitions that would be presented by HB 133. Section 29 would
present the definition for juvenile treatment facilities. She
said this was recommended by the DJJ to more accurately reflect
some of the facilities that it operates. Current terminology in
statute refers to juvenile treatment institutions; however,
there is a difference between a treatment institution and a
treatment facility. Section 29 also presents the definition for
a temporary secure juvenile holding area. She said that the DJJ
currently oversees over 30 temporary secure holding areas across
Alaska, and it partners with local law enforcement officials to
provide training and compliance for temporary holding areas
before juveniles can be moved to a secure detention area.
Section 24 would replace the definition for youth counselors
with an updated definition for juvenile probation officers,
which does not limit them to overseeing individuals of 18 and 19
years old, accurately reflects the positions, provides them with
the powers and authorities of probation officers, and describes
their duties.
2:40:39 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 7, pointed out the policy updates
of the DJJ to codify its best practices and resolve issues that
have arisen over time. She said that Section 5 of HB 133 would
clarify that employees of juvenile treatment institutions and
juvenile and adult probations officers qualify as legal
guardians. She stated that Section 8 would clarify that secure
juvenile treatment facilities are being added to the list of
facilities excluded from compliance related to the definition of
"private exposure," which is where an individual exposes his/her
body under circumstances in which he/she would reasonably
believe he/she would not be viewed or photographed. She
explained that prisons and psychiatric institutions are also on
the list of facilities excluded from compliance related to the
definition of "private exposure". She stated that Section 9
would include the DJJ in the list of places where public
education must be provided. Sections 16 and 17 of HB 133 would
clarify that juvenile probation officers have the authority to
file amendments and supplemental petitions; there have been
instances in the past where it has been argued in court that the
DJJ does not have this authority. Sections 22 and 23 of HB 133
would clarify that the authority to arrest and detain a minor
rest with juvenile, not adult, probation officers.
2:42:43 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 8, stated that Section 25 of HB
133 would add secure residential psychiatric treatment centers
to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is
released, the victim(s) will receive notification. Section 26
would correct language authorizing the DJJ to disclose
confidential information related to an adjudicated offense,
rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed.
She said that Section 38 would add juvenile probation officers,
the DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the
list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. She
explained that this is already a common practice of the DJJ; it
regularly reports to the Office of Children's Services (OCS),
and all DJJ staff are trained on detecting child abuse and
neglect. She explained that in 2016 Senate Bill 165 repealed
the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses for offenses
involving controlled substances that were non-driving related.
As an example, she offered her understanding that before Senate
Bill 165, a 14-year-old could be convicted with possession of
marijuana and lose the privilege to have a driver's license for
the rest of his/her life. She stated that Senate Bill 165 did
not repeal the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses in cases
that were handled informally by the DJJ, in which there was no
proven guilt, thus creating an issue of unequal protection under
the law.
2:45:21 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 9, summarized the goals of HB
133. She reiterated that HB 133 would close existing loopholes
regarding sexual assault in the third degree and sexual abuse of
a minor, update terms and definitions pertaining to the DJJ
facilities and staff, and codify the DJJ's best practices to
improve it's ability to complete its mission.
2:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the topic of
the permanent revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles
convicted of possession of an illegal substance.
2:46:49 PM
MS. HOLLAND answered that it was in relation to non-driving
possession offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on whether the
repeal of the revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles was
only for convictions that were handled through the courts. She
also asked whether the revocations that were still being issued
were handled through the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
2:47:36 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
replied that historically driver's license revocation was
defined in two sections of statute: the DMV statute and DJJ
statute. He clarified that the revocations that occurred for
juvenile offenses were temporary; there were no lifetime
revocations as previously stated by Ms. Holland. He explained
that Senate Bill 165, which was passed in 2016, removed a crime
called "habitual minor offending," which revoked driver's
licenses for juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent for
habitual minor offenses. He said that this was a very small
number of juveniles. Responding to a follow-up question from
Representative LeDoux, he clarified that these revocations were
not permanent and usually lasted six months to a year during the
convicted juveniles' probation.
MR. DAVIDSON said that Senate Bill 165 also repealed the
revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles who were
adjudicated for substance abuse and possession of illegal
substances unrelated to driving. He explained that what was
mistakenly left in statute, which HB 133 would fix, is the
revocation of driver's licenses for youth whose substance abuse
cases were handled "informally." These were cases that never
went to court; the youths were cited by the police and referred
to the DJJ, and the statute still states juveniles' driver's
licenses should be revoked, even for charges unrelated to
driving.
2:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the DJJ was supposed to seek
revocations through the DMV, and whether the DJJ did seek those
revocations.
MR. DAVIDSON answered yes, the DJJ has revoked juveniles'
driver's licenses for possession and habitual minor consumption
offenses. He said that since the passage of Senate Bill 165 in
2016, when the issue was identified, the DJJ has tried to avoid
seeking revocation because of the question of unequal
protections.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that what she meant to ask was
whether the DJJ revoked licenses after the changes of Senate
Bill 165.
2:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the informal system
requires a plea agreement and whether - if the convicted minor
protests the conviction - the DJJ still has the power to revoke
his/her driver's license.
2:51:04 PM
MR. DAVIDSON replied that the juvenile system is different from
the adult system. He explained that the DJJ tries to reach out
to youths in order to meet them where they are and assess the
nature of their substance abuse issues. He stated that it was
decided that revocation of a driver's license, for an offense
that was unrelated to driving, was not an appropriate
consequence and was an unnecessary burden. He explained that
the DJJ has many ways to work with convicted minors and their
families and help to set them on the right track; the revocation
of driver's licenses was not a method the DJJ probation staff
found to be effective or appropriate for offenses unrelated to
driving. He stated that offenses related to driving are not
handled by the DJJ; they are handled by the district courts.
2:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that what he would like an
answer for is whether it is required, in cases that are not
going through the court process, for a minor to consent to the
revocation of his/her driver's license.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Tracy Dompeling, Director of the DJJ,
was a former probation officer, who is probably in a better
position to answer the question.
2:53:22 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the DJJ
receives all the referrals from law enforcement for allegations
of criminal offenses that are committed by juveniles. She
clarified that the DJJ does not receive referrals for offenses
related to status, alcohol, driving, and other similar offenses;
it only receives referrals for criminal offenses. She said that
the DJJ's position is that low-level offenders are best treated
outside of the formal judicial system. The DJJ has the
authority to work with youth and parents to informally adjust
cases, with various levels of intervention, with the intent of
preventing repeat offenses. She said the DJJ has an "intake
interview" process involving a probation officer and the youth
and his/her parents. She explained that if the youth is adamant
that he/she did not commit an offense, the DJJ cannot impose any
type of sanction, consequence, or requirement on the youth or
his/her family. At this point, the DJJ can choose to either
dismiss the charge, due to the lack of an ability to move
forward with the case, or, if the DJJ strongly feels there is a
case to be made, the youth will be appointed an attorney and the
case will be taken to the courts to determine guilt or
innocence.
2:54:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 133. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
2:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, knowing now that the driver's
license revocations are not permanent, how long they are being
revoked.
2:56:28 PM
MS. DOMPELING reiterated what Mr. Davidson had stated before,
and said the licenses are revoked for approximately six months.
This process required the DJJ to send the paperwork to the DMV,
which would either revoke the youth's current license or have an
impact on the youth's ability to obtain a license in the future.
She explained that Senate Bill 165 repealed the revocation of a
youth's driver's license, when he/she was formally adjudicated
delinquent through a court. She reiterated the point on
inequality that Mr. Davidson had made previously and said that
the DJJ recognizes it is not in compliance with the statute
involving revocation of driver's licenses in informal cases;
however, the DJJ understands it is not appropriate to revoke a
license in an informal case, when a youth adjudicated through
the courts is not subject to the same consequence.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the consequences are for youths
who are adjudicated through the court system.
MS. DOMPELING answered that youths adjudicated through the court
system have several consequences, including: they are usually
on formal probation, they may need to have a substance abuse
assessment and follow up with recommendations, they may be
placed in an out-of-home care facility, they could have to pay
restitutions to a victim, they may have community service
ordered, and they may have to meet other various requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that there are real legal
consequences for those youths.
MS. DOMPELING replied that that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it were worth considering
the possibility of revoking driver's licenses for shorter
periods of time, such as a couple of weeks, equating it to being
like, "When you screw up at home, you get grounded."
MS. DOMPELING answered that she understands the idea behind what
Representative LeDoux suggested, but she recognizes that a lot
of administrative paperwork is involved in the process; however,
she said that given her current understanding of the process, it
would take longer than two weeks for the DJJ to even process the
paperwork. She expressed that when working with youth involved
in the cases handled informally, the DJJ can still require the
same consequences as through a formal court, it is just not
legally mandated through a court. She said that this gives the
DJJ several ways to hold minors accountable when they are
willing to work with the DJJ and its probation officers.
3:00:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Ms. Dompeling came with a statement on
the DJJ's position on HB 133 and this would be the last thing
the committee would hear this meeting.
3:00:58 PM
MS. DOMPELING stated that she had been given approval to say
that the DJJ does support HB 133, and it believes the bill is
important to reflect the work being done by the DJJ. She
pointed out that the DJJ is seeing a positive change in
recidivism rates from youth in its secure treatment; in Fiscal
Year 2013 (FY 13) recidivism rates were at approximately 76
percent; in FY 19 that rate had decreased to approximately 36
percent. She summarized that the DJJ is doing positive work
with youths and would like to see that work reflected in current
statute.
3:01:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 133 would be held over for
further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 15 v. M 1.21.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sponsor Statement 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Supporting Document - NCSL Table 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Presentation 2.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 1.29.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB 133 v. M 2.3.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sponsor Statement 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sectional Analysis v. M 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - One-Sheeter 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Carey Case 4.22.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Questions and Answers 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 5.13.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 PowerPoint Presentation 2.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.16.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |