Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/04/2022 01:00 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 | |
| SB11 | |
| HB5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 5-SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"
1:07:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act relating to
sexual abuse of a minor; relating to sexual assault; relating to
the code of military justice; relating to consent; relating to
the testing of sexual assault examination kits; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSSSHB
5(STA).]
1:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented CSSSHB 5(STA). She offered the PowerPoint,
titled "HB 5: Defining Sexual Conduct" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. She explained that in 2019, the board of
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) brought its legislative
priorities forward and requested the following: an update to the
definition of [sexual] consent, updates to the sexual abuse of a
minor statute, and rape by fraud be addressed. She explained
the process depicted on slide 2, which described the four-year
process with multiple statewide meetings with expert interviews
and input from across Alaska, along with feedback from the
Department of Law (DOL). She stated that the results were
presented at a statewide meeting of [the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault] ANDVSA. She added that
more than 100 Alaskans contributed to the drafting of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that more than 66 letters of support
have been received from organizations, such as the Alaska School
Activities Association, STAR, the National Association of Social
Workers, ANDVSA, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, the Alaska
Coalition for Justice, Joyful Heart, and Aiding Women in Abuse
and Rape Emergencies (AWARE).
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that all the public forums begin with
the question, "Has consent ever been an issue for you?" She
noted that every participant in every forum had responded "Yes."
She noted that participants are diverse, including males,
females, the young, the old, rural residents, and urban
residents. She offered a statement has emerged which
characterizes rape as "a murder where the victim lives," which
underscores the need for reform to sexual assault statutes. She
explained that there are four main parts of the bill: the
requirement that rape kits be tested within six months; an
update to the 40-year-old definition of consent; an update to
the statute to include "rape by fraud" or "rape by deception" to
the criminal statute; and the requirement that predatory
behavior of much older adults in relationships with much younger
minors is addressed.
1:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the last part of the proposed
legislation addressed the multi-year, rape kit reform process,
as seen on slide 8, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Last piece of multi-year Rape Kit Reform Initiative
Accomplishments:
Ongoing audit of backlog of rape kits
Testing of backlog of rape kits
Secure storage of rape kits
Victim centered approach
Training for law enforcement for sexual assault
response
Created a timeline for rape kit processing within 30
days of collection be sent to crime lab, tested within
1 year, and survivor be notified within 14 days
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to slide 9, which depicted
news stories highlighting criminal convictions from the testing
of the backlog of rape kits across the state. She stated that
the importance of the 6-month timeline for testing of rape kits
is significant and offered an example which detailed the
conviction of a perpetrator from cases in 1993 and in 2001. She
added that these victims had awaited decades for justice.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that some of the untested rape kits in
Alaska dated back to the 1980s. She stated that the 6-month
time limit would ensure the state never have a backlog of
untested rape kits again. She noted that in December of 2021,
more than 3400 kits have been processed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained the proposed update to the
definition of consent on slide 12, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Alaska Stat. § 11.41.470
"Without consent" means that a person:
(A) with or without resisting, is coerced by the use
of force against a person or property, or by the
express or implied threat of death, imminent physical
injury, or kidnapping to be inflicted on anyone; or
(B) is incapacitated as a result of an act of the
defendant.
PROBLEMATIC FOR MANY REASONS:
1. Not an affirmative definition
2. Suggests use of force
3. Places burden on victim
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that research has been conducted
regarding laws in other states. She pointed out that the
underlined text on slide 13 and slide 14 exemplified the more
modernized statutes among laws in Minnesota and Montana.
1:16:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to slide 15, which addressed themes in
modernized statutes, including: affirmative definition, freely
given, agreement, reversible, words and actions, previous social
relationship does not suggest consent, and fight, flight, or
freeze responses.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that updated language would remove the
"use of force" requirement to allow for trauma [based]
responses, which include the fight, flight, or freeze behaviors.
She stated that other states have been reviewing and updating
uniform legislation [related to sexual assault] by considering
what had been learned since legislation had been drafted up to
50 years ago. She pointed out the new definition of consent on
slide 16, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
"consent" means a freely given, reversible agreement
specific to the conduct at issue; in this paragraph,
"freely given" means agreement to cooperate in the act
was positively expressed by word or action.
1:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to slide 18, which explained
the concept of rape by fraud, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Concept: An action whereby a person obtains sexual
consent and has sexual intercourse of any type by
fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or impersonation.
? 12 states currently have specific language
? 10 have language that says consent does not apply if
"it is induced by force, duress, or deception."
? Laws in Tennessee and Texas specifically use the
term "fraud."
? Federal law addresses "professional purpose" one
component
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the USA Gymnastics sex abuse
scandal as an example of the "professional purpose" language in
federal statute.
1:20:22 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:21:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR played a video hyperlink which appeared on
slide 19, depicting an example of rape by fraud. The
perpetrator had been acquitted due to no legal recourse for the
victim to pursue. She explained that Alaska has a similar
[legal] problem.
1:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that Alaska's definition of rape
is like the one described in the video - "through the use of
force, an individual is unconscious or unaware sex is happening,
and a person is disabled to the extent the person cannot provide
consent." She noted that twelve other states had changed their
laws. She shared with the committee the testimony offered in
the House State Affairs Standing Committee. The testimony
described an individual who had a sexual interaction with a
stranger, whom she believed to be her husband. She expressed
her hope that the committee would come to an agreement regarding
the concept of rape by fraud. She noted that there is an update
to the universal code which called for justice for victims of
rape by fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the fourth component in the
bill would address predatory behavior of much older adults in
relationships with much younger minors. She drew attention to a
chart on slide 21. She noted that the legal age of consent is
16, and sex occurs [legally] with another individual whose age
is no more than four years senior to the 16-year-old person.
She noted that individuals over the age of 18, as adults, may
engage in sexual activity with any other adult, with consent.
She stated that the bill would address much older adults having
sexual interactions with much younger individuals. She stated
that a 10-year age gap has been selected for the language of the
bill, as stakeholders have offered the observation of an
increase in predatory behavior. She noted that there was a case
involving [former Alaska Attorney General] Ed Sniffen. It was
alleged that he had sexual contact with a 17-year-old person
when he was the age of 27. She added that the matter of sex
trafficking would be addressed in this component of the bill, as
STAR has reported incidences of much older individuals attending
high-school parties to seek out younger individuals. She stated
that the responsibility would be shifted to these older adults
to be aware of the legal requirement per the age difference in
the case of a large age gap.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that younger individuals may be more
vulnerable and [lack the skills of] decision making. She
pointed out that male or female teachers may have sexual
relationships with students, and this circumstance is the only
case the behavior is criminal in the current statute which
prohibits sexual activity between a younger person and a person
in a position of authority. She noted that grooming behaviors
have been observed by older adults among 13-, 14-, and 15-year-
olds. She stated that these older adults may have been aware of
the law, but still created a relationship with the younger
person by the use of gifts and other offerings.
1:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that a former Alaska State Legislative
staff member had been more than 10 years older than [the
victim]. The staff member had provided alcohol and engaged in
sexual activity with the younger person. She stated that STAR
has recognized the prohibition of grooming as one of its
legislative priorities. She expressed certainty there is a
general agreement that when a 30-year-old person attends a high
school party, there is cause for concern. She noted that
another concern would be the lifelong damage which could occur
to a victim, as described by the victim in the Ed Sniffen case,
who came forward as an adult. She noted that cultural and
societal norms should be considered, and she expressed the
opinion that the proposed legislation would encourage healthy
relationships. She drew attention to slide 23, which showed a
chart depicting proposed sentencing requirements for the new
categorization of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR next drew attention to slide 24, which
contained the sectional analysis. She offered that the
effective dates may need to be adjusted. She stated that the
objective of the proposed bill is when someone is harming
Alaskans, this person should be removed from society to prevent
the harm of others. She advised that, when prosecution fails to
prosecute crimes, [perpetrators] learn how to get away with this
behavior. She expressed the hope that the conversation would
include rehabilitative work and treatment for sex offenders.
She added that other objectives would be to educate Alaskans
regarding consent and work toward a cultural change. When the
criminal justice system is involved in a case, she said, it is
responding to harm. She continued that her office has been
contacted by hundreds of Alaskans sharing various stories,
ranging from devastating to inspiring. She expressed the
opinion that these situations create a ripple effect, impacting
an individual's mental health, families, and employment.
1:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed the understanding that,
particularly in smaller communities, survivors have difficulty
living day-to-day life because of the fear of encountering a
perpetrator in the community. She expressed the hope to create
change in both the response to, and the prevention of, such
crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that slide 26 depicts the
desired outcomes, including removing dangerous people from
communities for an appropriate amount of time, accessing
treatment for sex offenders to prevent the harm of others,
educating Alaskans about consent, and changing the culture
around sexual violence to prevent future harm.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR concluded with slide 29, which depicts the
pertinent questions and answers. In conclusion, she encouraged
the committee to focus on the proposed sentencing requirements
and the application of the proposed statute. She noted the
fiscal notes associated with the bill.
1:37:55 PM
BRIAN HOSKEN, Student Services Director, Alaska School
Activities Association (ASAA), provided invited testimony on
CSSSHB 5(STA). He shared that he is a former Anchorage School
District administrator, with nearly 30 years of experience
overseeing comprehensive academics, activity programs, and
athletic programs. Currently, his primary role at ASAA is to
facilitate the Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM) program. He
relayed that CBIM is an evidence-based comprehensive violence
prevention program designed to inspire coaches to teach their
athletes the importance of respect for themselves, others, and,
particularly, for women and girls. The program incorporates
strategies, scenarios, and resources needed to talk with boys
specifically about healthy and respectful relationships, dating
violence, sexual assault, and harassment.
MR. HOSKEN stated that CBIM recognizes sports are tremendously
influential on culture and the lives of young people, and the
program has been designed to utilize this by leveraging the
social capital held by athletes. He opined that the principles
of teamwork and fair play, which are central to athletics, make
participation in sports an ideal platform to teach healthy
relationship skills. He explained that he trains coaches to
teach a curriculum designed for a 12-week sports season, with
the coach presenting weekly training lessons to the athletes.
These weekly teaching sessions include topics such as personal
responsibility, insulting language, and understanding consent.
He expressed support for developing the definition of consent
and added that one of CBIM's objectives is to discuss consent,
which includes personal boundaries in intimate and sexual
activities; furthermore, CBIM objects to the use of pressure,
threats, or force in any physical or sexual encounter, and it
actively opposes incidents of rape, sexual coercion, and
assault. He offered his belief the bill would help further
define this teaching component. He went on to discuss the
program goals specifically developed for Alaska by ASAA which
are validated by the proposed legislation. He pointed out how
both ASAA and the bill mutually support the need for a
preventative educational component and accountability for
perpetrators. He opined that the clarification of the
affirmative definition of consent in the proposed legislation
would strengthen the scholastic elements of CBIM. To conclude,
he expressed enthusiasm for a statewide implementation of CSSSHB
5(STA), once passed, in coordination with CBIM. He expressed
the opinion that this would further educate Alaska's youth with
the objective of eradicating violence towards women. He invited
committee members to attend a coaching session at their local
school.
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, provided invited testimony on
CSSSHB 5(STA). She stated that the development of the content
of the bill has been in progress for over 25 years and is now at
the forefront to support victims coming forward to report
assault. She stated that the current legal definition of sexual
assault has indicated to many assault victims that what they
experienced was not a crime. She expressed difficulty in aiding
victims, especially when the victims are told the alleged
assault does not have the legal components to prosecute the
behavior as a crime. She stated that in the current law, to
prove the elements of a crime, the victim's body is used [as
evidence] to prosecute crimes of sexual assault with force.
Juries are often shown intimate pictures and images of a
victim's body to try to demonstrate the use of force had
occurred.
MS. STANFILL expressed the understanding that the proposed
change to the definition of consent would align more with the
actual meaning of consent, and it would align with the
principles youth in Alaska are being taught regarding consent.
Referring to the earlier video, she expressed the opinion that
it is an example of the way these crimes occur, and not
representative of one person's experience. She stated that STAR
receives reports from parents with concern regarding their
child's sexual involvement with a much older person. She
suggested that this could be related to sex trafficking and
grooming. She stated that STAR staff are left to inform
families that no legal protection exists in these situations.
She added that delays in rape kit testing negatively affects
victims while awaiting results, especially in small communities
where the assailant lives. Regarding the high rate of sexual
assault, she requested that the committee consider the content
of CSSSHB 5(STA), so there would be more reporting and
prosecution of such crimes in Alaska.
1:45:34 PM
JENNIFER BROWN, Communications and Development Director,
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), provided invited
testimony on CSSSHB 5(STA). She explained that STAR was founded
in 1978 as a 24-hour crisis intervention organization with a
response team. She stated that STAR provides advocacy for rape
victims during court proceedings and medical examinations,
because when a sexual assault occurs, an "avalanche" of other
things happens in a victim's life. The victim must cope with
the assault while maintaining personal safety and employment.
She added that STAR also performs education and advocacy
activities in the community, offering age-appropriate school
curricula in the Anchorage School District. This curriculum
pertains to personal safety, healthy relationships, identifying
predatory behavior, and identifying assistance through available
resources. She noted that STAR also provides adult educational
programs for the workplace on sexual harassment. She reiterated
that victims often are laden with a burden of proof following a
sexual assault. She asked the committee to consider why these
proposed changes should not become law.
1:49:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned the timeframe of similar
legislation in other states and whether those changes had
resulted in a difference.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that, regardless of the length of
time the legislation had been in place, differences have been
ascertained following the passage of similar legislation in
other states. She noted that, in Alaska, a jury trial may take
up to two years to prosecute such crimes. She expressed the
understanding that the prevention and education aspects of new
laws in other states have produced positive results.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the tables in the
presentation depicting the proposed ages of consenting
relationships, and he asked whether there is an age below which
an individual may not be prosecuted for sexual assault.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that sexual assault of a minor
occurs when the victim is under the age of 18. All others would
be prosecuted under the sexual assault statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a five-year-old child could
be prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR deferred to DOL to provide an answer.
1:53:24 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
(Anchorage), Department of Law, to Representative Eastman's
question, responded that DOL seeks to identify an age gap to
determine whether sexual assault of a minor has occurred. She
noted that there exists a provision of law which addresses an
individual under the age of 16 engaging in sexual penetration of
a minor under the age of 13. She stated that if a minor is
under the ages of 16 and 13, respectively, there could be a
crime. She stated that the Division of Juvenile Justice does
not prosecute juveniles as young as five years of age and, while
the behavior may be considered disturbing, resources outside of
the criminal juvenile justice system can be sought.
1:54:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the relationship of offender
to victim would be for those under the age of 13.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected, asking whether, in the case of a 17-
year-old offender and a 13-year-old victim, this would be a
crime.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it would be sexual abuse of a minor
in the second degree.
CHAIR CLAMAN questioned whether the juvenile court would handle
the case involving a 17-year-old offender and whether this would
be "waivable." He explained that "waivable" means the offender
could be treated as an adult.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the scenario described would be
subject to an automatic waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed that she understood the first
three components of the bill; however, she questioned whether
the approach taken regarding older adults and minors, as
proposed in the bill, has been undertaken elsewhere and what
impacts may have occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that, through collaboration with
the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), reports
have been obtained for states which have imposed either 7- or
10-year restrictions on age gaps. Considering cultural
considerations, such as existing relationships among different-
aged high schoolers, the 10-year age difference was chosen. She
stated that the 10-year age gap was selected also because these
age groups have very different lifestyles and stages of
development. She noted that Legislative Legal Services has
provided research to support the 10-year age gap.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed her interest in learning more on
the topic and reviewing the reports and documents.
1:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Representative Eastman's
request, offered that research has been conducted in relation to
whether the wording of legislation works in an [experimental]
court setting. She expressed the need to incorporate language
which would work during a trial. She referenced the Uniform
Penal Code, which would have a review of statutes and reports
demonstrating the change in the thought process on these laws,
where these laws have been in existence for more than 50 years.
2:01:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN questioned whether there are additional anticipated
changes to the proposed bill, other than changes to the
effective dates.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that DOL is working with her office
regarding consent language. Concerning consent, she pointed out
new language has been contemplated to retain the provisions of
"freely given, reversable, and specific."
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether she is prepared to offer her position
on these proposed changes to the language in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, responding, pointed out her main objective
is that "use of force" not be the main component of consent.
She added that some states have retained "use of force" as an
element of assault; however, in this usage, "use of force"
amounts to a higher level of crime.
2:04:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether data exists on resulting
changes in prosecutions for states which have had similar
changes in their law.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed uncertainty that such data exists.
She noted that some of these changes have been recent, with some
data existing pertaining to education and prevention efforts.
She added that sexual assault crimes are typically difficult to
prosecute since the crime occurs with few witnesses and
typically among two people. She expressed the hope that the new
law would reflect societal and cultural expectations around
behaviors and consent.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether grooming behavior is a
crime in the absence of a sexual assault. He suggested that an
individual who has been subject to grooming may be "brainwashed"
and unable to offer consent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR allowed that the behavior of grooming was a
consideration in drafting the bill, and currently the providing
of gifts [to a minor] is not criminal behavior.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that providing alcohol and drugs as gifts [to
a minor] would be a crime.
MS. SCHROEDER concurred that grooming behavior is not illegal.
She stated that there exists a struggle to determine what is
predatory behavior and grooming behavior concerning the giving
of gifts. She stated that the distribution of indecent
materials would be categorized as a crime. She noted that
sexual abuse of a minor is not subject to the provision of
consent.
2:09:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN postulated that rape by fraud could be
compared with a lack of informed consent, comparable to what is
required for medical procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that other states have included
affirmative consent. She stated that Washington State has
produced a report showing rape by fraud is perpetrated along six
general areas with some overlap. She listed these to be
fraudulent treatment, sexual impersonation, sexual scams, sexual
theft, abuse of authority, and sexual extortion. She added that
the least likely to occur is sexual impersonation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether the law requires
information to be provided prior to a sexual encounter, such as
one's Human Immuno Virus (HIV) status.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that there are no legal requirements for
an individual to provide specific information before engaging in
a sex act.
2:11:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any problems have emerged since the
requirement under previous legislation imposing a one-year
timeline for testing of rape kits.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that, per the crime lab, the
ordinary timeline for the testing of rape kits is more than two
years. To accommodate the request for additional staffing, she
stated that the lab has suggested an incremental shortening of
the timeline from two years to one year. She stated that the
testing involves highly trained professionals with
certifications. She stated that the change from one year to six
months would require additional resources identified in the
associated fiscal note. She offered that the lab has identified
the "gold standard" of testing to be 90 days, and, following the
passage of the proposed legislation, no additional resources
would be required for the lab to further this standard.
2:14:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there were any prosecutions where DOL
was unable to get a rape test kit tested in time for trial.
MS. SCHROEDER offered her understanding that, if there is an
active prosecution, the case would be assigned a higher priority
for testing at the lab. She added that, while delays in testing
may occur, it does not amount to a detriment to prosecution of
such cases. In response to a follow-up question, she stated
that DOL would be supportive of a change from the one-year
testing to six months. In response to a follow-up question, she
stated that DOL would not take a position on requirements
imposed on the Department of Public Safety.
2:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed the understanding that the testing
kit timeline is important to the individual awaiting results.
She added that cases exist where the identity of the perpetrator
is not known. In response to a question from Chair Claman, she
stated that there is a distinction between rural and urban
locations pertaining to the timeframe of rape kit testing.
2:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for a description of the process of
rape kit testing.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that evidence is collected with a
rape test kit from the victim and from the perpetrator. She
noted that processing of kits has previously occurred outside
the state; however, with the increase of resources allowed for
the crime lab, kits can be now processed in state. She added
that the increase in crime lab resources benefitted the
prosecution of other crimes, such as homicides. She added that
genetic information, once processed, is entered into the federal
Combined DNA Index System database to compare it with other
possible crimes. She suggested the video, titled "I Am
Evidence" to ascertain additional information on the collection
of evidence and identifying perpetrators across jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what percentage of rape kits are
tested which result in the identity of the perpetrator being not
known.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed uncertainty.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the rape test kit consists only of
evidence gathered at the time of a medical rape exam of the
victim.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that, to answer, she would need to
consider how the question pertains to the proposed bill. She
offered that "suspect kits" are available to test a suspect.
2:22:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR restated the response that the percentage of
cases is unknown in which the subject is not identified. She
explained that biological evidence of a sexual assault should be
collected within 72 hours of the crime, and the victim should
not shower or change clothing prior to testing. She added that
a victim, who is comfortable engaging with law enforcement,
could file a report, evidence can be collected and stored, and
an anonymous report of the crime to law enforcement, within a
certain period, may be filed.
2:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked the process for collecting evidence
from an accused person.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that DOL may broadly explain considerations
regarding the fourth amendment and probable cause.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that, to collect biological evidence, a
warrant would be required based on the existence of probable
cause.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that law enforcement could request for an
individual's consent to collect evidence in the absence of a
warrant.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that these cases may occur, and DOL
would seek the warrant regardless.
2:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether rape kit evidence could
consist of evidence collected from a crime scene, not solely
from a victim's body.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that [evidence collected from a crime
scene] would be evidence in the case. She stated that rape kits
exist to collect evidence from a person's body, and this
involves an extensive process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that her office has [an unused] rape
test kit for interested parties to examine. It includes a
sealable box, gloves, swabs, and instructions. She noted that
some communities have a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) or
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), while others do not.
She reminded the committee that previously there was not a
tracking system for rape test kits.
2:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned the qualifications for
collecting evidence in a rape kit. She questioned what would
occur in a community with no qualified person.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the preferred option would be a
medical professional to collect the evidence. She noted that
communities with no such medically trained personnel, a law
enforcement officer, or VPSO, a community health aide may
collect evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND postulated that, in rural communities, a
rape test kit would need to be available in a community, and
that a victim would need to know which person would be qualified
in the community to proceed. She asked whether the collection
of evidence could be remotely supervised by a health care
professional via telehealth. She expressed concerns about the
impact on the investigation concerning the trained personnel,
community resources, and communications infrastructure, among
others.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that Representative Drummond has
answered her own question with the concerns she expressed. She
reiterated that security would be of importance in the rural
communities. She noted that judicial proceedings are more
frequently conducted remotely than in the past, but those cases
usually involve individuals already in custody. She noted that
SARTs consist of a law enforcement officer, a victim's advocate,
and a forensic nurse. She added that victims may share their
story in one interview with the entire team, rather than several
interviews. She deferred to Ms. Stanfill.
MS. STANFILL added that ANDVSA has coordinated with the National
Council on Sexual Assault to address the concerns expressed in
the current line of questioning. She explained that a women's
coalition in Bethel has obtained equipment and additional
funding to support telehealth and training. Because of
[limited] broadband access, she said, telehealth is limited.
2:34:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND estimated that 38 villages exist for
which Bethel is the hub. She asked whether victims in the
surrounding villages can rely on support from the community
health aide, and other supports, in Bethel.
MS. STANFILL answered that six communities have rolled out
support for victims of sexual assault, and the equipment costs
have had a negative impact on establishing the same in other
communities. She added that the process of selection has been
based on communities with a community health aide.
2:35:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the earlier video and asked
whether the language in the proposed bill, including
"inducement", would address the scenario portrayed in the video.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR concurred that "inducement" is included,
along with "concealment that the offender is another person
based on the offender's real identity", which would address
specific behavior. She expressed the opinion that the language
included in the bill would be important. She urged the
committee to understand the concept of rape by fraud, so the
appropriate language to describe the undesired behavior could be
considered.
2:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a crime would be committed
in the case where an individual fails to disclose his/her
identity, or in the case when an individual presents a false
identity.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification on the distinction
posed. She described the anecdotes based on which the law had
been drafted as involving individuals "posing" as someone known
to the victim. She referred to a report by Washington State
involving historical instances of rape by fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should CSSSHB 5(STA) pass, would
an individual promising marriage in exchange for sex constitute
a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her belief that this would not,
since the matter of the individual's identity is not
misrepresented.
MS. SCHROEDER offered her opinion that neither of the two
examples offered in the discussion would constitute a crime,
regardless of the passage of the proposed legislation. She
recalled earlier testimony regarding sexual abuse of a minor in
the second degree and offered the clarification that the waiver
process in this case would be discretionary.
2:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her hope that the topic of
coercion would be addressed in CSSSHB 5(STA), as it relates to
grooming and human trafficking. She asked Representative Tarr
to explain how coercion [may be unlawful] in current law and how
the proposed legislation would address the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 6 of the proposed
legislation and the updated definition of consent. She noted
that the new definition includes consent be "freely given".
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for DOL's opinion on whether to
include the word "coercion," or if it is implied in the proposed
language, as written.
MS. SCHROEDER expressed the belief that "coercion" is addressed
adequately in the bill, and an overlap exists with existing
statute regarding coercion. She suggested that an amendment
could be considered to ensure no contradiction exists between
the proposed legislation and the existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned the case where a person was
proven to have coerced sex from another with the promise of
marriage. She asked whether this person would be guilty of
assault by coercion.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that the scenario described by
Representatives Eastman and Vance [regarding the promise of
marriage] and coercion, as it relates to CSSSHB 5(STA), are two
different matters. She noted that coercion, with the promise of
marriage, would be a challenge to prove, and the proposed
legislation would not address this particular conduct. She
offered a broad example of coercion related to CSSSHB 5(STA) as
involving someone withholding a promotion for sex.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that AS 11.41.530 contains the definition of
coercion.
2:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the legal distinction between
coercion with the promise of marriage, or coercion with the
promise of a promotion.
MS. SCHROEDER offered to follow up with a complete answer.
[HB 5 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 5 v. W 5.6.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sponsor Statement 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/27/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sectional Analysis v. W 5.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Explanation of Changes v. G to v. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Articles, Age and Offender Table for SAM 1 and SAM 2, and Consent Tabular Analysis 2.4.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Letters Received as of 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Testimony Received as of 3.3.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Opposing Document - Letters Received as of 4.26.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DPS-SCDL 2.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD 3.4.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| SB 11 v. G 5.11.2021.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sectional Analysis v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Supreme Court Phillips Decision 12.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - LISI Article 7.29.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Community Property Trust Act.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |