Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

04/13/2015 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 27 DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSSHB 27(JUD) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HB 7 HOMICIDE OPERATING VEHICLE,PLANE,BOAT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 147 ANIMALS: PROTECTION/RELEASE/CUSTODY TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
          HB 7-HOMICIDE OPERATING VEHICLE, PLANE, BOAT                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:28:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
SPONSOR  SUBSTITUTE FOR  HOUSE BILL  NO. 7,  "An Act  relating to                                                               
murder in the second degree and manslaughter."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:29:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,  Alaska State Legislature, pointed                                                               
out that,  especially in South  Central Alaska, there has  been a                                                               
rash  of vehicle  versus pedestrian,  and  vehicle versus  biker,                                                               
deaths.    He  referred  to  an  email  from  the  Department  of                                                               
Transportation  indicating  that  in  2010-2014,  there  were  29                                                               
pedestrian  fatalities, and  5  cyclist  fatalities in  Anchorage                                                               
alone.   The  combination during  that window  of pedestrian  and                                                               
cyclists  deaths constitutes  almost  23 percent  of all  traffic                                                               
fatalities in  Alaska, he explained.   This is a  serious problem                                                               
for vulnerable  pedestrians and  cyclists as  it is  an appealing                                                               
mode  of   transportation,  and   cities  are  now   designed  to                                                               
facilitate  that type  of transportation  for  the well-being  of                                                               
everyone.   He  specified that  this  bill does  not require  all                                                               
drivers to be perfect in that  there are bad pedestrians, and bad                                                               
cyclists  who  injure  themselves  or  contribute  to  their  own                                                               
injuries by their  negligence.  Currently, he  related, Alaska is                                                               
one  of 3  states out  of 50  without vehicle  homicide statutes,                                                               
even though under  existing provisions under AS  11.41.110 and AS                                                               
11.41.120,  the state  often successfully  charge  murder in  the                                                               
second degree  and manslaughter. He suggested  Alaska implement a                                                               
statute  plainly   calling  these  crimes,  should   they  become                                                               
culpable enough to be prima facie  crimes, what they are which is                                                               
types  of  vehicular  homicide.    He  posited  that  juries  are                                                               
entitled to use  its intuitive sense and say, "you  are having to                                                               
describe  that  this vehicle  is  a  dangerous instrument,  under                                                               
probably  11.81.900, and  they get  there  ... I  think they  get                                                               
there ... we'll hear from  the state whether sometimes they can't                                                               
make that  leap because they are  looking for a knife  or a gun."                                                               
He opined that  without shifting any particular  burdens in these                                                               
trials, the  state is  allowed to have  a vehicular  homicide law                                                               
more plainly intuitive.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:34:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised  that he is aware  that a factor                                                               
of  the  equation  is  good   urban  design  and  city  planning.                                                               
Arguably, he  stated, currently there  are 21 types of  murder in                                                               
the  second degree  in  that while  there  are five  subsections,                                                               
there are subsections and clauses  within those.  He advised this                                                               
bill adds  the crime of murder  in the second degree  if a person                                                               
caused  the  death of  another  person  while operating  a  motor                                                               
vehicle,   watercraft,    or   aircraft,    under   circumstances                                                               
manifesting in extreme  indifference to the value  of human life.                                                               
He explained that while online,  he observed 124 cases discussing                                                               
extreme  indifference,   although  he  could  not   find  extreme                                                               
indifference  in  the  statute  he is  positive  there  are  jury                                                               
instructions   in   every   superior   court   defining   extreme                                                               
indifference as  it is a  very high  standard and threshold.   He                                                               
emphasize  that the  intent of  the bill  is not  to just  target                                                               
drunk drivers, but bad drivers such as operating a cell phone.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:35:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked the difference  in targeting bad  drivers and                                                               
people who have  been negligent, who have  done something stupid.                                                               
Something  stupid  is  not necessarily  extreme  indifference  to                                                               
human life, she argued.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  agreed with Chair LeDoux,  and referred                                                               
to Sec. 2,  amending manslaughter which says "if a  jury can show                                                               
that someone recklessly caused the  death of another person while                                                               
operating  a motor  vehicle, watercraft,  or aircraft,  that that                                                               
would be  a prima facie ...  well, the jury would  have convicted                                                               
them if they'd made that  finding, but law enforcement would have                                                               
to find  a prima facie  case that someone reached  the definition                                                               
of recklessness  in order  to even  bring the  case and  bring an                                                               
indictment."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:36:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER   assumed  Representative   Josephson  was                                                               
referring to 124  cases wherein that terminology was  used by the                                                               
prosecuting attorney.   He asked whether  extreme indifference is                                                               
a term  currently in Alaska  Statute, including  the instructions                                                               
Representative  Josephson  implies  exist  as he  would  like  to                                                               
review the  examples.   He offered  that he  has never  seen that                                                               
terminology in the murder statute.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON offered  that the  term comes  from the                                                               
Model Penal  Code under  Neitzel v. State,  655 P.2d  325 (Alaska                                                             
Ct. App.  1982).   He explained  this is  a tentative  draft, but                                                               
Representative Keller  may get  a taste  of it.   He  related, "A                                                               
person  with the  crime of  murder  if he  recklessly causes  the                                                               
death  of  another  person  under  circumstances  manifesting  in                                                               
extreme indifference  in the  value of human  life."   He offered                                                               
another test applied in the law ...                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interjected that  he was speaking to Alaska                                                               
statutes and not case law as  this is entering new terminology in                                                               
Alaska statute.  He opined that  the legislature does not want to                                                               
do  that lightly  because it  does not  want to  follow case  law                                                               
arguments.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON related  that  extreme indifference  is                                                               
currently in statute and not  necessarily in murder in the second                                                               
degree or  manslaughter.   He explained  there is  a four-pronged                                                               
test  applied  regarding  social   utility,  magnitude  of  risk,                                                               
actor's  knowledge of  risk, and  precaution the  actor takes  to                                                               
minimize the risk.   He reiterated it is a  high threshold and he                                                               
is not trying to put people in prison.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:39:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG    referred   to   [Section    1,   AS                                                               
11.41.110(a)(2)], page 1, lines 8-10, which read:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
               (2) the person knowingly engages in conduct                                                                      
     that  results  in the  death  of  another person  under                                                                    
     circumstances  manifesting an  extreme indifference  to                                                                    
     the value of human life.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG pointed  to the  term in  that statute.                                                               
He  then referred  to [Section  1, AS  11.41.110(a)(6)], page  2,                                                               
[lines 18-20], which read:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
               (6) the person caused the death of another                                                                   
     person while operating a  motor vehicle, watercraft, or                                                                
     aircraft  under  circumstances manifesting  in  extreme                                                                
     indifference to the value of human life.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that  the above new subsection is                                                               
virtually identical to  Section 2, of the current bill.   He said                                                               
the only technical  language difference is that  Section 2, talks                                                               
about knowingly  engaging in conduct  that results in  the death,                                                               
and the  language on page  2, line  18, says "causes  the death."                                                               
He opined  that the word  "cause" is  identical in effect  to the                                                               
current language  and asked  whether it  is the  sponsor's intent                                                               
that  the  word  "cause"  is   any  different  than  the  current                                                               
language.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON responded  he is  confident that  under                                                               
the  default  statute  where  there is  an  absence  of  culpable                                                               
militate as  to conduct in  subsection (6) the  culpable militate                                                               
would be knowing as in subsection  (2), and as to circumstance it                                                               
would be  reckless.   He highlighted  that it  is common  to have                                                               
different theories  of one case  in that the prosecutor  looks at                                                               
the  bad act  and may  charge it  in different  manners.   As the                                                               
facts flesh  themselves out in  approaching trial, settle  on the                                                               
most reasonable,  or the best as  the one for which  the evidence                                                               
is  most  supportive,   he  submitted.    While   he  agree  that                                                               
subsection (6) could be subsumed  by subsection (2), he continues                                                               
to  assert the  fact  that  Alaska does  not  have the  vehicular                                                               
homicide  statute  is  unnecessary  as a  matter  of  policy,  he                                                               
posited, he  said.   It creates more  burden for  the prosecution                                                               
that is unnecessary and not intuitive to the jury, he contended.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:42:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to the  premise that Alaska lacks a                                                               
vehicular homicide  statute and  advised it troubles  him because                                                               
he has  defended vehicular homicide  crimes that were  charged as                                                               
manslaughter or  murder in the  second degree depending  upon the                                                               
circumstances.   Often the debate  is whether it  is manslaughter                                                               
or  negligent homicide  and the  jury  is involved  in the  topic                                                               
about   mental   state,   circumstance,  the   whole   range   of                                                               
circumstances,  and when  starting with  the premise  that Alaska                                                               
lacks a  vehicular homicide statute,  he does  not see that.   He                                                               
contends  that when  the Model  Penal Code  was adopted  in large                                                               
part and rewrote  the Alaska Criminal Code in 1980,  there was an                                                               
intentional  effort   to  place  crimes  involving   the  typical                                                               
vehicular homicide  crime as manslaughter,  and it would  only be                                                               
exceptional  vehicular homicide  case  that  would become  second                                                               
degree murder.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  advised that last week  the 9th Circuit                                                               
Court of  Appeals in  the case Gibson  v. Johnson,  No. 13-35087,                                                             
D.C.  No. 3:11-cv-00432-AC,  reached the  correct conclusion  and                                                               
had to wrestle  with the topic of "when is  a vehicle a dangerous                                                               
instrument."   This is something that  as a matter of  policy and                                                               
should be dispensed with, he opined.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:45:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN asked  that Representative  Josephson cite                                                               
one case in which the Court of Appeals got it wrong.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that is a lifeline question.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised  that he could not cite  a case in                                                               
which  the Court  of  Appeals got  it wrong,  and  offered he  is                                                               
familiar with a number of cases  and his memory is that it pretty                                                               
much got it right every time.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON directed  the committee  to the  packet                                                               
and noted  there is  a comment  in a  newspaper article  from Ms.                                                               
McDaniel,  a long  time criminal  attorney,  highlights the  fact                                                               
that  due  to  a  cultural predisposition,  the  state  does  not                                                               
sanction drunk driving homicide the  way it sanctions other types                                                               
of homicide.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:46:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   asked   whether   another   way   of                                                               
approaching  the   problem  is  to  include   in  the  definition                                                               
somewhere  that  this  conduct  may  include  vehicular  conduct,                                                               
without creating a new crime.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  responded that  is not the  approach he                                                               
and  the  drafters  took,  but  understands  what  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg is saying.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  reiterated to include in  a definition,                                                               
and make  it clear to  one and the  world that this  conduct does                                                               
include, but is not limited to, vehicular conduct.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    JOSEPHSON    answered    that    Representative                                                               
Gruenberg's suggestion  is an option,  and remarked there  has to                                                               
be a legislative role in this  as Alaska is suffering from a rash                                                               
of these  problems.  He  has confidence that law  enforcement can                                                               
separate the  egregious and criminally culpable  from the others,                                                               
he offered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:48:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  said she identifies  with Representative  Claman in                                                               
that there are  all sorts of vehicular  homicide and manslaughter                                                               
crimes  involving  vehicles  and   wondered  whether  this  is  a                                                               
solution looking for a problem that may not exist.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:48:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  deduced  that  the  problem  could  be                                                               
solved as a definition.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX stated, "Assuming there actually is a problem."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:49:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KARLA HART  said she participates  in bicycle tours and  does not                                                               
often ride  in Juneau because  it does not  feel safe.   She said                                                               
she  traveled  to  the Netherlands  to  investigate  the  bicycle                                                               
culture and infrastructure and found  that the signs, trails, and                                                               
everything were great.  She then  realized the people on the road                                                               
were actively  looking out for  her safety in their  cars because                                                               
Netherlands law  reads that  when a  car hits  a pedestrian  or a                                                               
bicyclist the  car is at fault.   She advised the  culture of the                                                               
Netherlands works  to train  people so that  there are  far fewer                                                               
injuries because  they actively  do not hit  people.   She opined                                                               
that Alaska  law reads "if  you want  to kill somebody  in Alaska                                                               
hit them with  a car and say  it was their fault."   She remarked                                                               
there  is   model  legislation  from   the  League   of  American                                                               
Bicyclists addressing more  that could be added on  to this bill,                                                               
or supplemented,  which is a  deterrence.  Currently,  the people                                                               
charged with  a felony under  HB 7, will  not be deterred  by the                                                               
existence of this  bill, she expressed, as the  language with the                                                               
model legislation  says, "a person  who operates a  motor vehicle                                                               
in a  careless or distracted  manner and causes  serious physical                                                               
injury or death  to a vulnerable roadway user shall  be guilty of                                                               
infliction of  serious physical injury  or death to  a vulnerable                                                               
roadway user.   And that person  will be issued a  citation under                                                               
this section and  required to attend a hearing before  a court of                                                               
appropriate jurisdiction."   She pointed out that  the choice was                                                               
specifically to  require a  court appearance and  not just  pay a                                                               
ticket and  get away from it.   Further, she commented,  it has a                                                               
person having been committed under  this statute required to have                                                               
driving  privileges suspended  for  six months.   She  reiterated                                                               
that when  a person is  careless and  causes a serious  injury or                                                               
death  to a  bicyclist they  lose  their license  for six  months                                                               
which is  a deterrence  to more  people to get  to the  safety of                                                               
bicyclists  than  just  going  after the  most  egregious.    She                                                               
pointed out that  there are many people in  the bicycle community                                                               
as  well as  other  vulnerable roadway  users, including  highway                                                               
flaggers,  people  on the  highway  fixing  flat tires,  kids  on                                                               
skateboards, scooters, and many different users.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:54:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  that  the bill  has  a lot  of                                                               
merit.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:54:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN emphasized that  his questions on this bill                                                               
do not reflect his dedication  to making it safer for bicyclists.                                                               
He has  substantial questions because he  is not sure there  is a                                                               
problem  and that  the homicide  statutes should  be amended,  he                                                               
reiterated, and expressed his concern  in getting drivers to more                                                               
seriously take  their duty to protect  pedestrians and bicyclists                                                               
because those without a car around them are vulnerable.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX commented she  identifies with Representative Claman                                                               
on this issue having just bought a bicycle.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  closed public testimony  after ascertaining  no one                                                               
further wished to testify.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  asked  Richard  Svobodny   whether  this  bill  is                                                               
necessary.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:56:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  SVOBODNY, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department of  Law, said  "the sky  is not going  to fall  in ...                                                               
fall down if  this bill doesn't pass."  He  advised that prior to                                                               
Representative   Josephson  introducing   HB  7,   the  Anchorage                                                               
District Attorney,  and Anchorage Deputy District  Attorney, both                                                               
having  practiced in  other jurisdictions,  suggested there  be a                                                               
vehicular homicide statute for two  reasons.  He pointed out that                                                               
one  reason is  that prosecutors  want  to be  consistent in  the                                                               
manner they charge  as someone should not  be charged differently                                                               
in Palmer  with the same facts  as in Kenai.   Prosecutors should                                                               
be consistent with the conduct and  mental states the same.  This                                                               
bill  puts prosecutors  closer to  consistency because  there are                                                               
specific  sections  of  both homicide  and  manslaughter  that  a                                                               
prosecutor would look to in order  to make a determination as to,                                                               
how do these facts fit this  law and, hopefully, the law would be                                                               
more consistent, he  explained.  He offered that  the other issue                                                               
is that when  someone is charged with the  crime of manslaughter,                                                               
or  murder, it  is  difficult for  the jury  to  get their  minds                                                               
around ...  the discussion  is regarding  killing people.   Under                                                               
these circumstances  that is  a gross  deviation for  standard of                                                               
conduct  that  a  reasonable  person would  use,  or  in  extreme                                                               
indifference  to the  value of  human  life -  the two  different                                                               
standards for manslaughter and  criminally negligent homicide, he                                                               
further  explained.   When discussing  people  using a  car in  a                                                               
grossly   inappropriate  manner   resulting  in   death,  grossly                                                               
inappropriate  manner is  the difference  in present  statutes of                                                               
committing negligent homicide and  manslaughter.  He advised this                                                               
bill   takes   out,  from   those   two   standards  the   jury's                                                               
consideration that the  conduct is driving an  automobile.  Under                                                               
Gibson,  the exact  issue for  the 9th  Circuit Court  of Appeals                                                             
decision, "is  a motor  vehicle a  dangerous instrument"  and the                                                               
court concluded it  was.  With regard  to Representative Claman's                                                               
question, "they  always get it right,"  as they are the  Court of                                                               
Appeals.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:00:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  whether  there  has been  any  court in  the                                                               
country or universe  that has ever concluded that a  car is not a                                                               
dangerous instrument.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SVOBODNY  advised  he  does  not have  the  answer  to  that                                                               
question as it is all fact determined.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  asked whether  he  could  imagine a  court,  where                                                               
someone had  been injured with a  car, not concluding that  a car                                                               
was a dangerous  instrument.  She further asked  whether there is                                                               
really that much to grapple with.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SVOBODNY pointed out that  Chair LeDoux set the parameters in                                                               
that someone  has been hit  with a car.   He commented  that when                                                               
previously asked he  was thinking ... so a person  is in the car,                                                               
lets the  engine run, they die  from carbon monoxide ...  he does                                                               
not know the answer.  The  jury may review a dangerous instrument                                                               
as  a  gun,  a knife,  and  ask  whether  a  car is  a  dangerous                                                               
instrument.   He advised  those were the  reasons the  front line                                                               
prosecutors  said  they  need  to  follow  47  other  states  and                                                               
implement a vehicular homicide statute.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:02:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN asked  whether  Mr.  Svobodny is  familiar                                                               
with any  Alaska cases, 9th  Circuit Court of Appeals,  or Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court  cases in  which vehicular  homicide was  the issue                                                               
wherein  the court  concluded  the vehicle  was  not a  dangerous                                                               
instrument.     He   further  asked   whether  the   courts  have                                                               
consistently  found  when  challenged  that  it  is  a  dangerous                                                               
instrument   for   purposes   of   either   negligent   homicide,                                                               
manslaughter, or second degree murder.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. SVOBODNY replied that last week  the court said, in a robbery                                                               
case, that the  car was a dangerous instrument  and the two-three                                                               
cases the court cited in  that case were vehicular homicide cases                                                               
that decided a vehicle is a dangerous instrument.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX advised HB 7 is held over.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:03:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG questioned  whether the  language could                                                               
specify  in subsection  (2), page  1,  line 8,  that the  conduct                                                               
includes operating a motor vehicle, and  the same on page 2, line                                                               
23, it  could read "under  circumstances including  the operating                                                               
of  these vehicles."    He pointed  out,  thereby indicating  the                                                               
legislature's  intent  to make  it  clear  that under  these  two                                                               
statutes, it includes the operation of the vehicle.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:04:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SVOBODNY replied  that he  is not  the sponsor  and was  not                                                               
certain it  met the sponsor's goal.   He suggested putting  it in                                                               
Section  1, page  1, line  8,  "the person  knowingly engages  in                                                               
conduct including the operation of a motor vehicle."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[HB 7 was held over.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB7 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-ADN 1.7.14.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-ADN 2.23.15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-ADN 7.19.14.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-ADN 9.20.14.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-ADN 12.20.14.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Supporting Document-Letter-Bike Anchorage.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
SSHB7 Summary of Changes.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 ver A.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
SSHB7 ver W.PDF HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB7 Fiscal Note - LAW.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 7
HB 27 Fiscal Note 2.6.15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Fiscal Note 2.7.15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Dianna Walters Letter of Support.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Deborah Bock Letter of Support.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Amanda Metivier Letter of Support.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Fiscal Note 2.23.15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Foster Care Until Age 21 Gara.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Pat Cunningham Letter of Support.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Research Documents.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Sectional Analysis Version P.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Sponsor Statement JUD.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Tamara Dietrich Letter of Support.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Version P.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 147 Ver Y Sectional Summary.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Fiscal Note - DEC.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Fiscal Note - DPS.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letter of Opposition - ANDVSA 03-27-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letter of Support - Alaska Rural Veterinary Outreach Inc 03-31-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letter of Support - Gadsden, Margaret 03-18-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letter of Support - MOA Animal Control Advisory Board Resolution 2015-04.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letters of Support - Hessler Response and CV 03-31-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letters of Support 03-30-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letters of Support 03-31-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-American Bar Association Resolution 108B.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Article Protecting Domestic Violence Victims by Ramsey et. al.PDF HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Costs of Animal Care.PDF HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 ver Y.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Summary Protecting Domestic Violence Victims by Ramsey et. al.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Protective Orders.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Protective order form.PDF HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Leg. Research Awarding Custody of Pets in Divorce Proceedings.PDF HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Leg Research Protective Orders for Pets.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Juelfs v. Gough.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB 147 Compare 29-LS0302_Y and 29-LS0302_U.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Letter of Support - ANDVSA 04-14-15.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 ver. U.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147
HB 147 Ver U Sectional Summary.pdf HJUD 4/13/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 147