Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

01/31/2022 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 246 ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 246(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 51 AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 51(JUD) Out of Committee
         HB 246-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:04:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 246, "An  Act restricting the release  of certain                                                               
records of convictions; and providing for an effective date."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:05:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  moved  Amendment 2,  labeled  32-                                                               
LS1300\A.2 Radford 1/22/22, which read as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 4 - 5:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 14, following "substance;":                                                                                   
          Insert "and"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 15 - 16:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:05:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CLAIRE  GROSS, Staff  to Representative  Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
Alaska State  Legislature, on behalf of  prime sponsor, explained                                                               
that proposed amendment would remove of  the word "if" on page 2,                                                               
on line 30, pertaining to  Department of Public Safety background                                                               
checks.   She stated that  it could  be interpreted that,  if the                                                               
amendment  is not  adopted, then  an individual  who has  a minor                                                               
marijuana conviction which  meets the criteria of  the bill, none                                                               
of  his/her criminal  justice information  may be  released on  a                                                               
background check.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SNYDER removed  her  objection.   There being  no                                                               
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:07:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   moved  Amendment   3.1,  labeled                                                               
32LS1300\A.7, Radford, 1/29/22, which read as follows:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8:                                                                                                            
          Delete "under today's laws"                                                                                           
          Insert "on January 1, 2023"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS  explained   that  the   proposed                                                               
Amendment would provide clarity on the timing of the bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN expressed  his  support  of the  proposed                                                               
Amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SNYDER removed  her  objection.   There being  no                                                               
further objection, Amendment 3.1 was adopted.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:08:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS moved  amendment  3.2 labeled  32-                                                               
LS1300\A.8, Radford, 1/29/22, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 10, following "possession.":                                                                                
          Insert "(a)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, following line 17:                                                                                                 
     Insert new material to read:                                                                                               
          "(b)  The Alaska Court system is not civilly                                                                          
     liable for an act or omission relating to the removal                                                                      
     of records under this section.                                                                                             
      * Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska                                                                     
     is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                                
          PRIOR COURT RECORDS. The Alaska Court System                                                                          
     shall, to the extent  practicable, remove court records                                                                    
     existing  before the  effective date  of this  Act that                                                                    
     meet  the requirements  of AS 22.35.040(a),  enacted by                                                                    
     sec. 4  of this Act,  from the court  system's publicly                                                                    
     available Internet website."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GROSS explained  that the  proposed  amendment pertained  to                                                               
page 3, on line 10 and  would replace language for conforming and                                                               
re-lettering  to establish  a new  section to  follow.   She said                                                               
that on page 3,  on line 17, new language is  proposed based on a                                                               
recommendation  by  the  court  system  so  that  legal  risk  is                                                               
removed.  She  further explained that the  removal of information                                                               
would be challenging for the  court due to statutory changes that                                                               
had  occurred  over time.    She  stated  that inclusion  of  the                                                               
language, "to the extent practicable"  would alleviate legal risk                                                               
to  the court,  and that  an  individual would  still retain  the                                                               
right to appeal what information  is published on CourtView.  She                                                               
noted that the  addition of Section 5 had been  made to apply the                                                               
restriction on  the information for convictions  before and after                                                               
the effective date.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred  to lines 6-8 of  the Amendment and                                                               
asked what  accountability exists  for the  court to  fulfil this                                                               
area of law.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:11:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska  Court System, answered that                                                               
the court  system is  not civilly  liable for  acts of  errors or                                                               
omissions  on CourtView,  although  a lawsuit  could be  brought.                                                               
She suggested that  a governmental body in general  is not liable                                                               
except  in  cases of  nefariousness  or  gross negligence.    She                                                               
stated that the  language may not be strictly  necessary and that                                                               
the language  "to the  extent practicable"  had been  included in                                                               
other statutes  pertaining to  the removal  of information.   She                                                               
stated that, if  passed, the implementation of  the [new] statute                                                               
would be for the court to  conduct a search of records related to                                                               
possession of under  an ounce of marijuana by  an individual over                                                               
the age of 21.  She noted that  a case may not be filed under the                                                               
particular  statute  and is  dependent  upon  the filing  of  the                                                               
charges  despite  the  legislative  intent  of  the  bill.    She                                                               
reminded the committee that an  individual would still retain the                                                               
right to appeal information published  on CourtView and expressed                                                               
her  confidence that  nearly  all the  pertinent  cases would  be                                                               
identified.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:15:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE asked  the  bill sponsor  how  to hold  the                                                               
court system  accountable in the  absence the existence  of civil                                                               
liability to the courts.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  invited requests for future  legislative reporting and                                                               
suggested that constituents  could be asked whether  the court is                                                               
fulfilling its  duty.   She suggested that  the inclusion  of the                                                               
language  would  be a  statement  of  the  obvious and  that  the                                                               
expectation  should be  met by  the  effective date  as with  all                                                               
other statutory requirements  of the courts.  She  stated that an                                                               
error would be  regrettable and that the court  system would take                                                               
steps to remedy it.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GROSS  stated  that  it   was  her  understanding  that  the                                                               
effective date was the [force of law] in the proposed bill.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the  courts would be prepared to                                                               
deal with cases  that are not prosecuted and  convicted under the                                                               
repealed marijuana  criminal possession  statute referred  in the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that an  individual may request  that records                                                               
be  removed from  CourtView and  that individuals  routinely make                                                               
such requests,  the majority  of which do  not pertain  to actual                                                               
protected information.  She stated  that, when the court receives                                                               
such  a request,  the matter  is researched,  a determination  is                                                               
made,  and correction  is  made when  necessary.   She  explained                                                               
that, should  an individual disagree  with the  determination, an                                                               
appeal process exists.  She  noted that court rules also regulate                                                               
what information may be published on CourtView.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether  an amendment to include the                                                               
word  "unknowing"   on  line  6   following  the  word   "an"  to                                                               
distinguish  when the  court is  making a  decision and  when the                                                               
court is delayed in processing requests would be appropriate.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  said he  would first defer  to the                                                               
court and  that the distinction  may exist elsewhere  in statute.                                                               
He added  that, according to  testimony, a problem in  the courts                                                               
processing such requests does not exit.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  stated that  requests are handled  within a  matter of                                                               
days and such suggested language would be a matter of policy.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:25:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved conceptual  amendment 1 to Amendment                                                               
3.2 such that "the Alaska court  system is not civilly liable for                                                               
an unknowing act  or omission relating to the  removal of records                                                               
under this section."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  stated that  he was not  comfortable with                                                               
broad language.   He allowed that  the court is "doing  its part"                                                               
to remove records,  and his intention was to  address a situation                                                               
in which an individual was not satisfied.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN stated  that immunity exists for  the three branches                                                               
of   government:     sovereign   immunity   for  the   executive,                                                               
legislative immunity for legislators,  and judicial immunity.  He                                                               
asked, if judicial  immunity exists, what the  rationale would be                                                               
for including the subsection as a whole.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered that the  court's interest would be to include                                                               
the  language  "to  the  extent practicable"  and  was  based  on                                                               
previous legislation  directing the  removal of records  in cases                                                               
of  dismissal or  acquittal.   She stated  that it  would provide                                                               
acknowledgment that the legislative  intent to remove the records                                                               
would be  met by the  court and  convey the understanding  that a                                                               
case may be missed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked whether  the  deletion  of lines  1-7  would                                                               
create  issues  with  the  court  because  uncodified  law  would                                                               
include the language regarding practicability.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE agreed  and stated it was her belief  that the court is                                                               
not   currently  civilly   liable  for   information  posted   on                                                               
CourtView.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:29:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   stated  his  support   for  including   the  word                                                               
"practicable" in  Section 5 and  would be supportive  of deleting                                                               
lines 1-7 and  suggested that there exists  a partnership between                                                               
the public and the court system to cleanse records.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her  support for removing lines 1-                                                               
7 and asked who should  define the term "practicable" and whether                                                               
it exists in other statute.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  offered that "practicable"  is heavily used  in the                                                               
law  and  agreements and  reflects  the  best of  intent,  within                                                               
reason.    He  offered  a hypothetical  scenario  in  which  some                                                               
candies would be  spilled in a parking lot, and  the agreement to                                                               
clean  them  up  to  the  extent  practicable  would  convey  the                                                               
understanding that  one or more  candies may be missed  and would                                                               
not be an indication of ill-intent.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  allowed that  the  hypothetical  scenario offered  by                                                               
Chair Claman was a good  one and explained her understanding that                                                               
"as   practicable"  reflected   both  "as   practical"  and   "as                                                               
reasonable."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how it  might be proven that [an error                                                               
or omission] was  not practicable, should a member  of the public                                                               
raise the issue.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  offered that,  should  an  individual contact  the                                                               
legislature with a  complaint of his/her records  not having been                                                               
removed,  the individual  may contact  the court  system, or  the                                                               
legislator may  do so on his/her  behalf, and the court  would be                                                               
obliged to investigate.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  expressed her  concern that a  scenario may                                                               
exist in  which an individual  takes all the necessary  steps and                                                               
remained unsatisfied.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  suggested   that   the   scenario  described   by                                                               
Representative Vance would not meet the intent of "practicable."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:37:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DRUMMOND   referred  to  the   sponsor  statement                                                               
[included in the committee packet]  that there exists a report by                                                               
Legislative  Legal &  Research Services  which reflects  over 700                                                               
individuals who  would be affected  and asked the source  of that                                                               
data.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that  she  had provided  the  data based  on                                                               
conviction records of possession of  under one ounce of marijuana                                                               
and expressed  that she had  confidence in  the data.   She noted                                                               
that the same  conduct had had several  iterations of legislation                                                               
over the years and provided the example  of a law in the 1980s in                                                               
which an individual would be  permitted to possess up to one-half                                                               
a  pound  of marijuana  and  those  records would  logically  not                                                               
reflect  whether  the amount  in  possession  had been  under  an                                                               
ounce.  She  stated that records review requests  are received by                                                               
the court at  a frequency of 5-10 per week  and are resolved with                                                               
an existing process  and may be appealed.  She  explained that no                                                               
court records prior to 1990 appear on CourtView.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   withdrew  conceptual  amendment   1  to                                                               
Amendment 3.2.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:41:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved conceptual  amendment 2 to Amendment                                                               
3.2  such that  lines  1-7  would be  deleted.    There being  no                                                               
objection, conceptual amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN sought  any objection to Amendment  3.2, as amended.                                                               
There being none, it was adopted.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:43:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved  Amendment 4, labeled 32-LS1300\A.2,                                                               
Radford, 1/22/22, which read as follows:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 4 - 5:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 14, following "substance;":                                                                                   
          Insert "and"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 15 - 16:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  explained  that the  proposed  amendment                                                               
would remove the age distinction from the bill.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  what the significance of the age  of 21 years                                                               
of age or older would be in the law.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GROSS  answered  that  a  minor  under  the  age  of  21  in                                                               
possession of  marijuana would still  have committed a  crime and                                                               
the age  of 21  had been  included to reflect  the change  in the                                                               
marijuana possession criminal law.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   suggested  that   there   exist                                                               
differing   perspectives   regarding    the   underlying   issues                                                               
associated  with  Amendment 4  and  expressed  his reluctance  to                                                               
adopt it.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND  stated that  she was  not in  support of                                                               
Amendment 4 since  a person in possession of  marijuana under the                                                               
age of 21 had still committed a crime.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER  expressed her agreement with  the comments                                                               
made by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed his perspective  that an anomaly exists in                                                               
which  an individual  may enlist  [in the  military] and  die but                                                               
he/she may  not consume alcohol under  the age of 21.   He stated                                                               
that the  ballot measure that legalized  marijuana possession had                                                               
been  passed with  the intent  that marijuana  be regulated  like                                                               
alcohol.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:50:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved  Amendment 5, labeled 32-LS1300\A.1,                                                               
Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "restricting"                                                                                                
          Insert "requiring a notification with"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 28:                                                                                   
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 29:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sec. 3"                                                                                                     
          Insert "Section 1"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                              
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 30, through page 3, line 7:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(f)  If a defendant was convicted of an offense                                                                      
     under  a   law  that   has  been  repealed   since  the                                                                    
     defendant's  conviction  and the  conduct  constituting                                                                    
     the conviction  does not constitute  an offense  at the                                                                    
     time  an agency  releases criminal  justice information                                                                    
     relating  to the  conviction  under  this section,  the                                                                    
     agency shall include a  notification in the information                                                                    
     stating that  the law  has been  repealed and  that the                                                                    
     conduct  resulting  in  conviction does  not  currently                                                                    
     constitute an offense."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 9 - 17:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "Sec. 22.35.040. Records concerning convictions                                                                     
     for conduct no longer  constituting a criminal offense.                                                                  
     If a defendant was convicted  of an offense under a law                                                                    
     that  has been  repealed and  the conduct  constituting                                                                    
     the conviction  does not constitute  an offense  at the                                                                    
     time  the court  records  of  the defendant's  criminal                                                                    
     case are  viewed on the Alaska  Court System's publicly                                                                    
     available  website,  the   Alaska  Court  System  shall                                                                    
     include a  notification with the court  records stating                                                                    
     that the  law has  been repealed  and that  the conduct                                                                    
     resulting in  conviction does not  currently constitute                                                                    
     an offense."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   explained  that  the   amendment  would                                                               
provide for a disclosure on  an individual's criminal record that                                                               
the  conduct  for  which  he/she  was  convicted  was  no  longer                                                               
criminal.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  asked which department would  be the entity                                                               
to make the notification proposed in Amendment 5.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred  to  the  underlying  bill  and                                                               
stated  that  it  would  be   either  the  court  system  or  the                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS).                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked  whether it was the  intent to provide                                                               
for a notification or that the conviction would be "flagged."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  answered that  a review of  records would                                                               
take place upon a criminal  background check via the court system                                                               
or DPS to  ensure that the proposed notification  appeared on the                                                               
background check.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether  the proposed amendment would                                                               
allow the disclosure of certain  convictions with a notation that                                                               
the offense is no longer a crime.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered yes.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether  the proposed amendment would                                                               
apply  to  all  convictions  for behaviors  that  are  no  longer                                                               
considered  criminal  rather  than   solely  those  of  marijuana                                                               
possession.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his hope  that it would apply to                                                               
future behaviors that may be decriminalized.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:54:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred the court system  to page 2 and DPS to page                                                               
1 of  the amendment  and asked  each to  describe the  impacts if                                                               
Amendment 5 were to be adopted.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered on behalf of  the court system that it was her                                                               
belief that  it would  result in  additional work  and associated                                                               
costs.   She  stated  that it  was rare  for  the legislature  to                                                               
decriminalize  certain  behaviors.   She  offered  a scenario  in                                                               
which a  speeding ticket was issued  for a driver who  exceeded a                                                               
speed limit of  55, and the speed limit was  later increased, and                                                               
a notation would be required to  indicate that it was no longer a                                                               
crime.    She  stated  that,  while cases  may  be  removed  from                                                               
CourtView, the system  does not permit notations after  a case is                                                               
closed as  a matter of security.   She estimated a  change to the                                                               
system would  result in  tens of thousands  of dollars  in system                                                               
modification costs.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:57:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LISA  PURINTON,   Chief,  Criminal  Records   and  Identification                                                               
Bureau, Department of Public Safety,  asked whether the Amendment                                                               
would both  delete the record  and provide a notification  in the                                                               
record that a conviction had ever occurred.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that there  would not be the need                                                               
to delete the records, only to add a notification.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. PURINTON  answered that adding  the information  would result                                                               
in extra  work, and  that nationally  shared databases  have data                                                               
restrictions.   She  stated that  information handled  within the                                                               
State  of  Alaska  could  be  modified  and  cautioned  that  the                                                               
nationally shared data could not.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  suggested that,  should  the  amendment pass,  the                                                               
committee could expect additional fiscal notes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SNYDER expressed  her support  for the  spirit of                                                               
the amendment and  indicated that she would not vote  in favor of                                                               
its adoption due to the broadening  of the scope from that of the                                                               
underlying bill.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   echoed  Representative  Snyder's                                                               
comments  and recalled  Ms. Meade's  earlier observation  that it                                                               
was  uncommon  for  the   legislature  to  decriminalize  certain                                                               
behaviors.  He stated that  standalone legislation drafted in the                                                               
spirit of the amendment would likely have his support.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether efforts  had been made to seek                                                               
technologies  to automate  the additional  workload described  by                                                               
the courts  and DPS  and bring uniformity  to address  changes to                                                               
existing laws.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered  that  CourtView   is  functionally  a  Case                                                               
Management system  and is  not designed to  inform the  public on                                                               
what is  legal or not.   She  explained that the  case management                                                               
system  is a  record  of  what occurs  in  the  court and  tracks                                                               
information so  that parties to a  case may track hearings.   She                                                               
explained  that  it   was  her  role  in  the   court  system  to                                                               
disseminate  changes made  by the  legislature and  no technology                                                               
had been sought to automate that process.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE complimented  the court  system and  DPS in                                                               
managing  large  amounts  of information  and  allowed  that  the                                                               
proposed amendment could add costs.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE stated  that the court system had not  drafted a fiscal                                                               
note.   She cautioned  that the  convictions associated  with the                                                               
bill  had occurred  in the  past, and  that technologies  for new                                                               
occurrences  would differ  from  that which  may  be required  to                                                               
manage records  retroactively.  She  stated that  CourtView meets                                                               
the  operational requirements  of the  courts and  that no  plans                                                               
existed  to  replace it.    She  expressed  her belief  that  the                                                               
requirements of the underlying bill could be met.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:05:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN stated  that he  agreed with  most of  the comments                                                               
that  had been  offered.   He stated  that legislation  regarding                                                               
expungement was "not even close"  to the discussions taking place                                                               
in the legislature and in public.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN acknowledged  the  concerns expressed  as                                                               
valid and withdrew Amendment 5.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  stated that  HB  246  had been  improved                                                               
during the committee process.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER thanked the bill sponsor.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND thanked the  bill sponsor and stated that                                                               
caution  in changing  existing laws  should be  exercised in  the                                                               
future.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked the  committee for the work                                                               
and discussion.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:08:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report  HB 246, as amended, out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.   There being no objection, the bill  passed out of                                                               
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 246 v. A 1.7.2022.PDF HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 246 Sponsor Statement v. A 12.2.2021.pdf HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 246 Sectional Analysis v. A 1.19.2022.pdf HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 246 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 1.14.2022.pdf HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 246 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 1.18.2022.pdf HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Updated 1.31.2022.pdf HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 51 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51
HB 51 Sponsor Statement v. A 1.21.2022.pdf HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51
HB 51 Opposing Document - Letters Received by 1.31.2022.pdf HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51
HB 51 Fiscal Note CRIM-CJL 1.14.2022.pdf HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51
HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD 1.26.2022.pdf HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51
HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 246
HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 51