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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB246 | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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 |