Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/25/2022 01:30 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 | |
| HB172 | |
| SB11 | |
| HB325 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 325-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2:13:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to domestic violence."
2:13:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 325. She stated that HB 325 would
incorporate image-based sexual abuse, which may be referred to
as "revenge porn" into the definition of domestic violence so
that it may be prosecuted as harassment in the second degree.
2:14:45 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, presented HB 325.
She stated that the definition related to explicit images
contained in the statute defining harassment in the second
degree into AS 18.66.990 (3) related to domestic violence. She
stated that no change of definition would occur, should HB 325
pass, and that the bill would include the definition in the
domestic violence statute.
2:16:29 PM
LOREE MORTON, Advocacy Initiatives Director, Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB
325. She stated that the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) supports adding the sixth element of
harassment in the second degree to the domestic violence statute
or crime involving domestic violence to include publishing or
distributing electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or
films that show the genitals, anus, or female breast(s) of the
other person, or that show that person engaged in a sexual act.
She stated that abusers will use any means to control partners
and to coerce partners into doing, or not doing, certain things
that benefit the abuser. She stated that use of the media
described may cause ridicule, embarrassment, shame, and
degradation and may be used to keep the victim trapped in an
abusive situation.
2:18:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the sharing of such images
is already a crime but is not considered a crime of domestic
violence.
MS. KOENEMAN confirmed this as correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked for an explanation in any changes in
penalty or punishment, should HB 325 pass.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN answered that one important change
would be that it would allow victims to petition to obtain a
restraining order.
2:20:12 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, answered that the crime of domestic violence
is used in several areas of law including criminal law and the
filing of protective orders. She offered an example of an
individual who may interfere with the reporting of a crime of
domestic violence and, should HB 325 pass, the use of images
could be used as evidence of that crime. She stated that there
would not be any change to sentencing and the crime would be a
Class B misdemeanor. She stated that there otherwise exist
mandatory minimum sentences for crimes of domestic violence such
as for those involving assault. She noted that there exist
special provisions for bail associated with crimes of domestic
violence at the time of arraignment.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the passage of HB 325 would
impact protective orders.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that, for a court to issue a protective
order, the court would be required to find that a crime of
domestic violence had occurred, and it would refer to the
underlying statute to determine whether the conduct had amounted
to domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how a protective order would be
implemented to provide for added protection against the use of
images.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that a court may order an individual not
to commit a crime against a person, and that continued behavior
could result in additional criminal charges. She added that
there would likely be a provision of no contact issued.
2:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the definition of publishing or
distributing.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the definition of publishing on the
internet exists in other statutes and added that Webster's
Dictionary is used to define terms that are not defined in
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether distribution could be
considered should the images be distributed to only one other
individual.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the material would not be required
to be widely distributed. She added that "distributes" is
defined in 11.61.116, which pertains to distributing an explicit
image of a minor and means to deliver an image to another person
by sending the image to another person's computer or telephone.
2:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the proposed definition
includes electronic and print [format] and expressed his concern
that an individual may attempt to contact a minor's parent to
alert him/her to the image being distributed could result in
that concerned party then having committed a crime.
MS. SCHROEDER offered the clarification that the example offered
pertained to children and would be associated with a different
statute and not that concerning domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER offered additionally that, for a crime to have
occurred, the perpetrator would have had the intent to harass or
annoy the victim. She stated that the previous example could be
an indication that a crime had occurred and that it would
require evidence of the mental state of the individual sharing
the explicit image with the parent. She added that an
individual sharing an image out of concern Is not intent to
harass or annoy.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN added that in cases of domestic
violence, the abuser is often engaged in acts to manipulate or
coerce the victim and offered n example in which a perpetrator
would threaten to or share the image with the victim's employer
and distributing it to solely one person would meet the
definition of harassment.
2:31:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked, using the hypothetical situation
involving an explicit image of a 16-year-old, whether the
definition of domestic violence would be met when the concerned
party is not a member of the 16-year-old's household.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that for a crime to be considered to be
domestic violence, the person is required to be a member of the
victim's household. She noted that a 16-year-old being annoyed
that a parent is notified would not amount to the intent or
conscious objective to harass or annoy the victim.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the proposed definition would
exclude a 15-year-old victim and asked why it would pertain
instead to a 16-year-old.
MS. KOENEMAN answered that any [explicit] images of an
individual under the age of 16 would fall under a different
statute, 11.61.116 which is sending an explicit image of a
minor.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the intent of the sponsor
would be that crimes associated with an individual over the age
of 16 would be domestic violence, and those associated with
individuals under the age of 16 would not be considered to be
domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN answered that HB 325 would not address
the age of consent in statute but would update the associated
statute to include the increased prevalence of electronic images
and videos and the means of their distribution of images that
would make the victim embarrassed or ashamed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated his question to ask why
individuals under the age of 16 would be excluded from the
definition of domestic violence [under the proposed bill.]
MS. KOENEMAN answered that the distribution of images existed
otherwise in statute and HB 325 would not make changes to that
existing statute.
2:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how often this type of behavior
occurs to establish whether the need exists for the proposed
bill.
2:39:06 PM
SERGEANT MICHAEL HENRY, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, stated that the Department of Public Safety had
conducted an audit to determine statistics related to
harassment, and the law contains approximately eight subsections
under which there had been 180 instances, and he cautioned that
the information provided was an estimate.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the 180 cases of harassment had
included both those in the first and in the second degree, and
over what period they had been reported.
SGT. HENRY answered that the statistics included data from 2012
to present and had been charges filed under AS 11.61.128 (6) and
he noted that some of those reported had been improperly coded.
He stated that a separate audit had been conducted regarding
cases that had actually resulted in charges filed, and that had
been a total of nine incidents. He offered to follow up with
the committee should it chose to request additional research.
MS. KOENEMAN added that crimes involving domestic violence are
severely underreported and that there existed reasons for
victims to not come forward to report crimes, and that the
absence of statistics supporting the need for the bill did not
equate to less of an existing need for the protections in law.
2:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 1 of a document entitled
"HB 325 Supporting Documents 2.17.2022.pdf," [included in the
committee packet,] which depicted that "revenge porn" was
illegal and it noted, "1 in 3 victims of sextortion in a 2017
online survey said they had never told anyone, largely because
of shame or embarrassment" and asked whether there existed some
legal loophole that required the proposed legislation.
MS. KOENEMAN answered that this type of harassment was illegal
in Alaska under criminal harassment statute, but it was not
included in the domestic violence statute. She stated that,
when the court is seeking to determine if a crime of domestic
violence between household members had occurred, a domestic
violence protective order could be issued based on such conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the primary purpose of the
proposed bill would be to include the publication and
distribution of explicit images so that individuals may file for
a protective order under the domestic violence statute.
MS. KOENEMAN answered yes, and it would provide victims legal
assurance that the conduct qualifies as domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked, in cases that may involve teenagers
not sharing a household with the perpetrator, whether [an
individual between the ages of 16 to 18] would file charges
under the harassment in the second-degree statute.
MS. KOENEMAN confirmed that proposed statute would apply to
victims over the age of 16 and, for those victims under the age
of 16, charges would be filed under the child pornography
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether there existed a possibility
of an individual being granted a protective order under the
harassment in the second-degree statute.
MS. SCHROEDER offered that, in cases of harassment charges being
filed, the state would request a no-contact order at the time of
the bail hearing.
2:48:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked, regarding the requirement of the household
member relationship, asked whether a next-door neighbor could be
charged with a crime of domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that he/she could not.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether a couple who had lived together and
had since split, and one distributed explicit pictures of the
other some time after the split, whether the perpetrator could
be charged with a crime of domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it could and explained that
household members include those who live together or those who
had lived together.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked, in a case that involved two 17-year-olds, in
a dating relationship, and one distributed explicit pictures,
whether the perpetrator could be charged with a crime of
domestic violence.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that the definition would include those who
are dating or who have dated. She emphasized the provision that
there would need to exist the intent to harass or annoy [the
victim.]
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what bail considerations could be made by the
court for someone charged with harassment under the domestic
violence statute compared to that of a non-domestic violence
harassment charge.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that regarding release on domestic
violence cases under AS 12.30.027, the main consideration is
whether conditions of release would allow contact or no contact.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what typical bail would be set in the case of
harassment in the second degree, as a Class B misdemeanor,
considering one's criminal history.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that, in a case when the defendant has no
criminal history it would likely be an "own recognizance" (OR)
release and would likely include an order for no contact.
2:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his understanding that, under
federal law, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence could
result a loss of access to firearms and asked whether the
proposed bill would result in an individual subject to the same.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that she was not familiar with federal
law and suggested that DPS may be able to answer the question.
SERGENT HENRY offered to follow up with the committee with a
confirmed answer.
2:53:31 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Public Safety, stated her belief that, for a crime to amount
to an inhibition to possess or purchase firearms or ammunition,
a crime involving domestic violence would need to include an
element of force. She offered to follow with the committee with
a confirmed answer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether distributing images would
ever involve [the use of] force.
MS.HOWELL stated her belief that it would not, and deferred to
the Department of Law to provide a confirmed answer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the definition to the exception
for images that do not involve nudity in subsection 6, paragraph
6.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman was referring
to the proposed language that involves images for a sexual act,
which Representative Eastman confirmed.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the term "sexual act" is defined in
AS 11.41.470(6) and means sexual penetration or sexual contact.
2:57:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Howell, should an individual
express distress at the discovery of the conduct, should HB 325
pass, whether the accused would be subject to automatic arrest
under the domestic violence statute.
MS. HOWELL answered that crimes involving domestic violence
which had occurred in the preceding 12 hours would result in
mandatory arrest. She recommended that Sergeant Henry may be
able to fully answer the question.
SERGEANT HENRY explained that if, after a crime has been
reported and an investigation reveals the existence of probable
cause, then three criteria would need to be met for an arrest.
He listed those as the existence of probable cause, that the
crime occurred between household members, and had occurred
within the prior 12 hours and, if all three had been found
during the investigation, a mandatory arrest would occur. If
the alleged crime had occurred more than 12 hours prior to the
report or it as determined that the definition of household
members did not apply, then a mandatory arrest would not occur.
2:59:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that HB 325 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 11 v. G 5.11.2021.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sectional Analysis v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Supreme Court Phillips Decision 12.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - LISI Article 7.29.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Community Property Trust Act.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| HB 325 v. A 2.16.2022.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM SJUD 5/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Supporting Documents 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM SJUD 5/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.19.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 325 |
| HB 172 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. W 2.16.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendments #1-4 HJUD Final Votes 2.23.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendment #5 HJUD 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 v. W Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |