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 |