Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/09/2000 08:20 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSHB 270-SEXUAL ASSAULT & SEXUAL ABUSE Number 0873 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270, "An Act relating to sexual assault and sexual abuse and to payment for certain examinations in cases of alleged sexual assault or sexual abuse." REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, said there is a proposed CS that makes minor changes and it should be adopted for discussion. Number 0903 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for SSHB 270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed CSHB 270 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the issue that brought the proposed CS to his attention is forensic examinations after a sexual assault. He recognized that sexual assault examinations are a delicate and troubling issue so it is all the more important that the committee consider it. He observed that someone who has been sexually assaulted has already been victimized once and the exam that is necessary to gather evidence about the crime is, in some ways, a second victimization. He reiterated that the forensic exam is unpleasant and uncomfortable. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he had heard of victims being asked to pay for the forensic exam with his/her health insurance. He noted that it is not standard police practice [to request payment for forensic exams] and the committee will hear testimony from police agencies to that effect. He explained that the request to pay is only for isolated incidents but it is particularly troubling because it seems to indicate third level victimization. He commented that if someone's house was burglarized and the police came to investigate the crime, dusted for fingerprints, and took pictures, the homeowner's insurance would not be billed. Therefore, he added, charging a sexual assault victim for a forensic exam does not seem ethical. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that the proposed CS makes very small changes, for example, it defines the crime more specifically. He indicated that the reason there is both a sponsor substitute and a proposed CS to HB 270 is because it was difficult to write the legislation even though the sponsor knew what he wanted to accomplish. He informed the committee that in the first draft the sponsor had written "a law enforcement agency shall pay for the [forensic exam]" and that applied to both adult and juvenile sexual assault. He emphasized that the writing became complicated because there are various ways agencies pay for sexual exams and for children there is a compassionate model, Alaska Cares, that uses Medicaid money. Therefore, he acknowledged, when the sponsor tried the approach that told who would pay, some of these paying programs were precluded. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that juvenile victims were problematical because from whom did agencies ask permission to conduct a forensic exam. He reminded the committee that parents must give permission for a juvenile to be examined and parents sometimes are the prime suspect in juvenile sexual assault. He added that parents can stop a sexual exam. He observed that writing HB 270 just became so difficult in the juvenile area that the sponsor left out the juvenile section and concentrated on what the sponsor knew he could write correctly. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he is a member of the Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) Board and that is where he heard about some of these issues. He noted that there are many small things that people can do for victims of sexual assault, for example, providing clothes for a victim to use after the forensic exam. He explained that when a victim goes to the hospital the victim's clothes are seized as evidence. He commented that providing clothing for victims is a small step but necessary because otherwise the victim has to go home in a taxi dressed in a hospital gown or borrow someone else's clothes. He mentioned that he had tried to bring before the committee concrete examples of what victims go through and how they can be helped and the reason there are no direct witnesses is because it is difficult to talk about the issue. He indicated that the proposed CS asks all police agencies to conform to no charge for forensic exams. Number 1393 CHAIR JAMES remarked that after hearing what sexual assault victims must go through she is not sure she would report a sexual assault because it sounds so awful and then to have to pay for [the forensic exam is the outside of enough]. She added that she supports the proposed CS as a good move in the right direction. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the proposed CS only applies to adults. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered in the affirmative. He noted that sexual assault crimes are generally perpetrated against adults while statutory rape is in the section regarding juveniles. However, he added, a juvenile sexual assault can fall under the proposed CS guidelines so the proposed CS had to read both adult victims and crimes that are non-statutory rape. He reiterated that it had become very complicated to write a bill that applied to juveniles which did not result in more harm than good, therefore, the proposed CS only applies to adult victims. He said that one of the problems in writing a bill that applied to juveniles was the funding mechanism that is used in juvenile cases and the other problem was who gives permission for the juvenile to undergo a forensic exam. Number 1597 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understands from Representative Croft that no one will be falling through the cracks if the proposed CS is adopted. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid $22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department. He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of juvenile exams with Alaska Cares. Number 1750 CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams. MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim. CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that some other entity billed victims and that the department did not think HB 270 was necessary for the department. MR. SMITH answered that he did not think HB 270 was necessary for the Department of Public Safety under the current administration, but he would feel more comfortable if there were a law that would make sure sexual exam billings were discontinued. Number 1789 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Smith if he believes that requiring payment for the exams under the proposed CS will be not create a fiscal note since the Department of Public Safety has been paying for the exams already. Number 1793 MR. SMITH replied that the proposed CS will not create a fiscal note and he thinks the proposed CS is a good bill. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had heard Mr. Smith agree with the sponsor who had presented a very convincing discussion about why the proposed CS only deals with adults and that children would not fall through the cracks. He asked what if "Maud" claims to have been attacked, and the evidence does not trigger a police agency authorized forensic exam. Nevertheless, "Maud" is still convinced and she wants to prove sexual assault so she goes ahead and has forensic evidence taken. In that case, he asked, would the police agency still pay for the exam or would the individual pay. Further, he added, the exam showed that "Maud" was in fact sexually assaulted. MR. SMITH answered that the agency should pay in all situations where police are involved in the investigation. He noted that if someone had a sexual assault examination done and then contacted the police agency, it would be problematic in deciding who pays. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that his concern is not that a person would come in after getting a sexual exam but that a person comes to the police first and claims to have been violated. He asked if the person is automatically examined then or is a decision made whether an examination is warranted. MR. SMITH expected that if a person reports that he/she has been sexually assaulted, unless there is some reason to believe that he/she is making up a claim, the agency would agree to check to see if in fact a sexual assault occurred since that is the point of the examination. He believes that, as a police administrator, an examination needs to be done if there is an allegation. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that it sounds like the department is effectively paying for exams now, as Chair James had observed. Therefore, the proposed CS re-establishes that the department will do this. Number 1954 MR. SMITH replied that it is basically a policy decision and it is current departmental practice. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that the proposed CS is a compassionate statement, the cost is nothing, and it speaks well to any woman who might be a victim. He said the proposed CS is good legislation. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired as to how many sexual assaults happen in the state in a year and how does Alaska rank per capita. MR. SMITH answered that he believed that Anchorage received 300 reports a year and he guesses that the number statewide might be 600. Number 2058 LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), said that not everyone knows what is involved in a rape exam; it is not to be taken lightly. If a person goes into the hospital for a rape exam right after the event has happened, he/she still has the clothes on in which the rape took place. She noted that the clothes will be taken from the person and kept for evidence. She commented that the person stands in the middle of the examining room on a white piece of paper and the first thing he/she does is take off his/her clothes. The clothes are laid on the paper, and the person is brushed down because the person is the crime scene. The paper is folded up, set aside, and becomes the beginning of a stack of papers for evidence. Next someone takes a fingernail file and goes under each of the person's fingernails to find skin or hair identifying the perpetrator. Then the person's hair is combed to look for evidence and then the person is examined for bruises, scratch marks or cuts. A small comb is taken out of an envelope, and the nurse combs the person's pubic hair, again, looking for evidence. She observed that the person's body orifice is examined for semen, and swabs are taken to collect evidence. She stated that the person has to pluck his/her own pubic hairs in order to identify that person's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to see what is different from the perpetrator's DNA. A regular gynecological exam is also performed to ascertain if there are tears or injuries inside of the person. MS. HUGONIN said that the sexual exam can take anywhere from 40 minutes to three hours depending upon the person's ability to be able to endure someone's touch and examination after this terrible experience. Sometimes, she added, a person is not admitted right away to the examining room so the person could be in the waiting room for three hours. Hopefully a person has the company of a sexual assault intervention program advocate to wait with, but that is not always the case. The examination process can last from one hour to eight hours. It is hoped that when the person is able to leave [the hospital], the person is able to walk out and go home. MS. HUGONIN mentioned that in the best of circumstances the perpetrator is caught, evidence has been collected and used in the prosecution to a good end, and the perpetrator is jailed. She indicated that as the victim recovers from this heinous crime, at every point where the victim has to relive it, the victim does relive it because it is not something that can be forgotten. She emphasized that it is incomprehensible that the victim should have to relive the crime upon receiving a bill for the assault exam from his/her insurance company. Just as Mr. Smith had testified, billings have not come from police agencies but have come from hospitals. She hopes everything can be done to expedite the proposed CS because people must understand that it is not acceptable for the system to re-victimize someone who has gone through such a horrible experience. MS. HUGONIN reminded the committee that last year there were 325 reported sexual assaults in Anchorage and 600 statewide. She observed that in FY 99 her program saw 1000 victims of sexual assault. She stated that not everybody reports and not everybody gets exams done. Per capita, she added, Alaska ranks in the top five for sexual assaults which is 2.2 times over the national average in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Number 2408 TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 270. She said that the council believes that the proposed CS needs to be on the record so that when those rare situations do arise, hospitals and police officers have clear direction not to charge sexual assault victims for the exam. She noted that in those cases when a victim wants an exam but the police do not think it is justified, the victim can get a medical exam. She explained that a forensic exam is a very specific process; in most parts of the state there are sexual assault response teams available to cooperate with police. She explained that sexual assault response teams are made up of trained nurses, examiners, and advocates who are able to meet with a victim. She acknowledged that there are times when a victim is not sure he/she wants to go through with a forensic exam, but he/she has health concerns so instead of going through a forensic exam he/she chooses to go to a doctor for a medical exam. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood that a medical exam choice on the part of a victim is a personal choice and would not be affected by the proposed CS. Number 2568 MS. GENTLE agreed with Representative Ogan's statement and added that the victim's exam would not be identified as a sexual assault exam. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented he is puzzled as to why hospitals are sending bills to victims when the exam has obviously been ordered by a local police department. Number 2591 MS. GENTLE answered that there have been changes in hospital protocol, and hospitals have chosen to separate some of the costs of sexual assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually transmitted disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. She indicated that there is an issue of insensitivity. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Ms. Gentle planned to notify the public, hospitals, and organizations that HB 270 has passed and become law. MS. GENTLE replied that her organization has many ways to implement public notice and does have a committee that has been working on sexual assault protocols. Number 2833 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how many women refuse to go through the lengthy forensic process of proving sexual assault. MS. GENTLE answered that nationally about one in ten women choose to report a rape, and surveys of general population reveal that one in four women has been sexually abused in her lifetime. She emphasized how important the advocate's role is in helping women recover, and if a victim will call an advocate agency the victim will get support. She remarked that advocate agencies help a victim see what options are available and what the real picture is. She stated that the proposed CS helps make sexual assault as bearable as possible. She reiterated that a low percentage of women report a sexual assault, even fewer go to trial, and even fewer perpetrators are convicted. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it were true that most sexual assault victims knew the perpetrator. Number 2960 MS. GENTLE replied in the affirmative but wanted to define what "known" means. There is a new term called "acquaintance rape," and that could mean a best friend's husband or real relationships where the man and woman know each other to an apartment building acquaintance. She noted that a distinct grooming behavior pattern is enacted to get into someone's confidence, although she acknowledged that intimate partner violence is one of the biggest crimes against women. TAPE 00-19, SIDE B Number 2967 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the proposed CS also applies to a male victim. MS. GENTLE replied absolutely. CHAIR JAMES noted that she had received information from an e- mail that listed ten things to protect against sexual assault. One of the protections was to be aware of what is happening around one, for example, not walking alone in a parking lot. Another protection is to keep the car and house locked, but the best protection was to be aware. MS. GENTLE mentioned that women's shelters are trying to help people understand the importance of awareness. She indicated that perpetrators are looking for vulnerable people. Number 2687 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move the proposed CS for HB 270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, from committee with individual recommendations, the attached zero fiscal note, and ask for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSSSHB 270(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|