Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/13/2009 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB10 | |
| SB110 | |
| SB133 | |
| SB171 | |
| SB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 110 | ||
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the preservation of evidence."
9:29:13 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH,
The American system of justice is founded on balancing
the twin protections of the rights of those harmed by
crimes, and the rights of the accused. Criminal
convictions are guided by evidence of innocence or
guilt, and no one in the criminal justice system wants
innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not
commit. The availability and use of physical evidence
at trials and during appeals is a critical piece of a
meaningful justice system.
Modern DNA technology, coupled with today's
comprehensive information and communications
technologies, has exponentially increased the power of
preserved evidence. Preserved evidence can solve cold
cases and prove or disprove claims of innocence in ways
unimaginable just a few years ago. The problem is,
however, that evidence collection and preservation
policies have not always kept pace with these new
technologies.
Senate Bill 110 begins to address this issue by
requiring that biological evidence in murder and sexual
assault cases is properly retained while cases are
unsolved and during the period after conviction that an
offender is imprisoned or required to register as a sex
offender. The bill still provides for police
departments to return or dispose of evidence too large
to keep after portions of the material likely to
contain biological evidence have been removed and
preserved. The bill provides for a notice process in
cases where evidence will be destroyed, and it
establishes a temporary task force to look at other
issues involved in this emerging field of technology
and make recommendations on standards and practices in
cataloging and handling evidence.
Senator French shared a story about a boy in Denver Colorado
convicted of murder at age 15 that spent 10 years
incarcerated. Following the boy's release the
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, retrieved and
preserved from the crime scene revealed that he was in fact
innocent. He informed that cases such as the one mentioned
led him to sponsor the bill. He continued that this bill
requires police officers to retain evidence in two
categories, physical and DNA. Once a person is convicted of
a crime and incarcerated, the small bits of biological
evidence remain preserved in a crime laboratory. The bulky
material is retained until the time of the trial. The bill
only applies to the most serious of crimes. The idea is to
retain evidence and ensure that incarcerated citizens are
indeed guilty.
Chair Stedman asked for a sectional analysis. Senator French
complied. He referred to Section 1, which creates a new
provision in the criminal code for the preservation of
evidence requiring state agencies and municipal law
enforcement agencies to preserve all evidence that relates
to unsolved cases of murder in the first degree, sexual
assault, and first degree sexual assault of a minor. The
section further requires that biological evidence in these
crimes be retained while a person is incarcerated in the
custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC).
9:33:30 AM
Senator French continued that if a piece of evidence is
physically large, the portions likely to contain relevant
evidence remain preserved. A notice procedure found on Page
2, Subsection D of the bill outlines the proper destruction
of evidence. The Section further provides the method for
court ordered remedies if evidence is destroyed in violation
of the Section.
9:34:48 AM
Senator French continued with the Sectional analysis.
Section 2, Page 4 and Section 3, Page 4 refer to the codas
sections that the Department of Law (DOL) requested. The
codas give DOL the ability to remove DNA data taken from a
suspect found innocent. This allows prosecution of a person
whose DNA is retained on the data base in the event of a
subsequent crime. He provided an example.
9:35:21 AM
Senator French explained that the DOL has the ability to
remove DNA data taken from a suspect who is later found
innocent. The state is allowed to prosecute if the evidence
is still on the database when a person is arrested for a
subsequent crime. He continued that Section 5 establishes a
task force for the preservation of evidence.
9:37:10 AM
Senator French expressed that the legislation will prove
effective throughout all areas of the state. He mentioned a
letter from Angela Long, chief of the police association
opposing the bill. He stated that since changes were made in
the judiciary committee, Ms. Long has withdrawn her
opposition. He informed of the close contact between DOL and
the Department of Public Safety. He opined that the
collaboration provides a good piece of legislation.
9:38:45 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the current process of DNA
storage. Senator French answered that the DNA evidence is
retained until a person is released from prison and removed
from the registry. He mentioned that the state complies with
the established legislation. He shared a story about a
murder case during his time as district attorney. The police
departments recognize the importance of retaining evidence
and essentially perform already that which this bill
mandates.
9:40:43 AM
SUE STANCLIFF, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, testified about data storage and use of DNA samples.
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LAB SUPERVISOR, CRIME LAB SUPERVISOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (testified via teleconference).
He spoke in reference to the question about DNA sampling and
the current status of retaining samples of biological
evidence indefinitely. He informed that this bill has an
impact on the crime laboratory in the retention of
biological evidence and the number of samples identified. He
recognized that in order for an agency to dispose of
evidence, they must sample it prior to disposal. Depending
on the case, clothing and bedding might not be analyzed.
With this legislation, all items are identified for
biological importance in the crime laboratory. The change
induces a dramatic increase in the number of samples
retained and evidence submitted. He mentioned the additional
funds required for storage space and an employee responsible
for sample collection and additional workload associated
with the bill.
9:43:54 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested information regarding the
attached fiscal note. He asked about integration of the
crime laboratory. Mr. Dym responded that additional storage
space is necessary regardless of when the new crime
laboratory is constructed. He explained the need for
additional personnel to aid in sampling the evidence prior
to disposal. He opined that the provided fiscal note offers
the best estimate with the best vision of the future.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for justification of the travel
request. Mr. Dym explained the travel request was for agency
training regarding proper storage of evidence. The
requirements for an accredited laboratory include the proper
storage and handling of evidence. He stressed the importance
of sharing the knowledge with the state's user base, which
requires travel.
9:46:22 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if a task force was necessary to the
process of the legislation. Mr. Dym explained that he was
not responsible for the requisition of a task force. Senator
French stated the necessity of the task force because the
obligation is new for both the crime labs and police
departments across the state. He suggested a careful,
considerate, and collaborative process for a beneficial
beginning. Co-Chair Stedman asked if the task force was
suggested at the request of the department or through the
creation of the bill. Senator French answered that the
creation of a task force existed in the initial language of
the bill.
Senator Olson asked about private laboratories that might
store and process the samples without the cost of a new
facility. Senator French answered that state prosecution
evidence must be housed in a state facility. He suggested
that expanding the existing crime laboratory without
building a new $100 million facility may suffice.
9:48:27 AM
Senator Olson asked about the American Civil Liberties
Union's (ACLU) standpoint regarding the proposed
legislation. Senator French stated that the Department of
Law (DOL) was in support of the bill because this process
offers the ability to prove guilt versus innocence.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the department supports the bill.
Ms. Stancliff answered that yes the Departments of Law and
Public Safety support the bill. Senator French clarified
that ACLU also supports the bill.
9:50:01 AM
Senator Huggins asked about the detractors of the bill.
Senator French responded that resistance, rather than
outright detraction existed from agencies commanded to
retain evidence. He stated that concerns of police chiefs
across the state were since alleviated.
Senator Huggins asked about prisoners and the bill. He asked
if prisoner's DNA was obtained. Senator French stated that
the bill does not address prisoners. He understood that
previous legislation addressed DNA obtained from prisoners.
Senator Huggins asked about Page 3, Line 21 and the term
"unintentional." He asked why not substitute the term
"intentional." Senator French understood the concern
initially. He explained the meaning of the word
"unintentional", as "only intentional destruction of
evidence can result in civil liability." Anything short of
intentional destruction of evidence can result in civil
liability.
9:52:26 AM
Senator Thomas asked why the DNA retained in the record is
retained while the paper record is destroyed.
Senator French explained that Senator Thomas is referring to
the data base. He explained that a swab is obtained from a
prisoner and analyzed in the laboratory which then takes the
sequence of DNA genes for entry into a database where the
information sits as a method of generating evidence. The
data is then purged if the person is found innocent. He
stated that the DNA is retained because it is personal and
valuable information.
9:54:16 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
explained that the adoption of the obligations for the state
police required much work. She stated that the bill does not
change the reasons for the DNA collection. She explained
that the legislature adopted a provision that allowed police
to obtain samples from those persons arrested for a felony.
The legislature also adopted a procedure for people arrested
for a felony not resulting in the collection of DNA. The
legislature neglected to provide removal from the DNA
database people who were arrested for a felony, charged with
it and acquitted after trial. This bill adopts that
procedure. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
recommended the adoption of the procedure for people
acquitted of a crime for removal their DNA from the
database.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the criminal division is in
support of the bill. Ms. Carpeneti answered yes.
9:56:28 AM
BILL OBERLY, ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT (testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He
stated that the support of strong evidence management helps
to solve cases. Regarding the task force, the data and
information gathered by the task force will allow for
necessary changes and improvements.
JOHN LUCKING, POLICE CHIEF SOLDOTNA (testified via
teleconference), in support of SB 110. He spoke of an
opposition letter, now null because Senator French and staff
have worked with the Department of Public Safety to overcome
initial concerns regarding liability of personnel and the
maintenance of bulky evidence. He voiced support for the
task force as an important component of the bill.
9:59:20 AM
Senator French concluded that he appreciated support for the
legislation.
SB 110 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Articles.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| Amendment_Explanation_CSSB 133(HSS).doc |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 171 Supt email Palmer.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| CSSB 171 Memo on changes 04072009.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| SB 171 Supt email Kajikawa.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| SB 171 Support Article JNU Empire.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| CSSB 171 Memo on changes 04092009.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| CSSB171(STA)-DOR-PFD-04-09-09.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| CSSB 171 CS Draft for Senate Finance.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| CSSB 133(HSS) - Amendment - 26-LS0489-P.2.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 - Revised Fiscal Note - 4-10-09.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| CS SB 177 Version E.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 171 Supt email Smith.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| SB 171 Supt Ltr Mason.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| SB 171 Supt Ltr Neher.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 171 |
| SB 177 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Supt Ltr KRSA.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Supt Ltr PCBA.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Supt Ltr SEAGO.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB110 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SB110 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SB177 Support Resolution.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |