Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/12/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB23 | |
| SB24 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
4:22:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 33 "An Act relating to pretrial
release; relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program
credit toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to
electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
4:22:40 PM
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, introduced himself.
CHAIR SHOWER directed attention to the language in Section 2,
page 2, line 8 and questioned why the arrest provision doesn't
apply to peace officers generally. He also asked for
clarification of the difference in the definition for peace
officer versus police officer.
MR. HENDERSON said, regarding the first question, it would add
clarity to include VPSOs and VPOs certified under Title 18. In
practice, the troopers are generally involved when arrests are
made by VPSOs or VPOs and will be the public entity responsible
for getting the person to court within 24 hours. Municipal
police officers provide the service in the communities that the
troopers do not service. The answer to the second question is
much more complicated, he said. In part it's because peace
officer is defined in at least two places in the law.
4:27:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if people arrested by park rangers or
citizen's arrest are handed off to either a trooper or a
municipal police officer for the official arrest.
MR. HENDERSON responded that AS 12.25 talks about peace officers
and [AS 12.25.150] is the only place that limits the requirement
to municipal police officers. If that reference was changed to
"peace officer," any public servant authorized to make the
arrest would be obligated to bring the person to the magistrate
within 24 hours. Practically, municipal police officers and
troopers are the entities with the means and mechanisms to
ensure the person appears before the municipal officer. He noted
that VPSOs and VPOs are certified peace officers but may not
have the means or mechanism to ensure that person is transported
and appears before a judicial officer within 24 or 48 hours.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how an arraignment would be impacted if
the certified peace officer was weathered in and couldn't meet
the deadline for the arraignment. He asked if language should be
added to accommodate that scenario and not jeopardize the
arrest.
MR. HENDERSON said he'd like public safety to discuss how they
would manage that type of scenario.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that VPSOs don't have the same powers.
4:30:27 PM
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that the discussion on the timeline was
how to accommodate the right of people arrested to go before a
magistrate without unnecessary delay. The idea was also to have
someone explain to the magistrate or judge the reason the person
was arrested. He said he wants to include pretrial services
without delay and have the 48 hour limit as the backdrop. He
said he'd like to hear why the administration chose to put the
48 hour requirement first instead of last and eliminated the
extenuating circumstances language.
4:32:19 PM
MR. HENDERSON said the collective reference to 48 hours refers
to the constitutional obligation to ensure that a person
arrested is brought to court within a reasonable time. Under
U.S. Supreme Court case law, states are entitled to define the
boundaries of reasonable time. The bill sets 48 hours as the
maximum time. He said he has reason to believe that law
enforcement will make a reasonable effort to ensure that the
arrestee appears before a judge or magistrate as soon as
possible. Changing the maximum limit to 48 hours provides more
flexibility when there are extenuating circumstances.
CHAIR SHOWER said his office researched precedents for both 24
and 48 hours and the U.S. Supreme Court held in County of
Riverside v. McLaughlin that suspects must generally be brought
before a court within 48 hours of arrest. He noted the footnote
about court rule 5 on page 15 regarding the 24 hour rule with
the intention for 48 hours.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she's talked to a lot of people and many
think 72 hours is better than 48 hours because of courts not
being open over the weekend or court staff being unavailable,
and it could reduce the fiscal impact. She advised that she has
an amendment drafted for 72 hours.
4:34:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned whether running over 48 hours for an
initial hearing would be an issue.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there has been a problem getting
arrestees before a judge in 24 hours.
MR. HENDERSON said he can't think of a case where there was a
dismissal as a result of not meeting the 24 hour timeframe but
that's because the rule was set and that became the norm. The
bill returns to pre-2016 law to provide flexibility.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she'd like to hear from the court.
4:36:41 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Services, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
said the statute has gone back and forth between 24 hours and 48
hours, but with very few exceptions all defendants are arraigned
within 24 hours. There is a judicial officer on call at all
times on weekends. The only times people have not been arraigned
within 24 hours were the rare situations where the prosecutor
asked for more time to gather information for a bail hearing for
certain felonies. A more common reason for not meeting the
timeline is because the person was not in a medical condition to
appear in court. Intoxication is an example when cases could
extend to 48 hours. She said the court has not experienced any
problem with either 24 or 48 hours. Even if the rule was 48 the
arraignment would occur within 24 hours in almost every
situation, she said.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the proposed change to provide more
flexibility would be helpful for the court.
MS. MEADE replied the court hasn't had a problem with either 24
or 48 hours. Responding to the chair's summary, she agreed that
the change isn't needed based on current information.
4:38:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she'd like to reduce costs whenever
possible and that might include not requiring court staff to be
on call on weekends and holidays. She added, "I've definitely
heard a different opinion than what you just brought forth."
MS. MEADE said she can't identify any cost that is added by
having judges on call on the weekend because a judge must always
be on call for not only this but also things like emergency
domestic violence (DV) petitions or child in need of aid (CINA)
issues or search warrants. "So I can't identify any fiscal
impact from the timeframe," she said.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed surprise that there's no added cost
for work done on weekends.
MS. MEADE confirmed that judges and other staff don't get paid
extra to work on weekends. She added that she cannot speak for
the agencies.
MR. HENDERSON clarified that there will be a fiscal impact for
the Department of Law. The attorneys are salaried so their cost
is fixed but support staff is not a fixed cost.
CHAIR SHOWER requested the data that shows what the increased
cost might be if the timeline is increased.
MR. HENDERSON said he'd try to get the information.
4:41:14 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the committee should change the
definition of peace officers in this section.
MR. HENDERSON said he'd like to talk to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) before he gives a formal answer.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was willing to wait for the answer. He
then asked if a process exists today to apply for an extension
beyond 24 hours.
MR. HENDERSON answered yes. He noted the corresponding change in
Section 3 of the bill. He advised the committee should also keep
in mind that the change to 48 hours would be consistent with
Court Rule 5, which allows 48 hours.
SENATOR MICCICHE observed that unless somebody is arrested
between 5:00 pm on Friday and 6:00 am on Saturday, it seems that
a 48 hour timeframe negates the need for weekend services.
MS. MEADE said she understands the point but it's standard that
people call right away because of the constitutional right of
people to be seen without unnecessary delay. She also reiterated
that the court already has a judicial officer on call for many
purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that the question was for Mr.
Henderson who said the Department of Law would have to staff for
weekend calls.
MR. HENDERSON responded that 48 hours would alleviate the need
to staff for Saturday unless there is an arraignment, because
the prosecution is always present when arraignments occur.
4:43:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL advised that he had a comment on Section 2 and a
question about intent in Section 1. He explained that the
bookends for the 24 hour timeframe were to provide swift and
certain action and to recognize that there are good and bad
actors and that some governments are overzealous and others are
lazy. All these things have to be considered in context, he
said. "We were trying to get somebody in front of a judge so
that they have to answer, but they also have the right to
answer."
He asked Ms. Meade to comment on the intent language in Section
1 and discuss what the court is doing now to video conference
pretrial hearings.
4:45:06 PM
MS. MEADE responded that she has been discussing possible
language modifications in Section 1 and the corresponding rule
changes relating to video conferencing with the Department of
Law and they are considering those suggestions. She said she
raised her eyebrows a little when she read the intent language
because there is already a lot of video conferencing between the
court system and jails. The courts are 100 percent responsible
for that happening, she said, and 100 percent of the savings is
attributed to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). She
acknowledged that the legislative intent language does no harm
because the court will continue to work on finding efficiencies.
She listed the advantages of video conferencing including that
it is safer not transporting prisoners and not having them move
around in the courthouse, it's better for DOC because they no
longer have to search people when they leave and return to the
facility, and it's better for DPS fiscally. The court system is
dedicated to video conferencing and the Supreme Court has made
it a priority for [information services] staff to work on this.
She cited an example at the Anvil Mountain Correctional Center
to demonstrate that the court system purchases and maintains the
video conferencing equipment in the jails throughout the state
and will continue to do so. She noted that the executive branch
shares in the cost of the equipment but not the staff time.
She described the legislative intent language as acceptable but
not required.
SENATOR COGHILL opined that everyone should work to further
video conferencing not just the court system. He asked if the
language in the court rule change has to work in conjunction
with the intent language.
MS. MEADE responded that she has been talking to the Department
of Law about modifications in all three court rule changes. She
related that she suggested changing the intent language in
Section 1 to say that the Court System, the Department of Public
Safety, and the Department of Corrections continue to work on
increasing the use of video conferencing. The language in the
other court rules is modified a little to allow more discretion.
She talked about the work the Supreme Court has done to
carefully craft the video conferencing rule. She said the court
system carefully considered the changes proposed in the bill and
suggested modifications to reflect what the Supreme Court
believes ought to happen with video conferencing.
SENATOR COGHILL expressed interest in looking at the suggested
changes.
4:49:21 PM
MS. MEADE added that the Court System is reexamining their
fiscal note in light of this being a priority for the
administration and the legislature, and they may ask for funding
for the positions and equipment to continue to do this work.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if somebody who is arraigned by video
conference has counsel present.
MS. MEADE offered her understanding that there may not be
defense counsel present for arraignments in Fairbanks. She added
that whether counsel is present and has the ability to privately
consult with their client is one of the big problems associated
with video conferencing. To be approved, there has to be a
privately accessible phoneline and a room for private
conversations at DOC. This has been identified as a need in
Fairbanks and she didn't know if that had changed.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how a public defender would communicate
with a defendant who is arraigned by video conference. He
questioned whether they are being deprived of their right to
have counsel present in this circumstance.
MS. MEADE said she'll look into where and when the communication
happens. She reiterated that providing a means for the defense
to talk to their client is a sticking point with video
conferencing, and it's particularly important in subsequent
hearings. That's the reason video conferencing isn't available
in every jail.
4:52:08 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern about victims, that the
courts allow so many pretrial delays, that so many people are
released, and that tens of thousands of people are affected by
the horrible crime epidemic. "We need to do something about it."
SENATOR COGHILL commented that there are a couple of sides to
video conferencing. One is how quickly it's done and the other
is the right to counsel. In video conferencing somebody could be
intimidated or have a language barrier of some sort. He opined
that the intent language isn't wrong and expressed appreciation
for Ms. Mead's work on the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Shanigan to speak to the policy change of
taking pretrial services out of the probation section because he
has a broad law enforcement background and can provide the
perspective of someone on the street.
4:55:16 PM
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, stated that when he talked to corrections
officers about the pretrial services unit, he learned that it
was initially staffed both by seasoned corrections officers and
by people who had no experience in corrections. Many of the
corrections officers that were hired for the new unit had been
probation officers and that is how they are still classified,
although they perform the duties of pretrial services officers.
Corrections officers also pointed out the redundancy in current
law that separates people who perform pretrial services duties
and probation officers, because it essentially designates two
people to do one person's job. They suggested it would be more
streamlined if the duties of pretrial had been combined with the
duties of the probation officer. Their reasoning is that this
would take advantage of institutional knowledge.
MR. SHANIGAN said he's also asked people outside the system if
all parts of the pretrial services unit should be discarded and
the answer was no. The pretrial services duties addressed some
of the very good parts of Senate Bill 91. For example, the
pretrial services component allows some prevention activities in
a specialized situation. He said that may have a fiscal impact,
but the cost of pretrial services could be supported privately.
He directed attention to Section 15, line 18, that talks about
the powers of the commissioner and describes establishing a
probation system. Then Section 16 returns to talk about the
pretrial services officer. He described it as an uncomfortable
nuance to ask probation officers who still identify as such to
do pretrial work. He cautioned against losing the good elements
of the pretrial services unit in the responsibilities of the
commissioner. He pointed to Section 19 that adds a new section
titled "Duties of probation officers when acting as pretrial
services officers." and advised that it would be more accurate
to say, "Duties of probation officers when conducting pretrial
services responsibilities." This goes to the point that
probation officers are clear that they continue to be probation
officers even though they were performing pretrial services
duties.
CHAIR SHOWER drew an analogy between F15 pilots and F16 pilots.
F15C pilots are air to air; they specialize in one mission and
get very good at it. An A10 pilot specializes in air to ground
and they get very good at it. There are also a lot of platforms
that specialize in a lot of things and it's hard for those
people to be good at all the missions.
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the upcoming committee schedule.
5:02:45 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recessed the meeting to 6:00 pm.
6:11:58 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting and opened public testimony on SB 33.
6:12:19 PM
KATIE BOTZ, representing self, Juneau, asked if the committee
was taking testimony on repealing Senate Bill 91 or comments on
SB 33.
CHAIR SHOWER clarified the hearing was on SB 33.
MS. BOTZ responded that she wanted to testify about Senate Bill
91.
CHAIR SHOWER explained that the governor filed four bills this
year that relate to changes to Senate Bill 91 and Senator
Micciche filed one bill on the topic. He asked if she wanted to
testify on SB 33, which would change the law regarding arrest,
release, sentencing, and probation.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he can't apologize for the administration
for posting a very confusing Facebook note, but all [five]
bills relate to Senate Bill 91, they're just split up by topic.
He said you have expressed interest in SB 35 that relates to
sexual assault. SB 33 specifically relates to arrest and
pretrial bail issues. He suggested she give her view on the
Senate Bill 91 issue and the committee would consider the
message.
MS. BOTZ offered her understanding that there is lots of
confusion associated with Senate Bill 91 regarding police
officers and state troopers not being able to do their jobs. She
voiced support for returning to the "basic of what our state
troopers and what our police officers are supposed to do." That
is protect the people, keep criminals in prison, and ensuring
that communities are safe. She said the reports that police
officers and state troopers don't think they are able to do
their jobs adequately is very frustrating and it's reduced these
professionals' standing in the public's eye.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if she supports or opposes SB 33, which does
repeal portions of Senate Bill 91.
6:16:53 PM
MS. BOTZ replied, "I do support SB 33."
6:17:05 PM
MICHAEL VAN LINDEN, Alaska Therapeutic Court Alumni Group,
Juneau, Alaska, during the hearing on SB 33, stated that the
pretrial services unit helped funnel people into the previously
underutilized therapeutic court in Juneau to get the help they
needed. He said it's also important to not discriminate based on
the ability to post bail. He summarized his opinion is that the
pretrial services unit provides a great service that hasn't had
enough time to work. "We need to give this a little bit more
time before we start repealing anything."
6:18:41 PM
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator, Juneau Re-entry Coalition,
Juneau, advised that the history of this coalition is that it
was functioning prior to criminal justice reform and Senate Bill
91. When Senate Bill 91 was enacted, the coalition supported the
provisions that allow people that want to return to the
community and become productive members. The coalition supports
giving good tools like the pretrial assessment to the court to
make informed decisions. He said the evidence suggests that
anybody assessed as low risk is at increased risk to recidivate
if they are mixed with a high risk criminal population. The
coalition opposes this. He asked the committee to be mindful to
provide appropriate exit strategies for those who want to return
to their community and be participating members.
6:20:50 PM
ERIK REED, representing self, Wasilla, shared that on December
13, 2017 he and his family were struck by a drunk driver. His
wife was killed and he and his son survived but are left with
ongoing trauma. The drunk driver was released on third-party
monitoring and he said he feels that it would be a tragedy if
this man was able to apply his EM time against his ultimate
sentence. "He gets to spend all his time with his wife and kids
and his family, but my son and I, we have nothing. We go to PTSD
counseling every week." He said the focus seems to be on
rejuvenating criminals but they're not held accountable and the
victims are forgotten. He stressed the unfairness of the
process. He urged the committee to send a message that criminals
don't get out of jail free.
CHAIR SHOWER expressed condolences for his loss and assured him
the committee is considering that perspective.
6:25:08 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked Mr. Reed for his testimony and asked if
he supports SB 33.
MR. REED replied he supports anything that makes people
accountable for the crimes they are guilty of. He emphasized
that he doesn't support anything that doesn't hold people
accountable for their crimes.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he supports SB 33, "which takes it back
to, in many cases, pre-Senate Bill 91 arrest, release,
sentencing etc. Do you concur with that?"
MR. REED said yes.
6:26:39 PM
SAMANTHA LIGHT, representing self, MatSu, stated that SB 33 has
good parts and she agrees that the court needs to be more active
in timely case management. She voiced support for electronic
monitoring and related her son's story to demonstrate its
benefit. Parts of SB 33 that she doesn't support include the
rebuttable presumption. She worries that her 20-year-old son
won't be able to resume his life until age 35. She understands
that crime is rampant and she appreciates what the state is
doing to protect its citizens.
6:29:39 PM
KARA NELSON, representing self, Juneau, stated that she was
testifying in opposition to SB 33. Some of the reasons include
eliminating the credit while on electronic monitoring (EM).
There is no evidence that this will further public safety but it
will deter people from getting help. [technical difficulties]
She voiced support for the use of video conferencing for
pretrial hearings. However, SB 33 generally returns to a system
that does not work. She said she appreciates that the committee
is committed to avoid things that create harm such as bail that
people can't pay and long times in jail pretrial. She said there
is ample evidence showing this creates less public safety.
6:32:03 PM
ROBERT DORTON, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that
he opposes SB 33 primarily because it eliminates credit for
receiving rehabilitative services while on electronic monitoring
(EM). He shared that he was sent to prison on drug charges and
was released on electronic monitoring after three years. He
takes responsibility for what he's done and since he was granted
EM, he has done things to turn his life around. He acknowledged
that it is rare, but people do change their behavior and make
amends with their community. He listed the things he is doing
personally to live a better life. He has been drug-free for six
years and he credits Senate Bill 91 for his current success. He
urged the committee to give Senate Bill 91 another cycle.
6:35:12 PM
SCOTT OGAN, representing self, Seldovia, stated support for SB
33. He said he does not like the Alaska he lives in today
because of crime issues. He recounted the crimes he and his
family have suffered the last three years.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that his son in law's truck was broken into
last week while he was taking testimony on a crime bill.
6:36:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 33 and held the bill
in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB23 Follow up to SSA.3.6.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| LEG.PFD.Supplemental.SB23.SB24.2.8.19.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| Letter re SB 23 and SB 24 permanent fund dividend payments.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB23-24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23-24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23-24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Amendments.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 Amendments.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB0033A.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DOL-FN#1.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DPS-FN#2.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DOA-FN#3.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DOA-FN#4.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DOC-FN#5.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-DOC-FN#6.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB33-Court System-FN.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (In Favor) - additional final tally.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Organizations Opposed).pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Opposed) - additional final tally.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Various) - additional final tally.pdf |
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |