Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/18/2019 01:30 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 | |
| SB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
2:12:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to
controlled substances; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; relating to reports of involuntary commitment;
amending Rule 6, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the progress of the bill. The committee
last heard the bill on April 16, 2019, when they adopted a
committee substitute (CS), [work order 31-GS1029\U], that makes
technical and conforming changes. Public testimony was heard and
is closed. Written testimony could be submitted to
senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov until the bill is reported from
committee, possibly that evening. He noted there were amendments
for the committee to consider.
2:13:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1029\U.4, Marx/Radford, 4/16/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 28, line 27, through page 29, line 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 27:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 34, line 28:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 34, line 29:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 35, line 4:
Delete "Section 48"
Insert "Section 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 35, line 7:
Delete "Section 50"
Insert "Section 49"
Page 35, line 8:
Delete "sec. 53"
Insert "sec. 52"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
2:13:56 PM
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Anchorage, explained that Amendment 1 removes
the provision in Section 43, which was an attempt to codify the
long-standing Alaska Supreme Court Ravin case `that allowed
people to maintain or keep small amounts of personal-use
marijuana in their homes. Given what has happened with
recreational marijuana, that section is not needed, he said.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for confirmation that everything else in the
amendment was just renumbering.
MR. HENDERSON answered correct.
2:15:35 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:15:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-
GS1029\U.3, Bruce/Radford, 4/16/19.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 30, line 29, through page 31, line 2:
Delete "center, or if a community residential
center [PRIVATE RESIDENCE BY ELECTRONIC MONITORING
UNDER AS 33.30.065. IF ELECTRONIC MONITORING] is not
available, at another appropriate place [IMPRISONMENT
UNDER (g)(1)(A) OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE SERVED AT A"
Insert "center or by electronic monitoring at a
private residence [BY ELECTRONIC MONITORING] under
AS 33.30.065. If a community residential center or
electronic monitoring at a private residence is not
available, imprisonment required under (g)(1)(A) of
this section may [SHALL] be served at another
appropriate place [A"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
2:16:10 PM
MR. HENDERSON explained that Amendment 2 brings the refusal
statute in Section 45 in line with the language used in the
primary DUI statute in Section 44. Using the same language
clarifies that the intent of the legislature is the same with
regard to ensuring that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
commissioner has the authority to place a person at a community
residential center (CRC) or use electronic monitoring for both
DUI and refusal.
2:17:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD articulated her concerns with electronic
monitoring, community residential centers, and halfway houses.
She asked if this was for just DUIs.
MR. HENDERSON clarified that it is only for DUI and refusal.
SENATOR REINBOLD said, "Okay, I'm okay with that."
CHAIR SHOWER noted the committee lost its quorum.
2:18:10 PM
At ease
2:45:48 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and noted the committee was
considering Amendment 2. He recognized that Senator Coghill was
present.
MR. HENDERSON restated his explanation of Amendment 2.
2:48:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:48:34 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 3 work order 31-
GS1029\U.8, Radford, 4/17/19.
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 32(STA)
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "relating to DNA testing;"
Page 13, lines 6 - 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, lines 7 - 8:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 34, line 9:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 34, line 11:
Delete "sec. 28"
Insert "sec. 26"
Page 34, line 12:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 27"
Page 34, line 13:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 34, line 14:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 29"
Page 34, line 15:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 34, line 16:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 34, line 17:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 34, line 25:
Delete "sec. 41"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 34, line 26:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 34, line 27:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 34, line 28:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 34, line 29:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 34, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 34, line 31:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 35, line 1:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 35, line 4:
Delete "Section 48"
Insert "Section 46"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 35, line 7:
Delete "Section 50"
Insert "Section 48"
Page 35, line 8:
Delete "sec. 53"
Insert "sec. 51"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
2:48:52 PM
MR. HENDERSON explained that Amendment 3 deletes the proposal to
create a new class A misdemeanor crime of failing to provide a
DNA sample upon arrest. Given the discussion this proposal has
generated, the Department of Law and law enforcement will take
more time to evaluate the need and potential effectiveness of
such a provision, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed disappointment with losing such a
large tool and warned that she would object and vote no.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his understanding that the amendment
prevents someone who would not otherwise be guilty of a crime
from being charged with a crime simply for refusing.
MR. HENDERSON said law enforcement and the Department of Law
determined they need to think about whether there is an
effective way, in addition to a court order, to encourage people
to submit a DNA sample.
2:52:06 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he looks at it as a personal rights issue. He
doesn't want to hold this as a hammer over someone who has not
otherwise committed a crime. He supports the amendment knowing
that it does not take away any of the tools that already exist
for law enforcement.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that he agrees with both Senator
Shower and Reinbold, which is problematic. He would like the
tool to be available, but he's uncomfortable with the idea that
people who are arrested and found to be innocent would be
charged with a separate crime for refusal. He said he'd support
the amendment and continued work to find an effective tool.
CHAIR SHOWER reiterated his interest in protecting
constitutional rights.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she agrees with protecting rights, but she
also supports collecting DNA swabs from anybody who is arrested
for a crime against a person.
CHAIR SHOWER assured her that DNA samples will be collected in
cases of crimes against a person.
2:56:16 PM
MR. HENDERSON confirmed that law enforcement will still be able
to seize DNA. But if the amendment passes, refusing to provide a
DNA sample will not be a separate crime.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the amendment prevents law enforcement
from charging sex offenders and child kidnappers that refuse to
submit a DNA sample with a class A misdemeanor.
MR. HENDERSON responded that removing bill Section 24
essentially leaves the law as is.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for clarification that the amendment
deletes sections [24 and 25] of the bill.
MR. HENDERSON answered yes; the amendments to AS 11.56.760 will
not go into effect but the statute itself will remain.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification that for all
practical purposes the amendment removes the new text.
MR. HENDERSON said that's correct; no changes will be made to
that statute.
3:00:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her understanding that law enforcement
will still be able to collect DNA, but refusal will not be a
misdemeanor.
MR. HENDERSON agreed.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed hope that this issue would be
revisited. She said she'd be the first to jump in line to carry
this tool, which can prevent wrongful convictions.
CHAIR SHOWER said everything is on the table for the entire
criminal package.
SENATOR MICCICHE recapped that under current law there is a
requirement to give a DNA sample for certain crimes but there is
no sanction for refusal. He offered his understanding that law
enforcement is able to obtain a DNA sample with a warrant.
MR. HENDERSON confirmed that law enforcement could seek a court
order to obtain the sample, using reasonable force if necessary.
SENATOR MICCICHE reiterated his interest in finding an effective
tool to motivate people to voluntarily give a sample. Waiting
for a warrant would probably add a couple of hours to the
process, he said.
MR. HENDERSON said that's correct and the committee discussion
caused the Department of Law to think about whether there is a
different way to motivate or incentivize someone to provide the
required DNA sample as opposed to a new criminal offense.
CHAIR SHOWER said this isn't finished and more data may be
forthcoming.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she likes the idea of imposing a new crime
for refusal because it's more efficient and it can help prevent
wrongful convictions. She indicated she was ready to move on.
3:04:19 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection and asked if there was
further objection.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Coghill, Micciche, and
Shower voted in favor of Amendment 3, and Senator Reinbold voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a 3:1 vote.
3:05:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 4 work order 31-
GS1029\U.7, Radford, 4/17/19.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 19, line 5:
Delete "AS 17.30"
Insert "AS 03.05, AS 17.30, and AS 17.38 [AS 17.30]"
Page 21, line 22, following "AS 17.30":
Insert "or AS 17.38"
Page 22, line 30, following "AS 17.30":
Insert "or AS 17.38"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that he and Senator Kawasaki worked
on the amendment to clarify that the changes to Title 11 do not
apply to either the legal marijuana or hemp industries. They
have heard a lot of concern and it is important to clarify the
two sections.
MR. HENDERSON said this adds industrial hemp and recreational
marijuana to the exceptions outlined in AS 17.30, the
pharmaceutical regulation statutes. Individuals engaged in those
activities would not be subject to criminal penalties outlined
in Title 11.71.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the administration supports the
amendment.
MR. HENDERSON replied the administration has no objection to the
amendment.
3:07:06 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further comment
or objection, he stated that Amendment 4 is adopted.
SENATOR MICCICHE requested the committee skip ahead to Amendment
6.
3:07:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 6 work order 31-
GSU1029\U.5, Radford, 4/17/19.
AMENDMENT 6
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 33, line 7:
Delete "1981"
Insert "2009"
3:07:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes. He said the right
to own a gun for people who have been involuntarily committed is
a question that goes back to 1981. Because it raises many
issues, he asked experts from the Department of Law and the
courts to discuss whether or not it is necessary to look back
that far.
MR. HENDERSON said this provision is about sharing data with the
court system that is otherwise confidential. When someone is
adjudicated mentally incompetent and committed to a mental
health institution, that information is generally confidential.
This amendment allows information going back to 1981 to be
transmitted from the court system to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) for inclusion into the national database. When
someone has been adjudicated mentally ill for the purpose of
this statute, it means that they are a prohibited person under
federal law. As a prohibited person under federal law, they are
not allowed to possess a firearm. It is no different from being
a felon. Felons are not entitled to possess a firearm, both
under federal and state law. A person found mentally incompetent
is also a prohibited person for purposes of federal law. As
originally drafted, SB 32 allows the court system to share that
data back to 1981.
3:11:14 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Services, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
explained that starting in October of 2014, the legislature
passed a bill requiring the court system to start sending all
mental commitment orders of 30 days or more to DPS so it would
be entered in that database. That statute was not retroactive
and the court has not released orders before 2014. The bill
would allow the court to go back to 1981 to find mental
commitment orders of 30 days or more and transmit those to DPS.
This would be a significant lift for the courts because records
that old are on microfiche and stored at different locations
around the state.
The fiscal notes show that it would take two project attorneys a
year or more to go through the 21,500 old probate commitment
cases to find which ones were 30 days or more and transmit those
to DPS. As to the question about how many cases would qualify,
she said there were 131 in 2015, 166 in 2016, 154 in 2017, and
97 in 2018. She said it's a policy call for the legislature, but
there would be no additional cost to look back to 2011 because
the cases would be on CourtView. If the lookback remains 1981,
she would ask to extend the effective date another year. The
court would not be able to gather this information by the end of
2019 as stipulated in the bill.
3:14:27 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, said DPS receives daily
reports of individuals who are involuntarily committed for 30 or
more days. They receive multiple reports daily of individuals
found incompetent or are in the process of being found competent
or incompetent to stand trial for criminal charges. The names
are entered into the state system and NICS so they are available
on a nationwide basis. She said the federal government wants all
states to submit this information and there is even stronger
federal legislation to tighten the restriction on handguns. The
NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) will have $25
million in grants that state courts can apply for and this
effort would be covered by the grants.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Kraly if she had anything to add.
3:17:01 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Human Services Section, Department of Law, Juneau, said she was
available to answer questions about the mental commitment
process related to SB 32 and how that might affect the decision
on the amendment.
CHAIR SHOWER said his intent had been to talk about the
amendment and then pull it, but now he wonders about that
decision.
SENATOR REINBOLD said it sounds like Ms. Meade supports the
amendment.
MS. MEADE clarified that the court has not taken a position on
the amendment, but it would be easier to provide the information
from 2011 forward as opposed to 1981. She reiterated that it is
a policy call.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if going back to 1981 would be
beneficial.
MS. MEADE said it's up to Department of Law to explain why they
want to look back to 1981. She believes it has something to do
with the federal government.
3:18:50 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the legal draft note mentions it
hails back to the 1993 Brady Act, which didn't come into effect
until 2014. The question was about equal protection. He asked if
mirroring the language on the reporting system would put the
state on the same journey as the federal government on the equal
protection question.
MR. HENDERSON asked if the question was about mirroring the
language back to 1993 as opposed to 1981.
SENATOR COGHILL said the question is whether it's more
appropriate to look from 2014 forward when the Brady Act took
effect.
MR. HENDERSON said under current law, everything from 2014
forward is submitted by the court. SB 32 seeks to look back
farther than 2014 because this is such powerful information and
because some of those individuals can be very dangerous. He said
those individuals are already prohibited under the law from
possessing a firearm. He said this law is designed to prevent
people who are mentally ill and who have been committed as being
mentally ill from possessing firearms.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested the Finance Committee look at both a
near and far step-in date.
MR. HENDERSON said DOL is working with the court to create a
workable effective date.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Mr. Henderson if he supports the
amendment.
MR. HENDERSON replied it has been the administration's position
that this should be retroactive to 1981. That is the date the
mental commitment process was enacted by Alaska statute.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked why a clerk can't do the look back
instead of a lawyer.
MS. MEADE said it requires deciphering earlier cases and looking
at the statutes and how they've changed. There has to be
assurance that due process was afforded in the case and that
takes some analysis.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Mr. Henderson if the information would be
worth the effort.
3:24:04 PM
MR. HENDERSON said there has been a widespread societal decision
that certain individuals should not have access to firearms and
this would be an effective tool to keep firearms out of the
hands of those individuals. This amendment is designed to make
sure that the people who are already prohibited do not have
access to new firearms.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what happens when a commitment is less than
30 days.
MS. MEADE said the more commonly ordered mental commitment is a
three-day hospitalization. Those orders aren't sent to the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) and those individuals are not
restricted from possessing firearms. Responding to a question
from the chair, she reiterated that this only applies to
commitments of 30 days or longer.
CHAIR SHOWER followed up on Senator Coghill's comments asking if
there was any data to show that the longer it's been since a
person received mental health treatment, the less likely they
would be to commit a crime that is related to their mental
health.
MR. HENDERSON suggested he ask Ms. Kraly and Ms. Monfreda. He
didn't know if that data was available.
MS. MEADE said she didn't believe there was any data to show
that someone who was mentally committed in 2000, for example,
should still be disqualified from buying a firearm because they
are still a threat. Without data, it would be up to the
legislature to make the policy call.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it would matter because of the supremacy
of federal law
MR. HENDERSON said this isn't about the legal status of any one
individual. The question here is whether the federal firearm
[licensor] will have access to check NICS to see if the
applicant is a prohibited person.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Monfreda if she had anything to add.
3:27:54 PM
MS. MONFREDA offered her perspective that keeping guns out of
the hands of people who are mentally ill will also help reduce
the number of suicides. She added that she is personally
frustrated that pseudonyms are sometimes used when court cases
involving mental health hospitalizations are reported. She cited
a specific example and said that makes it impossible to know
whether the person is in NICS.
MS. KRALY said she can't add anything because DOL does not have
the data that Senator Shower is requesting.
CHAIR SHOWER said his sense is that the date should be changed.
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that there should be a cost benefit
analysis to find out if it's worth looking back to 1981.
MR. HENDERSON said part of the issue is that the Department of
Law doesn't know how many cases there are. However, as Ms.
Monfreda described, there are federal grant monies available
because this is a priority for the administration and the
Department of Justice.
CHAIR SHOWER asked how much the state could expect to receive.
MS. MONFREDA replied there has been $25 million in NARIP grant
funding every year for the last four years and there will be $25
million this year. As she explained earlier, it's necessary for
a state to have a law that allows for restoration of rights. The
states that don't have that law are ineligible. She said the
entire $25 million has not been distributed each year so it's
likely Alaska will get what it asks for and recover the cost.
3:32:05 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner and
legislative liaison, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
Anchorage, stated that the federal grant funds were the result
of the NICS Act Records Improvement Program (NARIP), which was
enacted as a result of the Virginia Tech shooting. The person
who committed that crime had a prohibited mental health history
and purchased his firearm through a federally licensed dealer.
His prohibited mental health records were not in the NICS
database. Had they been, he would not have been able to purchase
the firearm that he did.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the state had everything in place to apply
for the grant.
MS. HOWELL answered yes and DPS has received funds through the
NICS Act Records Improvement Program already.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Ms. Meade whether the court can do this.
MS. MEADE answered yes. She corrected her earlier statement in
regard to Senator Reinbold's question. The court's fiscal note
shows the project would require range 14A employees, not
attorneys. She was misremembering because they do need someone
with the ability to discern certain things in the files, she
said. To look back to 1981, the fiscal note is $140,400. She
said the court would be reluctant to pull the fiscal note on the
promise of a federal grant.
SENATOR REINBOLD listed potential efficiencies. She said she
believes this is a very good idea because it helps protect law-
abiding people who are not mentally ill to keep their guns.
SENATOR COGHILL said he accepts what the court said, but data
analytics is a two-edged blade. If focus is maintained on the
bad guys, that's good, but it can be misused.
3:36:12 PM
At ease
3:36:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and withdrew his objection.
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew Amendment 6.
3:37:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 5 work order 31-GS1029\U.9,
Radford, 4/17/19.
AMENDMENT 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 2, following "probation;":
Insert "relating to driving while license
canceled;"
Page 24, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. AS 12.25.180(a) is amended to read:
(a) When a peace officer stops or contacts a
person for the commission of a class C felony offense,
a misdemeanor, or the violation of a municipal
ordinance, the officer may, in the officer's
discretion, issue a citation to the person instead of
taking the person before a judge or magistrate under
AS 12.25.150, except the officer
(1) may arrest if
(A) [(1)] the person does not furnish
satisfactory evidence of identity;
(B) [(2)] the peace officer reasonably
believes the person is a danger to others;
(C) [(3)] the crime for which the person is
contacted is one involving violence or harm to another
person or to property;
(D) [(4)] the person asks to be taken
before a judge or magistrate under AS 12.25.150; or
(E) [(5)] the peace officer has probable
cause to believe the person committed a crime
involving domestic violence; in this subparagraph
[PARAGRAPH], "crime involving domestic violence" has
the meaning given in AS 18.66.990;
(2) shall arrest if the crime for which the
person is contacted is one involving driving while a
license is canceled, suspended, revoked, or in violation of
a limitation, as provided under AS 28.15.291."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 29, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 45. AS 28.15.291(b) is amended to read:
(b) Driving while license canceled, suspended,
revoked, or in violation of a limitation is
[(1)] a class A misdemeanor [IF THE PERSON
VIOLATES (a)(1) OF THIS SECTION]; upon conviction, the
court shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of
not less than 10 days
(1) [(A)] with 10 days suspended if the person
has not been previously convicted under (a)(1) of this
section or a similar law of another jurisdiction; or
(2) [(B)] if the person has been previously
convicted under (a)(1) of this section or a similar law in
another jurisdiction [;
(2) AN INFRACTION IF THE PERSON VIOLATES (a)(2)
OR (3) OF THIS SECTION].
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Act."
Insert "Act;
(36) AS 12.25.180(a), as amended by sec. 36 of
this Act;
(37) AS 28.15.291(b), as amended by sec. 45 of
this Act."
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 34, line 25:
Delete "sec. 41"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 34, line 26:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 34, line 27:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 34, line 28:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 34, line 29:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 34, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 34, line 31:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 35, line 1:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 35, line 4:
Delete "Section 48"
Insert "Section 50"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 35, line 7:
Delete "Section 50"
Insert "Section 52"
Page 35, line 8:
Delete "sec. 53"
Insert "sec. 55"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
3:37:36 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that the goal of Amendment 5 is to
discuss returning to "may" arrest or moving forward to "must"
arrest for someone driving without a license. Current law
provides that a police officer who stops a person for committing
an infraction or a violation shall issue a citation instead of
taking the person before a judge or magistrate except the
officer may arrest under certain circumstances. The amendment
contemplates "shall" arrest for a person driving while their
license is canceled, suspended, revoked, or in violation of a
limitation as provided under AS 28.15.291. He acknowledged that
a conceptual amendment may be necessary.
MR. HENDERSON said the two aspects of Amendment 5 are the
substantive change to the law and the arrest statute. He said
DPS would be better suited to describe the day-to-day impacts of
mandatory arrest for driving while license suspended.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Mr. Henderson to talk about why the
Department of Law doesn't believe Section 36 is necessary.
MR. HENDERSON explained that Section 36 is unnecessary because
the decision of whether or not to arrest should be at the
discretion of the officer at the time. Page 2, lines 1-3, of the
amendment has the mandatory arrest and that is where DOL has
concern about the impact on the day-to-day operations of law
enforcement.
MR. HENDERSON said Amendment 5 also inserts new Section 45 to
return driving with license suspended to a class A misdemeanor
and impose a ten-day mandatory minimum. Providing some
background, he explained that under Senate Bill 91, driving with
license suspended, cancelled, or revoked changed from a class A
misdemeanor to a violation if it was based on an administrative
revocation. It remained a class A misdemeanor if it was based on
a DUI revocation. Amendment 5 reverts to a class A misdemeanor
for driving with license suspended regardless of the underlying
premise of the revocation. It also creates the not less than ten
days with ten days suspended for the first offense and then a
mandatory minimum of ten days for the second offense. He said if
the committee moves forward and makes driving with suspended
license a class A misdemeanor, additional changes to AS
28.15.291 must occur. He deferred to Ms. Meade to explain.
3:42:54 PM
MS. MEADE said if the committee makes the policy call to return
all driving with license suspended to a class A misdemeanor, it
will be necessary to make changes to AS 28.15.291(a). That
section differentiates between the treatment for DUI driving
with license suspended and driving with license revoked or
suspended for any other reason. Senate Bill 91 left driving with
licensed suspended as a class A misdemeanor for DUI but made it
be an infraction for anybody else. Statutory changes would be
necessary to ensure that the statute as a whole reads
appropriately.
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that someone driving with license
suspended because of a DUI is well aware of the suspension, but
someone driving with a license revoked because they didn't pay
child support may not be aware. The question was about
culpability and knowledge of the revocation. The decision at
that time was that a fine was better than an arrest whereas an
arrest was appropriate for knowingly driving with license
suspended.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she too had been working on this issue.
SENATOR MICCICHE said it's the main issue in many crime meetings
he's had, but he is more concerned about law enforcement's
perspective.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked the sponsor for the amendment and asked
if "shall" arrest on page 2, line 1, was the key.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he wanted to clarify the intent. The
violation isn't working because people keep driving after
multiple violations. He was looking for a way to separate people
who may have had their license cancelled or revoked for some
reason that may not be related to driving and it's been
difficult.
SENATOR COGHILL said his understanding is that Senator Micciche
thinks the best thing to do is to remove people who drive with
several infractions from the road. He suggested that the "shall"
arrest language will probably need a qualifier.
SENATOR MICCICHE agreed.
3:48:47 PM
CORNELIUS SIMS, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS) expressed a preference for the term "may"
arrest to give officers discretion to take the totality of the
circumstances into consideration. He distinguished between
stopping a parent with a car full of kids and finding they were
driving with license suspended and stopping somebody and
learning that the person was driving with license suspended and
that they had multiple offenses on their driving record.
CHAIR SHOWER warned that he was going to play devil's advocate.
He asked if there was a way to achieve the sponsor's intent of
taking people driving with license suspended off the road and
ensuring there was some consequence for their behavior, without
overburdening the already very busy troopers.
LIEUTENANT SIMS said before the law changed, officers were
taking people with serious and multiple driving while license
revoked (DWLR) offenses off the road because they weren't
learning from the citations that they previously received or
prior court appearances. He opined that officers would use
discretion appropriately and take people with multiple DWLRs to
jail.
3:53:35 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that officers have the right to
arrest today when someone is driving with a revoked or suspended
license. He asked what tool troopers need to get a driver off
the road that doesn't fit under AS 12.25.180 right now.
LIEUTENANT SIMS responded that troopers are alerted through the
DMV system that somebody's license is suspended or revoked. He
related his experience of stopping people who admitted that they
knew their license was suspended or revoked and taking many of
them to jail. He said the committee talked about the lines that
would need to be changed to differentiate between sentencing and
when it becomes more of an infraction, but he didn't recall the
location. He offered his perspective that fewer arrests were
made after that change in the law. Before, the officers had
discretion.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he was saying it would take care of
the issue to leave the changes to Section 36 in place and change
the word "shall" to "may" in the amendment.
LIEUTENANT SIMS answered yes.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he was also suggesting leaving the 20
differences on page 29.
LIEUTENANT SIMS replied the change would be from "shall" to
"may."
3:58:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she would not support that because she
wants officers to arrest somebody who is driving with a
cancelled, suspended, or revoked license. A small fine doesn't
work and only the threat of arrest will stop defiant thrill
seekers who endanger the lives of others. She recounted her
experience in an accident that was not her fault but resulted in
her car being totaled. The woman was driving with kids in a car
that was not titled and had bad brakes. She opined that the
officer used terrible judgement when he let the woman drive off
with the children. She said the police need to be held
accountable and that's why she she's so supportive of the
amendment, with the caveats that DOL and the courts did by
splitting sections a and b.
SENATOR COGHILL said he understands why the officer asked for
"may" because there are many administrative revocations that
have nothing to do with driving. People should be held
accountable for things like not paying child support but there
are other options than revocation. He said "may" probably offers
that discretion but the amendment makes it a class A misdemeanor
so the potential for jail time does arise. He asked Mr.
Henderson to list the administrative revocations.
MR. HENDERSON said he would follow up with the information. He
added that returning all driving with license suspended to a
class A misdemeanor will send a message to law enforcement to
reprioritize this offense because it was deprioritized when it
became a violation. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and the
judiciary follow the priorities of the legislature, he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the discretionary term "may" sends a
message that the legislature wants officers to arrest for the
nonadministrative infractions.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested the language specify "shall" arrest for
non-administrative infractions and "may" arrest for
administrative infractions.
SENATOR MICCICHE solicited Mr. Henderson's view of splitting
administrative and non-administrative penalties.
4:05:33 PM
MR. HENDERSON asked if the committee wanted all driving with
license suspended to be a class A misdemeanor; whether they
wanted the arrest to be mandatory or discretionary; and whether
they wanted two types of arrests for DWLS - DUI and non-DUI. He
suggested that driving while license suspended because of DUI
should be a mandatory arrest. If driving with license suspended
because of an administrative revocation remained a violation, no
change would be required.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's hearing that the committee wants to
ramp up to a misdemeanor, which would require a change. He asked
if AS 28.15.291(b) applies to just the DUI laws.
MR. HENDERSON replied it is the motor vehicle licensing
provision. Whether the committee wants driving while license
suspended to be a violation or a misdemeanor is a policy
decision which will drive the question of mandatory or
discretionary arrest. "I think you have to flip them and answer
them separately," he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he wanted to get this right but wondered
if there was a way to do this today.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested changing "shall" to "may" on page 2,
line 1 of the amendment. That requires an action and increases
the penalty to a misdemeanor.
4:10:08 PM
At ease
4:29:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and explained that the
discussion during the at ease was about the path forward and
that the decision was to withdraw Amendment 5.
4:30:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 5, 31-
GS1029\U.9.
4:30:20 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 8, work order 31-GS1029\U.14,
Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 8
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 2, following "probation;":
Insert "relating to driving while license
canceled;"
Page 24, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. AS 12.25.180(a) is amended to read:
(a) When a peace officer stops or contacts a
person for the commission of a class C felony offense,
a misdemeanor, or the violation of a municipal
ordinance, the officer may, in the officer's
discretion, issue a citation to the person instead of
taking the person before a judge or magistrate under
AS 12.25.150, except the officer
(1) may arrest if
(A) [(1)] the person does not furnish
satisfactory evidence of identity;
(B) [(2)] the peace officer reasonably
believes the person is a danger to others;
(C) [(3)] the crime for which the person is
contacted is one involving violence or harm to another
person or to property;
(D) [(4)] the person asks to be taken
before a judge or magistrate under AS 12.25.150; or
(E) [(5)] the peace officer has probable
cause to believe the person committed a crime
involving domestic violence; in this subparagraph
[PARAGRAPH], "crime involving domestic violence" has
the meaning given in AS 18.66.990;
(2) shall arrest if the crime for
which the person is contacted is one involving
driving while a license is canceled, suspended,
revoked, or in violation of a limitation, as
provided under AS 28.15.291."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 29, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 45. AS 28.15.291(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of driving while
license canceled, suspended, revoked, or in violation
of a limitation if the person drives [(1)] a motor
vehicle on a highway or vehicular way or area at a
time when that person's driver's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license has been
canceled, suspended, or revoked in this or [UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN AS 28.15.181(c) OR A
SIMILAR LAW IN] another jurisdiction, [; (2) A MOTOR
VEHICLE ON A HIGHWAY OR VEHICULAR WAY OR AREA AT A
TIME WHEN THAT PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE, PRIVILEGE TO
DRIVE, OR PRIVILEGE TO OBTAIN A LICENSE HAS BEEN
CANCELED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
OTHER THAN THOSE DESCRIBED IN (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION;]
or the person drives [(3)] in violation of a
limitation placed on that person's license or
privilege to drive in this or another jurisdiction.
"* Sec. 46. AS 28.15.291(b) is amended to read:
(b) Driving while license canceled, suspended,
revoked, or in violation of a limitation is
[(1)] a class A misdemeanor [IF THE PERSON
VIOLATES (a)(1) OF THIS SECTION]; upon conviction, the
court shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment
of not less than 10 days
(1) [(A)] with 10 days suspended if the
person has not been previously convicted under (a)(1)
of this section or a similar law of another
jurisdiction; or
(2) [(B)] if the person has been previously
convicted under (a)(1) of this section or a similar
law in another jurisdiction [;
(2) AN INFRACTION IF THE PERSON VIOLATES
(a)(2) OR (3) OF THIS SECTION]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Act."
Insert "Act;
(36) AS 12.25.180(a), as amended by sec. 36
of this Act;
(37) AS 28.15.291(a), as amended by sec. 45
of this Act;
(38) AS 28.15.291(b), as amended by sec. 46
of this Act."
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 34, line 25:
Delete "sec. 41"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 34, line 26:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 34, line 27:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 34, line 28:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 34, line 29:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 48"
Page 34, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 34, line 31:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 35, line 1:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 35, line 4:
Delete "Section 48"
Insert "Section 51"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 35, line 7:
Delete "Section 50"
Insert "Section 53"
Page 35, line 8:
Delete "sec. 53"
Insert "sec. 56"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
4:30:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to conceptually amend Amendment 8.
SENATOR COGHILL offered a suggestion about the process to
conceptually amend an amendment.
4:31:23 PM
CHAIR SHOWER withdrew his objection to Amendment 8.
4:31:51 PM
At ease
4:32:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
4:32:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 8.
Page 1, line 4 through page 2, line 6:
Delete all language.
Page 2, line 29:
Delete (1) following (a).
Page 2, line 30:
Delete (1) following (a).
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that these changes return the
discretion to arrest to the officer and returns the penalty for
driving without a license to a misdemeanor, which is what the
law was prior to passage of Senate Bill 91.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion or objection and stated
that the conceptual amendment to Amendment 8 is adopted.
Amendment 8, as amended, was before the committee.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would like to hear what Public Safety
has to say about the amendment.
4:34:06 PM
MS. HOWELL advised that DPS agrees with the recommendation to
give troopers and all law enforcement the discretion to care for
those circumstances where arrest may not be appropriate. It will
certainly be a tool to help them enforce the law and arrest when
the circumstances warrant. DPS supports his amendment.
SENATOR REINBOLD voiced a preference for mandatory arrest citing
her "two horrible experiences with cops in Juneau." She said
neither accident was her fault and she'd like law enforcement
officers to be held more accountable. She asked if anything else
in that section would improve public safety.
MS. HOWELL replied she didn't believe so. Returning the law to
what it was pre-Senate Bill 91 will satisfy the concerns of law
enforcement that they weren't able to arrest when it seemed
appropriate to do so.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for assurance that this returns a
significant tool to law enforcement.
MS. HOWEL confirmed that it would.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for clarification that if officers see
something [in a car they have stopped], they have probable cause
[to look further].
MS. HOWELL deferred to the Department of Law.
4:36:34 PM
MR. HENDERSON said the basic premise is that if officers are
investigating driving with license suspended and they make a
stop, that is the scope of the investigation. If they see
something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an
additional crime has been or is being committed, that
establishes the potential for probable cause to take further
action. He said an important distinction is that the
investigation can only be expanded if other evidence comes forth
during the processing of that stop.
CHAIR SHOWER wanted it to be clear that if an officer pulls
somebody over and other things are discovered, that takes the
stop to another level.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that it is not the intent that
officers will use that stop to look around for something else.
That would be unconstitutional. He agreed that officers
currently have the discretion to arrest if they have probable
cause.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wants to make sure that this addresses
the concerns the police have been voicing in Kenai and
elsewhere. If they need something more to stop criminal
activity, I want to give it to them, she said. "I want to make
sure we're giving them a tool to take that next step if we need
to."
4:39:47 PM
At ease
4:41:07 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. Finding no further comments
or objection, he stated that Amendment 8, as amended, is
adopted.
4:41:27 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 7 work order 31-GS1029\U.12,
Radford, 4/18/19].
AMENDMENT 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 32(STA), Draft Version "U"
Page 13, line 24, through page 14, line 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"(a) A person commits the crime of terroristic
threatening in the second degree if the person makes a
threat that
(1) places [KNOWINGLY MAKES A FALSE REPORT
THAT A CIRCUMSTANCE (1) DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE EXISTS
OR IS ABOUT TO EXIST AND (A)] a person [IS PLACED] in
reasonable fear of serious physical injury to any
person with reckless disregard that the threat may
cause
(A) the [; (B) CAUSES] evacuation of a
building, public place or area, business premises, or
mode of public transportation;
(B) [(C) CAUSES] serious public
inconvenience; or
(C) the public or a substantial group of
the public to be in fear of serious physical injury
[(D) THE REPORT CLAIMS THAT A BACTERIOLOGICAL,
BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, OR RADIOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE THAT
IS CAPABLE OF CAUSING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY HAS BEEN
SENT OR IS PRESENT IN A BUILDING, PUBLIC PLACE OR
AREA, BUSINESS PREMISES, OR MODE OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION]; or
(2) causes any person to reasonably believe
that a circumstance exists or is about to exist that
is dangerous to the proper or safe functioning of an
oil or gas pipeline or supporting facility, utility,
or transportation or cargo facility; in this
paragraph, "oil or gas pipeline or supporting
facility" and "utility" have the meanings given in
AS 11.46.495."
Page 34, line 9:
Delete "repealed and reenacted"
Insert "amended"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR SHOWER explained that Amendment 7 addresses the concerns
about terroristic threats that Legislative Legal Services
articulated. It mitigates the objections the committee had that
simply communicating a threat could be a class C felony. It
establishes boundaries by saying a person makes the threat with
reckless disregard of the potential causes.
He noted the need for a conceptual amendment to insert "or
emergency protocol" on line 9 following "evacuation." This would
cover institutions like schools that have lockdown procedures
instead of building evacuations. The idea is to cast the net but
not so broadly that it would cover things that were not intended
like the bar fight and heat of the moment threat to kill
someone, which was discussed during an earlier hearing.
4:42:55 PM
At ease
4:43:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
4:43:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 7.
Following "evacuation" On page 1, line 9:
Insert "or emergency protocol" following
"evacuation."
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes. He reiterated
that the added language recognizes that some schools and other
places follow lockdown procedures as opposed to evacuation.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion or objection and stated
that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 is adopted. He asked
if there were questions or comments on Amendment 7, as amended.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for clarification that the "and" was
removed.
MR. HENDERSON said that is correct. "We have reformatted and
reorganized to avoid that issue that we talked about at the last
committee," he said.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that it was a good addition.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion or objection and
Amendment 7, as amended, was adopted.
4:45:42 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there was final discussion and stated his
intent to move the amended bill from committee that day.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked where she could find the 7 day provision.
MR. HENDERSON said he believes it's in Section 12 on page 7 of
the CS.
CHAIR SHOWER agreed.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for an explanation of the exact meaning.
MR. HENDERSON explained that Section 12 overall contains
amendments to crimes of vehicle theft in the first degree.
Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) are two separate ways somebody can
commit that crime. Subsection (a)(1) addresses the situation of
a person that, without authorization, drives, tows away, or
takes a car, truck, motorcycle, motor home, bus, aircraft, or
watercraft of another person. That is the most common vehicle
theft. Subsection )a)(2) addresses the scenario of taking a
propelled vehicle, such as an ATV, that belongs to another
person. The crime may deprive the owner of the use of their
vehicle for seven days or more. It is the long deprivation of
the use of the property that helps the prosecution prove the
case. He said that is prima facie evidence of intent to
permanently deprive. The circumstantial evidence is that the
person intends to steal the vehicle.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for examples of both scenarios.
4:49:39 PM
MR. HENDERSON said subsection (A)(1) might be a person who
steals a car from a driveway without permission. Subsection
(a)(2)(C) might be a person who takes a snow machine or an ATV
from someone's cabin and the owner finds it after the person had
it for seven or more days. He said the 7 days is another way to
prove the element.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if somebody who steals a car for just an
hour could be convicted under subsection (a)(1) and somebody who
steals an ATV for an hour could be convicted under subsection
(a)(1). But the person could also be convicted under subsection
(a)(2) if the ATV was stolen for seven days or more.
MR. HENDERSON said that's correct; subsection (a)(2) talks about
additional ways to prove the element.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked why propelled vehicle isn't in subsection
(a)(1).
MR. HENDERSON said he would need to research the legislative
history before giving an answer. He reminded the committee that
when the value of the property is over $750, there is also the
crime of theft in the second degree so there are multiple ways
of proving that theft.
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that if a vehicle is stolen for a
little while but it isn't damaged and doesn't cost the owner
anything while it's gone, it's just basic theft. He asked why
that is viewed differently when a propelled vehicle may be
somebody's primary source of transportation in Alaska.
MR. HENDERSON clarified that if somebody were to steal an ATV
out of another person's driveway, the charge would be theft in
the second degree, which is a class C felony and the same level
of offense as vehicle theft. If somebody was convicted of both,
the sentences would be merged
4:52:34 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented on the serious nature of vehicle
theft in Alaska and asked if there was any thought about
elevating that crime to a class B felony.
MR. HENDERSON answered no; that precise question was not
considered.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that this bill seems to be an
appropriate vehicle to fix some of the crime issues that
Alaskans are facing. He questioned why elevating the crime for
vehicle theft wasn't considered.
MR. HENDERSON said the administration will think about that.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested it be addressed in the Finance Committee.
SENATOR REINBOLD said two years ago she was very thankful when
she successfully amended Senate Bill 54 to add jail time on a
first-time class C felony. One other amendment she proposed was
to elevate the crime of vehicle theft to a class B felony. She
asked Mr. Henderson if he agrees that somebody can be charged
with a class B felony for car theft if the vehicle is valued
over $25,000.
MR. HENDERSON answered yes.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she proposed the amendment as a matter of
equity and she'd support amending this bill to include that
provision.
4:56:58 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he was sorry to miss the debate and rewrite
on the drug portion of the bill. He appreciates that the bill is
removing the escalator of the CPI from the theft provision. He
appreciates many of the amendments to help those who have to
pick up people and those who have to charge them, but just
because something is in law doesn't mean it will happen as
intended. That may continue to be a frustration, he said. He
said he'll support the bill because of the increased penalty for
the use and distribution of methamphetamine because that was
something that the earlier crime bill didn't get quite right. He
said he doesn't know that he agrees with the total schedule
change, but there isn't time to debate it at this point. He
reiterated that he would support moving the bill along.
SENATOR MICCICHE commended the committee for its good work on
this key bill and noted that it was time to get it across the
finish line.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked everyone for their work on the bill and
asked the two members that also sit on the Finance Committee to
never forget the cost to the people. She said she would support
the fiscal note on the bill even though she is a massive budget
cutter.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked the committee for its work to get this
crime bill across the finish line.
SENATOR COGHILL recommended the Finance Committee address the
court rule change.
5:02:45 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSB 32, work order 31-GS1029\U
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s) and authorization for Legislative Legal
Services to make necessary technical and conforming changes.
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSB 32(STA) was reported
from Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS for SB 32 - Ver. U.pdf |
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Amendments.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Leg. Legal Memo.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Dept. of Law - Legal Memo Response.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Committee Questions.pdf |
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Dept. of Law - Response to Questions.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - All Department Fiscal Notes.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 75 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Ver. A.PDF |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Fiscal Note_DMV.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Letter of Support_Carlile.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Letter of Support_NIT.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Letter of Support_Local 302.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 75 Letter of Support_AFLCIO.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 75 |
| SB 97 - Sponsor Statement_.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Ver. A.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 - Sectional Summary.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 - Fiscal Note - DOT.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 32 - CHPA Letter of Opposition.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |