Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/27/2016 08:30 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB91 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2016
9:00 a.m.
9:00:15 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jordan Shilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill; Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Representative Matt
Claman; Representative Lora Reinbold; Representative Louise
Stutes; Representative Charisse Millett; Representative Liz
Vasquez.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Claire Sullivan, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Tracey Wollenberg, Deputy Public
Defender, Public Defender Agency; Doug Gardner, Attorney,
Legislative Legal Services.
SUMMARY
CSSSB 91(FIN) am
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
HCS CSSSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
forthcoming new fiscal notes as follows: two zero
fiscal notes from the Department of
Administration; one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Corrections; three fiscal impact
notes from the Department of Health and Social
Services; one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services; one
zero fiscal note from the Department of Public
Safety; one fiscal impact note from the
Department of Public Safety; one zero fiscal note
from the Alaska Judicial System; one fiscal
impact note from the Alaska Judicial System; one
zero fiscal note from the House Finance Committee
for the Department of Administration; four fiscal
impact notes from the Department of Corrections;
two fiscal impact notes from the House Finance
Committee for the Department of Corrections; and
one zero fiscal note from the Department of Law.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
9:01:37 AM
Representative Wilson looked at a summary of changes
["Summary of Changes Version V to T" (copy on file)] for
the recently adopted Committee Substitute (CS). She
referred to the following change shown on page 2 of the
summary:
Fines
Section 64 (ver. V)
Maintains the maximum fine for a Class A misdemeanor
at $10,000.
Representative Wilson elaborated that the maximum fine for
a Class A misdemeanor had been $25,000. She asked why the
fine had been changed to $10,000 in the new CS.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, replied that
the change would maintain existing law, which was $10,000.
Representative Wilson wondered why. Mr. Shilling replied
that he was uncertain why the maximum fine was $10,000 in
current law.
Representative Wilson explained that she was trying to
ascertain why it had been determined that the $25,000
figure should be reduced back to $10,000. Mr. Shilling
replied that he did not know why the decision had been made
to change the figure back to $10,000, but he believed there
may have been thought that $25,000 was excessive for a
Class A misdemeanor.
Representative Wilson stated that the reasoning would be
nice to know. She referred to page 38, lines 10 through 19
of the legislation and noted that it was an amendment she
had submitted. She asked for clarification on a 120-day
provision and what would occur if all six of the items on
page 38 were included:
(g) A court granting credit against a sentence of
imprisonment under (d) of this section may grant
credit of not more than 120 days against a total term
of imprisonment imposed for
1) a felony crime against a person under AS 11.41;
2) a crime involving domestic violence as defined in AS
18.66.990;
3) a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100;
4) an offense under AS 11.71 involving the delivery of
a controlled substance to a person under 19 years of
age;
5) burglary in the first degree under AS 11.46.300; or
6) arson in the first degree under AS 11.46.400.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, responded that one of the
concerns he had discussed about a cap on electronic
monitoring (EM) credit for mid-range to low-level offences
was that individuals out on bail release who were on EM
would potentially be working on a program that could extend
beyond 120 days (i.e. a program could extend to six or
eight months). He detailed that on mid-range to low-level
offences, if a person received a sentence of above 120 days
or six months, they would end up serving jail time after
they had kept their life together and worked on addressing
their issues while on EM. Therefore, the result would be
contrary to the intent of the bill, which was to promote
rehabilitation and treatment. The data indicated that the
risk of recidivism increased when individuals who were mid-
range to low-level risk went into jail for even 24 hours.
He furthered that even short periods of jail time could
derail a person's progress; it did not take more than a few
days in jail for a person to lose their job. He stated that
it became a cascading effect of losing a job, family, and
other. He stated that caps on the higher level offences may
not have the same affect; however, he would have concern
about the provision if it applied to mid-range offences.
9:05:44 AM
Representative Wilson asked which of the items in the
provision [page 38, lines 10 through 19] Mr. Steiner would
recommend deleting.
Mr. Steiner replied that he would remove items related to
the Class B felony range and lower - crimes against a
person, crimes involving domestic violence, burglary, and
potentially arson. He stated that those individuals,
especially in crimes against a person, may be the ones that
the provision would have the biggest impact on in terms of
public safety. He furthered that if the individuals
addressed their issues and recidivism went down, it was
about more than not using drugs and alcohol - additionally,
it was about not hurting people.
Representative Wilson relayed that the provision was her
amendment that had been placed in the CS. She had just
found out about the issues [Mr. Steiner was speaking to]
the prior evening. She referred to legislation she had
sponsored the prior session (HB 15) related to treatment
and the incentive to receive treatment while on EM. She
stated that the restrictions on what a person could and
could not do on EM were tight. She explained that concern
by the EM community was that without some caveat, the bill
had included a 120-day cap for everything, which would be
problematic. She agreed with Mr. Steiner and relayed that
she planned to offer a conceptual amendment later in the
meeting, which would delete items 1, 2, 5, and 6. She
stated that the whole point was about allowing treatment.
She did not want to undo the intent of her bill from the
prior session (HB 15).
Representative Gara spoke to a provision in the CS that he
believed may be unintentionally in the document. He
discussed that much of the bill would move towards
probation instead of long jail sentences for first-time
offenders. He stated that there had been no correlation
between longer jail sentences and reduction in recidivism
and there had been a correlation between longer jail
sentences and increasing recidivism. He asked for the
accuracy of his statements.
Mr. Shilling replied that the statements were mostly
accurate.
Representative Gara stated that the two facts were among
the reasons for the entire framework of the bill. He asked
if the statement was fair. Mr. Shilling agreed.
Representative Gara discussed that limited licenses were
granted to individuals with a felony DUI who undergo a
treatment program, but only if they had access to a
therapeutic court. He noted that he would offer an
amendment to address the individuals without access to a
therapeutic court. He remarked that the conditions for
getting a license back after jail time were significant
including a treatment program and the installation of an
interlock device in an offender's vehicle. He asked how
comfortable Mr. Steiner was with the list of conditions
imposed on the individuals that the state was protecting
public safety, while enabling individuals to be able to
drive and get back to work.
Mr. Steiner replied that there were substantial steps a
person had to take to get the limited license. He stated
that often people asked whether individuals were declared
"cured." He stated that it was not really possible. The
issue was whether a person had complied with the treatment
for issues that had brought them into contact with the
criminal justice system and had led to a DUI. He relayed
that it was necessary to balance the completion of a
program with the negative impact of not being able to
drive; the lack of work and lack of ability to work had its
own criminogenic effect, which could increase recidivism.
He believed that limiting the language to only therapeutic
courts was a bit restrictive; there was not access to
treatment for everyone around the state. Access to a
therapeutic court was limited further by the number of
placements and willingness to negotiate by the state to get
a resolution that puts a person in a therapeutic court. He
communicated that it would make sense if there was a way to
define some other treatment program that fit the
requirements and had evidence-based data of a successful
outcome for a good percentage of individuals.
9:11:38 AM
Representative Gara remarked that he had done his best to
work with the court system on drafting an amendment that
did what Mr. Steiner discussed. He noted that the bill
addressed misdemeanor theft, which included stealing
something (not breaking into a home). He asked how by
virtue of inflation a crime that was formerly a misdemeanor
had become a felony. He asked about the response to the
situation in the prior bill version.
Mr. Steiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that
if something cost $500 in 1978 when statutes had originally
been implemented, the cost for the item would be 3.5 times
more expensive at present. He detailed that over time costs
crept up in what became a felony versus a misdemeanor.
There was also a natural disparity between urban and rural
centers where things were much more expensive. He relayed
that raising the level or indexing it helped ameliorate the
impact of the difference between rural and urban Alaska. He
believed the commission's [Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission] recommendation at $2,500 or $2,000 was based on
inflation and the fact that increasing the felony threshold
was not associated with increasing crime; it was possible
to process the cases at a much lower cost, while achieving
the same benefit in terms of promoting treatment without
having a felony conviction on someone's record. The felony
conviction itself had a huge impact on a person's ability
to work in the future.
Representative Gara noted that the threshold in 1978 had
been $500; anything over that amount was a felony. He asked
if the current dividing line was still $500 between a
misdemeanor and felony.
Mr. Steiner answered that the threshold had been increased
to $750 two years earlier.
Representative Gara stated that his understanding of the
commission's recommendation was to inflation proof and
change the amount to $2,000. He surmised that the
recommendation aimed at insuring that inflation alone did
not turn a crime from a misdemeanor into a felony.
Mr. Steiner answered that the commission's recommendation
had been to index the amount for inflation. He believed the
recommendation had been to look at the amount every five
years, not annually. He believed adjusting the amount
annually may cause confusion as cases often took a year to
resolve.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representatives Matt Claman,
Dan Ortiz, and Lora Reinbold were present in the room.
Representative Gara stated that in prior bill versions
there had been a presumption that unless a person committed
a Class C felony that included one of the 35 aggravators
(e.g. crime against a person, involving drugs, domestic
violence, and other), a first-time felon would receive
probation but no jail time. He was uncertain whether the
removal of the provision was intentional. He asked Mr.
Steiner how important the provision was.
Mr. Steiner answered that it was very difficult for him to
speak to the various decisions that had been made in the
CS. He relayed that the commission had recommended that a
first-time Class C felony have a sentence of zero to 18
months of active supervision on probation. He believed the
current CS was in response to some concerns from the Office
of Victims' Rights that there were Class C felonies that
were serious and may warrant some active jail time.
9:17:00 AM
Representative Gara noted that the previous bill version
had included a presumption of no jail time, but the
presumption did not apply when an aggravator was included
in the crime (e.g. physical injury, dangerous instrument,
drug crime, domestic violence, and other).
Mr. Steiner answered that it was his understanding that if
any aggravator were proven that a person could serve active
imprisonment for a Class C felony.
Representative Pruitt referred to page 54, Section 87 of
the current CS. He asked about items published in
CourtView. He stated that a new provision had been added
under the section. He asked what the provision did by
adding the language "all criminal charges against the
defendant in the case have been dismissed after a suspended
entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078." He stated that the
Senate Finance Committee had a different version specifying
that there would be a notation that it had been suspended.
He asked what was not being posted in CourtView under the
CS.
Mr. Steiner answered that the CS required that if criminal
charges against a defendant had been dismissed in the
suspended entry of judgement (SEJ) process, the case would
not be published on CourtView if the individual complied
with conditions under the SEJ portion of the bill. He
deferred to Ms. Mead for further detail.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, replied
that the effect of Section 87 was that generally any
criminal case that ended in an acquittal or dismissal of
all charges was removed from CourtView (public access)
after 60 days. Section 87 of the CS clarified that the law
also applied when a person went through the SEJ proceeding.
She explained that with the SEJ a person at the outset of a
case pled guilty and was then given conditions to comply
with possibly for six months to one year; it only applied
to certain offences and if the person complied with all of
the conditions (e.g. treatment and other) the case was
dismissed at the end. The section clarified that those
dismissals were to be treated the same as every other
dismissal of a criminal case and the court would be
required to remove them from CourtView 60 days after the
dismissal.
9:20:47 AM
Representative Pruitt stated that the Senate Finance
Committee version had indicated there would be a notation
that a case had been dismissed, but it was still public
record. He wondered why the provision had been changed from
the prior version.
Co-Chair Thompson directed discussion to the current
Committee Substitute.
Representative Pruitt wanted to know why the provision had
been changed in the CS. He was trying to understand the
reasoning for removing dismissed cases entirely from the
public's view. He had agreed with the original bill and
believed the change in the CS was substantial. The current
bill provision applied to a person who had pled guilty,
whereas, the original bill applied to a person who had been
arrested and not convicted.
Ms. Mead answered that the language in a prior bill version
had been a policy call made by another committee. She added
that having the issue defined one way or the other provided
more clarity for the court system in order for it to know
the legislature's directive. She believed the thinking
behind the decision to remove the cases from CourtView was
that people's names on the site even with notations were
not fully understood by the public and that people
consequently suffer negative consequences as a result. She
stated that it was a policy call for the legislature.
9:23:03 AM
Representative Kawasaki discussed that there were a couple
of amendments related to therapeutic courts and limited
driver licenses.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee would be able to
ask Ms. Mead questions during the amendment process.
Representative Kawasaki referred to a change on page 54 of
the legislation pertaining to an arrest without a warrant
specifying that the accused must be placed before a judge
or magistrate within 24 hours, absent compelling
circumstances. He stated that the length of time had been
longer in previous bill versions. He wondered if the amount
of time was appropriate.
Ms. Mead replied that by policy, the court arraigned
everyone within 24 hours. The statue had been changed
several years earlier from 24 hours to 48 hours. In some
circumstances the time exceeded 24 hours, but nearly all
arraignments took place within 24 hours, which was not a
problem for the court system to implement. She stated that
the compelling circumstances to exceed 24 hours may result
when a defendant was not able to appear due to
intoxication, drug issues, or for other reasons.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to a change in the CS related
to when a peace officer could issue a citation or make an
arrest. He explained that previously the bill specified
that a peace officer could make an arrest when they
reasonably believed a person was a danger to others or
self. He asked why "or self" had been removed and queried
the effect of the removal.
Mr. Shilling answered that the words "or self" had been
removed in previous bill versions. He elaborated that there
was general agreement that a different statute already
provided law enforcement officers with the authority to
detain an individual under certain circumstances where they
were a danger to themselves; therefore, it was not
necessary to include the language in AS 47.
Representative Wilson spoke to simple possession related to
the date rape drug GHB. She asked if GHB was prescribed by
physicians for any medical purpose. Mr. Shilling replied
that Wikipedia.com specified that the drug could be used
for narcolepsy.
Representative Wilson asked if a person could be arrested
for possessing the drug if it was prescribed to them. Mr.
Shilling did not know. He imagined that if the drug was
legally prescribed by a physician that it would not
constitute misconduct involving a controlled substance.
Representative Wilson stressed the importance of the issue.
She stated that the bill contained no caveat for legally
prescribed medication. She elaborated that the bill
language specified that a person in possession of GHB would
be arrested for simple possession. She did not want to
arrest individuals for possession if they were taking the
drug for a medical purpose.
Mr. Shilling replied that there were a number of controlled
substances that were on the books currently that were
legally prescribed by physicians. He deferred the question
to the Department of Law (DOL).
9:27:44 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), replied that it was not a
violation of the criminal law when a person was in
possession of a controlled substance that had been
prescribed. There were specific statutes specifying that
possession was permissible and authorized when a substance
had been prescribed.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if simple possession was distinct
from possession with the intent to distribute.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he did not ever use the term
simple possession. The term used by DOL was "possessed"; if
a person possessed a drug - what distinguished it from
other types of possession was possession with the intent to
distribute. The law required a prosecutor to prove that an
individual had possession of the drug at the time they had
the conscious objective to distribute it to other
individuals. The difference was having the drug or having
it with the intent to give to another person.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the implication that simple
possession was considered illegal. He believed
Representative Wilson was asking whether it implied illegal
possession when a person had a legal prescription for a
drug.
Mr. Skidmore answered that statute criminalized the
possession of a substance, but provided a reason possession
would not be illegal. The exception was when a person was
in possession of a substance through a valid prescription.
For example, if someone was found in possession of GHB, law
enforcement would look to determine whether a person had a
valid prescription that included their name and
information. If so, the individual would not be charged or
arrested.
Representative Gattis pointed to the term "simple
possession" that was included in the bill. She noted that
DOL did not use the term. She wondered what term the bill
should use in order to ensure clarity for all parties.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the term "possession" should be
used in order to remain consistent with the current
statutory structure. The statutory structure addressed
possession with intent, when it was anything above
possessing a substance one's self. He believed the
legislative history would tell DOL that it was supposed to
read the bill's use of "simple possession" the same as
possession. However, from a practitioner's standpoint using
the term "possession" was the cleanest.
Representative Gattis asked where the term "simple" had
come from. Mr. Shilling replied that it was a term of art
to differentiate between someone possessing a substance for
recreational use and a person with the intent to sell or
manufacture the substance.
Representative Gattis reiterated her question.
9:32:16 AM
Mr. Shilling answered that he had used the term personally
to differentiate between a person in possession of a
substance rather than delivering or manufacturing it.
Representative Gattis asked for verification that the term
"simple" had come from Mr. Shilling. Mr. Shilling answered
in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked when a person would ever
recreationally use a date rape drug. Mr. Shilling answered
that it would be the exception. He believed the amendment
had been offered by the other body and accepted into the
bill was because there was an overall assumption that if a
person possessed the drug [GHB], they intended to use it
for non-recreational purposes.
Representative Wilson referred to other reasons a person
may have a prescription for GHB. She asked if there was any
way to make the bill clearer related to the issue. She
elaborated that sometimes people put pills in another
container because they were taking only one sometime during
the day. Based on Mr. Skidmore's testimony she believed a
person would have to have the prescription bottle with
their name on it on their person. She did not want people
to be afraid to take their medication. She stated that
simple possession meant having the pill on their person.
Mr. Shilling answered that based on Mr. Skidmore's
testimony he understood that there was existing statute
that accommodated individuals who took prescriptions.
Co-Chair Thompson used a hypothetical scenario to
illustrate the point. He believed that if he was carrying a
pill that he intended to take in the near future, he
surmised that he could prove he had the prescription bottle
at home. He did not believe there would be a major problem
under the circumstance. He would expect law enforcement to
look into the situation if the pill was discovered and he
would be able to prove with the prescription that he was
legally in possession of the drug.
Representative Wilson stated that Co-Chair Thompson's
example may be true, but she surmised that law enforcement
would probably arrest the person first. She asked for the
statutory reference that included the exception for legal
prescriptions.
Mr. Skidmore asked the committee to wait while he located
the statute.
9:36:07 AM
AT EASE
9:41:09 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Skidmore relayed that he had not yet located the
section in statute. He remarked that the state had never
prosecuted a person for the issue. He would follow up with
the provision once he had located it.
Representative Wilson asked if the language really needed
to be in the bill. She asked if it was illegal under
existing law for a person to possess GHB without a
prescription.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the statutes indicated when
possession of a controlled substance was or was not
illegal. Without a statute specifying that the possession
of a substance was illegal, the substance was considered
legal even if it was scheduled as a substance. He believed
that related to the specific provision, the possession of
all other types of drugs was reduced from various felony
levels down to a Class A misdemeanor level. The particular
provision specified that GHB would be elevated back to a
felony. He stated that if there was a statute specifying
that a substance was illegal, additional language was not
needed; however, it was a policy decision if the debate was
about whether the substance should be a felony or a
misdemeanor.
^AMENDMENTS
9:44:12 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 29-
LS0541\U.3 (Gardner, 4/25/16) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 5, following "INTENT.":
Insert "(a)
Page 2, following line 8:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) It is the intent of the legislature that
reinvestment be made into providing additional law
enforcement resources in communities throughout the
state."
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment had been
brought to her by another member who wanted to ensure that
there would be the option to reinvest any remaining funds
into additional law enforcement resources in communities
throughout the state. She stated that it was intent
language and would only take effect when there were
remaining funds available.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that many of the amendments had
been drafted to a prior version of the bill. He clarified
that the committee was currently addressing version T, but
amendments had been written to versions U and V. He asked
amendment sponsors to specify where the amendment would
impact the version before the committee.
Representative Wilson read her amendment with the
appropriate page numbers [amendment and page numbers shown
above].
Co-Chair Neuman spoke in support of the amendment. He
stated that many people felt that the bill would result in
letting more criminals out on the street. He had been
active in trying to help a trooper go to some community
councils for community watch programs in order to increase
community awareness about how to identify a crime,
suspicious vehicles, and other related things. He could see
where there could be some need for the assistance if there
was money available.
Co-Chair Thompson was uncertain whether he supported or
opposed the amendment. From the perspective as a former
mayor he explained that the city would occasionally receive
federal money to hire three additional police officers.
Consequently, the city would hire the police officers, but
the money would go away at some point in the future, which
meant the community would have to pick up the difference.
He thought it could put a heavy burden on communities if it
was not continuing funding for police enforcement.
Representative Wilson responded that the amendment only
included intent language. She did not see that the
amendment would tell a community what it had to do. She
noted that the committee had heard that treatment was not
available in every community. For example, a person may
have to travel from Dillingham to Anchorage to receive
therapy. She continued that the individual may find that
they still needed more resources. She imagined it would be
in the form of a grant brought forward by a community if
they claimed to be negatively impacted by the bill. She
stated that it may even lead to legislation in the future
to fix a problem that may arise from the bill. She
reiterated that it would only go into effect if there was
money left over after the therapy portion of the bill. She
did not envision the money going towards positions - it
would act more like a grant. Additionally, the state did
not know how much money would be coming out of different
taxes and reinvestment.
Representative Gara understood that it was excess money;
however, the amendment did not specify that it was excess
money. He MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 to add the words "of
excess funds" following the word "reinvestment."
Vice-Chair Saddler OBJECTED for clarity. He believed the
amendment to Amendment 1 pertained to the excess of the
taxes collected under AS 43.61.010.
Representative Gara stated that AS 43.61.010 was already
listed in the first sentence and it was therefore implied.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was AMENDED.
Representative Gara addressed the amended Amendment 1. He
spoke to a shortage of community law enforcement and
troopers in many areas of the state. He referred to
testimony earlier in the session from Colonel Jim Cockrell
[director, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety] that he felt it was dangerous to send his
troopers out to make an arrest with no backup. He asked if
the amendment could be further amended to read that
remaining money would go towards "providing additional law
enforcement resources" instead of providing additional law
enforcement resources in communities throughout the state."
The amendment would enable the funds to either go to a
community or the troopers.
9:51:12 AM
AT EASE
9:52:46 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson clarified that the intent of the
amendment related to law enforcement resources, which could
include Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO), city police,
university police, and other. She believed keeping the
amendment general allowed flexibility for communities.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
Representative Edgmon OBJECTED to the amendment. He
questioned whether the amendment was necessary. He stated
that intent language of the bill addressed covering the
shortfall. He furthered that funding for law enforcement
normally went through the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). There were federal funding streams that were also
used. He referred to VPSOs and noted that he did not see
any of the money going out to the regional nonprofits. He
did not believe the amendment had been a recommendation
from the commission. He believed the amendment was well
intentioned and he supported the underlying purpose, but he
thought it was superfluous to the intent of the bill.
Representative Wilson appreciated the comments, but she
remarked that the bill was large. She had heard from law
enforcement and communities. She stated that if the bill
worked, the money would not be necessary because the bill
should make it easier for public safety, communities should
be safer, more people should go back to work, and fewer
people should be in prison. However, the amendment helped
to specify that the legislature recognized there could be
some unintended consequences. She elaborated that a
community would have to make its case to demonstrate its
need for the funds. She expounded that the amendment
recognized that state troopers and VPSOs could not do
everything and there may be a cause within a program that
may make a difference if started in a community. Currently,
if something similar arose a community would need to go
through the regular budget process. She explained that the
community may not need it for a significant amount of time
and the action required may be a quick fix, which could
potentially be provided by the amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that it had been mentioned that the
intent of the amendment could be to hire additional
troopers or police officers. He stated that the legislature
covered that issue in the operating budget. He believed the
legislature would object if the department decided the
state was going to start funding troopers with excess money
that may come from marijuana or other. He furthered that it
was unknown whether the money would come year-to-year and
he viewed extra funds as something to help a community
watch program or drug and alcohol awareness. He did not see
the amendment as hiring personnel; if the amendment was
adopted he would vocalize that the funds should not go
towards hiring personnel.
9:57:25 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler supported the amendment. He remarked
that there were several places in the bill where funds from
taxes raised under AS 43.61.010 were allocated. The
amendment specified that any excess funds could go to
additional law enforcement and resources in communities.
Representative Gara understood that the maker of the
amendment intended that any excess funds could go to
troopers, VPSOs, and local law enforcement.
Representative Edgmon WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He stood by
his original statement. He believed the amendment was
innocuous, but the chance that the intent language ever
came to bear was very remote. He believed the amendment was
superfluous. He contended that there were many other
sections in the bill that could include intent language.
There being NO further OBJECTION Amendment 1 as amended was
ADOPTED.
9:59:30 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 29-
LS0541\V.16 (Martin/Gardner, 4/18/16) (copy on file).
[Note: due to the length of the amendment it has not been
included in the minutes.]
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment had been
written to bill version V. She stated that under the
amendment common law civil in rem forfeiture actions were
abolished if used instead of a criminal proceeding. The
purpose of the amendment was to eliminate a loophole she
believed was in existing law.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the amendment looked
like a similar bill the committee had considered in the
past. He asked if it was exactly the same as the bill that
had passed the body.
Representative Wilson replied that it was not exactly the
same because it had been wrong. She explained that she had
gone back to DOL to make sure that the amendment would
reflect the intent of a bill that had previously passed out
of committee. She stated that it had been due to a charge
before, which did not always happen. She expounded that
after working with DOL they had included the language
"abolished if used instead of a criminal proceeding." The
particular statute should not be used instead of a criminal
proceeding. She wanted existing statutes to be used in
order to prevent taking peoples' items without charging
them first. The language in the amendment remained the
intent of what had passed the committee.
Representative Gara wanted to ensure the amendment did not
violate the single subject rule. He wanted to clarify that
it would be the intent of the committee for the language in
Amendment 2 to be removed from the bill if at a later time
it was determined to violate the single subject rule. He
believed that it was the intent of the maker of the
amendment.
Representative Wilson replied that Legislative Legal
Services had defined single subject of SB 91 to generally
be criminal law and procedure. The amendment specified that
civil in rem forfeiture could not be used in place of a
criminal proceeding; therefore, it did fit under the single
subject rule.
Representative Gara reiterated that he did not want the
entire bill to be thrown out if the amendment violated the
single subject. He wanted to ensure that the committee
intended that the language in Amendment 2 would be removed
from the bill if it was determined to violate the single
subject rule.
Representative Wilson responded that she had no problem
with that specification.
Vice-Chair Saddler believed the amendment fell under the
single subject rule, but he wanted to consider whether it
was appropriate to put it in the current bill.
Representative Kawasaki echoed the comments by Vice-Chair
Saddler. He reasoned that the amendment had been reported
out of committee in the form of a bill in the past;
therefore he was waffling on whether to support it. He
noted that the committee could add many things to the bill,
but it was not necessarily the right thing to do.
10:03:29 AM
Representative Gattis spoke in support of the amendment.
She had supported the bill on the House floor and she
believed it was the right thing to do. Her only challenge
was related to the single subject rule. She stated that the
amendment would clearly not be adopted if it was found to
violate the single subject rule.
Co-Chair Neuman opposed the amendment. He did not know if
it was a good amendment or not and did not know how it
impacted the rest of the bill. He stated that the bill
would let more people out of prison and would shorten
prison times. He stressed the importance of knowing cause
and effect of the items in the bill. He was very concerned
about making amendments to the bill and wondered if the
amendments had gone fully through the discovery process. He
stated that the legislative process was a full committee
process that included other committees as well. He did not
know the cause and effect of the amendment. He did not want
to take a chance on the bill.
Representative Wilson stated that it was sad to even have
to put the provision in law. She believed there should
always be criminal proceedings before looking at taking
people's items. She stated that the amendment was about
criminal actions, the police, and the system - she believed
it was appropriate for the bill. She was frustrated to
learn that the state took things that belonged to
individuals (e.g. vehicles, money, and other items) without
a criminal proceeding. She stressed that it had been a good
bill and was a good amendment. She asserted that there were
many things in the bill that had been put in as amendments
brought forward by members. She stated that the language in
the amendment had been vetted much more and had gone
through the House Floor and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She was more concerned that the legislature was not taking
care of something so important.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that when the amendment language
had originally been inserted into the CS they had received
a memorandum specifying that amendment would violate the
single subject rule. However, another legal opinion had
been received specifying that the amendment would not
violate the single subject rule. He wanted to make sure
that if the amendment passed that it did not destroy the
bill. He was confused by the differing legal opinions.
Representative Wilson stated that the memorandum specified
that "it may" [violate the single subject rule]. She
believed there were many things in the bill that fell into
that category, which had been added in the form of
amendments. She stated that it was very difficult for
attorneys to say yes or no on anything related to the
topic. She furthered that the memorandum stated that the
amendment "may not fall under the single subject." She
communicated that she had done more research on the topic -
the single subject was about crime and criminal law and
procedures. She stated that her amendment fell underneath
criminal law and procedure. She believed it fell under the
single subject rule; however, she had no issue removing the
section at a later time if there was question. She noted
that there was existing procedure if the situation
occurred.
Representative Gara suggested adding a severability clause
in the amendment. He wanted to offer an amendment to
Amendment 2.
10:08:12 AM
AT EASE
10:12:00 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson moved Amendment 2 to the bottom of the
list of amendments.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 29-
LS0541\U.2 (Gardner, 4/25/16) (copy on file):
Page 8, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "$1,000 [$750]"
Insert "$750"
Page 8, line l3:
Delete "$1,000 [$750]"
Insert "$750"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment applied
to page 8, lines 9 through 10, and would replace "$1,000"
with "$750." She detailed that the amendment had been
brought to her by colleagues from Mat-Su due to concern
about a significant amount of ATV and snow machine theft.
The reasoning behind reducing the number to $750 was the
belief that $1,000 was less of a theft deterrent.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson explained that if the amount was
$1,000 she believed it changed the crime to a misdemeanor.
She stated that if the number was maintained at the current
$750 the punishment would be greater than it would be if
the amount was increased to $1,000.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that in the current CS
(version T) the amendment would apply to page 8, line 15
and 21.
Representative Wilson agreed.
Representative Gara spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He stated that people who commit crimes did not consider
whether a crime would be a felony or misdemeanor. More
importantly, he believed a person's sentence and criminal
conviction should relate to what they did. He detailed that
in 1975 the threshold between a felony and a misdemeanor
was $500 for theft. He stressed that adjusted for
inflation, the same crime was currently about $2,000. The
goal was not to send more people to jail for doing the same
thing. He asserted that the amendment would make it into a
felony for stealing something worth about one-third of its
worth in 1975, which would triple the number of people who
became felons. He believed the figure should be rational
and they should not let inflation turn a person who commits
a misdemeanor into a felon. He stressed that a person's
criminal conviction should relate to their conduct, not
inflation.
Representative Pruitt spoke in support of the amendment. He
recalled prior work on the House Judiciary Committee. He
believed it had been Annie Carpeneti [formerly an assistant
attorney general with DOL] who would talk about making sure
DOL had tools available to be able to do its work. He
continued that the majority of the time DOL would find what
a person could potentially be charged with, but as a
motivation to receive the desired outcome the department
would tell a person they would charge them with "x." He
opined that by increasing the amount the legislature was
eliminating an available tool. He continued that as the
legislature had lowered amounts they had actually
eliminated the tools to negotiate. He remarked that the
number had been up to $2,000 and he appreciated brining the
amount down to $1,000. He stated that there had been
significant debate on increasing the number from $500 to
$750 when the figure had been changed a couple of years
earlier. He added that there had been a goal to move it at
$1,500 at the time. He believed leaving the tool in the
toolbox at $750 would provide DOL with the flexibility to
charge one way or another. He expounded that the
flexibility could allow the department to try to motivate
the individual charged with a crime to work on correcting
or thinking about their actions. He supported returning to
the figure of $750 that had been negotiated two years
earlier.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Charisse
Millett was present in the audience.
10:18:23 AM
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there were portions in SB 91 that
addressed allowing a person charged with a felony to go
back to get the charge taken off their record if the felony
threshold was lowered.
Mr. Shilling answered that Alaska did not have an
expungement statute. It was his understanding that a felony
or misdemeanor would remain on a person's CourtView record
permanently for life.
Representative Gattis supported the amendment. She noted
that individuals from Mat-Su had asked for support on the
issue and wanted the ability to send a strong message. She
referred to theft of tools from jobsites. She believed it
was important.
Representative Guttenberg spoke in opposition to the
amendment. He liked that many of the provisions in SB 91
were data-driven. He had not heard whether the difference
between $1,000 and $750 meant anything. He did not believe
individuals considered whether an item they may steal would
fall under the category of a felony or misdemeanor. He was
uncertain the amendment would accomplish the desired
result. He stressed that without knowing whether it would
have the desired result he would not support the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Louise Stutes
was present in the audience.
Representative Wilson provided a wrap up on the amendment.
She believed it was important to consider whether the state
was protecting criminals or the residents who had been
violated. She furthered that residents believed they would
have more violations and more personal belongings taken if
the threshold was increased to $1,000.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Pruitt, Neuman
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz,
Thompson
The MOTION to Adopt Amendment 3 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 29-
LS0541\V.37 (Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file):
Page 33, following line 12:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(l) A person who is ordered as a condition of release
under this section to be on electronic monitoring may
not be subject to a search of the person's dwelling by
a pretrial services officer or peace officer except
upon probable cause."
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki noted that the amendment pertained
to page 31, Section 52 of the CS. He explained that the
amendment specified that a pretrial or peace officer would
be required to have probable cause to search the residence
of a person [on electronic monitoring]. Currently when a
person was released from jail on a pretrial status, they
were allowed to go about their business; they had been
charged but not adjudicated. He furthered that there were a
multitude of conditions a person had to go through when
under pretrial status including obeying all court orders,
laws, making court appearances, notifying their attorney if
they were doing something out of the way, and other.
Additionally, the judicial services officers could also
apply additional restrictions including where a person
could travel, which residence they could maintain, whether
they could own a deadly firearm or weapon, whether they
could possess alcohol, and other. He stated that the
purpose of the amendment was related to current law; the
ninth court recently had reaffirmed in a 2007 case (U.S. v
Scott) that the government could not conduct the search of
an individual released while awaiting trial based on less
than probable cause even when their Fourth Amendment rights
were waived as a condition of pretrial release. He did not
want the individuals in pretrial who had not been charged
to further have to give up their Fourth Amendment rights.
10:25:06 AM
Representative Gara surmised that the amendment was not
necessary if the courts were already saying that probable
cause was required. He questioned letting a person out on
bail with one of the conditions being no alcohol in their
home. He asked if probable cause was a current standard.
Mr. Shilling replied that current law allowed the courts to
order someone to refrain from consuming alcohol, but also
to submit to a search warrant of the person, person's
property, residence, vehicle, or any other property over
which the person had control, in order to look for the
presence of alcoholic beverages at the standard of
reasonable suspicion. He believed the standard of
reasonable suspicion was lower than probable cause. He
believed the amendment conflicted with current law. He
stated that it was a policy call and he would prefer to
have Senator John Coghill [SB 91 bill sponsor] speak to the
issue. He believed the amendment would make it more
difficult for the state to ensure an individual was
complying with their conditions of release. He furthered
that if a person was to be in prison pretrial they would
have no liberty and would be subject to search. He
expounded that the amendment applied to individuals who had
been released on electronic monitoring with the contingency
that they follow the rules. He believed it could be a bit
of a public safety concern if the state made it more
difficult for a pretrial services officer to ensure a
person was following the rules. He deferred to the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and bill the sponsor for
further insight.
10:27:52 AM
Mr. Skidmore stated that current law (AS 12.30.016)
established that an officer was able to search a person
released pretrial, based upon reasonable suspicion. The
amendment would constitute a change by requiring probable
cause, which was higher than reasonable suspicion. He
agreed with Mr. Shilling that it was a policy decision.
Representative Wilson believed most pretrial [electronic
monitoring] was done by private companies. She furthered
that individuals were on EM primarily because they had
requested the option underneath very precise stipulations.
She wondered when a pretrial services officer would be
controlling individuals on EM (she believed it would go
through DOC and not DOL).
Mr. Shilling stated that currently the private EM companies
did not do the type of EM envisioned under SB 91. He
detailed that it would be court ordered EM upon
arraignment; the individuals would be under the supervision
of a pretrial services officer on DOC EM. He stated that it
was something that was not currently occurring. He pointed
out that there were not private EM companies in all parts
of the state; the pretrial services program envisioned
doing monitoring where there were currently not private
companies.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Mr. Shilling to specify what a PSO
was. Mr. Shilling answered that he was referring to a
pretrial services officer.
Representative Wilson stated that "there isn't private
electronic monitoring there because there's nobody to do if
the corrections doesn't participate in the program." She
wondered whether current law enabled pretrial services
officers to search a person's residence with any cause.
Mr. Shilling affirmed that because currently there were no
pretrial services officers, they were not referred to in
the statute as authorizing a search without a warrant at
the standard of reasonable suspicion. The current statute
applied only to peace officers.
Representative Wilson asked how probable cause differed
from current statute related to peace officers. Mr.
Shilling deferred to Mr. Skidmore.
Mr. Skidmore answered that reasonable suspicion and
probable cause were both defined in court cases and were
very fact specific about what qualified. He relayed that
reasonable suspicion was a lower standard. He elaborated
that it meant there was a reasonable basis to suspect that
a person was violating their terms of probation. Probable
cause was higher, but it was not a high standard. He stated
that higher standards went from preponderance, clear and
convincing, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He stated
that probable cause was still a low standard, but in the
law reasonable suspicion was considered slightly lower. He
would have to provide case law to give a more detailed
description.
10:32:42 AM
Representative Wilson asked for verification that currently
there was nothing in place for pretrial services officers.
Mr. Skidmore responded that currently pretrial officers did
not exist; therefore, the ability for a person released
pretrial to be searched on the basis of reasonable
suspicion was an order by the court that would authorize a
police officer to conduct the search because there were
currently no pretrial services officers. He understood that
the bill proposed creating pretrial services officer
positions that the court would authorize to conduct the
search.
Representative Wilson supported the amendment. She reminded
everyone that people in pretrial had not yet been proven
guilty. She stated that if the law was not set in the bill
before the committee, the pretrial services officers would
have the ability to search a person's residence without
reasonable or probable cause. She reiterated that
individuals in pretrial had not been proven guilty and
could be innocent. She supported protecting an individual's
privacy.
Representative Kawasaki asked if Mr. Skidmore was familiar
with the 2007 case U.S. v Scott. Mr. Skidmore replied that
he had not read the case.
Representative Kawasaki spoke about the case and read the
question before the court:
Should a pretrial releasee be subject to Fourth
Amendment searches and seizures based on probable
cause or reasonable suspicion?
Representative Kawasaki furthered that the Ninth Circuit
Court affirmed a lower district court's decision that the
government may not conduct a search of an individual
released while awaiting trial based on less than probable
cause even when Fourth Amendment rights were waived as a
condition of the person's pretrial release. He asked how
DOL operated currently when it came to pretrial individuals
who were released and had signed something waiving their
Fourth Amendment rights.
Mr. Skidmore addressed how peace officers would handle the
situation currently. He explained that officers were
authorized to conduct a search on reasonable suspicion if
an individual was released pretrial and the courts had
given the authorization. He detailed that under the Fourth
Amendment, the government or law enforcement officers may
not search unless authorized by a court. Generally, they
were looking for probable cause, but the court in Alaska
had authorized an officer to search. He noted that under
current statute a person was not automatically subject to a
reasonable suspicion search - the court had to set the
condition at the time of setting bail. Once the court set
the condition, the officer was authorized to engage in the
search. He elaborated that if the proposal was to have a
pretrial services officer search without the court's
authorization, he agreed that U.S. v Scott would be
controlling. However, under the other circumstance, he
would need to read the case carefully to provide a legal
analysis as to whether the case invalidated the Alaska law,
which post-dated U.S. v Scott. He did not have a reason to
believe that the case was controlling over Alaska's current
statute. He was hesitant to comment further on the issue
until reading the case.
10:37:28 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to earlier testimony that if
someone was currently in pretrial status and were
incarcerated they would be subject to search. His
understanding was that EM released a pretrial prisoner
largely on the same expectations. He did not believe having
a reasonable suspicion standard for search of a pretrial
prisoner on EM was inappropriate. He opined that it should
be parallel to the circumstances under which a search would
be conducted if a person was incarcerated. He asked for the
accuracy of his statements.
Mr. Skidmore agreed that an incarcerated person was subject
to search in both pretrial and post-trial. He expounded
that when the person was released on EM there was certainly
the concept that it was to be under similar conditions as
equivalent to being incarcerated. He had not seen any cases
that specifically looked at searches. He could not tell the
committee how the courts would analyze it, but he
understood the point Vice-Chair Saddler was making.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to a concern by Representative Wilson
related to a person being innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law. He stated that people would not find
themselves in a position under a condition of release on
parole unless the courts felt there was a high amount of
evidence against a person for probable cause. He provided a
scenario related to DUI and obvious drinking. The person
had not yet been arrested and convicted, but there would
certainly be probable cause that alcohol was involved (i.e.
the person's license would be taken away). He surmised that
if a person was charged, it was the court specifying that
there was cause to maintain the conditions under a person's
parole.
Mr. Skidmore replied that it was easy to get tripped up
with language in criminal law. He read a description of
probable cause and reasonable suspicion:
Probable cause is the standard that is used by the
courts in issuing a search warrant. It is also the
standard that the courts use to determine whether or
not someone could be arrested and charged with an
offense. Reasonable suspicion is the standard that is
used for an officer to stop someone, a citizen on the
streets, to investigate.
Mr. Skidmore referred to the scenario provided by Co-Chair
Neuman related to a DUI and relayed that reasonable
suspicion was required for an officer to stop a vehicle.
Whereas, probable cause would be required for an officer to
arrest a person for the DUI.
10:41:28 AM
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the scenario of a person with a
DUI who was out of jail on EM to ensure they stayed in
their home or did not leave the state. He believed the
amendment would prevent an officer of the court from
checking to see if the person had alcohol in their home or
was drinking alcohol. He asked if his statements were
accurate.
Mr. Skidmore replied that Amendment 4 would require the
officer to have enough evidence to actually arrest the
person before they were able to check for alcohol in the
home.
Representative Kawasaki provided wrap up on the amendment.
He explained that the amendment dealt specifically with
individuals on pretrial, who had been accused and charged
and were awaiting trial. He stressed that they were not yet
guilty and were not criminals. The Fourth Amendment
enforced the notion that every person had their own castle,
which was supposed to be secure from unreasonable searches
and seizures. Currently in statute and in the bill, the
state would allow a pretrial service officer to have
reasonable suspicion to enter a person's home. He wanted to
raise the level to probable cause. He furthered that if a
pretrial services officer had to go to a person's home for
a certain reason and sees that the person was drunk, which
was a condition of their release, it would be probable
cause. He reiterated that the amendment pertained to a
person who was innocent until proven guilty. He noted that
the U.S. v Scott case was the basis for the amendment.
Representative Gattis requested to hear the bill sponsor's
view on the amendment.
Representative Edgmon did not support the amendment for two
reasons. First, he believed there was a departure in
language of adding pretrial services officer. The second
reason related to the threshold of probable cause. He had
worked on the DOC budget for several years and understood
that the conditions attached to EM were very prescriptive
and detailed. He surmised that the reasonable suspicion
language was appropriate. He believed it should be a
standalone subject and a bill in the future; it warranted a
more in depth discussion in the future.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, agreed that the state did
not currently have a pretrial services officer. The bill
contemplated putting in a pretrial services organization
that would hold people accountable for:
1) Were they a danger to the public or to themselves?
2) Would they show up for court?
Senator Coghill stated that many times there were people
coming into the charges with bail conditions; the
conditions ranged from minor to serious. Instead of keeping
the individuals in prison, the bill would let a person be
at liberty to improve their lot in life. He addressed
probable cause and reasonable suspicion. He stated that
under reasonable suspicion, if an officer suspected a
person was doing something, they could bring them back into
the accountability that the condition was set for. However,
probable cause would probably result from something bad
happening. He stated that if under reasonable suspicion a
person failed court orders, the condition of release had
been violated. He opined that reasonable suspicion was more
appropriate due to the accountability factors. He
understood where probable cause would be appropriate if a
new crime was involved, which he believed would already be
in place. It was true that the bill was contemplating a
pretrial services group that would be tasked with
monitoring EM contracts and doing some monitoring
themselves. He suggested thinking about that if someone was
in jail and something bad was occurring, whether it would
fall under probable cause or reasonable suspicion. He
believed in the jail circumstance it would be reasonable
suspicion.
Senator Coghill used a scenario where the court felt that a
person was not a flight risk and no danger to the public,
but they had a substance abuse problem. Under reasonable
suspicion the pretrial services officers could interject
themselves if they believed a person had misused alcohol,
instead of waiting for something bad to happen. He leaned
more towards the reasonable suspicion language. He did
understand that on the one hand there could be a gang
member where many bad things had already happened; whereas
someone under a light order and was inattentive to their
duty, probable cause could be more appropriate. He
understood it was a difficult scale, but accountability was
important in getting people to improve their lot in life.
He supported the language "reasonable suspicion." He
believed any judge who found a failure under the condition
would act appropriately. He stated that the debate was
entering a new level that he was not conversant in. He
relayed that during his time working on the bill over the
past two years he had spoken with DOL, the public defender,
police, and people who had been in jail. They had not had
the opportunity to have the conversation about the
amendment with the various parties. He stated that it was a
policy call; both reasonable suspicion and probable cause
were at the lower end of the scale. However, because the
bill would implement a new concept under the pretrial
services and the goal was to get individuals into positions
where they improved their lives instead of doing seat time
in jail. He stated that if the individuals were not
improving their lot in life, the state would have to do
something different. He reiterated his support for the
reasonable suspicion language. He stated that normally he
would have a roundtable conversation on every policy call.
He remarked that the committee would not have that
opportunity on many of the things it would debate during
the current meeting. He advised heading in the direction of
using the bill's current language instead of going in the
direction of the amendment.
10:51:17 AM
Representative Gattis observed that it was a fine balance
between letting individuals out of jail where they had
traditionally served jail times and making sure the public
knew the state and legislators were paying attention. She
saw both sides of the issue. She appreciated the amendment,
but she wanted to see the balance and wanted the state to
watch the process to verify that it worked. She stated that
she would be a reluctant "no vote" on the amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman reiterated his opposition to the amendment.
He restated the scenario of a person with a DUI where an
officer of the court could not go find out if the person
had been drinking alcohol. He stated that it could be a
child in need case where OCS may not have the ability to go
to a house to determine if the kids were safe. He believed
there were many instances where the change in language
could hinder the state's ability to enforce laws. He
believed the amendment would remove a very important tool
the courts currently have - to make sure people who break
the law are doing what they are supposed to be doing. He
wanted to ensure that if the state let people out of jail
early that it could monitor whether they were abiding by
the terms. He believed the state should have the ability to
ensure that individuals with substance abuse problems and
other were staying clean. He agreed that a person was
innocent until proven guilty, but if a person got
themselves into the position, he believed there was a
reason the person had been arrested in the first place.
Vice-Chair Saddler opposed the amendment. He noted that the
committee had heard that a person's Fourth Amendment rights
to protection and security was not absolute and could be
limited by a search warrant, an appropriate court
authority, and a court ordered condition of release (e.g.
conditions granted for EM release). He stated that the
committee had also heard Mr. Skidmore say that the U.S. v
Scott decision was likely not applicable in the current
situation.
Representative Wilson had heard Mr. Skidmore say that
currently reasonable doubt and probable cause only
pertained to police officers (if a person went to court),
not pretrial services officers. She stressed that it was
completely different. She continued that the committee did
not know what kind of training the pretrial services
officers would have. She used the DUI scenario and stated
that if the EM alarm went off for alcohol it would
constitute probable cause. She believed that the way the
bill was currently written pretrial services officers would
be able to enter a person's home for no reason. She
understood the language as it related to police officers,
but she did not believe the bill contained any process for
pretrial services officers.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler,
Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 4 FAILED (3/8).
10:56:46 AM
RECESSED
12:14:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 5 29-LS0541\V.38
(Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6 29-
LS0541\V.63 (Gardner, 4/25/16) (copy on file):
Page 53, line 19, following "than":
Insert "(1)"
Page 53, line 20, following "section":
Insert "i"
Page 53, following line 20:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) 90 days if the conviction is for a violation of
(A) AS 11.61.116(c)(1) and the person is 21 years of
age or older or
(B) AS 11.61.120(a)(6) and the person is 21 years of
age or older."
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara began to explain the amendment that
related to Class B misdemeanors. He believed that SB 91 did
numerous positive things for people who commit Class B
misdemeanors. He noted that the individuals tended to only
receive probation. He continued that the bill addressed a
specific Class B misdemeanor for a situation that sometimes
occurred in schools, where someone tried to harass a person
by sending out a naked picture of that person.
Representative Kawasaki asked where the amendment was
located in the CS.
Representative Gara replied that the amendment was drafted
to the prior bill version V (House Judiciary Committee
version).
Representative Wilson pointed to page 53, line 19.
12:16:54 PM
AT EASE
12:19:34 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara reiterated that Amendment 6 had been
written to the prior bill version V; therefore, the
amendment would be conceptual in order to ensure it went
into the correct location of the new CS.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the amendment would apply
to page 51, Section 83 of the new CS (version T).
Representative Gara confirmed that in the new CS the
amendment pertained to Section 83; in the prior bill
version V it applied to Section 88.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the exact location on page 51.
[Note: another committee member pointed to the location on
the page.]
Co-Chair Thompson reiterated his OBJECTION to Amendment 6.
Representative Gara explained the amendment. He restated
his earlier explanation of a specific Class B misdemeanor
crime where a person sent out a picture usually of a young
girl under the age of 16 with the intent to humiliate the
person. He relayed that under current law the crime carried
a zero to 90-day sentence. He reasoned that currently a
young kid committing the crime would probably receive no
jail time. He furthered that the bill would make the
maximum jail time for a Class B misdemeanor 10 days. He
believed it was fine for most cases; however, the amendment
would maintain existing law (zero to 90 days) in a
situation where a person over the age of 21 distributed a
naked picture of a person under the age of 16. He believed
that in most cases there would probably be no jail time,
but he wanted to maintain existing law for the specific
circumstance.
Co-Chair Neuman did not support the amendment and did not
know what it did. He believed it was conjecture and did not
know what it meant that a person would probably receive no
jail time.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Mr. Shilling to the table in the
event of questions.
Representative Wilson wanted to look at a copy of AS Title
3.
Representative Gattis spoke against the amendment. She
stated that it was the first time the committee was dealing
with the issue in the amendment. She stated that there were
many times people could take pictures of someone and
humiliate them. She believed the amendment went too far
into the weeds.
Representative Pruitt stressed that sentencing time under
current law was 90 days and the bill would decrease it to
10 days. He disputed comments about the inability to know
what the amendment did. He reiterated that current law
carried a [maximum] sentence of 90 days. The amendment
addressed a situation where an adult distributed [a photo]
of a young person under the age of 16 with the intent to
humiliate that person. He strongly opposed lowering the
sentence time to 10 days in the specific circumstance. He
explained that the maximum 90-day sentence did not
necessarily mean a person would spend 90 days in jail; many
times a plea bargain was negotiated (just like every
statute the bill dealt with). He stressed the importance of
making sure the tools were in place; it was about
protecting minors and children. The courts currently had
the tools, but the bill would remove that option. He
furthered that if an adult distributed naked photos of a
girl under the age of 16 to humiliate her, it was possible
the girl may commit suicide due to humiliation. He did not
believe a 10-day limit on the specific situation was
acceptable. He felt very strongly about the importance of
the amendment.
12:26:24 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked why the age 21 had been used
as opposed to the age of 18. He recognized there were high
schools that probably had students who were 18 years old,
but he assumed there were not high schools with 19 or 20
year old students.
Representative Gara understood that there was confusion
about the amendment. He stressed that no new crime was
being created by the amendment. He pointed to current
statute AS 11.61.116(c)(1) that pertained to sending an
explicit image of a minor with the intent to annoy or
humiliate the other person (an electronic photograph or
video that depicted the private body parts of that person).
The bill would change sentencing for a Class B misdemeanor
to a maximum of 10 days. He asked about a scenario where a
person committing the crime was over the age of 21 and the
victim was a 15 year-old. He believed it seemed much more
serious than a scenario where the victim and perpetrator
were both kids in high school. The amendment used the age
of 21 because at that age the person was no longer in high
school. He believed the crime was bad in any scenario, but
it was especially bad if the offender was over the age of
21 and the victim was underage. He stressed that a person
should know much better at that point in life. He
reiterated that the amendment would maintain current law
for the scenario, which was sentencing of zero to 90 days.
He did not mean to conjecture what kind of sentencing a
person would get. He stated that the public defender and
prosecutors would say that for a Class B misdemeanor a
person usually did not get much if any jail time. He could
not tell what the sentence would be for sure; it depended
on the level of the conduct.
Representative Wilson stated that a person was considered
an adult at the age of 18. She wondered if it would be
Class B misdemeanor by itself for the 10 days versus more
than one contact. She wondered how often it happened.
Representative Gara responded that he did not believe the
crime happened very often, but he did not know the
frequency. He noted that the public defender could possibly
provide the number of cases. He stated that the amendment
did not change the crime from a Class B misdemeanor; it
maintained the current law for an individual over the age
of 21. He stressed that a 21-year old was approximately 6
years older than the victim. He reiterated that current law
carried a sentence of zero to 90 days. He understood the
intent of the bill for the other Class B misdemeanors.
Representative Wilson expressed confusion about exactly
what section of law the amendment applied to and the crimes
that fell under a Class B misdemeanor. She did not
understand the 6-year age difference Representative Gara
had referred to. She questioned whether it was more
appropriate to use age 21 versus age 18. Additionally, she
wondered about the reasoning behind reducing the maximum
sentencing from 90 days down to 10 days.
Mr. Shilling replied that the commission had discussed
Class B misdemeanors, they had looked at whether jail time
and limited bed space was a good use for the lowest level
misdemeanants. There were over 80 Class B misdemeanors in
Title 11. The amendment would set one apart from the others
to give the enhanced sentencing range. He had recently
spoken with DOC and had learned that no one had been
incarcerated in 2015 for the crime. He believed using the
range of up to 90 days would not have much effect as far as
DOC was concerned. He deferred to Mr. Steiner for further
detail.
12:32:10 PM
Mr. Steiner spoke to the commission's rationale on the
topic. He explained that the commission had looked at data
indicating that for low-level offences and low-risk
individuals, the jail time increased recidivism. The
commission had determined that for low-level misdemeanors
that additional jail time was costing money, was not
increasing public safety, and actually reducing public
safety. Therefore, as a broad proposition, the commission
had recommended a cap for all the lowest level crimes -
there would be some amount of jail time to address the
issue, but not so much as to be unnecessary and expensive.
The commission did not go through every single offence and
discuss them individually; the items had been discussed in
classes.
Representative Munoz remarked that statute referred to a
minor age 16 and under, but it did not address 21 years of
age. She asked how the amendment would affect the current
law. She wondered whether individuals under the age of 21
would be immune from the section of law.
Mr. Steiner replied that if the language was adopted no one
would be immune from the code, it would merely change the
sentencing provision. He detailed that if a person was
under 21 the cap of 10 days would apply; however, if a
person was age 21 or older there would be no reduction and
it would remain at the current 90-day cap. He had not been
able to fully analyze the implications of the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that the bill included language
specifying a sentencing cap of 10 days. He asked for
verification that a person between the ages of 18 and 21
would be subject to the 10-day sentencing cap, whereas a
person over the age of 21 would be subject to a 90-day
sentencing cap.
Mr. Steiner replied that it was his understanding.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt,
Saddler
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gattis, Wilson, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7 29-
LS0541\V.49 (Martin/Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
[Note: due to the length of the amendment it has not been
included in the minutes.]
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment would
add a Section 85 on page 53, line 1 (bill version T). He
detailed that if there was an agency investigating a sexual
assault, the law enforcement agency shall not involve the
employer. He clarified that if there were two employees and
the offence happened within their employment range, the
department or investigators would not speak to the employer
unless the victim expressly permitted the disclosure or the
agency determined the disclosure was necessary to
investigate or prevent a crime. He elaborated that it was
similar to something the state had to deal with related to
sexual assaults that had occurred in the Alaska National
Guard in the recent past. He furthered that the National
Guard had discovered that a sexual offence involving two
employees had consistently been occurring. He believed the
employer may be in a position where they may not want to
allow information to be proceeded because it could bring
down the reputation of a company.
12:38:28 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 7 FAILED (3/8).
12:39:15 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED Amendment 8 29-LS0541\V.50
(Martin/Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file). He relayed that
after speaking with staff on the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, he had learned that there were
currently ways the reporting occurred. One way he would
like to see reporting occur in the future was with an
online system, where individuals would not have to speak
face-to-face with a counselor. He stated there were some
technical issues in dealing with the online reporting
system; therefore he WITHDREW Amendment 8.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9 29-
LS0541\V.64 (Gardner, 4/25/16) (copy on file):
Page 62, following line 26:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(h) Notwithstanding (g)(2) of this section, if a
person resides in a community where a court-ordered
treatment program under AS 28.35.028 is not available,
the person shall
1) provide proof to the court that the person has
successfully completed a rehabilitative treatment
program appropriate for the person's alcohol or
substance abuse condition; the program must
A. include planning and treatment for alcohol or
drug addiction;
B. include emphasis on personal responsibility;
C. require payment of restitution to victims and
completion of community work service;
D. include physician-approved treatment of
physical addiction and treatment of the
psychological causes of addiction; and
E. include a monitoring program and physical
placement or housing in communities where the
court finds that a monitoring program and
placement or housing is available;
2) provide proof by clear and convincing evidence to
the court that the person is currently sober and
has maintained sobriety for a period of at least
18 months; and
3) provide written notice to the district attorney's
office of the person's request for a limited
license under this section.
(i) A person is not entitled to court-appointed
counsel under (h) of this section,"
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 62, line 31, following "AS 28.35.028":
Insert "or a rehabilitative treatment program under
(h) of this section"
Page 67, line 7, following "AS 28.35.028":
Insert "or a rehabilitative treatment program under AS
28.15.201(h)"
Page 123, line 29:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(g) and (h)"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(g) - (j)"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment had been
drafted to the prior bill version V (page 62, line 26); in
the new CS (version T) it applied to page 56, line 6. He
relayed that the amendment tried to bring equity to
individuals living in a location with no therapeutic court.
Currently, Section 89 of the bill let a person with a
felony DUI get a limited license if the person met a number
of conditions including, participating in a court-approved
treatment program and therapeutic court, providing proof of
rehabilitation success, installation of an ignition
interlock device on their vehicle, providing proof of
insurance, and demonstrating that they had not driven
illegally since the arrest or violated probation. The
amendment applied to individuals living in a community with
no therapeutic court; it specified that a person fulfill
all of the conditions required under Section 89, with the
exception of the therapeutic court. Line 6 of the amendment
specified that a person would have to provide clear and
convincing evidence to the court that they had successfully
completed a rehabilitative treatment program appropriate
for the person's alcohol or substance abuse condition. He
explained that the goal was to provide a parallel system to
allow an individual to get a limited license back for a
person living in a rural community (e.g. Nome or
Aleknagik). There were a number of communities that did not
have a therapeutic court, but that were on the road system.
The only major difference between Amendment 9 and Section
89 of the CS was the allowance of a therapeutic treatment
program in place of the therapeutic court. The individual
would also have to show that they had successfully
completed the program and had been sober for at least 18
months, which was the length of time the therapeutic courts
lasted. He reiterated that every requirement from the other
part of the bill was included in the conditions. The
amendment would bring equity for people who did not have
access to a therapeutic court. He added that he had worked
closely with the court system to ensure that none of the
other requirements were missed.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Ms. Mead to address the committee.
He remarked that Amendments 9 and 10 were somewhat related.
He believed the commission had been asked to address the
topic. He wondered when the commission would have a report
back.
Ms. Mead replied that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission had been tasked (by SB 64 [2014 legislation
establishing the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission]) to do
a study of many provisions of Title 28 - driving provisions
including administrative revocations and other parts. They
had also been tasked with looking into limited licenses and
the efficacy of ignition interlock devices. The commission
was currently working to determine what may be the best way
to issue limited licenses. She believed the commission
would include the information in its annual report before
the next regular legislative session.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the report would be available in
the fall/winter of 2016. Ms. Mead replied "approximately
yes."
Co-Chair Thompson thought the provision in Amendment 9 may
be premature before hearing from the commission. Ms. Mead
replied that the commission would come up with
recommendations. She had worked with the amendment sponsor
to ensure that it was doable. She affirmed that the
commission was working to establish something that may be
more comprehensive, but she did not know what they would
come up with.
12:45:53 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the amendment.
He stated that it related to equity and the ability for
people to get similar things statewide. He asked if there
were just five therapeutic reports located in Fairbanks,
Anchorage, Juneau, Kenai, and Palmer.
Ms. Mead replied that there were six therapeutic courts,
which also included Ketchikan. She listed the therapeutic
court locations: Ketchikan, Juneau, Bethel, Fairbanks,
Palmer, and Anchorage.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to a similar amendment he had
drafted, which aimed to obtain equity for individuals
living without a therapeutic court. He asked if unspecified
rehabilitative treatment programs could be the same or
equal to what was currently offered in a therapeutic court
setting.
Ms. Mead answered that it was the crux of the amendment.
She believed the bill sponsor's goal was to have something
objective. The court was not incredibly involved in the
provisions under SB 91. She continued that a person would
be entitled to a limited license as a felon if they
graduated from a therapeutic court and completed the
additional conditions, which included [but not limited to]
insurance, ignition interlock, and not losing a license
previously. The amendment was different and would mean the
court would have a hearing to determine whether the
rehabilitative treatment program was appropriate for the
person and to make a finding by clear and convincing
evidence that the person was sober. She furthered that the
court would have a hearing on the issue and would weigh
facts and evidence to determine whether the treatment
program was on par with therapeutic courts.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to ensure it was a
comparable proposal to therapeutic courts, which he
believed was an 18-month program. He remarked that he was
friends with a therapeutic court judge who called his
participants daily and met frequently with the individuals.
Ms. Mead answered that she did not know of any other
program in the state that was as intense as therapeutic
court, with the exception of treatment programs. She
detailed that a person could live in residential treatment
where she supposed the participants had constant contact
with treatment providers. She expounded that therapeutic
courts sometimes had a residential component - they had a
well-studied and highly organized system of dealing with
people's substance abuse or alcohol programs. She
elucidated that the person met with a judge at the
beginning of the (18-month minimum) program - which went in
phases and tapered off towards the end of the 18 months.
She described that participants met with the judge several
times a week; it was a team approach including people from
the Division of Behavioral Health, the public defender or
defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and
the social workers. She furthered that social workers had
private pre-meetings with the judge and then interviewed
the participant in a court room about how they were doing
in every aspect of life. She stated that the process was
very hands-on and intensive. She did not know whether
something similar existed outside the therapeutic court
community.
12:50:09 PM
Representative Kawasaki stated a therapeutic court
graduation was an amazing and positive experience. He asked
about the recidivism rate for individuals who had gone
through the program.
Ms. Mead replied that felons who completed the therapeutic
court program had a one-third lower recidivism rate. Felons
who went through a therapeutic court for any time period
had a somewhat lower recidivism rate. There was a dropout
rate for therapeutic courts due to the intensity of the
program. She stated that misdemeanants had a one-third
lower recidivism rate when they completed the program.
Representative Guttenberg agreed that attending a
therapeutic court graduation was amazing to see what went
on and what the individuals had gone through. He spoke to
item 2 of Amendment 9 that required a person to provide
proof by clear and convincing evidence to the court that
they were currently sober and had maintained sobriety for a
period of at least 18 months. He observed that it seemed
like a tougher standard than participating in a therapeutic
court. He asked how difficult it was for a person to
maintain and prove sobriety while living on their own
without oversight. He believed it was clearly a higher
standard.
Ms. Mead answered that SB 91 did not require any findings
of the person being sober; it was objective. She explained
that if a person finished therapeutic court they satisfied
the requirement. The Amendment 9 requirement for a person
to provide clear and convincing evidence of maintaining
sobriety would be subjective. She was uncertain how
judicial officers would define sobriety or make the
finding. She believed that based on the amendment language,
the 18 months could be coexistent with the time spent in a
treatment program. She did not know exactly how it would
work and believed it would be difficult.
12:53:15 PM
Representative Gattis asked about the study that the
commission would provide. She asked if the amendment would
hinder the study going forward. She knew therapeutic courts
worked and she had family members who had completed the
program. She had lived in areas that did not have access to
therapeutic courts and understood the goal of the
amendment, but she did not want to foul up the work the
commission was doing.
Ms. Mead answered that the study, which would come out
later in the year, was related to driver's licenses and
other provisions of Title 28 as opposed to a specific study
on therapeutic courts and their effectiveness. She expected
the study from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission would
provide some suggestions about how to change driver's
license restrictions. The commission was studying whether
the revocations for DUI were appropriate and what changes
may serve the public safety and policy better, including
whether there should be felony limited licenses and under
what circumstances. She guessed that the recommendations
would not look the same as the amendment, but she did not
know.
Representative Edgmon believed the amendment was good, but
was concerned about getting ahead of a more comprehensive
look at the issue by the commission. He remarked that there
could be merit to working on the issue later on instead of
addressing it in the current bill.
Representative Gara relayed that he understood there would
be a study. He reasoned that they did not know whether the
study would have any traction in the legislature and
currently there was no way for someone without access to a
therapeutic court to receive a limited license in order to
go to work. He reasoned the legislature could wait a year
and prevent access to limited licenses to some people based
on where they live, but the legislature did not even know
what the recommendations would be and whether it would
agree with them. He had heard that the commission may
provide recommendations that did not even require
alcoholism and drug treatment and may only require a
shorter period of license revocation. He had offered the
amendment with the understanding that if a better idea came
out of the commission, the proposal would be replaced with
the new idea. He furthered that until something like that
passed - which could take significant time - he wanted to
have something in place. He had tried to be very careful to
maintain all of the other conditions a person must prove to
obtain a limited license (e.g. the installation of an
ignition interlock device on the vehicle and that a person
had not broken the law). The amendment also required a
person to prove they had been sober for 18 months, which
was not a therapeutic court requirement; it was a stronger
standard to provide additional protection to the public. He
stressed that if the committee did not include the
provision in the bill, it was not possible to know whether
there would be another provision for individuals living in
an area without access to a therapeutic court (e.g. Homer,
Kenai, and other). He was amenable to replacing what the
amendment would implement if the commission came up with a
more comprehensive idea in the future.
12:58:04 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Neuman,
Thompson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 9 FAILED (4/7).
12:58:55 PM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 10 29-
LS0541\V.34 (Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11 29-
LS0541\V.45 (Martin/Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
[Note: due to the length of the amendment it has not been
included in the minutes.]
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion. He noted that
the amendment applied to page 63 of the CS.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment added
a new section specifically addressing the caseload of
probation officers. He stated that currently the bill
proposed major shifts in the way DOC did business; it
shifted many individuals in jail to out of jail systems or
onto parole. He referred to numerous studies and practical
sense that because parole and probation supervision was
heavily based on surveillance and caseload, heavy caseloads
meant less time spent on each individual case. The
amendment specified that caseload maximums for probation
officers would not exceed 60. He referenced other studies
showing that criminal recidivism was lower for offenders
who were supervised by officers with lower caseloads. He
reiterated that it was common sense that probation officers
with heavy caseloads had a difficult time managing the
cases. The amendment reflected that there would be many
individuals out on probation. He believed that under the
circumstances, the legislature should make sure they did
not recidivate.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
did not know what impact the amendment would have on the
current budget. He detailed that when determining the
budget the legislature looked at the number of personnel
and what the state could afford through conversations with
the department commissioners. He spoke to reduced personnel
due to budgetary reasons. He believed people probably
wished the state could afford more correctional officers
and troopers, but "it was not in the cards." He reiterated
that he did not know what the cost of the amendment would
be.
Representative Kawasaki recognized there was a cost to the
amendment that would be reflected in a future fiscal note.
He stressed that the bill would change the way DOC worked
and the number of individuals out on probation and parole
would increase. He stated that the individuals would either
succeed or fail on probation. He thought it was important
to look at how much the state would be spending on
probation. He referred to a U.S. Department of Justice
study stating that criminal recidivism was lower for
offenders supervised by officers with lower caseloads. He
stated that if there were large caseloads, the individuals
would recidivate more.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 11 FAILED (3/8).
1:04:06 PM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 12 29-
LS0541\V.35 (Martin/Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13 29-
LS0541\V.36 (Martin/Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file):
Page 78, line 2:
Delete "55"
Insert "65"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion. He pointed to
page 70, line 17 of the CS.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendment related to
geriatric parole. He recognized the associated cost of the
aging population within the prison system. He also
recognized that according to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission that offenders at a certain age tended to
recidivate significantly less. He observed that the bill
version before the committee had increased the geriatric
parole age to 60. He referred to Louisiana with a geriatric
parole for prisoners over the age of 45, while the age in
Maryland and North Carolina was 65. He detailed that age 60
was around the median age for geriatric parole. He believed
there were other ways to parole individuals in the system
who had medical conditions that would prevent them from
recidivating. Additionally, there was discretionary parole
and the new administrative parole that he had concern
about. He WITHDREW Amendment 13.
1:06:43 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that the current age of
geriatric parole had been increased to 60 in the CS.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14 29-
LS054\V.57 (Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file) on page 93,
line 4 of the CS:
Page 105, line 3:
Delete '50 percent of'
Page 105, lines 5 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(d) The legislature may use the annual estimated
balance in the fund to make appropriations as follows:
(1) 50 percent to the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Health and Social Services, or the
Department of Public Safety for recidivism reduction
programs; and
(2) 50 percent for drug and alcohol abuse prevention
and treatment grant programs administered by the
Department of Health and Social Services."
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the bill
established a recidivism reduction fund, where 50 percent
of the marijuana tax would be deposited. He had always
believed that taxes off the marijuana industry should go to
alcohol and drug treatment. He furthered that as written in
the bill, the 50 percent targeted recidivism reduction
programs. The amendment would designate the remaining 50
percent for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment
grant programs administered by the Department of Health and
Social Services. He reasoned that there were people who
needed the programs, but were not court ordered and had not
committed crimes. He considered that a person probably had
committed a crime (but had not been caught) if they
believed they needed alcohol or drug abuse treatment. He
wanted to ensure that the money out of the marijuana taxes
went into the treatment, given the insufficient number of
programs in the state. He believed the money was
appropriately used in the recidivism program as well.
Representative Munoz thought it was a good idea on the
surface; however, she pointed out that Amendment 1 had
passed, which directed excess funds to law enforcement.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
relayed that he was an advocate of trying to put more money
towards prevention and treatment; however, the legislature
did not know how much money the fund would bring in. He
added that they did not know what the impacts of SB 91
would be in terms of any savings. He believed it was
premature to spend money that the state did not have.
Representative Guttenberg discussed that the state
marijuana board raised money to support itself with receipt
authority. He did not want to see the money merely absorbed
into the budget. He stressed the importance of the
programs, which were needed and were too few in number. He
clarified that it would not create a designated fund, but
would target the unknown amount of money [towards
treatment]. He understood that the calculations in other
states that had created the programs were varied; however,
he believed there would be a better chance the funds would
go towards addressing treatment.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Wilson, Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Edgmon, Gattis, Neuman,
Thompson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 14 FAILED (4/7).
1:11:46 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15 29-
LS0541\V.17 (Gardner, 4/20/16) (copy on file). [Note: due
to the length of the amendment it has not been included in
the minutes.]
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment would
help to ensure that individuals under the supervision of
DOC could be reformed and find jobs. He detailed that
currently individuals convicted of assault in the fourth
degree were barred from specific types of employment. He
expounded that many laws had been implemented in the past
decades that prevented a person from finding gainful
employment. He furthered that the bill made some good
reforms (e.g. limited licenses for individuals with DUIs
and things to help individuals get back on their feet in
order to reduce recidivism). The amendment addressed a
barrier to employment - individuals convicted of the crime
would not be able to work in a healthcare setting for five
years after conviction. He opined that it was too long. He
believed it was important to think about the multitude of
laws that prevented people from getting back on their feet.
He WITHDREW the amendment with the intent to potentially
offer it at a later date.
1:13:28 PM
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment 16 29-
LS8007\A.6 (Martin, 4/22/16) (copy on file).
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16a 29-
LS0541\T.1 (Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file) [Note: due to
the length of the amendment it has not been included in the
minutes].
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the amendment. The
section had been put in by another committee in the House
and had subsequently been removed. He thought the amendment
was very appropriate. He discussed that the bill related to
crime, procedure, and restitution. The amendment addressed
murder and restitution, which already appeared in the bill
title. He explained that if a trooper was murdered the
family would receive the benefits the trooper would have
received upon retirement.
Co-Chair Neuman regretfully spoke in opposition to the
amendment. He stated that the issue had arisen because
there had been Alaska State Troopers recently killed in the
line of duty in the Talkeetna area and their spouses had
been left without benefits. He believed the issue needed to
be addressed and he suspected it would happen in the
following legislative session. He thought the topic
warranted further discussion throughout the legislative
committee process. He noted that there was a legal opinion
from Legislative Legal Services (dated April 16, 2016 from
Doug Gardner) specifying that the amendment would very
likely violate the single subject rule, which would put
entire provisions of the bill at risk for invalidation.
Additionally, he had asked Legislative Legal Services about
statutory definitions of an Alaska peace officer or fire
fighter. The definition he had received was as follows:
An employee occupying a position as a peace officer,
chief of police, regional police safety officer,
correction officer, correctional superintendent, fire
fighter, fire chief, probation officer, may include
University police, but would not include a Village
Public Safety Officer.
Co-Chair Neuman added that the definition would include
some employees under the Department of Fish and Game and
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He
noted that there were high frequencies of accidents in the
positions. He did not know how far reaching the amendment
was. He considered the state's troopers to be heroes. He
spoke to the cost in the fiscal note, which ranged from
$174,000 or so. Additionally, another $557,000 would be
taken from the Retiree Health Fund in the first year; it
also added further unfunded liabilities. He believed it was
a good concept, but he did not believe the current bill was
the appropriate place to address the issue. Currently the
state capped Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) at
22 percent at the municipal level (there was a 12 percent
unfunded liability and a 10 percent cap); actual cost was
closer to 26 percent and the state picked up any additional
costs. He elaborated that due to changes made in 2008 to
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and PERS there was
discussion underway to look at changes within the systems
related to municipal revenue and the portion the state
could contribute. He stressed the importance of the issue
included in the amendment and he believed the
administration was currently working on the issue related
to two troopers who had been killed in the line of duty. He
noted that in the past, former Governor Sean Parnell had
provided for spouses of fallen officers.
1:20:05 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the Amendment
16a. He stated that the amendment aimed to protect spouses
who had lost their husband or wife. He noted that there was
a small fiscal note that would likely be $174,000. The
amount rose slowly up to $226,000 in the next five years.
He emphasized that the impact to the normal cost rate of
the Defined Benefit Plan was minimal at 0.01 percent and
0.00 percent overall. He referred to two troopers who had
lost their lives. He stated that it was a chance to make a
difference for the lives of individuals who had lost their
spouses in the line of duty. He commented on questions
about whether the amendment would fit into the bill's
title. He observed that the bill contained issues ranging
from corrections, Permanent Fund Dividends, driver
licenses, and food stamps. He stated that the amendment
would fit in the title of the bill if the committee
allowed. He remarked that there was a severability clause
in case there was a legal challenge at some point in the
future; therefore, the law would not impact the remaining
bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler echoed comments made by Co-Chair Neuman.
He believed the issue was worthwhile and deserved its own
consideration. He generally tried to look at entire pieces
of legislation interjected into other legislation with a
skeptical eye. He agreed that the issue needed to be
addressed and was important enough that it should stand
alone. He believed a fiscal note for a previous iteration
of the provision had been $577,000 from the trust [Retiree
Health Fund]. He was concerned that the amendment may have
implications for other state workers with similar or
greater degrees of fatalities in the line of work. He added
that there were questions regarding the single subject rule
and severability. He did not believe it was appropriate to
cloud the bill with additional topics.
Representative Guttenberg stated that crime and restitution
were already in the title of the bill. He furthered that SB
91 was an omnibus crime bill, which contained many
subjects. Additionally, the amendment contained a
severability clause specifying that the amendment would be
removed from the bill if the courts rule that the bill
violated the single subject rule. He understood that
Legislative Legal Services did not like "Christmas treeing"
bills, but the legal opinion also addressed "log rolling,"
which was the practice of inserting several dissimilar
incongruous subjects in one bill. He emphasized that it was
not the case with the amendment at hand. He stressed that
the troopers had been murdered in Tanana three years
earlier. He stressed that three years had gone by and there
had been no legislative action. He emphasized that the
fiscal note would remain the same. He believed the families
deserved restitution after three years.
Co-Chair Thompson read from a Legislative Legal Services
opinion dated April 27, 2016:
If a court finds that there is a single subject
violation, it is likely that the entire bill may fail
because it will be impossible for a court to determine
which part of the bill should be saved. Even with the
severability clause, a court may still strike down the
entire bill on single subject grounds as that
constitutional requirement applies to the entire bill.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that it was a difficult thing
for everyone to figure out. Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED
his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Thompson,
Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 16a FAILED (4/7).
1:26:47 PM
AT EASE
1:27:19 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17 29-
LS0541\V.65 (Gardner, 4/26/15) (copy on file):
Page 49, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
" Sec. 83. AS 12.55.125(b) is amended to read:
(b) A defendant convicted of attempted murder in the
first degree, solicitation to commit murder in the
first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first
degree, kidnapping, or misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first degree shall be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at
least five years but not more than 99 years. A
defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or
murder of an unborn child under AS 11.41 .1 50(a)(2) -
(4) shall be sentenced to a definite term of
imprisonment of at least 15 [10] years but not more
than 99 years. A defendant convicted of murder in the
second degree shall be sentenced to a definite term of
imprisonment of at least 20 years but not more than 99
years when the defendant is convicted of the murder of
a child under 16 years of age and the court finds by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant (1)
was a natural parent, a stepparent, an adoptive
parent, a legal guardian, or a person occupying a
position of authority in relation to the child; or (2)
caused the death of the child by committing a crime
against a person under AS 11.41.200 - 11.41.530. In
this subsection, "legal guardian" and "position of
authority" have the meanings given in AS 11.41.470."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 52, line 2, through page 53, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 121, following line 23:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(30) AS 12.55.125(b), as amended by sec. 83 of this
Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 121, line 24:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 125, line 31:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 126, line 1:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 126, line 2:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 86"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained Amendment 17. He discussed
that one area of the bill increased the minimum on murder
in the first degree; however, it had not been
proportionately increased for murder in the second degree.
He explained that the change would increase the prison time
from 10 years up to 20 years. He had initially considered
offering an amendment to implement the 20-year sentence;
however, he had decided to offer an amendment for a 15-year
sentence as a compromise. He referred to a guide from the
Alaska Peace Officers Association and read that murder in
the second degree included the intent to cause physical
serious physical injury or knowing conduct is substantially
certain to cause death or certain physical injury, causes
the death of any person. He furthered that murder in the
second degree was also committed if death resulted when the
suspect was attempting, committing, or fleeing from crimes
including arson in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual
assault in the first or second degree, and sexual abuse of
a minor in the first or second degree. He stated that an
individual could commit the crime of sexual assault in the
first degree and the minimum sentencing for the crime was
20 years based on 13 years or older - 20 to 30 years would
be the minimum. He stated that "on something like this that
could include something in that same vein, in the process,
it actually starts with the minimum a little bit lower." He
believed it was appropriate to be cognizant of the issue,
to be consistent, and to come up with a compromise. He
noted that Mr. Shilling could speak to the issue further if
needed.
Mr. Shilling affirmed that Senator Coghill was supportive
of the concept. He added that the other body had increased
the mandatory minimum for murder in the second degree from
10 up to 15 years. He furthered that there were very clear
differences between the way the state sentenced sexual
assaults and murder, but Senator Coghill was supportive of
the change.
1:31:18 PM
AT EASE
1:32:20 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara remarked that he did not want to make
the amendment on the fly because he believed the issue was
already covered by the aggravators in the sentencing
statute. He detailed that if a person committed a
particularly egregious crime, especially with intent, the
aggravators applied. The sentencing range in current
statute was 10 to 99 years; a person's sentence increased
depending on whether the aggravators applied. One version
of the crime was where a person intended to cause serious
physical injury to another person without knowledge the
person was pregnant and the result was a loss of the baby.
He believed it should be a felony and it fell under a
sentencing minimum of 10 years. He continued that all of
the aggravators then applied to increase the sentence above
10 years. He spoke to the 35 aggravators listed in AS
12.55.155 including whether a person sustained physical
injury, whether there was deliberate cruelty, whether a
dangerous instrument was used, whether the victim was
particularly vulnerable, and more. He stated that under all
of the circumstances listed, a person would receive a
lengthy sentence. He did not want to just select a number
that also would apply to a person who assaulted someone
without the knowledge the victim was pregnant. He furthered
that if the perpetrator had known about the pregnancy the
aggravator would apply. He was more comfortable with the
current version of the bill. He added that no one was
saying that any of the conduct was tolerable; it was all
categorized as a felony. He stated that if a person knew
the victim was pregnant they would receive a long sentence.
However, it would add five years to a person's sentence in
a situation where they did not know the victim was
pregnant. He hoped people would feel comfortable with the
existing aggravators that allowed sentencing to be
individualized to a person's actual conduct.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 17 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Thompson returned to Amendment 2. He noted that
the amendment brought up the problem of the single subject
violation and how it could jeopardize the entire bill.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2. She read
the amendment, which would add a severability clause
related to the single subject rule:
Severability. If this Act is held invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction under the requirement of
art. II, sec. 13, Constitution of the State of Alaska,
that every bill be confined to one subject, the
provisions of sec 2 of this Act shall be severed so
that the remainder of this Act is not affected.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:37:28 PM
AT EASE
2:00:04 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amendment
to Amendment 2.
Representative Gara OBJECTED to ensure that no damage to
the bill was caused. He stated that Amendment 2 now applied
to Section 2 and the severability clause specified that if
the amendment violated the single subject rule, the
amendment would be removed from the bill. He clarified that
previously applied to Section 1.
Representative Wilson replied in the affirmative.
There being NO further OBJECTION, the amendment to
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment 2.
He spoke against going forward with the amendment in order
to be consistent with his objection to an earlier
amendment, which also included a severability clause.
Representative Wilson spoke to the amendment. She cited a
2010 Alaska Supreme Court case Croft v. Parnell and read
from the single subject and severability memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services dated April 27, 2016:
All that is necessary is that [the] act should embrace
some one general subject; and by this is meant,
merely, that all matters treated of should fall under
some one general idea, be so connected with or related
to each other, either logically or in popular
understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one
general subject.
Representative Wilson continued that Legislative Legal
Services had defined the single subject of SB 91 to
generally be criminal law and procedure. The amendment
specified that civil in rem forfeiture could not be used in
place of a criminal proceeding. She understood the comments
provided by Co-Chair Thompson, but she contended that
Amendment 2 did not fall into the same category as an
earlier amendment. She stressed that Amendment 2 did
pertain to criminal law and procedure. Although she did not
believe it was necessary, she had no problem including the
severability clause.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Wilson, Gara, Gattis, Guttenberg,
Kawasaki, Munoz,
OPPOSED: Thompson, Saddler, Edgmon, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 2 as amended PASSED (7/4).
2:03:45 PM
RECESSED
4:59:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18 29-
LS0541I\V.55 (Gardner, 4/22/16) (copy on file) [Note: due
to the length of the amendment it has not been included in
the minutes].
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment related to
identification cards and driver's licenses for parolees. He
referred to a provision commonly referred to as a red
stripe (on driver's licenses) that applied when a court
ruled that an individual could not purchase alcohol. The
amendment would add the following language to the
provision: or as a condition of probation or parole for any
other crime. He explained the genesis of the amendment. He
discussed a case in Anchorage where a young woman was
killed [Bree Moore] by her boyfriend the day he had been
released from anger management therapy. He detailed that
the man had purchased alcohol to celebrate being out and
had proceeded to get drunk and kill his girlfriend. The red
stripe law had not been effective in preventing the man
from purchasing alcohol for a couple of reasons. The
amendment was aimed at fixing one of the reasons; the other
reason may not necessarily be solved by the amendment, but
he was trying to figure out if there was time to deal with
it during session. He explained that when a person went
into prison their license was taken and it was given back
when they were released even if the license was supposed to
have a red stripe. He furthered that the court did send the
information to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and DMV
sent a letter giving a person 30 days to obtain a new
license; however, not everyone followed through and the
license was not always checked when a person went to buy
alcohol. He added that the license would also appear valid
unless the seller checked it with the DMV. He explained
that the situation was more complex and he was working to
determine if there was the ability to put forward some
language - DOC and the Department of Administration needed
to collaborate on the issue. The amendment would require an
individual to get the red stripe on their license as a
condition of probation or parole. He noted that it was not
a current requirement - a person could still potentially
buy alcohol with the license without the red stripe, even
if it was a condition of their parole.
Representative Wilson asked if identification cards could
be covered as well.
Representative Pruitt replied that it was a very valid
point. Currently the red stripe law required both
identification cards and driver's licenses. The amendment
included identification cards.
Representative Wilson believed the bill would take the
handling of driver's licenses out of the hands of DOC;
however, identification cards would still be handled by
DOC. She asked if the bill needed to include identification
cards because it would fall underneath the department's
responsibility.
Senator Coghill replied that DOC was required to do pre-
release planning and he believed the issue could be taken
care of during that process. He believed that
identification cards and driver's licenses could be
included and would have to go through the process for
probation and parole.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from DOC. She believed
the bill had been changed to exclude driver's licenses from
DOC's responsibility.
Mr. Shilling answered that there was a provision in the
bill authorizing DOC to issue an identification card only;
however, it was permissive, but not compulsory.
Representative Wilson reiterated her request to hear from
DOC.
5:06:59 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via
teleconference), deferred the question to his colleague.
Senator Coghill pointed to page 89, line 24 of the CS
requiring DOC to assist a prisoner in obtaining a valid
state identification card. He agreed with Representative
Wilson that the requirement for a driver's license was not
included.
Representative Wilson asked whether the department needed
legislation - when it was helping a person to get an
identification card - to ensure that the identification
card had the red stripe if part of the person's release
conditions was avoiding alcohol.
CLAIRE SULLIVAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), answered that she had
been a probation officer in recent years and the department
had been assisting prisoners with obtaining their
identification card upon release. She detailed that the
department provided documentation for the person to take
upon release - there had been no way for an inmate to take
care of the issue while in custody. She stated that it was
strictly something that only DMV could take care of in its
offices. She stated that the department could continue the
process, but it would be very difficult to enable a person
to obtain their identification card prior to release.
Representative Wilson asked how DOC tried to ensure that
the person's identification card would include something
showing that alcohol was a part of their probation
conditions. She wanted to avoid a situation where a person
could use an old identification card.
Ms. Sullivan answered that parole conditions were sent to
DMV prior to a person's release; therefore, a red stripe
would be included on the new license when issued. She
furthered that frequently when a person was released from
custody their identification was expired and a new card was
required.
Representative Gara asked if the amendment was workable as
written. Ms. Sullivan asked for clarification.
Representative Gara restated his question. Ms. Sullivan
would have to review the amendment to provide an answer.
Representative Pruitt clarified that all the amendment was
able to do was add "a condition of probation or parole" to
the requirements of the red stripe law. The second page of
the amendment instructed the board to submit information to
DOA notifying them that the red stripe was a condition of
parole. He stated that there were two pieces to solving
Butch Moore's [Ms. Moore's father] problem. He explained
that the red stripe law had some failure in truthfully
being administered. He wanted to solve the problem, which
he believed involved forcing DOC and DOA to work together
on the issue. He further explained that when a prisoner was
released from prison they received their old identification
card or license back. The individual also received a check
upon release, which required a form of identification to
cash. The amendment addressed the first component of Mr.
Moore's problem. He reiterated that the amendment only
added "probation or parole" into the requirements on the
red stripe law. The amendment could only address one part
of the problem because the second part was very complex.
5:14:25 PM
Ms. Mead believed that page 2 of the amendment related to
Section 99 of the bill had some inherent problems. She
explained that every time the court recorded probation that
had an alcohol restriction, the amendment would have the
court report the order to DMV within two days. She stressed
that a high number of cases had included that order as a
probation condition - she estimated the number at 20,000
probation orders, which would have to be transmitted to DMV
per year. She did not know that the department would want
all of the orders and she did not know about the logistics
of making the transmittal. She suspected it may be quite a
hurdle for the court system and DMV.
Representative Pruitt appreciated the remarks. He stated
that unfortunately during his work on the amendment the
issue had not arisen previously. He asked if there were
20,000 individuals who were not allowed access to alcohol
as a condition of parole.
Ms. Mead answered that the court did not handle parole, but
it did handle probation conditions; every conviction
included a sentence with probation conditions imposed by
the court that would go into effect once the person was
released from jail. She did not know that 20,000 was an
accurate number, but there were about that many felony and
misdemeanor convictions per year. She stated that even
10,000 would be a task.
Representative Pruitt replied that he had been given a very
rough number of 6,000 parolees (approximately one-quarter
of the release population). He asked how enforce the red
stripe law.
Ms. Mead answered that she could not think of a way at
present - she had just seen the amendment for the first
time. She pointed out that she did not know the precise
figure; however, many convicted felons and misdemeanants
were told to refrain from the use of alcohol during their
probationary term. She furthered that sometimes the
probation condition said "refrain from the use of alcohol
to excess." She explained that it was not easy or
straightforward looking at the probation conditions. She
currently did not know how to solve the problem.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the commission [Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission] should look at the issue.
Ms. Mead replied that it may be a great idea. She stated
that it may be part of the commission's Title 28 review.
She communicated that the red stripe provision fell under
Title 28 and potentially the commission was looking at how
to make it better or broader if the legislature so desired.
Representative Pruitt recognized the comments made by Ms.
Mead and communicated that he could withdraw the amendment
if it would cause problems. He was frustrated that the law
had been in place for 8 years and how to work it out had
still not been determined.
5:19:59 PM
Representative Gara stated that the goal was to solve a
real problem. He asked if there could be a conceptual
amendment to ask the commission to take a look at the
issue. He wondered if it was the appropriate way to address
the problem.
Senator Coghill relayed that the commission would be
contemplating some of the Title 28 issues. The bill had
looked at trying to bring DMV and the court system closer
together on some of the license revocation issues. The
Title 4 rewrite had been light in the current year and it
remained something that needed to be addressed. He stated
that between Title 28 and Title 4 there were still many
unsolved problems. He had looked at the issue early on and
had run into some of the same snags the committee was
currently discussing. He believed they should start with
the pre-parole and probation planning. He did not know the
solution to the particular issue. He reiterated that the
commission would be looking at the two titles pretty
significantly. He believed the legislature could ask the
commission to look at the issue, but he noted that the
legislature had asked the commission to do a lot in a short
amount of time.
Co-Chair Thompson asked how to ensure the commission would
look at the issue.
Senator Coghill replied that the committee could include
intent language asking the commission to look at the issue.
He could look into language the legislature could include
related to duties or intent. He believed the situation [the
amendment was working to address] was a conundrum.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment 18 with the intent
to see about offering intent language on the House floor.
He stated that it would be worthwhile if one life could be
saved by figuring out the issue.
Ms. Mead added that current law required any DUI and
refusals to receive the red stripe. She detailed that every
night the court system transmitted all of those judgements
to DMV. She believed it worked well, but it was only a
small subset of the overall population.
Representative Pruitt stressed that the issue needed to be
figured out. He explained that individuals could still use
their old license after release from custody. He detailed
that the state had the individuals in its custody, but gave
them back the same license. He detailed that there were
many inebriates in his district who used the same license
to get alcohol. He furthered that there were still people
driving and accessing alcohol. He remarked that an
Anchorage assemblyperson who was a former police officer
had stressed that it [the red stripe provision] did not
work. He agreed that the practicality and actual
application needed to be determined. He pledged to work on
intent language. He reiterated that the state had a tool
and needed to figure out how to appropriately utilize it.
5:24:42 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19 29-LS0541\T.7
(Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file):
Page 50, line 13, following "violated":
Insert "(A)"
Page 50, line 14, following "years":
Insert ".i
(B) AS 28.35.030(n)(l)(A) or 28.35.032(p)(l)(A), 120
days to 239 days;
(C) AS 28.35.030(n)(l)(B) or 28.35.032(p)(l)(B), 240
days to 359 days;
(D) AS 28.35.030(n)(l)(C) or 23.35.032(p)(l)(C), 360
days to two years"
Page 112, line 30:
Delete "AS 12.55.125(e)"
Insert "AS 12.55.125(e)(l) - (3)"
Page 113, following line 3:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(v) The amendment to AS 12.55.125(e) by the addition
of new subparagraphs (4)(B) - (D), providing
presumptive ranges for violation of AS 28.35.030(n)
and 28.35 .032(p), apply to offenses committed on or
after the effective date of sec. 81 of this Act,
except that references to previous convictions in AS
28.35 .030(n) and 28.35.032(p) apply to convictions
occurring before, on, or after the effective date of
sec. 81 of this Act."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the amendment would
accommodate mandatory minimums for DUIs and refusal of
felonies from the 120-day sentencing range. He detailed
that because felony DUIs already had their own mandatory
sentencing ranges, the amendment would reverse the status
quo for first-time felon DUIs as much as possible. The
amendment addressed the three different lengths of
sentencing. He asked Mr. Steiner and Mr. Skidmore to speak
to the amendment.
Mr. Steiner communicated that a conflict between the
current bill and the current scheme for felony DUIs had
been identified. The bill had included a presumptive range
that was inconsistent with the mandatory minimum. The
amendment would put back the existing scheme as closely as
possible with regard to first felony DUIs. The mandatory
minimums for a first-time felony were currently 120 to 240
days (depending on how many priors a person had). He
explained that the language was consistent with the current
scheme and was an exception from the current bill because
they had been inconsistent.
Mr. Skidmore agreed with Mr. Steiner's description of
Amendment 19. He explained that the lookback period for
felony DUIs could be different when counting priors for the
mandatory minimum. He stated that carving out the exception
for first-time DUI offenders did comport with the other
laws on mandatory minimums for a DUI.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He asked for
verification that the amendment addressed felony DUI
presumptive sentences. He asked for confirmation that for a
person's first felony DUI (their third DUI in a given
period) the minimum jail went from 120 days to 240 days to
360 days.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative for a first felony
DUI. He detailed that a first felony could have two priors
that made the felony, but could also have a third prior
that went outside. He clarified that a person's fourth
could be a person's first felony and not second. The
amendment addressed the sentencing scheme for first felony
DUIs.
Representative Gara relayed that he had done some research
on the issue as well, recognizing that the new sentencing
scheme was much more flexible. He had been told by
Legislative Legal Services that Class C felony crimes with
a mandatory minimum would remain. He surmised that the
amendment made it safer to ensure they remained; therefore,
he WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Saddler OBJECTED for discussion. He referred to
AS 28.35.030(n)(1)(A) and asked whether the sentencing
range would change to "120 days to 239 days" for a person
with two previous misdemeanor DUIs and one felony DUI.
Mr. Steiner replied in the negative. He explained that a
person's first felony DUI would be their third DUI with two
prior misdemeanor DUIs within a ten-year period. He
clarified that the amendment did not change the current law
to 120 days - current law required a minimum of 120 days.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified his question. He had been
asking if a person had two previous misdemeanor DUIs and
one felony DUI (all within a ten-year period) whether the
sentencing would be 120 to 239 days. Mr. Steiner replied in
the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler observed that the amendment would
stiffen up the sentencing a bit. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 19 was ADOPTED.
5:30:35 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 20 29-LS0541\T.3
(Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21 29-
LS0541\T.6 (Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file) [Note: due to
the length of the amendment it has not been included in the
minutes].
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment was
designed to prevent a misdemeanor from becoming a felony by
virtue of inflation in five years. He believed the dividing
line between a theft misdemeanor and theft felony was
$1,000 under the bill. He furthered that by virtue of
inflation something worth $980 if stolen at present would
be worth $1,020 in three years' time. He explained that
more people would be put in jail, but the crime would not
change. The amendment was something the criminal justice
commission had proposed; the commission had proposed
looking at the issue over time instead of addressing it
every 20 years (the dividing line had only been changed
once since 1978 and many misdemeanors had become felonies
due to inflation). The amendment would maintain the
dividing line at $1,000, but it would adjust for inflation
over time. He requested to hear from the sponsor on the
amendment.
Senator Coghill did not support the amendment. He replied
that he had not been a fan of inflation proofing along the
way. He relayed that he had previously communicated to
Representative Gara that he would consider moving to a
lower number. He stated that it was something the
commission had recommended under a consensus driven
process, but the amendment was far from the commission's
consensus, which had been $2,000. He added that the
commission had also recommended many other things that the
legislature had rejected under SB 91. He relayed that there
had been significant debate on the topic in the
legislature, which he believed was appropriate; however, he
did not know if indexing the number for inflation was the
right thing to do.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the
dividing line between a misdemeanor and felony was
currently $1,000 in the CS.
Senator Coghill replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara believed the sentencing commission had
recommended increasing the figure to $2,000 and inflation
proofing it. He stated that the figure was currently $1,000
with no inflation proofing. The commission had recommended
$2,000 and inflation proofing. He asked if the sponsor
would support the flat $2,000 with no inflation proofing.
He remarked that $2,000 basically reflected inflation that
had occurred since 1978. He asked if the bill sponsor would
be supportive of the $2,000 amount without inflation.
Senator Coghill answered that had voted for the $2,000
figure before the bill had come to the House. He understood
that the debate was difficult. He referred to a comment by
a committee member that when a person was stolen from it
represented a violation against that person. He stressed
that people felt very strongly about personal property
crimes. He believed the $2,000 was appropriate. He referred
to good information showing that it was an appropriate
figure nationwide. He shared that one of the reasons he had
supported the higher level was that he would like to see
people court ordered to repay property owners. He believed
the state's misdemeanants were better suited to that than
were its felonies. He supported heading in the $2,000
direction. He reiterated that he was not a fan of inflation
proofing.
Representative Gara stated that he had misunderstood the
sponsor earlier on; therefore, he WITHDREW Amendment 21.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20 29-
LS0541\T.3 (Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file) [Note: due to
the length of the amendment it has not been included in the
minutes].
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
5:37:36 PM
Representative Gara explained that if the $500 dividing
line between a misdemeanor and felony theft adopted in the
1970s was inflation proofed it would be approximately
$1,800 at present. He reminded the committee that he was
referring to theft that did not include burglary and
robbery. He stated that if the will of the body was to
avoid inflation proofing, he proposed adopting a $2,000
dividing line. He stated that time would pass and inflation
would continue to increase. He believed it was wrong to
have a misdemeanor become a felony merely by virtue of
inflation. He explained that the amendment would
essentially bring the statute back to where it had been at
the time of its adoption in the 1970s. He added that moving
the dividing line to $2,000 was one of the criminal justice
commission's recommendations.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke against the amendment. He stated that
it had been made clear that the action under Amendment 20
had been a recommendation by the commission and that
Senator Coghill had specified there were some
recommendations the legislature had taken and some it had
not. The people he represented believed that if a person
committed theft they should be punished. He guessed that if
someone stole his 4-wheeler he could try to decide if it
cost $1,000 or $2,000, but the bottom line was they stole
his property. He believed it seemed they were trying to
make a sentence lighter for theft, which he did not like.
He stated "a crook is a crook." He suspected that the same
person who felt it was fine to steal a $999 4-wheeler
instead of 4-wheeler over $1,000 would probably steal
anything else. He did not believe the person would consider
the value of an item. He did not know what the amendment
would do if a person stole someone's tools, which prevented
the victim from going to work. He wondered if the value
would be of the replacement tools or other. He had
supported lowering the number to $750. He did not agree
with raising the price. He stated that 90 percent of the
theft crimes in the Mat-Su were perpetrated by a person
doing drugs. He stated that treatment was needed to stop
the cycle. He reiterated his opposition to the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked where else fines, sanctions, or
penalties were inflation indexed in statute.
Mr. Shilling replied that the only thing he could think of
was that the minimum wage adjusted annually with the
consumer price index (CPI) following a voter initiative.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the amendment would
introduce a new concept into criminal penalties.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the amendment would not
include inflation proofing; it would increase the number to
a flat $2,000.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the amendment would make $2,000
the threshold between a misdemeanor and felony.
Senator Coghill verified that it [$2,000] was the dividing
line between a misdemeanor and felony for a property crime.
He detailed that it did not reflect replacement value, but
actual value.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if it was throughout each of the
instances shown in the amendment. Senator Coghill replied
in the affirmative.
5:43:10 PM
Representative Edgmon asked about the other side of the
conversation. He remarked that there was a reason the
commission had recommended the increase from $1,000 to
$2,000. He asked Senator Coghill to address why the
increase would have positive outcomes.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the threshold in current
law was $750.
Representative Edgmon understood. He believed there must be
some evidence showing that increasing the amount would
result in positive outcomes.
Senator Coghill replied that the commission had done
significant review based on its research of the felony
threshold across the United States. The research showed an
average of about $1,500 and that when the threshold had
increased it did not indicate a corresponding rise in
crime. He explained that felony theft included a grand
jury, discovery, and a plea bargaining process. He believed
police officers and prosecutors probably liked that it gave
a heavy hammer on thievery. However, quite often the crime
was bargained down to a misdemeanor. He stated that it
required revving up a costly machine to get to a
misdemeanor anyway. The commission had also found that the
barrier crimes were quite high; even if a person was
charged for a felony and did not get charged, there were
still significant barriers to entry into the workforce. He
believed the commission had considered a whole range of
things. One of the considerations for Alaska was the
difference in cost for an item in urban versus rural areas
(e.g. due to the high cost of items in rural Alaska a
person could break a door and become a felon). The
commission had considered how to balance the threshold in
Alaska's economy, while using an evidence-based approach to
using the most amount of resources for the neediest
circumstances. The commission found that the $2,000 struck
a good average where crime did not increase and felonies
were accountable. He believed accountability was a big
factor in the commission's findings. He deferred to Mr.
Shilling for further detail.
Mr. Shilling elaborated that the commission had been
looking at how inflation over time had eroded the value and
that individuals were spending longer periods of time in
prison for crimes that would have been a misdemeanor one or
two decades earlier. He believed the research clearly
showed that longer jail time for the low level, nonviolent
offenders did not prevent a person from committing future
crime. In actuality, the research showed that putting a low
level, low risk person in prison could make them more
likely to commit new crimes in the future. He stated that
raising or lowering the felony theft threshold did not lead
to more or less property crime. It was nearly irrefutable
that lowering the threshold would not serve as a deterrent;
theft was generally a crime of impulse. He furthered that
from 2001 to 2011, 23 states had increased their
thresholds; none had seen an increase in property crime.
Actually, the 23 states that had increased the threshold
had seen a greater average decrease in property crime than
the 27 states that did not.
5:48:14 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that there seemed to be
negative aspects. He thought of some incidents where he did
not believe the penalty had been tough enough. However,
based on his experience with DOC, the cost curve involved,
and the studies showing that putting someone in jail for
something serious meant they would probably return to
prison in the future. He supported the amendment, but
believed it was a close call.
Senator Coghill was sympathetic to the fact that typically
drug and alcohol issues were associated with property
crimes. Some of the issues were related to things like
damaging property in a bar or slamming someone's car door;
however, some of the crime involved stealing a person's
property (e.g. a snow machine). He stated that anytime a
person stole a snow machine and broke into a person's house
it would be over $2,000. Likewise, the cost of stealing
someone's car would exceed $2,000; breaking a camera could
even be a $2,000 cost. He stated that the threshold had
been hotly debated and he believed people were not
convinced that the state would be able to curb the drug and
alcohol problem, which he believed was a key point. He
tended to agree; it was necessary to put things in place to
turn the corner on the drug and alcohol crime that was
causing people to steal from their neighbors. He was in
favor of the $2,000 limit, but he was aware of how chaffed
people were when they were stolen from and that the state
had not been able to change the drug and alcohol problem in
its cities. He was not unsympathetic to people who did not
support the increase to $2,000, but he believed $2,000 was
a reasonable felony limit. He stressed that the state had
to make misdemeanants count; some people believed that
misdemeanants did not count. He believed it was necessary
to get to a place where misdemeanors meant something to
thieves.
Representative Wilson stated that she had an elderly couple
who had come to her office after returning from vacation to
find things stolen. The couple did not care whether the
cost of the items were $500 or $1,500 because they had been
victimized. She expounded that the hearings had taken
months and the first individual only received probation.
She stated that between the two thieves, not one day of
jail time was served. She did not see the system working at
$1,000 and she was not willing to increase the level to
$2,000 yet. She believed it was a victims' rights issue.
She noted that the committee had the discussion earlier
between a $750 or $1,000 threshold. She believed that no
one knew whether it was $650 or $1,200 when people were
stealing. She strongly believed that a person should pay
when they took something from someone. She surmised that
whatever punishment was given was probably not sufficient
for a person who had something stolen. She did not want to
tell her constituents who had been victimized that the
number had been increased. She agreed that misdemeanors
needed to mean something more. She stressed that just
because a person did not break in to someone's home did not
take away the fact that they had been on that person's
property. She stated that the feeling did not go away when
a person was stolen from. She shared that her car had been
broken into and not much was stolen, but it had taken a
long time for her to get over that someone thought it was
okay to invade her space. She opined that property crime
was almost worse because it was committed when a person was
not home. She had not seen specific data related to Alaska
regarding the $1,000 or $2,000 threshold. She reiterated
that she could not vote to increase the threshold until the
other part of the situation was solved.
5:53:20 PM
Representative Gara stated that it was automatically a
felony if a person broke into someone's home. The amendment
pertained to theft that did not include breaking into a
house. He understood the debate, but the bottom line was
that theft would still be a crime. He stated that the
legislature had become accustomed to thinking that a
misdemeanor was not a crime. He stressed that a misdemeanor
was a crime and went on a person's record. He stated that
when the same thing was made a felony due to inflation,
there were many jobs a person would no longer qualify for.
He thought increasing the amount to $2,000 would mean that
a misdemeanor in 1978 would remain a misdemeanor at
present. Additionally, it would mean that individuals would
be able to get a job. He stressed that the individuals
would still be criminals.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Pruitt, Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 21 FAILED (5/6).
5:55:28 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22 29-
LS0541\T.4 (Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file):
Page 19, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "listed in AS 11.71.140(e)"
Page 22, line 16:
Delete "AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A)(i) or"
Insert "AS"
Page 22, line 7:
Delete "IA,''
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki referred to page 19 of the bill and
explained that under controlled substances schedule IA, the
CS added one schedule of drugs listed under 11.71.140(e).
He furthered that it pertained to the chemical substance
GHB (Gama Hydroxybutyrate) and some analogs to that. He did
not know why the substance had been specifically targeted
and added into the CS. He referenced a summary of changes
sheet (copy on file) that referred to GHB as a commonly
used date rape drug. He stated that if a person was
currently between the ages of 20 and 40 they had probably
heard of GHB. He elaborated that it was easily manufactured
and transferred, usually in a liquid form. He noted that he
had never taken GHB. He believed felonizing simple
possession as proposed under the CS could potentially
create a significant number of youthful felons and put them
into the system.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the third degree was a misdemeanor
or felony. Mr. Shilling asked if Vice-Chair Saddler was
speaking to current law or the CS.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the bill. Mr. Shilling
answered that it was currently a Class B felony and the
bill would change it to a Class C felony.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that [misconduct
involving a controlled substance in the] third degree was a
Class B felony. Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that under the CS (without the
amendment) the possession of GHB (page 19, lines 10 and 11)
would be a Class B felony. Mr. Shilling clarified that it
would be a Class C felony for possession of GHB.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to page 18 of the bill showing
that it would be a Class B felony in the third degree and
on page 19, line 11 it would be included in the list of
things that would be a Class B felony.
Mr. Shilling answered that possession would be a Class C
felony. He believed Vice-Chair Saddler was misreading the
bill, but he deferred the question to DOL.
Mr. Skidmore replied that under current law, misconduct
involving a controlled substance in the third degree was a
Class B felony. Under SB 91 it was reduced to a Class C
felony.
Mr. Shilling understood that it was confusing because the
bill "kind of gutted" misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the second degree; anything under that had
shifted down. He detailed that what had previously been
categorized as third degree had been changed to fourth
degree in the bill. He added that he believed Amendment 22
contained a typo. He believed that line 8 of the amendment
should read page 22, line 17 as opposed to line 7.
6:00:50 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the differences between
current law, SB 91, and the amendment.
Mr. Skidmore replied that there were several things that
happened in SB 91 with drug offences. He explained that
under current law third degree was a Class B felony, but
the bill changed it to a C felony. Additionally, SB 91 had
completely eliminated one statute (misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the second degree) and had rolled
it into a different provision of law. He spoke specifically
to GHB and relayed that all possession of controlled
substances had been moved to Class A misdemeanors. He
explained that there had been an amendment on the Senate
floor to have GHB remain a Class C felony. He believed
Amendment 22 would remove the exception and move GHB back
into the category with all of the other controlled
substances as a Class A misdemeanor.
Representative Kawasaki provided wrap up on the amendment.
He believed SB 91 was working to get at the heart of crime
and to reform the entire system. He believed the state put
too many people in prison who had basic behavioral health
issues including alcohol and substance abuse issues. He
opined that they belonged in health facilities, not
prisons. He furthered that the bill focused on high level
drug offenders selling drugs rather than taking it out on
the people who have a drug or alcohol problem. The
amendment addressed GHB that the bill would make a felony
for simple possession. He believed it would harm a huge
group of people who did not understand the consequences of
what possession meant. Currently the bill included things
like the date rape drug Rohypnol (a prescription drug
people could get over the counter), which would only be
criminalized as a Class B misdemeanor. He stated that GHB,
which was easy to make in a high school chemistry
classroom, would suddenly be listed as a much higher
offence.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Gara, Gattis
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Saddler, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 22 PASSED (6/5).
6:05:36 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23 29-
LS0541\T.2 (Martin/Gardner, 4/26/16) (copy on file):
Page 107, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 170. The uncodified Jaw of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT ON OFFENSES OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR. The
Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission established in AS
44.19.641 shall prepare a report on offenses of sexual
abuse of a minor where the defendant and victim are
both under 19 years of age. The commission shall
deliver the report, not later than December 1, 2016,
to the governor, the senate secretary, and the chief
clerk of the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Steiner spoke to the amendment. He pointed out that the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission had been asked to review
sex offences in general (elsewhere in the bill), the broad
range for the appropriateness of classification,
sentencing, and consequences. The current amendment was
already covered by the prior part of the bill - the
commission would look at the full range of conduct related
to sex offences and would make recommendations based upon
data. He expected the review to begin sometime in the next
year and did not know when it would be reported on by the
commission.
Representative Munoz relayed that she was comfortable with
the direction given to the commission and she planned to
withdraw the amendment. She stated that clearly it had been
an issue discussed by the committee and was an area that
needed focus and attention. She stated that the amendment
pertained to a situation when two parties under the age of
19 were involved. She believed if there were three years or
more between the individuals, even if the relationship was
consensual, the law specified that the relationship was not
consensual if the individuals were under the age of 16. She
explained that unfortunately there were situations where a
young person could be accused of involvement and if found
guilty they could serve a very long and harsh prison
sentence. She stressed the importance of addressing the
situation, particularly in the area of sentencing. She
reiterated that she was comfortable the commission would
look at the issue and she looked forward to the
recommendations. She WITHDREW Amendment 23.
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 24 29-LS0541\T.9
(Martin/Gardner, 4/27/16) (copy on file):
Page 49, lines 5 - 8:
Delete "if, as a condition of probation under AS
12.55.086, the defendant is required to serve an
active term of imprisonment within the range specified
in this paragraph, unless the court finds that a
mitigation factor under AS 12.55.155 applies"
Insert "[IF, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION UNDER AS
12.55.086, THE DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO SERVE AN
ACTIVE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT WITHIN THE RANGE SPECIFIED
IN THIS PARAGRAPH, UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT A
MITIGATION FACTOR UNDER AS 12.55.155 APPLIES]"
Page 50, lines 2 - 8:
Delete "[TWO YEARS; A DEFENDANT SENTENCED UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH MAY, IF THE COURT FINDS IT APPROPRIATE, BE
GRANTED A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE UNDER AS
12.55.085, AND THE COURT MAY, AS A CONDITION OF
PROBATION UNDER AS 12.55.086, REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO
SERVE AN ACTIVE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT WITHIN THE RANGE
SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH]"
Insert "[TWO YEARS]; a defendant sentenced under this
paragraph may, if the court finds it appropriate, be
granted a suspended imposition of sentence under AS
12.55.085 [,AND THE COURT MAY, AS A CONDITION OF
PROBATION UNDER AS 12.55.086, REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO
SERVE AN ACTIVE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT WITHIN THE RANGE
SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH]"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Thompson explained the amendment was a technical
fix clarifying that the court could still impose a
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for a person with no
prior felony convictions who was convicted of a Class B or
Class C felony if they were otherwise eligible for an SIS
under the existing statute. He relayed that the language
change was necessary in light of the reduction of the
presumptive range for Class B or Class C felonies. The
amendment provided that a suspended imposition of sentence
was permitted, but it no longer specified that an active
term of imprisonment was required. A court could still
impose an active term of imprisonment as a condition of
probation for an SIS subject to limits that apply generally
to all individuals convicted. He asked the departments to
elaborate further.
Mr. Skidmore replied that based on Co-Chair Thompson's
description he surmised that the amendment was adjusting
the amount of time a person could be on probation under the
SIS.
6:10:01 PM
Mr. Steiner deferred to a colleague.
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER
AGENCY (via teleconference), affirmed that the description
provided by Co-Chair Thompson was correct. She stated that
the technical amendment made two changes. The amendment
would delete language related to SIS on page 50, lines 2
through 8. She detailed that the deleted definition had
been overly inclusive and inadvertently deleted the
provision allowing the court to impose or grant a suspended
imposition of sentence if the court found it appropriate
and the person was otherwise eligible under AS 12.55.085
(SIS statute). She explained that the amendment would put
the language back in and continued to delete the language
specifying that the court may require the defendant to
serve an active term of imprisonment within the range. The
court could still have the authority to impose an active
term of imprisonment under a separate statute (AS
12.55.086); it would remain subject to the presumptive
range of zero to 120 days. The second change was on page
49, lines 3 through 8. The amendment would leave in the
language stating that a defendant sentenced to a first
felony Class B was entitled to receive an SIS if the person
was otherwise eligible and the court deemed it appropriate.
It would remove the provision specifying that a defendant
was required to serve an active term of imprisonment within
the range specified in the paragraph because the range
specified in the paragraph had been reduced to zero to two
[years]. She elaborated that the language inadvertently
applied that a person who received an SIS may be required
to serve some active term of imprisonment while a person
who received a conviction of record was not. The amendment
essentially preserved existing law by allowing the court to
impose an SIS for first felony offenders convicted of a
Class B or Class C felony and adjusted the language to
account for the reduction in the presumptive ranges.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 24 was ADOPTED.
6:13:16 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25 29-
LS0541\T.8 (Gardner, 4/27/16) (copy on file):
Page 50, line 2:
Delete "zero to 120 days"
Insert "probation, with a suspended term of
imprisonment of zero to 18 months"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the previous bill
version had included the contents of the amendment. The
amendment would return to the previous language, which had
been included in the bill all along and had been
recommended by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. When
the bill had been presented to the committee they had been
told that Class C felonies for a first-time offender would
be up to 120 days of probation, but jail time could be
substantial if provisions of probation were violated. He
believed the commission and bill sponsor had been trying to
make sure the provision did not cover the most serious
crimes. The current statute for sentencing (Class C
felonies included a maximum sentencing of five years)
remained if the crime involved anything defined as an
aggravator under AS 12.55.155. He noted that the amendment
was explained in a memorandum handed out by Co-Chair
Thompson's office [from Legislative Legal Services dated
April 27, 2016 (copy on file)]. The same sentences of up to
five years or the current statutory presumptive term would
remain for physical injury, cruelty to others, a crime
involving a dangerous instrument, if the victim had been
vulnerable based on age, if the person had a criminal
history involving assaultive behavior, if there had been
threats of physical injury, if there was aggravated
assaultive behavior, drug crimes, weapon crimes, and other
(there were 35 aggravators in statute). The provision as it
had originally been written reflected concerns from public
testimony, the bill sponsor, and the commission. He stated
that at a certain level longer jail sentences did not make
a person less likely to commit a crime. He furthered that
placing a first-time offender on probation and hounding
them with a probation officer would have a better result in
terms of long-term public safety. He stated that the
consequence for violating probation was that a jail term
went back into effect. He asked for verification that the
item had been a recommendation by the commission. He
reiterated that the language had been in the bill all
along.
Senator Coghill affirmed that jail time for Class C
felonies had been less likely to occur. He believed the
Office of Victims' Rights had been the most vocal in
pushing back. The provision had changed because some people
felt like a personal crime or violent crime under a Class C
felony needed to have the potential for jail time.
Mr. Shilling affirmed that the sponsor's reply reflected an
accurate description of the commission's recommendation and
how the bill had changed.
Representative Gara requested to hear from Mr. Steiner.
Mr. Steiner answered that the reasons as described had been
the commission's focus. He detailed that lengthy jail
sentences had not been producing any reduction in
recidivism and jail time could actually increase
recidivism. The focus of the initiative was that probation
in conjunction with treatment and supervision reduced
recidivism, which had been the basis of the recommendation.
6:19:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt strongly OBJECTED. He had been
working with the Office of Victims' Rights on the topic,
which was very passionate about the particular item. He
read a list of Class C felonies, which included stalking in
the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree (a
person engaging in sexual contact with a person who is
mentally incapable, incapacitated, or otherwise unaware and
unable to consent), indecent exposure of the first degree,
burglary in the second degree, vehicle theft in the first
degree (including theft of a car or police car), promoting
contraband in the first degree (illegally taking firearms
or drugs into a prison), possession of child pornography,
cruelty to animals, recruiting a gang member in the first
degree, unlawful furnishing of explosives, sex trafficking
in the third degree, assault in the third degree, and
other. He referred to public testimony related to assault
in the third degree and read portions of the testimony:
Bruce was highly intoxicated and taking excessive
doses of prescription Oxycodone and Flexeril due to a
recent back surgery. He had become aggressive,
agitated, verbally abusive. I left the room and went
to plug in my phone. I could hear him pick up the AR-
15 loaded with a 30-round clip. I could hear the gun
and his body slam into the baseboard heater. I could
hear him get up and walk to the end of the hallway. I
back myself into the closet. I see him stop where the
hardwood in the hallway ends. He lies down on the
floor in the prone position. I see him position
himself so he's looking through the scope. His head is
leaning slightly to the right as he adjusts the scope
to his right eye, I see his finger on the trigger.
He's yelling at me. I'm crying, begging him to let me
go and then he pulls the trigger. The bullet hits the
sheetrock in the closet 24 inches from the left side
of my head. I hear him yelling at me to get out of the
closet. I stand up and go to the window and start
screaming asking people to help. He's yelling at me.
Representative Pruitt summarized that the woman grabbed the
barrel of the gun and fought with the man as he hit her in
the face multiple times with the gun barrel. He stressed
that if it had been the man's first-time Class C felony
offence he would not have gone to jail under the amendment.
He emphasized cases like the one he had read were the
reason the Office of Victims' Rights was passionate about
the issue. He stated that the current bill allowed a judge
to sentence up to 120 days for first-time offenders
convicted of a Class C felony. He reminded committee
members that under Article 1, Section 12 of the state's
constitution there were things that should be taken into
account including protection of the public, community
condemnation of the offender, the rights of the victim, and
offender rehabilitation. He surmised that the amendment
only focused on offender rehabilitation. He continued that
if a person feared a violent offender, that person may need
some time away to get back on their feet. One of the worst
things for a domestic violence individual was that they
could not get away from the situation. The amendment would
mean the person would potentially not go to jail and would
not give the victim time to get back on their feet. He did
not want to cast any dispersions about why anyone would
want to include the amendment because he understood the
situations they were considering, but he believed in the
need to consider the victims and the scenarios where
victims may not see their offender serve any jail time. The
provision in the amendment could present a scenario where a
person convicted of a misdemeanor could serve jail time,
but a felon may not. He stressed that they were not
discussing light issues; the issues were complex and
aggravating. He wanted to continue to maintain an
environment of defense for victims. He reiterated his
opposition to the amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the situation described by
Representative Pruitt would be charged as a Class C
misdemeanor.
Mr. Steiner answered that it would be hard to make a
conclusion based on the information provided. He believed
it would be possible to conclude that firing the gun had
been an attempt to commit murder or to put someone in fear.
He furthered that there could be surrounding facts that may
make the crime more serious, in which case it could be
classified as an aggravated Class C felony. He was
reluctant to draw a particular conclusion.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what the crime would have been if the
person was intending to scare someone into doing something.
He surmised that the scenario provided by Representative
Pruitt sounded like a situation where the offender was
threatening the woman to try to get her to do something.
Mr. Steiner answered that classically an assault with a
weapon was a Class C felony. However, he was reluctant to
conclude how the state would charge the offender based on
the circumstances provided.
Co-Chair Neuman concluded that the scenario provided would
be a class C felony. He extrapolated that the amendment
would mean the offender could serve only probation time.
Mr. Steiner answered that depending on the circumstances it
could be the result.
Representative Gara provided a wrap up on Amendment 25. He
did not want to let people off easy for violent crimes,
sexual assault, or crimes involving weapons. He stressed
that the amendment would not do that. He clarified that a
person would receive a sentence of up to five years if the
crime was covered by the aggravators in AS 12.55.155. He
furthered that one of the aggravators specified "if the
defendant employed a dangerous instrument in furtherance of
the defense"; therefore, the circumstance described by
Representative Pruitt would mean the offender would go to
jail for up to five years. He elaborated that if a crime
involved hurting someone (e.g. domestic violence, sexual
assault, or other) the person would not benefit from the
provision in the amendment and would go to jail for up to
five years. The first of the aggravators was: if a person
sustained a physical injury as a direct result of the
defendant's conduct. He stressed that domestic violence and
sexual assault were injuries. He furthered that every
situation that involved an injury, the use of a weapon, or
domestic violence, was covered by the aggravator portion of
the statute and would result in jail time. He supported the
amendment because the protections requiring jail time for
serious crimes were in existing statute.
6:31:16 PM
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Munoz, Kawasaki,
Thompson
OPPOSED: Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Neuman
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 25 was ADOPTED.
6:32:21 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to RECIND action on Amendment 9.
6:32:35 PM
AT EASE
6:33:12 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara MOVED to RECIND action on Amendment 9.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9 29-
LS0541\V.64 (Gardner, 4/25/16) (copy on file):
Page 62, following line 26:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(h) Notwithstanding (g)(2) of this section, if a
person resides in a community where a court-ordered
treatment program under AS 28.35.028 is not available,
the person shall
4) provide proof to the court that the person has
successfully completed a rehabilitative treatment
program appropriate for the person's alcohol or
substance abuse condition; the program must
F. include planning and treatment for alcohol or
drug addiction;
G. include emphasis on personal responsibility;
H. require payment of restitution to victims and
completion of community work service;
I. include physician-approved treatment of
physical addiction and treatment of the
psychological causes of addiction; and
J. include a monitoring program and physical
placement or housing in communities where the
court finds that a monitoring program and
placement or housing is available;
5) provide proof by clear and convincing evidence to
the court that the person is currently sober and
has maintained sobriety for a period of at least
18 months; and
6) provide written notice to the district attorney's
office of the person's request for a limited
license under this section.
(i) A person is not entitled to court-appointed
counsel under (h) of this section,"
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 62, line 31, following "AS 28.35.028":
Insert "or a rehabilitative treatment program under
(h) of this section"
Page 67, line 7, following "AS 28.35.028":
Insert "or a rehabilitative treatment program under AS
28.15.201(h)"
Page 123, line 29:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(g) and (h)"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(g) - (j)"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that in consultation with a
number of committee members, people had considered the
issue during the course of the day. He relayed that the
amendment tried to bring equity to individuals living in a
location with no therapeutic court. Currently, a person
with a felony DUI could get a limited license if the person
met a number of conditions including the installation of an
ignition interlock device on their vehicle and other. The
amendment applied to individuals living in a community with
no therapeutic court; it required a person to prove they
had successfully completed a rehabilitative treatment
program appropriate for their [alcohol or substance abuse]
condition and had been sober for at least 18 months.
Co-Chair Thompson referred to the requirement that a person
would have to prove they had been sober for 18 months. He
asked about the burden of proof.
Representative Gara replied that to protect the public the
burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence, which
was slightly higher than the normal burden of proof. It
would include providing witnesses to demonstrate whether or
not a person had been sober. Additionally, the state could
bring in witnesses to contradict the testimony provided by
the individual's witnesses, in which case the person would
likely not receive the limited license. He stated that if
the evidence was clear that a person had been sober they
would probably receive their limited license; however, if
there was contradictory evidence they would probably not
receive the license.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that Representative Gara's
statements about whether a person would get their license
constituted his personal opinion only.
6:36:01 PM
Representative Gara remarked that his comments had been
based on his experience as an attorney. He stated that the
amendment would require clear and convincing evidence that
a person had successfully completed an appropriate
treatment program and had been sober for a period of 18
months.
Representative Wilson thanked Representative Gara for
bringing the amendment back before the committee. She
understood that promises could not be made about what the
programs would look like, but she hoped they could
potentially be modelled after the therapeutic courts. She
stated that it would not be easy for individuals to
complete, but she did not want it to be easy. She stressed
that it would be up to the individual to prove they had
received the appropriate therapy and had stayed clean. She
stated that perhaps a person would have to do more testing
(e.g. weekly, monthly, or working with a therapist). She
opined that it should be difficult. She noted that the
committee had heard from the court system that the
therapeutic court program was tough. She wanted people to
be "all in." She added that if it was easy for a person to
complete the requirements, they could relapse easily. She
hoped the amendment would help fill the gap until the
therapeutic court reached other areas or until another more
affordable model came along. She believed it was incumbent
upon the committee to determine how the other areas worked
as time went on. She stated there were many ideas and much
had been done in other states with success. She stated the
amendment would provide the opportunity to potentially find
something that worked better as communities tailored the
program to their own needs. She reiterated that she had no
problem making it difficult for a person to receive their
limited license because it was a privilege.
Co-Chair Neuman believed the intent of the amendment was to
offer people who had rehabilitated themselves an
opportunity to get back into society. He had cosponsored
the amendment because after further conversations with the
bill sponsor they had determined the amendment was a good
idea. He noted that rural Alaskans in particular did not
have the opportunities available in urban areas. He opined
that the individuals should have an opportunity to
demonstrate that they had figured it out and had done all
they could to prove they would try to be a productive
member of society. He supported the amendment on behalf of
the sponsor's support.
Mr. Shilling confirmed that Senator Coghill supported the
amendment.
6:39:47 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the definition of a
rehabilitative treatment program.
Mr. Shilling deferred to Ms. Mead.
Ms. Mead replied that the amendment did not include a
definition for a rehabilitative treatment program. She
explained that the amendment would require a judge to
consider the type of program that was appropriate to the
person's condition. The common definition of rehabilitative
program would be a program that tended to rehabilitate
someone. She added that it would take common sense and
judicial discretion to look at what an individual came
forth with and proved they had completed. She clarified
that the programs would not be ordered by a judge. She
explained that after a person received a felony DUI
conviction and some period later came back to the court
demonstrating what they had done to meet the requirements.
She furthered that the judge would decide whether the
program met the requirements and the individual would have
to prove their sobriety by clear and convincing evidence.
She noted the district attorney's office would be present
if they elected to challenge the evidence. She stated that
while the terms were not defined in the amendment, they
would be up to the court and judge to apply.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that it would be left to the
courts to determine what met the definition of a
rehabilitative treatment program. Ms. Mead answered that it
would be left to the court to decide. She believed the
district attorney's office would be present arguing against
granting a person the limited license if they believed
there was a reason not to.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the amendment was designed
to address a situation in which an offender did not have
access to a therapeutic court in a rural community. He
asked whether it was possible to presume that a smaller
community would have a rehabilitative treatment program
suitable for a court's discretion.
Ms. Mead answered that she did not know. She detailed that
it would be incumbent upon the applicant to describe a
program they had completed. She believed that in some towns
without a therapeutic court the treatment programs may be
more likely to be available. She pointed to Kenai as an
example given by the amendment sponsor. She reiterated that
it would be incumbent on the applicant to specify that the
program met the requirements. She stated that perhaps
programs would develop in order to help people comply with
the requirements.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated there were five specific
requirements for a treatment program including planning,
emphasis on personal accountability, payment of
restitution, and monitoring a program. He believed it was a
fair to ask what resources were available in the state that
would meet the standards.
Ms. Mead answered that the A through E components of the
treatment program were there because they were components
included in a therapeutic court program. She stated that
therapeutic courts was one objective program with some
proof that it worked - the amendment was an attempt to
create something parallel available to people without
access to therapeutic courts. In order to keep the
alternative option as parallel as possible, the components
had been pulled from the definition of the therapeutic
court program.
6:44:26 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler argued that a therapeutic court had not
been proven to work but had been clearly defined. He did
not know if a church group, twelve step program or a self-
designed system would be sufficient to a court. He asked
how a court decided if someone had provided restitution or
had access to a physician or proved treatment of a physical
addiction.
Ms. Mead answered that they were questions that would have
to be worked out in court. She agreed that the option was
not objective. The amendment was an effort to find other
means to provide the opportunity for people without access
to the therapeutic court. She explained that there were no
other objective means available; therefore, it had to be
prescriptive of a program that imitated or paralleled a
therapeutic court program. She furthered that the amendment
contained the same components of a therapeutic court
program. She explained that a court would make a decision
based on proof required by an individual. She stated that
an individual would have to require proof of the
restitution. For example, perhaps there would be
certifications from the treatment providers and there may
need to be witnesses brought in to verify a person's claim
in order to satisfy the judge.
Vice-Chair Saddler was trying to imagine a village of 200
people where the range of services could be documented and
verified. He stated "I don't know if a sweat lodge would be
sufficient." He remarked that a therapeutic court existed
in communities with enough resources in order to get people
through and justify getting license back. He did not know
if the infrastructure existed in other areas and he did not
know if they were trying to too hard to stretch the
amenities of a larger urban center into smaller rural
areas. He concluded that there were standards that he was
not confident could be met in the proposed "somewhat
nebulous and subjective" program. He noted that he could be
persuaded, but he had not been as of yet.
Ms. Mead answered that she would not try to persuade Vice-
Chair Saddler. She explained that the amendment was an
attempt to keep the alternative parallel to therapeutic
courts and provided discretion to the judge. She added that
many of the details would need to be worked out, including
how much proof would be required and how close a person
could get to treatment within small communities. She added
that people would have the option to travel to another
community to get treatment. She stated that the option
would be brand new and would have to be worked out.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the cost.
Representative Wilson added that Office of Children's
Services parents were already required to do many of the
things including therapy and making sure they were clean
from drugs and alcohol. She stressed that the onus would be
on the individual to pay for treatment in order to get
their limited license back. She did not believe there would
be a fiscal note for the state because the cost would be
fall to the person.
6:48:30 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked on the testimony that court
proceedings would be required. He believed there would be a
cost.
Ms. Mead stated that the court system did not anticipate a
lot of hearings under the provision. She explained that the
provision would not kick in for communities with
therapeutic courts. She noted that the bulk of the state's
communities had therapeutic courts including Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Palmer, and Bethel. She
elaborated the new provision would apply to smaller
communities (Kenai was probably the largest) where there
were a low number of felony DUIs; most felony DUIs ended up
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and larger towns. She
added that there were about 300 to 400 felony DUI
convictions per year. She detailed that it could be about
3,000 people in ten years; if 10 percent of the individuals
wanted a limited license, the bulk of the 300 individuals
would be in larger cities with therapeutic courts. She
anticipated a low number of applicants coming in under the
option provided by Amendment 9. There would be court
hearings, but there would be zero fiscal impact unless the
court hired someone. She stated that the court system would
be able to absorb the work in its normal operations.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the amendment.
He believed they were all interested in some sort of
program that tried to mirror therapeutic courts in places
that lack therapeutic courts. He was comfortable with the
sections A through E describing the program, which were
very similar to the therapeutic courts. He recognized that
nothing could match the therapeutic court system exactly.
He believed individuals in communities such as Kenai,
Homer, Soldotna, Valdez, or Delta needed some ability to
receive a limited license. The clear and convincing
evidence requirement gave him comfort that whatever came
before the judge would be an accurate analog to the
therapeutic courts. He did not know that the option would
be used often, but it would afford people living in rural
Alaska and other areas without therapeutic courts the same
opportunity. He believed the limited license issue was
important for the committee to address; he had heard many
people stated that they basically had a life sentence. He
thought it was one way that would get people back to work
and that the 18-month sobriety requirement may even be a
higher level than requirements under the therapeutic
courts. He asked to be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
Representative Guttenberg supported the amendment. He
stated that the amendment created a higher level of
compliance in order to get a license back. He believed it
was completely appropriate to provide an alternative option
for communities without therapeutic courts. He stressed
that there were people who would rather go to jail than go
through therapeutic courts or some of the other treatment
programs. He emphasized that the onus and burden was all on
the individual to complete the requirements provided under
the amendment - they would not be provided with a court
appointed attorney under the option. He underscored that
the amendment created a very high standard and it was
discretionary for the judge as to what they decided. He
believed it was appropriate and not frivolous; the
individual had to prove to a judge with clear and
convincing evidence [that they had completed the
requirements]. He discussed that the individuals were
vulnerable. He pointed to the therapeutic courts and
explained that the individuals had their lives exposed, had
done much self-examination, and had concluded they wanted
to change. He stressed that the amendment would ask people
to do the work themselves with assistance from a treatment
program. He continued that the individual would also have
to face the community where the problem had occurred. He
stated that was a very high burden and he believed the
option was needed. He remarked that it would not be simple
for anyone; individuals would spend their own money and
personal sweat to get to the end of the 18-month period of
sobriety. He reiterated his support for the amendment. He
stated the amendment would require more than just jail time
and therapeutic courts. He opined that it would require a
much larger personal fulfillment because it was on the
individual person. He restated that the individuals would
not have a court appointed attorney or someone to guide
them and they would have to pay their own money.
6:55:53 PM
Representative Gattis spoke in support of Amendment 9. She
shared that she had family members participate in the
program. She believed it was a good program and supported
that the amendment would provide an alternative to places
without therapeutic courts. She requested to add her name
as a cosponsor.
Ms. Mead clarified that the new subsection H was an
alternative to the therapeutic court requirement for
obtaining a limited license only. The person still had to
do all of the other things including an ignition interlock
device, provide proof of insurance to DMV, no prior
revocation of a limited license, and other.
Representative Gara spoke to a question about communities
that did not have a treatment program. He answered that the
person would have to leave their community to get
treatment. The amendment did not require a person to get
treatment in their community; it only specified that an
individual need to complete an appropriate treatment
program. He stated that an individual had to prove to the
court that they had completed an appropriate treatment
program and that they had become sober.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 9 was ADOPTED.
6:57:42 PM
AT EASE
7:13:37 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MOVED conceptual Amendment 26 (copy
on file).
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson pointed page 38, line 11 and
explained that the amendment would change the cap a court
could grant a person credit against a sentence of
imprisonment from 120 to 360 days if they were found
guilty. She noted that the amendment applied to a pretrial
scenario. She asked Mr. Steiner to elaborate.
Mr. Steiner noted that he had testified earlier about the
concern that for individuals at low to moderate risk for
being charged with another crime would ultimately end up
going back to jail when they were working effectively on a
program or at home. The amendment would raise the cap to
one year, which was more in line with the time it took to
resolve most cases. He furthered that it would ameliorate
any impact of a credit on the individuals who the state
would really want to see get the credit (i.e. individuals
working well on a program and doing the work they were
supposed to be doing).
Representative Gara asked for verification that the
amendment did not lower the level of a crime, but allowed
electronic monitoring to extend to 360 days instead of 120
days if someone was complying with their program.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative. He explained that
many cases went beyond the 120 days through no fault of the
defendant. Cases were continued for many reasons, often at
the attorney's request. He elaborated on a concern that
open ended electronic monitoring credit would drag cases
out, but that 120 days was too short. He reiterated that
most felony cases took longer to resolve.
Representative Gara asked if the amendment related to
pretrial. Mr. Steiner replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara surmised that as long as a person in
pretrial was adhering to their requirements, the amendment
would enable the person to do electronic monitoring up to
360 days instead of 120.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative. He detailed that
currently there was no limit to the amount of pretrial
credit a person could get. The current bill limited the
number at 120 days and the amendment would raise the number
to one year.
Representative Kawasaki stated that his concern was even if
a person was in pretrial status and they were found guilty
later on it meant they would have gotten credit for their
entire sentence if the courts designated a jail sentence of
one year. He believed 120 days represented a balance. He
elaborated that some people and victims' rights groups
would say they wanted a person to spend at least some time
in jail. He stated that although the person had been in
pretrial, on electronic monitoring, and sustaining the
conditions of their probation and parole, they were able to
sleep in their own bed. He believed that the situation
would be very tough for a victim.
7:18:13 PM
Representative Wilson stressed that the amendment related
only to pretrial and not parole and probation. She stated
that if found guilty, most of the individuals would end up
with sentences much longer than 360 days.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to language in AS 12.55.027(d)
"a court may not grant credit against the sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a prior residence or under
electronic monitoring." He asked if the provision had been
repealed since 2014.
Representative Wilson replied that HB 15 [legislation
passed in 2015 related to treatment and the incentive to
receive treatment while on EM] had changed the provision.
She explained there were currently specific circumstances
that allowed a person on electronic monitoring to leave
their home (i.e. appointments, work, and treatment). She
explained that the amendment was aiming to find the "sweet
spot" between what it would take to allow people to keep
their jobs and get treatment, which was not available in
jail for pretrial individuals. Additionally, attorneys
could prolong a case for years, which would enable a person
to serve all of their time on electronic monitoring. The
amendment aimed to let individuals start treatment
immediately, versus sitting in jail waiting for trial.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to six conditions under
subsection (g) [page 38 of the CS] and asked whether
sentences for the items listed were likely to be longer or
shorter than 360 days.
Mr. Steiner answered that it depended on the circumstances;
some of six items were higher level offences and others
were lower level, which could include misdemeanors. The
list included felony AS 11.41 crimes, which could
potentially result in jail sentences that were around 120
days or up to six or eight months. He explained that one of
the concerns was that those individuals would be doing well
and may go back to jail just for 30 days, which would
disrupt the person's entire rehabilitation plan (i.e. they
may end up losing their job, home, and family). He
furthered that crimes involving domestic violence could
involve misdemeanor cases; the cases could take time to
resolve for reasons that did not relate to the defendant
including delayed discovery, witness availability, and lack
of ability for attorneys to be prepared in a timely manner.
The concern had been that an individual could be doing well
and in the low to mid-level cases they would end up going
back to jail.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the presumption was that a
person the amendment would apply to would have to be
compliant with all conditions and behaving in order to be
out on electronic monitoring.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative. He detailed that
the individual would have to be out on a court order on
electronic monitoring and under home arrest with very
specific limited passes (i.e. a rehabilitation program,
appointments with their attorney, and court appearances).
7:22:00 PM
Representative Gara asked for verification that a person
could remain on electronic monitoring for more than 120
days, but would not receive jail credit for any time over
120 days [under the CS].
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative.
Representative Gara relayed that he was leaning towards
wanting some jail sentence for someone who was engaged in
domestic violence or a sexual offence under AS 12.63.100.
He asked for detail on the crimes of domestic violence
under AS 18.66.990 or a sex offence under AS 12.63.100 and
whether the offenders would still face jail time under the
amendment.
Mr. Steiner responded that the statutory references
provided by Representative Gara were definitions and any
crime of domestic violence or sex offence from the lowest
level misdemeanor to the highest level would be covered. He
furthered that individuals in on much higher level offences
may get much longer sentences - they would get credit, but
would go back to jail if they received a sentence of many
years.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 26.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED. He stated that victims'
rights groups (specifically the Office of Victims' Rights)
had real concern with the amendment. He detailed that the
goal of the Office of Victims' Rights was to see the
language under subsection (g) of the CS [120 days] without
the six specified crimes listed; however, they could accept
the listed crimes. Their concern that swift and certain
justice would have the potential to be dragged out over
time. He explained that the desire was to have a judgement
made as soon as possible. He believed there was concern
that going to 360 days would mean there may not be the
incentive on the terms of the offender and their attorney
to get "that completed." Additionally, it may not put the
pressure on the judicial system to move forward on
achieving a swift judgement. He asked for detail on the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Steiner answered that the original cap on electronic
monitoring credit included in the CS had not been a part of
the commission's recommendation.
Representative Pruitt pointed out that the item had not
been brought forward by the commission as something to take
action on. He was amenable to the 120 days and the six
listed items, but he did not support increasing the number
to 360 days.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in opposition to the
amendment. He relayed that the sexual offenses included
sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, sexual assault
in the first degree, and more. He stated that the list was
pretty inclusive. He felt that expanding the number to 360
days may do a disservice to victims. Additionally, later
sections in the bill dealt with things like first-time
offenders for the administrative parole - knocking it down
to a quarter of the time served. He reasoned that the
situation could arise where the offender lived at home
under electronic monitoring in pretrial and was then handed
a low sentence, which meant very little time would be
served.
Representative Gara spoke against the amendment. He
explained that bail time did not normally count towards a
person's jail time. He stated the amendment addressed a
situation where a person was out on bail with an electronic
monitor because the court had decided the person was more
of a concern. He stated that current law gave a person up
to 120 days of possible jail credit for electronic
monitoring time served. He stated that some of the crimes
were very serious. He was not convinced the individuals
should receive jail time credit especially for sexual and
domestic violence offences.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if Legislative Legal Services would
like to comment on the amendment.
DOUG GARDNER, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), answered that he was available for
questions.
7:29:04 PM
Representative Wilson clarified that the offenders were not
a higher risk. She explained that HB 15 had worked to give
[pretrial] individuals an opportunity to keep their job,
receive treatment, and do other things as directed by the
courts. She wished the court process was swift, but she
stated that it was not. She noted she had been on a jury
for a case that occurred 18 months earlier. She stated that
a person on electronic monitoring would be put back in jail
if they made one mistake and would receive no credit. She
stressed that individuals pretrial were innocent until
proven guilty. She expounded that some of the individuals
would have the expense of electronic monitoring and be
found not guilty. She relayed that there had previously not
been a cap on the credit; if a person was on electronic
monitoring for years they would get credit as long as they
met the conditions. She had heard back that it was probably
prudent to impose a cap. She had started out with a cap of
120 days because someone else had put it in to start with.
As she had spoken to additional people and determined that
justice was not as swift as she had hoped; a 360-day cap
meant attorneys would not drag the case out for years. She
emphasized that the entire bill was about treatment and the
reality that treatment was not available in prisons until a
person was sentenced (even after sentencing treatment was
subject to where a person was sent and what their issue
was). She explained that the amendment would enable a
person to have an incentive to get treatment, go to a job
every day, potentially do volunteer work, and comply with
any other conditions. She agreed that a person was able to
sleep in their own bed. She wondered if people only wanted
to give credit to individuals in jail instead of providing
credit to individuals who had chosen to try to make a
difference.
Representative Wilson furthered that individuals would be
responsible for locating treatment and appearing before the
judge to specify what they would do. She stated that it was
similar to the therapeutic court issue they had discussed -
it was not done lightly. She noted that the state did not
always have all of the therapy needed for some of the big
issues including drugs and alcohol. She stated that the
bill focused on providing opportunities to individuals who
make mistakes. She would prefer to reward individuals doing
work rather than those sitting in jail. She stated that the
change became more restrictive than HB 15. She concluded
that it was another example that the legislature was
looking at bills it passed and ensuring the right decisions
were being made. The electronic monitoring businesses were
keeping track of the issue and would speak to the
legislature the following year to report on how the 360-day
cap worked. She stressed that "we've got to make sure once
they start, we want them to finish" in order to prevent
offenders from recidivating.
7:33:46 PM
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Wilson, Edgmon, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Pruitt, Saddler
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 26 was ADOPTED.
7:34:45 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to RECIND the adoption of
Amendment 22.
Co-Chair Thompson noted the amendment pertained to the
controlled substance GHB.
Vice-Chair Saddler OBJECTED. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, the adoption of Amendment
22 was RECINDED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that Amendment 22 contained
a drafting error and the amendment did not do what was
intended. He asked members to vote against the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED: Gattis, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt,
Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gara, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 22 FAILED (0/11).
7:37:55 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the bill sponsor had any closing
comments.
Senator Coghill observed that the House Finance Committee's
process related to the bill demonstrated the difficulty of
changing of the way the state did business in Alaska on
pretrial, the way people were arrested, holding people
accountable for crime including drug and theft, and other.
He thanked the committee for its participation and for
digging deeply into the issue. He appreciated the
interaction of the victims' advocacy groups and discussed
that the commission had made recommendations that when it
came down to the details the legislature was not able to
follow; however, he believed the legislature was finding a
way to move forward on justice reform. He stated that
justice reform had to take victims into consideration and
also had to take into account that people should not be
returning to jail at the current level; it meant crime had
to be reduced. He believed the bill continued to contain
accountability measures and that through hotly debated
issues, the legislature had tried to familiarize itself
with how the state's justice system worked. He agreed that
the decisions were difficult. He furthered that there had
been significant personal input and stories and substantial
concern that the state may be letting people out of jail
inappropriately. He stressed that the reform would hold
offenders accountable differently. He reasoned that merely
putting people in jail did not necessarily hold people
accountable. He pointed to pretrial, incarceration, trying
to get good time for individuals willing to better their
lot in life, and working towards probation and parole
issues. He spoke to the goal of reinvesting into things
that would help to make changes to the current system. He
was grateful for the committee's work. He noted that the
committee had rolled back many of the commission's
recommendations; therefore, he believed the savings would
not be as high as formerly thought. He believed "that's
balancing it against public safety and I think this is what
the legislature's supposed to do." He added that he
believed the debate was not over.
Representative Kawasaki thanked the bill sponsor for
working closely with Senator Johnny Ellis who shared the
idea that the justice system needed reforming. He
additionally thanked the sponsor's staff, Legislative Legal
Services, and others for their work. He spoke to the bill's
large size and the 20 or more associated fiscal notes. He
spoke to the bill's complexity and commented that it was
larger than a Medicaid reform bill the committee had worked
on. He outlined some concerns he had about the bill. He
pointed to page 12 where an offence was reduced for
watching animals fighting to a fine of $1,000. He did not
know it was part of the bill, which he believed had
probably not been highlighted often. He continued that in
many ways the bill would decriminalize some controlled
substances, while increasing the punishment in other cases,
which he believed would be problematic for the current
system. He highlighted that the bill contained comments
about the minimum wage (Section 67). He elaborated that
defendants convicted of offences could perform community
work service, which the bill would tie to the state minimum
wage. He detailed the individuals used to be paid $3.00 per
hour; he believed minimum wage was a much fairer level, but
the committee did not have the policy discussion on the
issue. He pointed to issues like probation and presumptives
on probation revocations. He had a problem with the
limitations and was worried about 3, 5 and 10-day limits
placed on probation technical violations in relation to
criminals who should be in jail.
Representative Kawasaki continued to address his concerns
about the legislation. He referred to a section related to
absconding and explained that under the definition it meant
a person would fail to report within five days after
release from custody and would fail to make contact with a
probation officer within 30 days. He stressed it was a 30-
day window in which a person could have absconded, which he
found particularly troubling. He furthered that the bill
changed the sentencing for a definite term of imprisonment
for Class B misdemeanors from not more than 90 days to not
more than 10 days. He stated that for people who believed
Class B misdemeanants should be in jail longer, it was a
worthy debate to have. There were issues on administrative
parole - he appreciated support from the sponsor to add
crimes against a person as one that would be ineligible -
but a Class B or Class C felon could be out and released
from parole and the new administrative parole section
specified that if a person had served at least 181 days
they shall be released barring a couple of conditions. He
thanked the sponsor and his staff for working closely with
him on the bill. Overall he believed the bill was good.
7:46:03 PM
Representative Gattis stated that she fundamentally
believed that individuals who made mistakes should be given
a ladder and an opportunity to work themselves out. She
thought the bill provided many of those options for
individuals. She pointed out that it was necessary to
remember that when the individuals were released from jail
they were people in the community. She spoke to the
importance of recognizing that what the state had been
doing, was not working in a large way. She remarked that
she struggled with some things in the bill and liked other
components. She really liked the risk assessment and the
swift return to "if you're not doing what you're supposed
to be doing we catch it right away." She believed some of
the things would make a big difference in how the state
dealt with its prisons.
Representative Gara thanked the sponsor, his staff, and the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. He stated that it was
not an easy bill, but he believed it attempted to draw the
line between drug dealers and users who tried to
rehabilitate themselves. He also believed the bill drew a
line between individuals who engage in significant violence
and nonviolent or minimally violent offenders. He observed
that there was no perfect way to write a criminal law bill.
He believed the bill sponsors had done a good job at
carrying the bill over the past two to six years.
7:48:52 PM
Representative Pruitt thanked the bill sponsor and his
staff. He believed it was well known that he had some
concerns with the bill. He spoke to the large size of the
bill and the work on many different moving pieces. He
furthered that there were components that committee members
found cohesion around and other components where there were
challenges and concerns. He thanked the sponsor and staff
for their work with his office on his goal of making better
public policy. He noted there were some phenomenal
provisions in the bill that he believed were very good.
There were other things he wished could have had more focus
that he thought the commission had been working on in terms
of barrier crimes and collateral consequences. He stated
there were a lot more that could be addressed, which he
believed was a huge barrier for people coming out of the
system. He reasoned that there was more work to be done and
he expected the commission would continue to work on the
issues. He explained that his committee recommendation
would probably be to amend the bill because there were
still some concerns that the bill did not really address
the victims' rights concerns. He communicated he and the
sponsor had been working with the Office of Victims'
Rights, which had considerable concern. He detailed that
because the bill was no longer just the sponsor's, they had
not been able to come to an agreement on some concerning
issues in terms of how the state dealt with victims.
Representative Pruitt stated that as the bill went forward
he would be looking to see if the bill contained what he
deemed to be successful. He hoped that in future years the
legislature would allow for a larger voice from victim
advocates. He did not know that the Office of Victims'
Rights was an active participant in committee settings. He
thought a larger role for victims groups should be
included. He had heard concerns from law enforcement
personnel in his community about changes to the schedules;
some of the drug enforcement individuals within the
Anchorage Police Department were concerned that district
attorneys or parts of the police department that felt or
were actually under a gag order. He requested including
more victims' rights advocates and to make sure that
district attorneys and prosecutors played a more active
role in continuing to balance victims' rights with the
overpopulation in the state's prisons. He wanted to get
down to imprisoning and dealing with people that had been
violators through an appropriate process that was not
currently working in the way it should.
7:54:58 PM
Co-Chair Neuman had concerns about the bill and it would
take him more time to analyze where he would end up. One
thing he wished the bill could have done was address an
issue with the Alaska State Troopers. He wished the bill
could do something for the families of troopers who were
killed in the line of duty. He committed to making the
issue a very high priority in the future. He stated that
the topic had not fit in the bill and needed further
refinement. He stressed that the issue was a high priority.
Representative Munoz thanked the sponsor, staff, and
departments for their work.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that no bill was perfect, but the
bill did a significant amount of incredibly good things. He
thanked his staff and others for their hard work.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSSSB 91(FIN) as
amended out of committee with individual recommendations
and the forthcoming fiscal notes.
HCS CSSSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with forthcoming new fiscal notes
as follows: two zero fiscal notes from the Department of
Administration; one zero fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections; three fiscal impact notes from the Department
of Health and Social Services; one zero fiscal note from
the Department of Health and Social Services; one zero
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety; one
fiscal impact note from the Department of Public Safety;
one zero fiscal note from the Alaska Judicial System; one
fiscal impact note from the Alaska Judicial System; one
zero fiscal note from the House Finance Committee for the
Department of Administration; four fiscal impact notes from
the Department of Corrections; two fiscal impact notes from
the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Corrections; and one zero fiscal note from the Department
of Law.
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the meeting for the following
day.
7:58:28 PM
RECESSED
8:00:08 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Neuman restated his motion to report the bill from
committee. He MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSSSB 91(FIN) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
forthcoming fiscal notes and the authorization to be given
to Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary
technical and/or conforming amendments. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Thompson recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair [Note: the meeting never reconvened].
8:01:09 PM
RECESSED
ADJOURNMENT
8:01:09 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 HCS HFIN Amendments 1-17.PDF |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 AMENDMENT 16a Guttenberg.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Single Subject Rule - Severability Clause legal memo.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendment 8 Legal Memo.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 HCS HFIN Amendments 18-25.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 New Amendment 9.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendments 1-18 with ACTIONS.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Amendments 19-26 am 9 with Actions.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 91 |