Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 16, 1993 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Representative Pete Kott Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson Representative Gail Phillips OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Sitton Representative Tom Brice COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 188 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 222 "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving certain illegal activity on rental premises." CSHB 222 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION SB 54 "An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles, to the remedies for offenses and activities committed by juveniles and to records of those offenses, and to incarceration of juveniles who have been charged, prosecuted, or convicted as adults; and providing for an effective date." CSSB 54 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION AND A LETTER OF INTENT HB 195 "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to provide for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed violations of state or municipal laws, renaming the community legal assistance grant fund and amending the purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in order to provide financial assistance for organization and initial operation of youth courts, and relating to young adult advisory panels in the superior court." CSHB 195 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 132 "An Act extending the time period of all permits issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of resources if the holder of the permits is involved in litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit related to the extraction or removal." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION HB 187 "An Act authorizing the interception of private communications related to the commission of certain criminal offenses; making related amendments to statutes relating to eavesdropping and wiretapping; relating to the penalty for violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping and unauthorized interception, publication, or use of private communications; and providing for an effective date." NOT HEARD WITNESS REGISTER GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel House Judiciary Committee Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-6841 Position Statement: Reviewed changes in CSHB 188 (JUD), CSHB 222 (JUD), CSSB 54 (JUD); answered questions related to HB 132 CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE Alaska State Troopers 5700 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Phone: 269-5655 Position Statement: Supported SB 54 JAY PAGE Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Crime Committee 8150 Clearhaven Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Phone: 265-3860 Position Statement: Supported SB 54 MARGOT KNUTH Assistant Attorney General Department of Law Criminal Division P. O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Phone: 465-3428 Position Statement: Supported CSSB 54 (JUD) RANDALL HINES Youth Corrections Specialist Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P. O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-3187 Position Statement: Answered questions related to SB 54; supported HB 195 JOHN SHEPHERD, Legislative Aide to Senator Rick Halford State Capitol, Room 111 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4958 Position Statement: Discussed SB 54 REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON Alaska State Legislature Court Building, Room 609 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-2327 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 195 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN Staff Counsel Alaska Court System 303 K Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 264-8228 Position Statement: Suggested changes to CSHB 195 (JUD) REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE Alaska State Legislature Court Building, Room 605 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-3466 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 132 EVANS MCMILLION Alaska Environmental Lobby P. O. Box 22151 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 463-3366 Position Statement: Opposed HB 132 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 188 SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property; and providing for a effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS, LAW) 3/1/93 03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 222 SHORT TITLE: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving certain illegal activity on rental premises." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/12/93 619 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY 04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/02/93 932 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 4NR 04/02/93 932 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER 04/02/93 932 (H) NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON, HUDSON 04/02/93 932 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW) 4/2/93 04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/13/93 1188 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED 04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 54 SHORT TITLE: OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL VERSION: CSSB 54(FIN) SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Phillips,Leman,Taylor, Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter,Bunde TITLE: "An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles, to the remedies for offenses and activities committed by juveniles and to records of those offenses, and to incarceration of juveniles who have been charged, prosecuted, or convicted as adults; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/22/93 122 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/22/93 122 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/08/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/08/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/17/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/17/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/19/93 408 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE 02/19/93 408 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB (LAW, DPS, CORR) 02/19/93 408 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM - 2) 02/24/93 461 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (COURT, CORR) 02/24/93 461 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO CS (DHSS, LAW) 02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 02/24/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/25/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/26/93 499 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP 1NR NEW TITLE 02/26/93 500 (S) FN TO FIN CS (ADM-2, COURT) 02/26/93 500 (S) PREVIOUS CS ZERO FNS APPLY (LAW, DHSS) 02/26/93 500 (S) PREVIOUS SB ZERO FN APPLIES (DPS) 02/26/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 02/26/93 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/01/93 538 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS (CORR) 03/01/93 540 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/1/93 03/01/93 541 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/01/93 542 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y11 N8 E1 03/01/93 543 (S) THIRD READING 3/2 CALENDAR 03/02/93 561 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 54 (FIN) 03/02/93 562 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 567 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 2 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 568 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 3 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 568 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 4 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 569 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 5 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 570 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 6 FLD Y9 N10 E1 03/02/93 571 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT 03/02/93 571 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1 03/02/93 571 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y14 N5 E1 03/02/93 572 (S) Kerttula NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 03/03/93 595 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 03/03/93 596 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/05/93 538 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/05/93 538 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/12/93 629 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER 03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/24/93 765 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): BUNDE 03/26/93 (H) JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120 03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 195 SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SITTON,Ulmer,Willis,Foster, Brown,B.Davis,Olberg,Porter TITLE: "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to provide for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed violations of state or municipal laws, renaming the community legal assistance grant fund and amending the purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in order to provide financial assistance for organization and initial operation of youth courts, and relating to young adult advisory panels in the superior court." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/03/93 519 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/03/93 519 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIS, FOSTER, BROWN 03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS, OLBERG 03/19/93 716 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER 03/24/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/31/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/05/93 974 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 5DP 2NR 1AM 04/05/93 974 (H) DP:BUNDE,G.DAVIS,TOOHEY, B.DAVIS,NICHOLIA 04/05/93 974 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG 04/05/93 974 (H) AM: KOTT 04/05/93 974 (H) -2 ZERO FNS(DCRA, DHSS) 4/5/93 04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 132 SHORT TITLE: EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Kott,James TITLE: "An Act extending the time period of all permits issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of resources if the holder of the permit is involved in litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit related to the extraction or removal." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/05/93 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/05/93 236 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/22/93 739 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT 03/29/93 838 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES 03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(ARR) 03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/29/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 03/29/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/30/93 848 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NEW TITLE 5DP 2NR 03/30/93 848 (H) DP: HUDSON, CARNEY, JAMES,BUNDE, WILLIAMS 03/30/93 848 (H) NR: FINKELSTEIN, DAVIES 03/30/93 848 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/30/93 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 187 SHORT TITLE: INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS BILL VERSION: CSHB 187(FIN) AM SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act authorizing the interception of private communications related to the commission of certain criminal offenses; relating to pen registers, trade devices, and communications in electronic storage; amending statutes relating to eavesdropping and wiretapping; relating to the penalty for violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping and unauthorized interception, publication, or use of private communications; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/01/93 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/01/93 488 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/01/93 488 (H) -3 ZERO FNS(ADM, DPS, LAW) 3/1/93 03/01/93 488 (H) -INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/1/93 03/01/93 488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/02/93 929 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 1DNP 2NR 04/02/93 929 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, HUDSON 04/02/93 929 (H) DNP: SITTON 04/02/93 929 (H) NR: MACKIE, WILLIAMS 04/02/93 929 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 4/2/93 04/02/93 929 (H) -PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN(ADM) 3/1/93 04/02/93 929 (H) -2 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM,LAW) 3/19/93 04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-62, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on April 16, 1993. A quorum was present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up HB 188 first. HB 188: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, called the committee's attention to a draft committee substitute for HB 188, dated April 15, 1993 (CSHB 188 (JUD)), which contained four changes from the original version of HB 188. She said that the first difference appeared on page 3, line 13, and required the state to prove that real property was subject to forfeiture by "clear and convincing evidence." She noted that the state had to prove that other types of property were subject to forfeiture by a showing of "a preponderance of the evidence." Number 070 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER clarified that the existing state forfeiture law imposed the standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." House Bill 188 added the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" for forfeiture of real property. Number 076 MS. HORETSKI commented that the next change was on page 3, line 20. A sentence pertaining to notice had been deleted, she said, at the recommendation of Ms. Margot Knuth from the Department of Law (DOL). The next change appeared on page 3 as well, she said, and added a new subsection (c) on lines 21-23. The new subsection recognized a constitutional requirement that forfeiture proceedings be held in abeyance in the event that a criminal case was pending, so that a defendant would not be forced to incriminate him- or herself in the forfeiture case. CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that if a person was charged with a crime, and also had his or her property subject to forfeiture in connection with that crime, he or she might be forced to testify against his or her own interests in a forfeiture hearing, thereby negating his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The change which Ms. Horetski had just mentioned addressed that concern. Either the state or the defendant could request that forfeiture proceedings be postponed until after the criminal case had come to a close. Number 129 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the forfeiture itself would also be postponed. CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative. Number 132 MS. HORETSKI said that the final change which appeared in CSHB 188 (JUD) was the deletion of some language which had been contained in the original HB 188. She noted that the phrase "or have reasonable cause to believe" had been omitted from page 7, line 2 of CSHB 188 (JUD), at the suggestion of the attorney general. Number 151 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the deletion to which Ms. Horetski had just referred resulted in strengthened protection for innocent property-owners. Number 172 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 188 (JUD), dated April 15, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 186 CHAIRMAN PORTER briefly explained the changes which Ms. Horetski had just discussed, for the benefit of Representative Nordlund who had just arrived. Number 199 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 188 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 210 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 222 next. HB 222: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS Number 214 MS. HORETSKI called the committee's attention to a draft committee substitute for HB 222, dated April 13, 1993 (CSHB 222 (JUD)). She outlined changes made in the bill, which were amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on HB 222. The first change appeared on page 5, line 6, and added to the list of activities which constituted a nuisance "illegal activity involving a place of prostitution." She stated that language on lines 14 and 15 cross-referenced that change. MS. HORETSKI stated that new language also appeared on page 5, line 21, new subsection (2), and provided that if a person had been sued repeatedly over a nuisance, the court would be able to review court records detailing that history. She pointed out another change, located on page 10, lines 6-7 of CSHB 222 (JUD). The phrase "prostitution, an illegal activity involving a place of prostitution" had been added, she stated. She commented that language beginning on page 10, line 23, and continuing through page 11, line 4 was also new. MS. HORETSKI explained the effect of the new language was to describe which acts or omissions would constitute sufficient breach of the lease to trigger the 24-hour notice provisions. She stated that under current law, a landlord had to give a tenant at least ten days' notice for eviction. Under certain specified circumstances in the committee substitute, she said, a tenant could be given 24 hours' notice. The new language set out those circumstances in which a landlord could give a tenant 24 hours' notice. Those circumstances pertained to damage, she said, and not to non-payment of rent. MS. HORETSKI stated that new language on lines 18-20, and line 26 of page 12 cross referenced other changes. The final change appeared on page 13, lines 7-8, and represented a conforming amendment, she said. She again explained that the changes which she had just described were the result of amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on HB 222. MS. HORETSKI explained further that there were two general civil court rules about effective dates of court orders. She stated that questions had been raised as to whether or not HB 222 changed those rules, and if so, whether the title needed to be altered to reflect those court rule changes. She commented that the court had the authority to adopt rules of procedure, and the legislature had the authority to set substantive laws. Unfortunately, she said, the line between procedure and substance was not always clearly drawn. MS. HORETSKI expressed an opinion that there was a legitimate argument that HB 222's provisions made substantive changes in a landlord's rights regarding his or her property, and were, therefore, within the legislature's purview. If the court concluded that it needed to adopt new rules as a result of HB 222's passage, she said, then the court was free to do so. She noted that if the committee felt that HB 222 represented a substantive change, then no title amendment was necessary, and the bill would not require a 2/3 floor vote. Number 369 CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that HB 222 represented a substantive change, not a procedural one. Number 378 MS. HORETSKI explained that all bills which passed the legislature were presumed to include a clause which said that if any portion of a statute failed, the rest of the statute was severable and was to be given effect to the extent that the court could do so. Number 385 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that concerns had been expressed about shortening notice periods from ten days to five days, in instances of non-payment of rent. She said that she would not be opposed to changing the notice period back to ten days in such instances. Number 401 MS. HORETSKI responded that the change which Representative James had suggested could easily be accomplished in CSHB 222 (JUD). Number 404 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND echoed Ms. Horetski's remarks, and was supportive of such a change. Number 410 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD), to change the notice period from five days to ten days in instances of non-payment of rent, as was provided in current law. Number 417 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that the committee had not yet adopted CSHB 222 (JUD). Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 222 (JUD), dated April 13, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED the AMENDMENT changing the five- day notice period back to a ten-day period. Number 426 MS. HORETSKI commented that section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD) could simply be struck, as existing law provided for a ten- day notice period. But, she said, a conforming amendment also would be required in section 2 of the bill. She suggested removing "within five days" on line 14 and "within five" on line 16 of page 2. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she considered Ms. Horetski's suggestion a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to her amendment. There being no objection to Representative James' amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 444 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 222 (JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up SB 54. He mentioned that the committee had before it a proposed Judiciary Committee substitute (CSSB 54 (JUD)), and said that the bill's sponsor, Senator Rick Halford, concurred with the changes included in CSSB 54 (JUD). SB 54: OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS Number 472 MS. HORETSKI stated that CSSB 54 (JUD), dated April 16, 1993, was the product resulting from numerous discussions among the DOL representatives, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) officials, the sponsor's staff, the legislative drafters, and herself. She noted that SB 54 addressed many public policy issues. She outlined changes incorporated into CSSB 54 (JUD). The first change, she said, appeared on the bottom of page 3, in section 4. MS. HORETSKI noted that section 4 in SB 54, as passed by the Senate, dealt with "automatic waivers" into adult court for youths aged 16 and older charged with any unclassified or class A felony. The entire section 4, she noted, had been replaced with language which provided that minors aged 16 or older, who were arraigned and charged with murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, or murder in the second degree would be automatically waived into adult court. She mentioned that the new section 4 language mirrored language in the governor's juvenile waiver bill (HB 189). MS. HORETSKI said that CSSB 54 (JUD) was a more narrowly- drafted juvenile waiver bill. She called the members' attention to page 5, section 7 of CSSB 54 (JUD). Regarding crimes other than those she had already mentioned, new language appeared on lines 16-18, and provided that when a petition for waiver was filed, the minor had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that he or she was "amenable to treatment" within the juvenile court system. MS. HORETSKI noted that under existing law, the District Attorney or an intake worker filed a petition for waiver; CSSB 54 (JUD) would not change that. Nor, she said, did CSSB 54 (JUD) change the fact that a hearing was held once a petition was filed. The standard for whether a juvenile stayed in juvenile court or was waived to adult court, amenability to treatment, was not changed in CSSB 54 (JUD) either, she said. MS. HORETSKI said further that the court was the entity which ultimately decided whether a juvenile was waived to adult court, under both the current law and that proposed in CSSB 54 (JUD). The only factor changed in CSSB 54 (JUD), she said, was that the burden of proof on the treatment issue was shifted to the juvenile, instead of being on the state, as in current law. Number 573 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked which court would make the determination as to whether a juvenile should be waived to adult court. MS. HORETSKI replied that a superior court judge, acting as a children's court judge, would make that determination. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked to which crimes the new burden of proof applied. Number 586 MS. HORETSKI responded that, as in existing law, the "amenability to treatment" standard applied to all petitions for waiver for all crimes, and to juveniles of all ages. She mentioned that petitions for delinquency were filed in approximately 18% of cases which were accepted and on which action was taken. In most instances, she said, petitions were not filed. She said that the number of cases, under existing law, in which petitions for waiver were filed was so small that they did not even appear on the DHSS' pie charts. MS. HORETSKI noted that section 5 on page 4 of CSSB 54 (JUD) was also new, and had been included at the request of the sponsor. Because the vast majority of cases did not involve the filing of a petition, she said, section 5, in conjunction with section 6, would allow for restitution in a matter which was "informally adjusted" by the DHSS. Number 637 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the restitution provisions would apply primarily to situations in which property had been damaged. He also asked what would happen in a rape case. Number 642 MS. HORETSKI stated that section 5 proposed to amend AS 47.10.020, which dealt with informally adjusted cases. She stated that whether or not a petition for waiver into adult court was filed for a sexual assault case would depend on the facts of the case, but the cases which were informally adjusted were usually minor offenses, she added. She stated that the next change in CSSB 54 (JUD) appeared on page 6, and pertained to sealing records. MS. HORETSKI commented that under current law, if a juvenile was tried as an adult and convicted, there was a provision under which a juvenile could request that his or her records be sealed. Language in CSSB 54 (JUD) stated that the court could not seal a juvenile's records under certain circumstances. A conforming amendment appeared on lines 12- 13, she added. The new language provided that if a juvenile was waived into adult court and convicted, records of the conviction could not be sealed unless the juvenile was convicted of an offense which would not have transferred him or her into adult court in the first place. Number 655 MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 8, section 10. She said that existing law, AS 47.10.090, dealt with juvenile records, but was very poorly written and difficult to understand. The drafter had rewritten the section, she said, in order to make it easier to interpret. She stated that new language appeared on page 8, lines 19- 27. She noted that the general rule was that records involving juveniles were confidential. Subsection (b) created an exception to that rule, she said. MS. HORETSKI explained that if a minor was at least 16 years old and was adjudicated delinquent, then the following would be public records: petitions filed to have the juvenile declared a delinquent, petitions filed to revoke probation, petitions filed to waive the juvenile into adult court, and judgments related to any of those petitions. Many juvenile court records would remain confidential, she noted, including educational and psychological records. Number 713 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Horetski to explain how section 1 of CSSB 54 (JUD) related to the section which she had just described. Number 716 MS. HORETSKI explained that section 1 provided that every person had the right to inspect public records, except in certain cases, including the records of juveniles. A further exception to that exception, she said, was when certain juvenile records were deemed public records. She said that language in section 1 cross-referenced language on page 8. MS. HORETSKI commented that there was new conforming language on page 9, line 5. She stated that subsection (2) on page 9, lines 10-12 was new, and provided that state or city law enforcement agencies could disclose to school officials information regarding cases that was needed by the school officials to protect the safety and well-being of the school's students and staff. Number 752 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there had been two recent cases in Anchorage in which police had taken action against students for firearms' offenses, but later could not disclose to school officials which students had been involved and what the nature of the illegal activity was. Current law precluded law enforcement officials from disclosing certain information about students to school officials, resulting in possible threats to the safety of students and staff. Number 768 MS. HORETSKI said that new language also appeared on page 10, lines 18-26. She noted that subsection (i) was included in the Senate-passed version of SB 54, and provided that victims who wanted to file civil suits against a juvenile offender were included in the group of persons with legitimate interest in the inspection of records. She said that this section would apply to all offenses, and to juveniles of all ages. MS. HORETSKI commented that the final change in CSSB 54 (JUD) was the deletion of conforming language on page 11. It was brought to MS. HORETSKI's attention that some committee members did not have page 11 of the draft committee substitute; an "at ease" was called at 4:14 p.m. in order to have copies made and distributed. The meeting was called back to order at 4:15 p.m. MS. HORETSKI pointed out that certain applicability language on page 11 had been deleted, as it was no longer needed because of other changes made to the bill. She noted that the present applicability section mentioned civil actions and criminal offenses which took place on or after the effective date of SB 54; therefore, she said, the bill was not retroactive. Number 808 CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE, from the ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of automatic waivers for juvenile offenders who committed serious or violent crimes. He deemed it important to hold juvenile offenders responsible for their actions by imposing sentences commensurate with the crime committed. He urged the committee to support SB 54. TAPE 93-62, SIDE B Number 015 JAY PAGE, representing the ANCHORAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S CRIME COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of SB 54. He said that he had sent a U. S. Department of Justice report to the committee members, and summarized the findings of the report for the committee. The report found that there had been a dramatic increase in juvenile violent crime. He said that the report also found that the most effective response to first and second offenders was to impose sanctions which were carefully designed to instill values of discipline and responsibility. MR. PAGE added that the report found that such sanctions benefited juveniles more than leniency did. He commented that Title 47 of the Alaska Statutes held as a basic premise that juveniles were incapable of understanding their actions. Therefore, rehabilitation, not punishment, was the answer. He said that juvenile rehabilitation was passive in nature, and enabled juveniles to shift responsibility away from themselves, and onto substance abuse or family problems. Number 130 MR. PAGE stated that the recidivism rate at McLaughlin Youth Center was 48%. That, he said, was an indication that the state's juvenile rehabilitation program was not working. He expressed his support for SB 54, especially the shift in the burden of proof regarding amenability to treatment onto the juvenile. He commented that SB 54 was badly needed and urged the committee to pass it out. Number 143 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), expressed her strong support for CSSB 54 (JUD). She said that it closely tracked the governor's juvenile waiver bill by having automatic waiver provisions for 16- and 17-year-olds who committed first- degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree attempted murder. She also applauded the shift in the burden of proof regarding treatability. She commented that the juvenile was in a far better position to carry that burden, given a recent court ruling regarding psychological evaluations. Number 173 RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES, mentioned that the state's juvenile justice laws were somewhat dated. Trends in juvenile justice procedures emerging in other states indicated that Alaska's juvenile justice laws could use some changes, he said. He asserted that currently, the DHSS held juveniles accountable for their behavior, and did not take a passive approach to juvenile offenders. He stated that SB 54 would change statutes so that the DHSS could hold kids more accountable for serious offenses. MR. HINES mentioned that the DHSS' previous concerns regarding SB 54 had been addressed in CSSB 54 (JUD). He asked a question about the last lines of section 6, regarding restitution. His interpretation was that the DHSS would be setting the terms and conditions of restitution. That, he said, was somewhat different from what his agency currently did. He said that currently, the DHSS had a policy of entering into voluntary restitution agreements with juveniles who had not been adjudicated delinquent for offenses. MR. HINES said putting that policy into statute would put the DHSS into the position of having to enforce the restitution agreements at a different level than it now did. He stated that this might be a problem. Number 242 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed his opinion that CSSB 54 (JUD) was an improvement over earlier versions of SB 54. However, he said that he still had concerns about incarcerating juveniles charged with offenses in adult court with adult offenders. Number 267 MR. HINES replied that the DHSS shared Representative Nordlund's concern. He said that "sight and sound separation" of juvenile offenders and adult offenders could vary by facility. He commented that it was the Department of Corrections' (DOC's) intent to separate juvenile and adult offenders, both in order to protect juveniles and to facilitate management. Number 286 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that no DOC representative was present. He commented that although the DOC might intend to separate juvenile offenders from adult offenders, that might not be possible, due to prison crowding. He was concerned about placing a juvenile who was simply charged with a particular offense into an adult facility. He wanted to see CSSB 54 (JUD) amended to include a requirement that juveniles and adults be separated, at least under some circumstances. Number 301 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that existing statutes regarding sight and sound separation were not clear, and she agreed that practices differed among facilities. She understood that the DOL had advised the DOC that present sight and sound restrictions did not apply to juveniles who had been waived into adult court. She said that CSSB 54 (JUD) would continue that present practice. Number 327 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a problem would occur if certain juvenile offenders were treated as adults in the justice system, but were still considered juveniles by society when they were released from the justice system. Number 339 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that automatic waivers only applied to 16-and 17-year-olds and, therefore, those juveniles would be over 18 years old when released from incarceration. Number 347 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was also true for crimes and juveniles to which automatic waivers did not apply. Number 350 MR. HINES replied that, in his eighteen years of experience, he only knew of one case in which a juvenile was waived into adult court, served time, was released while still a juvenile, and was arrested again. That juvenile was waived into adult court a second time, he said. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the answer to Representative Green's question was "no." He said that if a juvenile was deemed an adult once, for a particular criminal offense, that did not give the juvenile emancipation or any other rights as an adult. He added that it would not create any legal problems. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 54 (JUD), dated April 16, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 389 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OFFERED AMENDMENT NO. 1, which would allow for "reverse waivers" for certain juveniles who might have committed first- or second-degree murder, or first- degree attempted murder, but where mitigating circumstances applied. He gave an example of a juvenile who had been sexually abused by his or her parents for years, and ended up killing the parents. He expressed his opinion that enacting an ironclad requirement that juveniles who had committed murder be tried in adult court would be too strict. Number 439 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that Representative Nordlund's amendment would defeat the purpose of SB 54. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1. CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED for the purpose of discussing the amendment. He agreed with Representative James. He noted that the committee had already reduced the scope of SB 54. He expressed an opinion that the least a juvenile waiver bill should accomplish was to waive into adult court those juveniles who had intentionally taken a life or attempted to take a life. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that there could be situations that would require an adult court to look at mitigating circumstances, but said that did not mean the state should provide for a "reverse" waiver of the offender back into juvenile court. Number 461 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the adult court would take into account mitigating circumstances. Number 472 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that a court could, through a variety of means, consider mitigating circumstances. Number 477 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed an opinion that his amendment would not gut the bill, as Representative James had asserted. A roll call vote on amendment no. 1 was taken. Representative Nordlund voted "YEA." Representatives Green, Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, AMENDMENT NO. 1 FAILED. Number 491 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked to hear from Senator Halford's aide. Number 498 JOHN SHEPHERD, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR RICK HALFORD, commented that there were strong philosophical differences between the Senate-passed version of SB 54 and CSSB 54 (JUD). But, he said, the Judiciary Committee's bill was a giant step in the right direction. He said that concerns had been raised that the courts would view the transfer of the burden of proof as a procedural change, not a substantive one. He mentioned that Senator Halford saw the transfer as a substantive change. MR. SHEPHERD said that if the court viewed the transfer as a procedural change, and the bill did not pass the legislature by a 2/3 margin, then that part of the bill would not stand. However, he said, other components of SB 54 would be given effect. Number 547 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a draft letter of intent in their bill packets. He noted that the legislature had the authority to enact substantive law, and the courts adopted rules of procedure. He said that the change in the burden of proof fell into the gray area between substantive and procedural changes. He noted that the letter of intent asserted that changes made in SB 54 were substantive, and not procedural. Number 584 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT the letter of intent. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 591 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 54 (JUD) out of committee, with attached fiscal notes and letter of intent, and with individual recommendations. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 607 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 195 next. HB 195: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS Number 612 REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 195, commented that his bill enjoyed bipartisan and statewide support. He said that the bill would authorize the creation of a program under the DHSS in which youths under the age of 18 who had allegedly committed an offense could choose to go through a youth court proceeding, instead of through the regular court system. In order to go through the youth court, he said, the juvenile, his or her parents, juvenile intake authorities, and the youth court would have to agree to have the case heard in the youth court. REPRESENTATIVE SITTON commented that other states had youth courts, but in Alaska, only Anchorage had such a program. The Anchorage program had proved successful since its inception in 1989, he said, showing a dramatic decrease in recidivism, as compared to other courts. He commented that one reason the Anchorage youth court was so successful was because it relied on volunteers. He said that the Anchorage youth court program relied on the DHSS, the court system, the Alaska Bar Association, the school district, and law enforcement agencies. REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that cases were referred to the youth court by juvenile probation officers or other entities. He noted that the youth court had the same provisions protecting an individual's rights as the adult court system had. He commented that the very youth that could be a problem to society could also be part of the solution. He said that the court was composed of students under the age of 18 who volunteered as bailiffs, judges, jurors, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and clerks. Additionally, he said, the students were required to undergo intensive training and pass a youth court bar examination. REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that HB 195 would allow a youth court program to be implemented in areas of the state other than Anchorage. He said that HB 195 contained a match requirement for grants. He stated that the Health, Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee substitute for HB 195 contained two changes from the original bill. One change was that the term "nonprofit corporations" had been replaced with "persons." That change allowed for individuals, governmental bodies, and corporations to be eligible for youth court grants. REPRESENTATIVE SITTON said that the HESS Committee had also omitted a section relating to grant funds, in order to create two separate funds. He noted that a draft committee substitute dated April 13, 1993, before the committee, reversed both changes made by the HESS Committee. He said that the youth court program was a proven success and should be expanded to other areas of the state. He urged the committee to support HB 195. Number 689 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his wholehearted support for HB 195. He asked Representative Sitton how youth court sentences compared to juvenile court sentences. Additionally, he asked what percentage of people who could use the youth court chose to do so. He asked if perhaps the low recidivism rate was attributable to the type of people who chose to use the youth court system. Number 706 REPRESENTATIVE SITTON responded that students involved in the Anchorage youth court program took their involvement very seriously, and tended to be "hanging judges." He cited one instance in which an offender being tried by the youth court was caught in a lie. The recommended sentence was for that youth to walk the streets wearing a sign saying that he was a liar. He noted that the youth court received supervision from adults, so that it did not impose sentences which were too strict. He stated that the program's recidivism rate was admirable. Number 724 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated his question regarding the type of people who elected to go to youth court, and its effect on the recidivism rate. Number 728 REPRESENTATIVE SITTON replied that Representative Green might be correct. He commented that if, instead of a juvenile offender being able to strut before his or her peers after committing an offense, he or she were made by those same peers to perform community service, they received condemnation, not approbation. TAPE 93-63, SIDE A Number 000 MR. HINES stated that the DHSS had submitted a zero fiscal note for HB 195, and added that the department strongly supported the bill. He cited the excellent results of the Anchorage youth court program. He commented that youth courts generally dealt with younger juveniles who committed first-time property offenses. Number 027 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated that the changes incorporated in CSHB 195 (JUD) were technical in nature. He suggested that CSHB 195 (JUD) be AMENDED on page 2, lines 4-5 to DELETE the phrase "use of `pre-petition diversion programs'." He stated that the amendment would make the language of the bill more accurate, as the present court rules did not specifically authorize the use of pre-petition diversion programs. Number 083 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. However, it was discovered that CSHB 195 (JUD) was not properly before the committee. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 195 (JUD), dated April 13, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 104 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1. There being no objection, AMENDMENT NO. 1 WAS ADOPTED. Number 111 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 195 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He pointed out possibly conflicting language on page 4, line 21, regarding matching grants. Number 170 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the language provided that if a nonprofit corporation wanted to apply for a grant, then it was required to match that grant, unless that requirement was waived. Number 177 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that the use of "must" and "may" in the same section appeared to be contradictory. Number 180 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative Kott's concern, but noted that in order for a waiver to occur, a condition must be required in the first place. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being no further objection to moving CSHB 195 (JUD) out of committee, IT WAS SO ORDERED. An "at ease" was called at 5:10 p.m. Number 203 The committee meeting was called back to order at 5:12 p.m., and began its consideration of HB 132. HB 132: EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 132, stated that the bill would allow for the extension of a resource extraction permit in cases in which the permit could not be exercised due to legal action enjoining the permitted activity and in which the final judgment was in the permittee's favor. Also, he said, HB 132 would allow an automatic extension, upon application by the permit holder, for the time lost on the permit due to the legal action. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the House Resources Committee had made a couple of amendments which had questionable effects. He called the members' attention to a memorandum from Jerry Luckhaupt of the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services which addressed the effect of one of the House Resources Committee's amendments. On page 2, line 24 of CSHB 132 (RES), he said, the definition of permits would result in negating the bill, because it made reference to an obsolete statute. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that members had in their bill packets an amendment which would delete that reference, and instead use the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) broad definition of "permit." CHAIRMAN PORTER identified that particular amendment as AMENDMENT NO. 1. Number 332 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that AMENDMENT NO. 2 pertained to page 2, line 2 of CSHB 132 (RES), and deleted the phrase "a substantial extent," which the House Resources Committee had added. Discussions with the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services attorneys and the DNR officials resulted in the recommendation that the phrase be deleted. He stated that the Alaska Miners' Association, the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the Usibelli Coal Mine had all endorsed HB 132. Number 338 EVANS MCMILLION, representing the Alaska Environmental Lobby, testified in opposition to HB 132. She said that the bill was overly broad and contained ambiguous language. She noted that the bill did not give credence to unforeseen consequences which could lead to additional court cases. Additionally, she said, the bill assumed clear-cut litigation outcomes by the use of the term "successful" on page 2, lines 5-6. She stated that courts often granted a plaintiff part, but not all, of what he or she wanted. MS. MCMILLION questioned who would decide if a permittee was in fact successful, and what criteria would be used to make that determination. Number 358 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the section to which Ms. McMillion was referring went on to say, "and the suit is dismissed with prejudice or judgment is granted to the holder of the permits..." Number 364 MS. MCMILLION replied that she was not an attorney, but noted that attorneys with whom she had spoken had informed her that the language was still troublesome. She expressed her opinion that HB 132 did not take into account external factors that could change during the time of litigation, including changes in federal laws or scientific information. Number 393 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a quorum was not present. Number 398 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Horetski to comment on the language on page 2, line 5 of the bill. Number 405 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that Civil Rule 82 provided that courts should estimate attorneys' fees and award them to the prevailing party in a lawsuit. Many times, she said, it was difficult for a court to decide which party had prevailed. She commented that the bill's reference to a "successful" litigant made it a very high standard to meet. She did not have any language prepared which would tighten that provision, but stated that the drafting attorneys might be able to come up with some appropriate language. Number 434 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would prepare language pertaining to "successful" litigants and bring HB 132 back before the committee at a time uncertain. He noted that the idea behind HB 132 was to prevent an existing situation in which suits designed solely to obstruct resource extraction could have the effect of requiring a permit holder to go through a time-consuming, expensive permit process more than once. He said that HB 132 could bar specious litigation and he expressed his support for the bill for that reason. CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Representatives Kott and Nordlund for being present throughout the meeting. He stated that, due to time constraints, HB 187, Interception of Private Communications, would not be heard that day. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.