Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/06/2001 01:14 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 6, 2001                                                                                          
                           1:14 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 143                                                                                                              
"An   Act   relating   to   the   deoxyribonucleic   acid   (DNA)                                                               
identification registration system."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 143(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 121                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the issuance of qualified charitable gift                                                                   
annuities."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 121(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 125                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to unlawful and indecent viewing and                                                                           
photography and to civil damages and penalties for that viewing                                                                 
and photography."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 196                                                                                                              
"An Act establishing a right of action for a legal separation;                                                                  
and amending Rule 42(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 120                                                                                       
"An  Act  adopting  the National  Crime  Prevention  and  Privacy                                                               
Compact;  making   criminal  justice  information   available  to                                                               
interested  persons  and   criminal  history  record  information                                                               
available to  the public;  making certain  conforming amendments;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 143                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:DNA DATABASE                                                                                                        
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MURKOWSKI                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/23/01     0415       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/23/01     0415       (H)        JUD                                                                                          
02/28/01     0473       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                          
04/06/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 121                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CHARITABLE GIFT ANNUITIES                                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MURKOWSKI                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/09/01     0281       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/09/01     0281       (H)        L&C, JUD                                                                                     
02/14/01     0328       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS                                                                        
03/14/01                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/14/01                (H)        Moved CSHB 121(L&C) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/26/01     0724       (H)        L&C RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 2NR                                                                      
03/26/01     0725       (H)        DP: KOTT, HAYES, MEYER,                                                                      
                                   ROKEBERG,                                                                                    
03/26/01     0725       (H)        MURKOWSKI; NR: HALCRO,                                                                       
                                   CRAWFORD                                                                                     
03/26/01     0725       (H)        FN1: ZERO(CED)                                                                               
04/06/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 125                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:UNLAWFUL VIEWING                                                                                                    
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/12/01     0297       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/12/01     0297       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/12/01     0297       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
02/26/01     0444       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                          
04/06/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 196                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:RIGHT OF ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION                                                                                
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/19/01     0649       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/19/01     0649       (H)        JUD                                                                                          
03/19/01     0649       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
04/06/01                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 408                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as sponsor of HB 143 and HB 121.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
GEORGE TAFT, Director                                                                                                           
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory                                                                                           
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
5500 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507-1221                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that the state crime lab has the                                                                 
latest DNA technology available and is prepared to handle the                                                                   
increased workload from HB 143.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MARK MEW, Deputy Chief                                                                                                          
Anchorage Police Department (APD)                                                                                               
Municipality of Anchorage                                                                                                       
PO Box 196650                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99519                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Expressed the APD's enthusiasm for HB 143                                                                  
and answered questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
JOHN McKINNON, Officer                                                                                                          
Anchorage Police Department                                                                                                     
Municipality of Anchorage                                                                                                       
PO Box 196650                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99519                                                                                                        
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Testified  that  HB   143  balances  the                                                               
preservation of public safety and liberty.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director                                                                                           
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU)                                                                                            
PO Box 201844                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99520-1844                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:   Stated support for  voluntary collection of                                                               
DNA and  acknowledged reasons  to collect  DNA for  sex offenses,                                                               
but expressed  concerns about HB  143, relating her  testimony to                                                               
SB 99 as well; requested  amendment so that samples are destroyed                                                               
once the  information is in  the database.  During  discussion of                                                               
HB  125,  expressed concerns  regarding  free  speech, the  First                                                               
Amendment, and the expanded definition of "picture."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                                  
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
PO Box 111200                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  in  support  of  the  proposed                                                               
committee substitute for HB 143 and answered questions.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison                                                                           
Division of Juvenile Justice                                                                                                    
Department of Health & Social Services                                                                                          
PO Box 110635                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0635                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in support of HB  143; said there                                                               
would be no programmatic or  fiscal impact on the current system.                                                               
During  discussion of  HB 125,  expressed  concerns and  answered                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JEROME SELBY                                                                                                                    
Providence Health System in Alaska                                                                                              
9100 Centennial                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99504                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 121.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JON CALDER, Director                                                                                                            
Annual & Planned Giving                                                                                                         
Providence Alaska Foundation                                                                                                    
3200 Providence Drive                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska  99508                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 121.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
GLORIA GLOVER, Chief Financial Examiner                                                                                         
Anchorage Field Office                                                                                                          
Division of Insurance                                                                                                           
Department of Community & Economic Development                                                                                  
3601 C Street, Suite 1324                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSHB 121(L&C).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DENISE HENDERSON, Staff                                                                                                         
to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 204                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 125 on behalf of                                                                              
Representative Kott, the sponsor.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant                                                                                              
Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST)                                                                                         
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions relating to HB 125.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Terry Miller Building, Room 329                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Speaking as the drafter, answered questions                                                                
on HB 125.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-57, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN  ROKEBERG  called   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting to  order at 1:14 p.m.  Members  present at the                                                               
call to order were Representatives  Rokeberg, James, Coghill, and                                                               
Meyer.   Representative  Kookesh arrived  as the  meeting was  in                                                               
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 143 - DNA DATABASE                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[Contains testimony relating to SB 99.]                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0239                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced the first  order of business, HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO.  143, "An  Act relating  to the  deoxyribonucleic acid  (DNA)                                                               
identification registration system."   [In packets was a proposed                                                               
committee  substitute   (CS),  version   22-LS0234\F,  Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/14/01.]                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0250                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LISA   MURKOWSKI,  Alaska   State   Legislature,                                                               
sponsor, explained  that HB  143 is  similar to  legislation from                                                               
the previous  session; however, the previous  bill didn't include                                                               
burglary  in the  list of  offenses  for which  samples would  be                                                               
collected.   Currently under  statute the  state can  collect DNA                                                               
samples  from  those  convicted   of  crimes  against  a  person:                                                               
assault, rape,  kidnapping, murder, child sexual  abuse, robbery,                                                               
stalking,  indecent  exposure,  extortion, coercion,  and  first-                                                               
degree arson.  What HB 143 does is add burglary to the list.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  told members  they probably  would hear                                                               
arguments  regarding the  numbers;  however,  statistics she  has                                                               
seen prove that  50 percent of those who commit  burglary - a so-                                                               
called crime  of convenience -  later commit violent crimes.   If                                                               
the  state can  get  [DNA] identification  from those  committing                                                               
burglary, the belief is that it  will help to identify, solve, or                                                               
prevent certain violent crimes.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI  informed  members  that  George  Taft,                                                               
director of the state crime lab,  was online to testify that day.                                                               
She  encouraged members  to tour  the lab  facilities to  see how                                                               
they operate  and input the data.   She told members  that Deputy                                                               
Commissioner  Smith from  the Department  of Public  Safety (DPS)                                                               
would address the process as well.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted  the arrival  of  Representative  Kookesh.                                                               
Referring  to a  chart in  committee packets  that shows  the DNA                                                               
database  laws from  all  50 states  in  relationship to  various                                                               
felonies, he observed that burglary  is the only such offense not                                                               
included for Alaska currently.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI   affirmed  that,  adding   that  other                                                               
charts,  not included  in packets,  show how  various states  are                                                               
dealing with the expansion to  their DNA databases.  She reported                                                               
that all states require DNA  samples for sex offenses; 35 states,                                                               
including Alaska, require samples for  murder and for assault and                                                               
battery; and 24  require samples for burglary.   The inclusion of                                                               
burglary in  the list  of violent crimes  is something  that more                                                               
and more states are looking at.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG pointed  out that  the chart  in packets  says 18                                                               
states [include burglary, rather than the 24 mentioned].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  explained that  the chart is  from June                                                               
2000; it is an older listing.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented  that it clearly shows a  trend of other                                                               
states' adopting the standard being requested [in HB 143].                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0628                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GEORGE  TAFT, Director,  Scientific  Crime Detection  Laboratory,                                                               
Department of  Public Safety, testified  via teleconference.   He                                                               
informed members  that the laboratory  is prepared to  handle the                                                               
workload, should HB 143 pass.   He pointed out that the figure of                                                               
24  states [with  burglary on  the inclusion  list] has  recently                                                               
increased to  26 states.   Mr. Taft reported that  the laboratory                                                               
is performing the latest DNA  testing available, called "STR" for                                                               
"short  tandem repeat,"  a highly  specific and  accurate process                                                               
that can identify individuals with one-in-a-billion [accuracy].                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0738                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARK  MEW,  Deputy  Chief,  Anchorage  Police  Department  (APD),                                                               
Municipality of  Anchorage, testified via  teleconference, noting                                                               
that with him  was Officer John McKinnon, the "point  man" on the                                                               
project.     He   informed  members   that  the   APD  is   "very                                                               
enthusiastic" about HB  143; the APD was  also enthusiastic about                                                               
the   previous  legislation,   he  said,   and  wanted   burglary                                                               
[included] at that time, as well.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF  MEW explained that  his department has  an interest                                                               
in generating as  large a database of criminals  as possible, and                                                               
sees  a direct  relationship between  burglary and  other crimes.                                                               
He  pointed  out  that  different  statistics  exist  from  using                                                               
different methodologies,  but all  correlate burglary  with other                                                               
crimes;  in  particular,  he  said, he  was  thinking  of  sexual                                                               
assaults.   The APD believes  that including burglars in  the DNA                                                               
database  will assist  the department  to  stop serial  criminals                                                               
early  in their  careers,  he told  members,  thereby saving  the                                                               
taxpayers money and shortening investigation time.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked what the APD's  calculated percentage                                                               
is for burglars who go on to commit other crimes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY  CHIEF MEW  replied that  he is  aware of  three different                                                               
numbers from  three [sources].  First,  he has been told  that in                                                               
Florida the  figure is somewhere  around 25 percent.   Second, he                                                               
is aware of  an FBI [Federal Bureau of  Investigation] study that                                                               
used a  different methodology,  interviewing serial  rapists, and                                                               
came up  with a figure  closer to 50  percent for people  who had                                                               
committed property crimes - specifically, burglary - beforehand.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF MEW  said third, "we" made some  effort to calculate                                                               
the same  statistics in Alaska, and  the number was "quite  a bit                                                               
lower than  that," presumably because  juvenile records  are kept                                                               
separately  from  adult  records,   and  thus  juvenile  burglary                                                               
convictions were not  being picked up as they  related to violent                                                               
crimes committed by the same  juveniles after they became adults;                                                               
[the APD] is working now  with the [Division of] Juvenile Justice                                                               
to  backtrack regarding  some  of  those names.    Right now,  he                                                               
noted,  that  statistic  is  lower  than  50  percent,  which  he                                                               
suggested Deputy  Commissioner Smith  could speak  to.   He added                                                               
that he thinks 25 percent  is probably [a reasonable estimate] in                                                               
terms of rapists who have prior burglary convictions.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0963                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES mentioned  her  own accounting  background,                                                               
saying she was having difficulty  establishing that percentage if                                                               
one is  figuring out  how many  [perpetrators of  violent crimes]                                                               
started as burglars, as opposed  to figuring out how many violent                                                               
criminals  have done  burglaries.   She  suggested  that the  two                                                               
answers wouldn't necessarily be the same.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY  CHIEF MEW  replied that  in order  to make  it work,  the                                                               
individuals, not  the number of  crimes, must be counted.   There                                                               
are  many  burglaries  for  which  the  perpetrator  is  unknown.                                                               
Therefore, the  criminal histories  of the  people who  have been                                                               
convicted of the violent crimes  must be tracked backward through                                                               
time  to  see  how  many  had convictions  for  burglaries.    He                                                               
emphasized  that these  statistics  are  for convictions,  rather                                                               
than for  a charge of  burglary that  is pled down  to vandalism,                                                               
for example.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY  CHIEF  MEW  explained  that part  of  the  difficulty  in                                                               
comparing  one state's  statistics  to another's  is because  the                                                               
methodology  and  the statutory  definitions  of  the crimes  may                                                               
differ, widely affecting  the results of a study.   "We're trying                                                               
to come  up with  an apples-to-apples  comparison right  now," he                                                               
added, "but  our data  isn't coming  in as fast  as you  guys are                                                               
holding  hearings, so  I  can't nail  down a  number  for you;  I                                                               
apologize for that."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said she can  understand the  difficulty in                                                               
analyzing  it because  one  can only  analyze  backward in  time,                                                               
whereas  the legislation  projects  forward in  time, using  that                                                               
assumption.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1109                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted  that his own question  was similar to                                                               
that of Representative James.   He referred to a handout provided                                                               
by Representative  Murkowski regarding  a study done  in Virginia                                                               
which  showed that  40 percent  of  the men  who were  ultimately                                                               
arrested  for rape  began their  criminal  careers with  property                                                               
crimes such as burglar and petty  theft.  He asked how this would                                                               
"track" in Alaska.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF MEW  noted that the FBI [study] said  50 percent had                                                               
done  property  crimes  including  those  such  as  burglary;  he                                                               
cautioned  that   "property  crimes"  includes  more   than  just                                                               
burglary.  He concluded, "I think  that we're the same as all the                                                               
other states.  I'm just unable right  now to prove it to you with                                                               
the hard [numbers]."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  remarked  that   one  benefit  of  having  [DNA]                                                               
evidence available is that it  can help a potential defendant who                                                               
is innocent of the crime, just  as it can convict [someone who is                                                               
guilty].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF  MEW concurred, pointing  out that some  people have                                                               
been  released  from  prison   after  serving  lengthy  sentences                                                               
because [of  being exonerated] by  DNA technology.  He  called it                                                               
an objective test.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG asked  whether  the  APD has  found  it helps  in                                                               
investigations.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF MEW replied that [the  APD] uses DNA "all the time";                                                               
it  is  particularly  valuable  in  sexual  assault  cases.    He                                                               
explained that [DNA]  is good physical evidence  that can "break"                                                               
an alibi or help  get a confession.   In  sexual assault, it used                                                               
to be  a matter of proving  whether or not sex  occurred to begin                                                               
with;  now, however,  it  is  usually a  matter  of just  proving                                                               
whether  it  was  "successful"  because the  first  part  of  the                                                               
argument is  pretty much settled  by the DNA.   It also  helps in                                                               
homicides and even  in burglary cases when a burglar  gets cut by                                                               
glass and leaves  blood behind [at the scene].   Deputy Chief Mew                                                               
commented  that   there  may  be  serial   burglars  who  haven't                                                               
graduated to other  crimes in the database today,  "and two years                                                               
from now  they'll leave  blood behind  at the  scene, and  we may                                                               
close up even our own burglary cases [using this] technology."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1260                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL returned  to Deputy  Chief Mew's  caution                                                               
that  [different   crimes]  may  have  different   standards  and                                                               
definitions in  other states'  statutes.   Representative Coghill                                                               
remarked that  there is a  "privacy wall" that must  be protected                                                               
in order to avoid misusing this  information.  He said right now,                                                               
he doesn't  have any fear  that the  state itself or  the current                                                               
generation will  misuse it; he  expressed concern,  however, that                                                               
future generations will have a  lot of information available.  He                                                               
asked  whether,  right  now,  there   could  be  people  who  are                                                               
inadvertently "caught  up" because of the  definition of burglary                                                               
[in HB 143] - people who  will have DNA samples collected but who                                                               
really shouldn't be in that [database].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF MEW answered:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Our  definition of  burglary here,  I think,  is fairly                                                                    
     consistent with traditional  burglary definitions:  ...                                                                    
     you have to  enter or remain illegally  with the intent                                                                    
     to  commit  a  crime.    It's  much  higher  than  just                                                                    
     vandalizing  something  or   just  stealing  something.                                                                    
     It's  not  stealing  hubcaps  off  a  car.    It's  not                                                                    
     shoplifting out of  a store that's open  to the public.                                                                    
     It's a fairly high level of crime ....                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     And if you're  charged with burglary, but  ... to avoid                                                                    
     the  necessities  of   trial  the  [district  attorney]                                                                    
     allows you to plead guilty  to something lesser such as                                                                    
     trespass or theft  or vandalism, we're not  going to be                                                                    
     collecting a sample  under this law.  You  have to have                                                                    
     the conviction  for burglary, not  the charge.   Unless                                                                    
     the  legislature wants  to change  that down  the road,                                                                    
     that's what we're asking for,  and that's what we'll be                                                                    
     held to - and it's a fairly high standard.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DEPUTY CHIEF MEW, in further  response to Representative Coghill,                                                               
pointed  out that  if the  standard  were a  charge of  burglary,                                                               
rather  than a  conviction,  the bill  would  be "catching"  many                                                               
people.   Requiring a conviction  not only narrows the  number of                                                               
people, but also raises the burden of proof.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1392                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN    McKINNON,   Officer,    Anchorage   Police    Department,                                                               
Municipality  of Anchorage,  testified  via  teleconference.   He                                                               
noted that "law enforcement is  tasked with balancing many public                                                               
issues"  including  balancing  public safety  with  "liberty  for                                                               
all."    He  suggested  that  some opponents  of  this  bill,  by                                                               
contrast, may have  the task of [protecting] only  one area, such                                                               
as liberty.  He  said HB 143 meets both of  these challenges:  it                                                               
enhances the ability  of law enforcement to  promote and preserve                                                               
public safety  while enhancing and  furthering leads  in criminal                                                               
investigation.   In addition, HB  143 will [protect]  people from                                                               
false convictions when they are innocent of a crime.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
OFFICER McKINNON reported  that according to at  least one study,                                                               
conducted by  the National Institute  of Justice,  violent crimes                                                               
such  as  sexual assault  are  the  most expensive  for  society;                                                               
considering all the  factors of medical and mental  care, loss of                                                               
productivity,  and   decreased  quality  of  life,   [the  study]                                                               
estimated the  average cost  of one crime  to be  nearly $87,000.                                                               
Officer McKinnon told members that  with the enactment of HB 143,                                                               
having a suspect's DNA in  the registry possibly could lessen the                                                               
damage to individual citizens and reduce the cost to government.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1491                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER  RUDINGER, Executive  Director,  Alaska Civil  Liberties                                                               
Union  (AkCLU), testified  via  teleconference,  noting that  the                                                               
AkCLU is a statewide organization  whose mission is to defend and                                                               
protect the  guarantees of individual  liberty found in  the Bill                                                               
of Rights  and in  Alaska's constitution.   She said  [the AkCLU]                                                               
hears almost daily from people  across the state who have various                                                               
concerns about  civil liberties;  by far, the  biggest categories                                                               
of cases brought  to her attention in her four  years as director                                                               
have  been from  people concerned  about the  government's demand                                                               
for more and more personal  information, whether that information                                                               
regards   genetics,  social   security  [numbers],   or  personal                                                               
backgrounds.   She  informed members  that she  would, therefore,                                                               
focus on personal privacy in her testimony.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  said the AkCLU  doesn't doubt that the  sponsors of                                                               
both SB  99 and HB 143  have good intentions, nor  does the AkCLU                                                               
question  DNA's  accuracy  for identification  or  its  value  to                                                               
exonerate the  innocent; in fact,  [the American  Civil Liberties                                                               
Union] is  advocating, in  states nationwide  and at  the federal                                                               
level,  that  whenever  someone  is convicted  of  a  crime  that                                                               
carries  the death  penalty, DNA  - if  it existed  at the  crime                                                               
scene  - should  be allowed  for testing  before the  [convicted]                                                               
person  is  executed.    Therefore,  the  AkCLU  wouldn't  oppose                                                               
voluntary collection  of DNA.   In fact, if someone  is innocent,                                                               
that person's lawyer should ask for a DNA test.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1585                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  pointed out that  HB 143, by  contrast, establishes                                                               
mandatory  collection of  DNA.   She stressed  the importance  of                                                               
asking  whether  [this  mandatory  collection]  is  justified  in                                                               
Alaska.  She said:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     We're  not talking  about taking  DNA from  burglars in                                                                    
     Florida or  Virginia.  We're  talking about  taking DNA                                                                    
     from  people in  Alaska, and  we started  out with  sex                                                                    
     offenders,  as  did  most  or all  states.    With  sex                                                                    
     offenders,  it's different,  because sex  offenders (a)                                                                    
     typically leave  DNA at the  crime scene, and  (b) tend                                                                    
     to  be recidivists;  I think  it's an  80 percent  or a                                                                    
     little more  than 80 percent  recidivist rate  - repeat                                                                    
     offenders.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     So, then, it  makes sense that if you take  the DNA for                                                                    
     someone  convicted of  [a] sex  offense,  ... first  of                                                                    
     all, you'll be able to  identify them and convict them,                                                                    
     and down the  road, if they're 80 percent  likely to be                                                                    
     a repeat  offender, ... law enforcement  is more likely                                                                    
     to nab  them. ... That seems  to be justified.   And we                                                                    
     were  told, ...  by  the federal  government when  they                                                                    
     started this and  by the states, ...  "Well, ... here's                                                                    
     the justification  with sex offenses."   And whether we                                                                    
     completely agreed or not, we  bought in to the argument                                                                    
     that it was justified.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Then the line  moves.  And the line keeps  moving.  And                                                                    
     so  we  have  seen   DNA  collection  moving  from  sex                                                                    
     offenses to  all violent  crimes, and  in Alaska  it is                                                                    
     currently very broad:   it's all personal  crimes.  And                                                                    
     in  other states  it's gone  into property  crimes like                                                                    
     burglary.  And  then you start getting  into states who                                                                    
     are taking it from anyone  who's arrested for a crime -                                                                    
     not convicted.  And  finally, there have been proposals                                                                    
     by Rudy Giuliani  [mayor of New York City]  - and Janet                                                                    
     Reno [former U.S. Attorney  General] thought this might                                                                    
     have some  credibility - of  taking DNA  from newborns.                                                                    
     The  line  keeps  moving.   And  every  time  that  you                                                                    
     consider  moving that  line, we  respectfully urge  the                                                                    
     committee to ask yourselves whether it's justified.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1672                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER continued:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     In Alaska,  it's not  40 percent or  25 or  50 percent.                                                                    
     ... The  only data we  have to go  on says that  only 6                                                                    
     percent of burglars  - of the people from  whom you are                                                                    
     taking DNA - do go on  to commit a violent crime later;                                                                    
     ... that means 94 percent do not.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     This isn't  like a fingerprint.   I think we  also have                                                                    
     to  look at  what we  are seizing  from a  human being.                                                                    
     DNA, unlike fingerprinting,  reveals information beyond                                                                    
     identification.   It gives the government  control over                                                                    
     a  great deal  of  personal,  private information,  not                                                                    
     only  about the  person  you  get the  DNA  from -  the                                                                    
     sample  source  - but  from  everyone  related to  that                                                                    
     person  by blood,  [including]  information about  some                                                                    
     4,000  genetic  conditions   and  diseases,  ethnicity,                                                                    
     family relationships,  family history.  This  is a kind                                                                    
     of  information that  belongs to  the  person, not  the                                                                    
     government, and  you've got to really  question whether                                                                    
     it's justified.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     And beyond  that, we're  constantly finding  new things                                                                    
     that we  can learn from  DNA.  Geneticists  are already                                                                    
     thinking  that  we  might  be  able  to  detect  sexual                                                                    
     orientation,  tendency for  substance abuse,  so-called                                                                    
     criminal   tendencies   under   the   theory   of   the                                                                    
     "aggression  gene." ...  It  may  sound Orwellian,  but                                                                    
     it's true, and it's constantly developing.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  noted that confusion  arises because  two different                                                               
kinds of  data are taken  from the DNA.   The first,  which looks                                                               
like a  barcode, is what  is entered into the  national database,                                                               
CODIS [Combined DNA Index System].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RUDINGER  explained that  the  13  specific genetic  markers                                                               
taken from  the DNA chain, which  are put into CODIS,  are like a                                                               
genetic   fingerprint;   with   today's  technology,   the   only                                                               
information one  can get from  that "barcode" in the  database is                                                               
identification  and  maybe  gender.     However,  the  AkCLU  and                                                               
Alaskans are largely concerned about the  other set of data - the                                                               
drop of  blood or saliva itself  - because nothing in  federal or                                                               
Alaskan law requires that the sample be destroyed.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RUDINGER  noted that  she  had  provided additional  written                                                               
testimony.    She  concluded  by   requesting  that  the  sponsor                                                               
consider amending  HB 143 so  that once testing is  completed and                                                               
the data  is entered into  the database  - which is  99.9 percent                                                               
accurate  - then  the drop  of blood,  drop of  saliva, hair,  or                                                               
tissue would  be gotten rid of.   It is the  information in those                                                               
samples  that   potentially  invades  a  person's   privacy,  she                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1868                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES,  observing that the percentages  offered by                                                               
Ms. Rudinger were considerably different  from those mentioned in                                                               
earlier  testimony, asked  Ms. Rudinger  where  she obtained  her                                                               
information.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER replied  that she had received  her information from                                                               
Senator  Randy   Phillips,  who   had  said  he'd   obtained  the                                                               
information  from  [Deputy  Commissioner]  Smith;  she  suggested                                                               
perhaps Mr.  Smith could address  that.  Ms. Rudinger  added that                                                               
it is the  best information that she has, and  the only data that                                                               
[the AkCLU] has right now to go on.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  said  she   understands  the  position  on                                                               
liberties, but  when she herself thinks  about catching burglars,                                                               
it protects  her own  liberty to  be able to  live safely  in her                                                               
home and on the  streets.  She suggested that is  one of the most                                                               
important aspects of liberty.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  concurred, but  said the problem  is that  a person                                                               
convicted of  burglary is already going  to do [jail] time.   Now                                                               
DNA will be  taken.  The argument is that  taking DNA is supposed                                                               
to help  law enforcement  track this person  in the  future, once                                                               
the  person is  out  of prison  and back  in  society, under  the                                                               
theory that  the person will  commit another crime.   However, if                                                               
in Alaska  it is known that  94 percent will not  commit a future                                                               
crime, she  said it does little  to give citizens peace  of mind.                                                               
She said it is simply part  of a national movement, pushed by the                                                               
FBI, to build a national  database, that contains as many samples                                                               
and [genetic] markers as possible.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted  that Ms. Rudinger's second  page of written                                                               
testimony says  DNA also  can prove the  innocence of  a suspect,                                                               
thereby preventing terribly miscarriages  of justice, and DNA can                                                               
even be used  to correct wrongful convictions  based on erroneous                                                               
identification.  "I take your point," he remarked.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2010                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEL  SMITH,  Deputy  Commissioner, Department  of  Public  Safety                                                               
(DPS), came  forward to testify,  noting that he had  been before                                                               
the [House  Judiciary Standing] Committee regarding  the previous                                                               
legislation.  He said he  would address questions that had arisen                                                               
that day.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  affirmed that the 6  percent that he had  told Senator                                                               
Phillips  is an  accurate number.   Of  the roughly  3,000 people                                                               
from whom [DPS] has taken  mandatory DNA samples since January 1,                                                               
1996,  6  percent  had  a previous  burglary  conviction.    That                                                               
information  should be  considered,  but isn't  scientific.   "It                                                               
does not mean, as far as  I'm concerned, that 94 percent didn't,"                                                               
he stated.  Mr. Smith explained:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     These are  convicted individuals.   We've got a  lot of                                                                    
     unsolved  burglaries  out   there;  probably  about  85                                                                    
     percent   -   in  my   experience,   in   my  life   in                                                                    
     investigations - of burglaries  never get solved.  That                                                                    
     being so,  these are numbers  that you  probably should                                                                    
     consider:  44 percent in  Virginia is the number that I                                                                    
     was told; 52  percent in Florida.   Consider these, but                                                                    
     I don't know  that we ought to live or  die on what the                                                                    
     percentage is.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  pointed out  that in Alaska,  a substantial  number of                                                               
burglaries are  committed by people under  the age of 18,  who do                                                               
not end  up, for the most  part, with a criminal  history against                                                               
which  the  [DPS]  can  check  the  database;  he  suggested  the                                                               
officers  from the  APD  could  affirm that.    He added,  "We're                                                               
trying to  figure out a  way to do  that now,  to come up  with a                                                               
better number,  but [are]  simply unable  to do  it right  at the                                                               
moment."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  reported that there was  a case in the  last couple of                                                               
years in  which, based on  what [law enforcement]  knew, probable                                                               
cause would  have brought  the person in  for a  particularly bad                                                               
crime in  Anchorage.  Based  on the  DNA sampling that  [DPS] was                                                               
able to  do, however,  the person  was not  arrested.   Mr. Smith                                                               
said, "That's the kind  of thing I want to do.  I  do not want to                                                               
submit somebody  to arrest.   ... If I  can avoid that  by having                                                               
DNA  that heads  us off,  and heads  us in  the right  direction,                                                               
that's what I want  to do.  And as far as  I'm concerned, that is                                                               
guarding the freedom of the public."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH stated that he supports  the bill, which he believes to                                                               
be  an important  step forward.   He  emphasized that  it is  for                                                               
convicted  burglars.   He noted  that there  was an  APRN [Alaska                                                               
Public Radio Network]  program a few weeks ago from  which he had                                                               
obtained the  tape and  transcript.  A  person from  Virginia had                                                               
said, "If you  don't want to do this, then  you've probably given                                                               
someone  one  free sexual  assault."    Mr.  Smith said  that  is                                                               
certainly a possibility.   He suggested that  many burglaries may                                                               
be  based on  a tip  on how  to get  into a  person's house,  for                                                               
reasons that have little to do with taking money or guns.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Smith  whether he thinks this will                                                               
have any deterrent effect on young people.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH answered that he would  like to think so, but he wasn't                                                               
sure  that such  a  thought  process would  enter  into  it.   He                                                               
suggested that  people may  be more  careful regarding  what they                                                               
might leave at the crime scene.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated  that was his own point:   it could be a                                                               
double-edged sword.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2200                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BUTTCANE,  Legislative & Administrative  Liaison, Division                                                               
of  Juvenile  Justice, Department  of  Health  & Social  Services                                                               
(DHSS), came  forward to testify in  support of HB 143.   He told                                                               
members that  there are approximately  600 burglary  referrals to                                                               
the juvenile  system a year;  of that number,  approximately 200-                                                               
300 are "adjudicated delinquent on burglary."  He explained:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     We don't  adjudicate every child a  burglar, because of                                                                    
     various extenuating  circumstances. ... A  young person                                                                    
     in a  village may go  into someone's home to  get their                                                                    
     jug of  whiskey from underneath the  sink; technically,                                                                    
     that  meets  the  qualifications   or  criteria  for  a                                                                    
     burglary.  But as you  piece all of this together, what                                                                    
     it really  is more akin  to, when  you've got a  14- or                                                                    
     15-year old,  is a  criminal trespass.   So  we're much                                                                    
     more  likely, in  those kinds  of cases,  to adjudicate                                                                    
     the young person of a lesser serious offense.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     That  would be  contrasted to  the couple  of teenagers                                                                    
     who skip  school one day  and sit  in their car  at the                                                                    
     end of the cul-de-sac and  watch people go off to work,                                                                    
     go up to the door,  ring the doorbell, get no response,                                                                    
     and then  bust the door  in and then ransack  the house                                                                    
     and remove valuables  and so on.  That's  a burglary in                                                                    
     the  first degree,  and those  are the  type of  things                                                                    
     that we try  to adjudicate, holding kids  to a standard                                                                    
     of conduct and expectation.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     So when  we adjudicate  someone for  a burglary  in the                                                                    
     first degree, it  isn't just a simple  thing. ... We're                                                                    
     talking about  young people who have  ... committed the                                                                    
     most  serious of  property offenses.   It  is a  pretty                                                                    
     bold  and daring  move to  invade someone's  residence,                                                                    
     someone's castle, if  you will.  It is  not an uncommon                                                                    
     factor for  kids to  go into homes  at night  while the                                                                    
     home is  occupied. ...  When I've  talked to  kids that                                                                    
     have done  that sort  of thing, they  get some  sort of                                                                    
     thrill out  of doing  this sort  of thing  with someone                                                                    
     sitting there in bed.  That's  scary, to me.  We're not                                                                    
     talking   about   people   who  are   innocent   little                                                                    
     jaywalkers.   We're talking about people  who have lost                                                                    
     any  of   the  reasonable   sense  about  what   is  an                                                                    
     appropriate social boundary.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     So when we adjudicate a  young person of a burglary, we                                                                    
     are talking  about finding  someone having  committed a                                                                    
     real  serious  offense  against the  sanctity  and  the                                                                    
     dignity of a person, their  property, and the safety of                                                                    
     the  community.   So  we're talking  about  a class  of                                                                    
     offender that isn't like the rest  of us.  Taking a DNA                                                                    
     sample from  them is giving  us an opportunity  to have                                                                    
     something on  file that  we can use  later in  terms of                                                                    
     our  public safety  efforts and  our  ability to  solve                                                                    
     crimes   and  make   sure   that   we  hold   offenders                                                                    
     accountable.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2317                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     I was  concerned about the  use of information.   A few                                                                    
     years  ago,  the  legislature  compelled  us  to  share                                                                    
     delinquency  information  with  schools.    And  I  was                                                                    
     initially resistant  to that because I  was afraid that                                                                    
     teachers and  schools would misuse information  about a                                                                    
     kid's theft  behaviors or assault behaviors  - criminal                                                                    
     behaviors.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     But what  I have  found as  we have  shared information                                                                    
     with schools  is that they have  used it appropriately.                                                                    
     They hold  kids accountable.   And I've  actually found                                                                    
     that that  was one of the  best things that we  did, in                                                                    
     terms of opening  up some of the  delinquency system to                                                                    
     let other people know what  we're doing with these kids                                                                    
     so  that another  set  of eyes  could  hold those  kids                                                                    
     accountable to a standard of  conduct that we all agree                                                                    
     to.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     If the  people who  have this information  are misusing                                                                    
     it, that's where we need to  intervene so that if I, as                                                                    
     a  juvenile probation  officer, am  not respecting  the                                                                    
     confidentiality rights  of a delinquent, then  you hold                                                                    
     me accountable for misuse of  that information, but you                                                                    
     don't  stop  me  from collecting  that  information  or                                                                    
     sharing  that  information  with people  who  can  make                                                                    
     better  decisions  and  take  more  appropriate  action                                                                    
     because they have [the information].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     That would be  the same thing with people  in our crime                                                                    
     lab.   If, for some  reason, their procedures  are such                                                                    
     that they allow people  to access information that they                                                                    
     shouldn't   have,  then   hold  them   accountable  for                                                                    
     violating their  protocols and violating  those rights.                                                                    
     That would  be an  answer, rather  than to  deprive the                                                                    
     justice  system of  the  use of  a  valuable tool  that                                                                    
     helps solve crimes and keep the communities safe.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2379                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE concluded:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     If  we were  to enact  this bill,  we would  anticipate                                                                    
     that there  would be approximately  200 or so  more DNA                                                                    
     samples that  we would  submit to  the state  crime lab                                                                    
     for  adjudicated  delinquents  who have  committed  the                                                                    
     crime  of burglary.   We  have a  system in  place that                                                                    
     would allow us  to do that without  any programmatic or                                                                    
     fiscal impact on our system.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     The sampling  is a very  simple mouth-swab test.   It's                                                                    
     taken by  our field probation  officers as well  as our                                                                    
     youth facility  staff.  It's  sealed and then  sent off                                                                    
     to the crime lab,  where it's classified, recorded, and                                                                    
     so  on.   It's a  simple and  effective process.   And,                                                                    
     again,   the   department   supports   this   committee                                                                    
     substitute.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  said  she  believes there  could  be  some                                                               
deterrent,  especially  for  young folks,  although  some  people                                                               
become calloused very early.  She  asked Mr. Buttcane, if he were                                                               
in charge of  a juvenile who had given a  DNA sample, whether the                                                               
process would  include making it  clear to the young  person what                                                               
kind of evidence was being left  behind and what the future could                                                               
hold if that person got into some other "bad trouble."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE answered:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Yes.   We do  that now,  with juvenile  disclosure. ...                                                                    
     Not all  cases are  automatically subject  to mandatory                                                                    
     public  disclosure.   But in  our discussions  of those                                                                    
     offenses that are not  subject to mandatory disclosure,                                                                    
     we  talk  about,  "Your next  offense  will  trigger  a                                                                    
     series  of  events which  could  subject  you to  being                                                                    
     published in the newspaper."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     For kids who  are on kind of that  moral boundary, that                                                                    
     does help  them stay  within the  boundaries sometimes,                                                                    
     explaining that to  a young person who  has committed a                                                                    
     burglary, to say, "You know,  you've got a chance:  you                                                                    
     can choose  to walk this  way or  that way, but  if you                                                                    
     walk this way, everything will  be fine and taking your                                                                    
     DNA really  won't matter  down the road,  but it  is on                                                                    
     file, so that  if you walk the other way,  it will make                                                                    
     it   easier  for   us  to   find  you   and  hold   you                                                                    
     accountable."   So communicating that message  to them,                                                                    
     I think, has some value.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES mentioned  that  she had  cared for  foster                                                               
children in  Oregon, Washington, and  Alaska.  One girl  had come                                                               
from  the  Hillcrest  School  for girls,  she  noted,  which  had                                                               
provided Representative James with a full file on the student.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-57, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2472                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to the  issue of security and noted                                                               
that  "there are  three  things:   crime labs  and  the types  of                                                               
information that you  might get from DNA, the  security, and what                                                               
would  be the  liability from  misuse."   He  requested that  Mr.                                                               
Smith speak to that.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SMITH pointed  out  that the  samples  were initially  blood                                                               
samples  stored  in  secure, cold/frozen  storage.    Only  those                                                               
within  the  DNA program  have  access  to  those samples.    The                                                               
samples are brought in and  stored, and a barcode is established.                                                               
However,  the   DNA  sample  remains,  "which   presumably  could                                                               
ultimately do all the things  that some folks have indicated," he                                                               
said.  Currently, doing anything other  than what the law says is                                                               
a misdemeanor.   Mr. Smith said he was not  aware of any problems                                                               
nationally or locally  within the state.   However, he emphasized                                                               
the  importance of  holding [the  sample]  secure and  preventing                                                               
anyone from accessing it except for the intended purposes.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked if  juveniles  who  have been  adjudicated                                                               
delinquent are fingerprinted.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BUTTCANE  answered  that  the law  allows  juveniles  to  be                                                               
fingerprinted   in  the   same   manner  in   which  adults   are                                                               
fingerprinted.     However,   there  is   not  the   capacity  to                                                               
fingerprint every  juvenile delinquent, although "we"  do attempt                                                               
to  fingerprint   those  juveniles  who  have   been  adjudicated                                                               
delinquent  through  a formal  court  process  as well  as  those                                                               
booked  in  youth facilities  for  any  offense.   Therefore,  he                                                               
estimated  that  30-40  percent of  [Alaska's]  youth  are  being                                                               
fingerprinted.   Mr.  Buttcane  agreed with  Chair Rokeberg  that                                                               
there is no statutory or legal restriction.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2328                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  pointed out that  there is a proposed  CS labeled                                                               
22-LS0234\F,   Luckhaupt,    3/14/01.      He    requested   that                                                               
Representative Murkowski review the changes encompassed in it.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI explained that  a letter from the Alaska                                                               
Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) mentions  the expansion that HB 143                                                               
allows, including allowing law enforcement  to demand DNA samples                                                               
related to a missing person  "if law enforcement articulates even                                                               
a  remote possibility."   She  explained  that a  section of  the                                                               
original  bill has  been deleted  in the  proposed CS  because it                                                               
referred  to  the  ability  to identify  missing  persons.    She                                                               
related   her  understanding   that  Alaska   doesn't  have   the                                                               
capability to  do it  and thus  it didn't  make sense  to include                                                               
such language in the legislation.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  noted the belief  that there  is a national  effort to                                                               
allow [DNA  from] missing  persons to be  put into  the database.                                                               
Therefore,  he  thought  Alaska  needed  legislation  to  do  so.                                                               
However, since  HB 143  has been drafted,  the Federal  Bureau of                                                               
Investigations (FBI)  is creating  that and will  voluntarily let                                                               
people  be put  into  the database.   The  FBI  will maintain  [a                                                               
national database] and  thus it is not necessary to  do it in the                                                               
DNA registry.   Mr.  Smith related  his understanding  that [this                                                               
national registry] would  be similar to "reverse  paternity."  In                                                               
other words,  a [parent] with  a missing  child could have  a DNA                                                               
sample taken and  placed in the database.  Then  the DNA would be                                                               
run   against   the  remains   and   such   that  are   otherwise                                                               
unidentifiable.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2196                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  moved  to  adopt  CSHB  143,  version  22-                                                               
LS0234\F, Luckhaupt, 3/14/01, as  the working document before the                                                               
committee.   There being no  objection, Version F was  before the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2189                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  moved  to  report CSHB  143,  version  22-                                                               
LS0234\F, Luckhaupt,  3/14/01, out  of committee  with individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection,   CSHB  143(JUD)  was  reported   from  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:13 p.m.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HB 121 - CHARITABLE GIFT ANNUITIES                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2180                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  that the next order  of business before                                                               
the committee  would be HOUSE BILL  NO. 121, "An Act  relating to                                                               
the  issuance of  qualified charitable  gift  annuities."   Chair                                                               
Rokeberg noted that before the committee was CSHB 121(L&C).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2173                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LISA   MURKOWSKI,  Alaska   State   Legislature,                                                               
testified as  the sponsor  of HB  121.   Representative Murkowski                                                               
explained  that  a  charitable  gift  annuity  is  essentially  a                                                               
contractual agreement between  a charity and an  individual.  The                                                               
charitable annuity guarantees a monthly  payment and allows a tax                                                               
deduction.  This  legislation establishes a notice  system to the                                                               
Division  of Insurance  that a  qualified  charitable annuity  is                                                               
present  and  has accepted  these  annuities.   This  legislation                                                               
defines and clarifies  what a gift annuity is  and specified that                                                               
a charitable gift annuity is not insurance.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI emphasized  that  this  is not  covered                                                               
through any  form of insurance  through the state.   Furthermore,                                                               
the Division  of Insurance  is not regulating  this and  thus the                                                               
donor  should realize  that there  really is  no regulation  over                                                               
this because  it is purely  a notice requirement.   However, this                                                               
legislation lets the  consumer know that a  particular charity is                                                               
a  legitimate charity.   She  pointed out  that the  charity must                                                               
meet  the  specified  minimum  cash requirements  as  well  as  a                                                               
minimum operation time.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to  the committee packet, which                                                               
should include  a brochure from the  National Heritage Foundation                                                               
that walks one through the  process of a charitable gift annuity.                                                               
She informed the committee that  there are only a few established                                                               
charitable  gift annuities.   She  indicated that  the Providence                                                               
Foundation  will explain  how the  process works  for them.   The                                                               
legislation  before  the committee  is  adapted  from a  National                                                               
Association of  Insurance Commissioners  (NAIC) model,  which has                                                               
been adopted in  30 states.  She pointed out  that this is purely                                                               
a notification  process to the  division and is not  a regulation                                                               
of the charities.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  related  her  understanding  that  if  she                                                               
qualified under this legislation to  give $100,000 to a qualified                                                               
charity,  then she  would receive  a monthly  amount.   She asked                                                               
whether the money she received would be taxable.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI   answered  that   it  would   be  tax-                                                               
deductible to  a point; however,  she was not certain  what "that                                                               
point"  was.     Representative  Murkowski  explained   that  the                                                               
advantage to the  donor is twofold in that it  allows one to make                                                               
a  charitable  donation  for  which  the  individual  receives  a                                                               
deduction  as  well  as  allowing   a  revenue  stream  from  the                                                               
investment at a rate set by actuarial standards.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1858                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JEROME SELBY,  Providence Health System in  Alaska, testified via                                                               
teleconference.     Mr.   Selby  informed   the  committee   that                                                               
Providence Health  System requested  HB 121.   He  explained that                                                               
Providence  is one  of the  few organizations  that is  doing the                                                               
planned giving program.  [Providence  Health System in Alaska] is                                                               
a  participant in  the national  effort on  planned giving.   The                                                               
NAIC  model  was  developed  in   order  to  handle  this  fairly                                                               
uniformly  across the  country.    Therefore, [Providence  Health                                                               
System in Alaska] requested that  the legislature take this up to                                                               
put  it on  the  record as  well  as  to make  it  clear for  the                                                               
Division  of Insurance  and  the individual.    From Mr.  Selby's                                                               
perspective,  this legislation  provides  a good  test such  that                                                               
folks  notify  the state  that  they  are  going  to be  in  this                                                               
business.  Therefore,  people can check with  the state regarding                                                               
the  existence  of an  organization.    This legislation  doesn't                                                               
really  change  anything  that  Providence  is  doing,  since  it                                                               
already has  been following what  is in  the bill.   However, the                                                               
bill  does level  the  playing  field for  everyone.   Mr.  Selby                                                               
informed the committee that the  other folks doing planned giving                                                               
programs  in  the  state  have  been  contacted  and  have  given                                                               
unanimous support for HB 121.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1725                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JON CALDER, Director, Annual &  Planned Giving, Providence Alaska                                                               
Foundation,  testified via  teleconference.    Mr. Calder  echoed                                                               
earlier  testimony  that this  is  a  good  bill to  support  the                                                               
charitable  efforts in  Anchorage and  Alaska.   This legislation                                                               
defines  and  clarifies what  a  gift  annuity  is such  that  it                                                               
assures  the Division  of  Insurance that  it  is not  commercial                                                               
insurance.   The  passage  of this  bill in  over  30 states  has                                                               
provided a good  track record.  Mr.  Calder echoed Representative                                                               
Murkowski's testimony  regarding the  minimum requirements  for a                                                               
gift annuity and  the notice that donors are  given regarding the                                                               
fact that this is not under insurance laws.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  requested  that  Mr.  Calder  explain  the                                                               
benefit to the giver in this process.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CALDER  explained  that [gift  annuities]  came  into  being                                                               
almost  100 years  ago;  a gift  annuity  essentially allows  the                                                               
donor to make a gift while  guaranteeing a lifetime income to the                                                               
donor.   Therefore, the  donor can make  a meaningful  gift while                                                               
providing  the   security  of   lifetime  income.     Practically                                                               
speaking, the donor also receives  a charitable deduction that is                                                               
based on the  actuarial table given by the  National Committee on                                                               
Gift Annuity.   Furthermore, the donor  receives partial tax-free                                                               
income.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. CALDER,  in response  to Representative  James, spoke  to the                                                               
relationship between  the amount of  cash given by the  donor and                                                               
the  amount  returned   to  the  donor.     The  relationship  is                                                               
calculated on the  rate established by the  National Committee on                                                               
Gift Annuities.   He explained that the amount from  the donor is                                                               
based on  age in that  the higher the  age, the greater  the rate                                                               
the person  receives.  On  the average, the  charitable deduction                                                               
would amount  to about half  of the  gift.  Therefore,  a $10,000                                                               
gift would result in about $4,000  to $5,000.  For example if the                                                               
person is  getting $2,000 a year  back, the person -  again based                                                               
on age  - is  likely to  get back  more than  50 percent  that is                                                               
going to be  partially tax-free income.  However,  he pointed out                                                               
that the relationship for a younger donor would be different.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked  if the tax-free income would  be the return                                                               
on principal due to the donor's age.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. CALDER  explained that partially tax-free  income is received                                                               
because a gift annuity is basically  part gift and part return of                                                               
income.  He  noted that this is all governed  by Internal Revenue                                                               
Service (IRS)  regulations.  However,  because a  charitable gift                                                               
annuity is part  gift, the person is able to  have income that is                                                               
partially tax-free.   Therefore,  the donor would  receive credit                                                               
for the gift as well as income.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1420                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG surmised,  then,  that a  donor  could receive  a                                                               
higher percentage  return on the  investment if the  imputed rate                                                               
return of  tax savings were  calculated into it.   Chair Rokeberg                                                               
said that  it could be viewed  as doing good works  and receiving                                                               
partially tax exempt bond money back.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CALDER agreed  and reiterated  that  a good  portion of  the                                                               
money the donor receives will be tax-free.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her  understanding that a charitable                                                               
gift  annuity is  a better  deal for  the receiver  and thus  the                                                               
donor would want to  do it because it is a  good enough deal that                                                               
the donor would want to give the money.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. CALDER agreed.  Although the  tax benefits are there, a donor                                                               
most often gives to a charity  because the donor believes in what                                                               
the charity  does.   A gift  annuity came  into being  because it                                                               
allowed an  individual to  give a  meaningful gift  while helping                                                               
the donor  by providing  guaranteed income.   Therefore,  the tax                                                               
benefits are not the primary  reason an individual would make the                                                               
gift.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1286                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GLORIA GLOVER, Chief Financial  Examiner, Anchorage Field Office,                                                               
Division  of  Insurance,  Department   of  Community  &  Economic                                                               
Development  (DCED), testified  via teleconference.   Ms.  Glover                                                               
noted [DCED's]  support of CSHB  121[(L&C)].  She said  that [the                                                               
division]  will maintain  a list  in order  to respond  to public                                                               
requests  for information  regarding who  is on  the list.   This                                                               
legislation does provide  some enforcement if the  donors are not                                                               
provided the notice  required by this legislation.   However, she                                                               
didn't see  that [the division]  is regulating these  products or                                                               
these entities, which is reflected in the zero fiscal note.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired  as to why the Division  of Insurance has                                                               
oversight  rather  than the  Division  of  Banking, Securities  &                                                               
Corporations.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. GLOVER  answered that  there is some  overlap.   However, she                                                               
pointed out that  the Division of Insurance  statute includes the                                                               
definition  of annuity.   Ms.  Glover  related her  understanding                                                               
that  currently  annuities  are under  the  jurisdiction  of  the                                                               
Division of  Insurance.  In  further response to  Chair Rokeberg,                                                               
Ms. Glover agreed  that the Division of  Insurance is responsible                                                               
for annuity oversight in general.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  pointed out  that annuities  are usually  used by                                                               
insurance companies as a marketing  tool for investment for their                                                               
clients.   Furthermore,  annuities  are based  on actuarial  life                                                               
expectancy.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. GLOVER agreed.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1177                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed the public testimony on HB 121.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL asked  if  the House  Labor and  Commerce                                                               
Standing Committee had discussed  the annuity notification for an                                                               
insolvency due to bad management.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI pointed  out  that there  is a  minimum                                                               
cash requirement of  $300,000 in assets of the  charity, which is                                                               
essentially the backup to the guaranteed annuity.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  related   his  understanding  that  most                                                               
things would  be specified in  the contract.   He asked  if there                                                               
would be notification if [the entity]  falls below the limit.  He                                                               
surmised that "we" are not regulating these [gift annuities].                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  directed attention to  the bill, which  says that                                                               
these are  not regulated by  the state  and that the  consumer is                                                               
informed of such in the contract.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1055                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  moved  to  report  CSHB  121(L&C)  out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSHB  121(L&C)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease from 2:34 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HB 125 - UNLAWFUL VIEWING                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1042                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 125, "An  Act relating to unlawful and indecent                                                               
viewing and  photography and to  civil damages and  penalties for                                                               
that viewing and photography."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1015                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DENISE  HENDERSON,  Staff  to Representative  Pete  Kott,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature,  presented HB 125 on  behalf of Representative                                                               
Kott,  the sponsor.    She explained  that HB  125  will ban  the                                                               
practice commonly  known as  "up-skirting or  down-blousing," and                                                               
will amend AS 09.68 by  creating a special civil damage provision                                                               
that  will benefit  people  who have  been  unlawfully viewed  or                                                               
photographed.   She added that  HB 125  creates a new  crime that                                                               
will  make  it  illegal  to surreptitiously  view  or  photograph                                                               
someone in the interior of  a room without that person's consent.                                                               
This crime  would be a class  A misdemeanor.  She  also said that                                                               
HB  125  amends  the  existing   crime  of  indecent  viewing  by                                                               
including the viewing of undergarments  as well as unclothed body                                                               
parts.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HENDERSON  remarked  that   the  modern  technology  of  the                                                               
Internet  has led  to  the  practice of  web  sites' posting  and                                                               
buying  pictures  from  "high-tech  peeping  Toms,"  and  telling                                                               
people where they  can buy the type of equipment  needed in order                                                               
to take these  types of pictures themselves.  She  added that web                                                               
sites  promote  and encourage  this  [behavior].   Ms.  Henderson                                                               
explained  that HB  125  will  not only  protect  the privacy  of                                                               
Alaskans, but will also prohibit  the perpetrators of these types                                                               
of crimes from realizing any type of monetary gain.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON,  in response to  questions, confirmed that  HB 125                                                               
both  creates a  civil  cause  of action  [by  amending AS  09.68                                                               
through  the  addition   of  a  new  section]   and  expands  the                                                               
misdemeanor provision in  current statute - AS 11.61.   She added                                                               
that [HB 125's  change to AS 09.68] will allow  for civil damages                                                               
to be pursued.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  inquired  whether  HB 125  would  allow  a                                                               
person to take a picture of someone wearing a swimsuit.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON explained it would  depend on the circumstances; if                                                               
a person  were outside someone's  home and  took a picture  of an                                                               
individual while he/she was inside,  she opined that HB 125 would                                                               
apply  because the  person inside  his/her  home has  a right  to                                                               
privacy  and  the photography  would  be  occurring without  that                                                               
person's consent  or knowledge.   If, however, the  person taking                                                               
the picture is  someone who has been invited into  the home - for                                                               
example, at a hot-tub party -  and the subject of the photography                                                               
knows that  the picture  is being  taken, then  HB 125  would not                                                               
apply and  those pictures could be  displayed on a web  site.  In                                                               
the latter  example, she  added, the  subject of  the photography                                                               
has the  opportunity to tell  the person taking the  pictures not                                                               
to display them on the Internet.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL,  with regard to Section  2, asked whether                                                               
it is  necessary to  use the word  "surreptitiously", and  if so,                                                               
whether the meaning would be clear enough.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES responded  that  it is  a  word with  clear                                                               
meaning, and that it well defines the topics being discussed.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0596                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER  RUDINGER, Executive  Director,  Alaska Civil  Liberties                                                               
Union  (AkCLU),   testified  via  teleconference  and   said  her                                                               
organization has  a number of  concerns with  HB 125.   She noted                                                               
that when it  becomes a crime to take pictures  of someone who is                                                               
actually clothed - albeit skimpy  clothing - serious free speech,                                                               
First Amendment,  and Alaska constitutional free  speech concerns                                                               
are raised.   Also, with regard to the expansion  in Section 4 of                                                               
the definition of  what a picture is, she noted  that "image" can                                                           
refer  to  a  computer-generated  image that  does  not  actually                                                               
involve the  use of any  human subject,  but merely looks  like a                                                               
human being.   She cautioned the  committee that HB 125  might be                                                               
premature; the  U.S. Supreme  Court is  going to  hear a  case in                                                               
October  that   asks  this   very  question   -  whether   it  is                                                               
unconstitutional to prohibit the  viewing of a computer-generated                                                               
image that  doesn't involve the  use of  any human subject.   She                                                               
suggested  that the  committee  might wish  to  delay any  action                                                               
regarding HB  125 so  as not to  fly in the  face of  next year's                                                               
U.S. Supreme Court decision.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON  relayed that  Detective Klinkhart  - who  works in                                                               
the  sex  crime  division,  which  deals  with  a  lot  of  child                                                               
pornography  - is  very supportive  of HB  125.   She added  that                                                               
Alaska is  experiencing the problem of  pornographic pictures [of                                                               
children] being sold  on the Internet.  She  offered that Section                                                               
3 of  HB 125 details how  a person commits the  crime of indecent                                                               
viewing or photography:  "if, in  the state of Alaska, the person                                                               
knowingly views, or  produces a picture of,  the private exposure                                                               
of the genitals, anus, or female  breast of another person".  She                                                               
explained that  ", or  the undergarments  of the  person covering                                                           
the  genitals, anus,  or female  breast," has  been added  to the                                                           
definition because of incidents  wherein cameras have been placed                                                               
in girls'/women's locker rooms and  video tapes have been made of                                                               
girls/women  in various  states  of undress.    She confirmed  in                                                               
response to  questions that in  these cases, current  statute did                                                               
not allow for  prosecution because there was not  any real nudity                                                               
shown, simply views of girls/women in their undergarments.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON  pointed out  that although  these types  of crimes                                                               
are already addressed  in statute, a further effect of  HB 125 is                                                               
to set a precedent so that  people do not have the opportunity to                                                               
have any  type of monetary gain  from these types of  crimes.  It                                                               
has  become too  easy  to  go onto  various  web  sites and  sell                                                               
photographs,  she opined,  and the  sponsor of  HB 125  wishes to                                                               
ensure that there is some type  of civil provision set up so that                                                               
people don't  have to  suffer while  others gain  monetarily from                                                               
this type of behavior.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0207                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BUTTCANE,  Legislative & Administrative  Liaison, Division                                                               
of  Juvenile  Justice, Department  of  Health  & Social  Services                                                               
(DHSS), said that  [the DHSS] has some concerns with  HB 125.  As                                                               
a juvenile  probation officer responsible for  deciding whether a                                                               
police  report  contains  probable  cause to  proceed  on  taking                                                               
action against a juvenile offender,  he explained that "we" might                                                               
have problems  with the word  "surreptitiously" as it is  used in                                                               
HB  125.   While there  is a  legal definition  for that  word in                                                               
Black's Law  Dictionary, he continued,  in circumstance  it might                                                             
be difficult to  really separate out the criminals  from the non-                                                               
criminals.  He presented the following scenario:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     I am in  someone's living room and I am  trying to seek                                                                    
     a photograph of the  facial surprise of someone opening                                                                    
     a  present.   They might  not know  that I  am actually                                                                    
     snapping the  picture, and  not even  know that  I took                                                                    
     the picture  until I  e-mail it to  someone a  few days                                                                    
     later and  say, "Wasn't  that neat  that Jane  got this                                                                    
     present?"                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE continued by saying that  the way HB 125 is written,                                                               
while this scenario might not  result in prosecution, it might be                                                               
investigated  if the  subject  of the  picture  was annoyed  that                                                               
his/her  photograph was  taken.   He  also pointed  out the  DHSS                                                               
engages  in   a  number  of   activities  in  which   people  are                                                               
photographed as a routine course  of business.  For example, when                                                               
people are  admitted to the  Alaska Psychiatric  Institute (API),                                                               
they are  photographed so that  the DHSS can ensure  that medical                                                               
records  contain a  picture of  the  patient, in  order that  the                                                               
correct medication can  be administered to the right  person.  He                                                               
added that  those people are  not always voluntarily  giving [the                                                               
DHSS] permission to take those  pictures, and sometimes - if, for                                                               
example, patients entering  a medical facility are  in a comatose                                                               
state -  they are  not even  aware that  the photograph  has been                                                               
taken.   These  pictures  are being  taken  and circulated  among                                                               
people  who have  to  have  access to  that  photograph in  their                                                               
normal course of business.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE  noted that HB  125 does exclude some  specific uses                                                               
of photographs  - for security surveillance,  for law enforcement                                                               
-  but it  does not  provide explicit  exclusions for  the normal                                                               
course  of business  in health  care  professions, hospitals,  or                                                               
juvenile corrections facilities.  He  suggested that HB 125 could                                                               
be amended to  add this type of exclusion so  that there wouldn't                                                               
be any question that people doing  their job would not be subject                                                               
to [prosecution or investigation].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-58, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0009                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  suggested  to  Mr. Buttcane  that  he  have  the                                                               
attorney  general  draft  an  amendment  that  would  meet  these                                                               
concerns.   Chair  Rokeberg  then asked  whether  the sponsor  is                                                               
endeavoring  to address  all incidents  of photography  if it  is                                                               
surreptitious or unknown by the subject to have taken place.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON said yes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG followed  up by asking if this  is true regardless                                                               
of the  activity of the subjects,  such as a birthday  party, for                                                               
example.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON  said no, not  in those  types of situations.   She                                                               
added that she  is willing to entertain any motion,  on behalf of                                                               
the sponsor, that will clarify  this.  She confirmed that Section                                                               
2  of HB  125 is  addressing a  new crime  - improper  viewing or                                                               
photography -  and the intention of  the sponsor is to  make it a                                                               
crime for a person to photograph  someone in any type of position                                                               
without his/her  knowledge.  She  added that this activity  is an                                                               
infringement of privacy.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that  it is  getting pretty  broad to                                                               
make photographing candid shots of people a crime.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  offered that  he interprets HB  125 as  saying "a                                                               
photographer  can take  pictures out  on the  street without  you                                                               
knowing it, but if you're in the room, he can't do it."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON  said no.   She offered the interpretation  that if                                                               
someone were  in his/her own home,  HB 125 would apply,  but if a                                                               
person  were  out in  public,  he/she  could  not have  the  same                                                               
expectation of privacy.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES pointed  out that  the language  in HB  125                                                               
simply refers to "a room" but does not specify someone's home.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0309                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, with regard  to the practical application                                                               
of Section 2 of HB 125, said  he thinks the intention is the same                                                               
as  is specified  in Section  3, and  that it  should perhaps  be                                                               
referenced in  that first  paragraph [of  Section 2],  lines 8-9.                                                               
Otherwise, it's going to be wide open, he added.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked  whether [Section 2] is  intended to include                                                               
any type of a pornographic situation.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENDERSON replied yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the language doesn't say that.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  commented that  Mr. Buttcane  brought forth                                                               
some good points; sometimes a  person will take pictures that the                                                               
people don't know about, such  as in those situations detailed by                                                               
Mr. Buttcane.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG granted  that subsection  (e) of  Section 2  does                                                               
make  reference  to the  meaning  of  picture  as defined  in  AS                                                               
11.61.123, but noted  that this did not help  clarify the overall                                                               
intent of Section 2.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  remarked that  he thinks HB  125 is  a good                                                               
bill -  that the intent of  it good -  but he added that  he also                                                               
thinks a committee substitute (CS)  needs to be created that will                                                               
address the concerns brought forth.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed  and said he is attempting to  "zero in" on                                                               
specific language.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0465                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ALVIA  "STEVE" DUNNAGAN,  Lieutenant,  Division  of Alaska  State                                                               
Troopers (AST), Department of Public  Safety (DPS), testified via                                                               
teleconference  and said  that in  general, the  DPS supports  HB
125.   He  explained that  HB 125  tightens up  a net  of illegal                                                               
activity where [AS 11.61.123] falls a  little bit short.  He said                                                               
that  although   AS  11.61.123  covers   some  good   topics,  it                                                               
principally is  focused on  viewing and  photography of  a sexual                                                               
nature.  By contrast, AS 11.61.121  - the new statute proposed by                                                               
HB 125  - will cover  all viewing  or photographing of  people in                                                               
private places if it occurs  without their knowledge and consent,                                                               
whether the  context is sexual  or the  subjects are nude  or the                                                               
subjects  are simply  going about  their everyday  business.   He                                                               
surmised  that the  sponsor's intent  is to  prevent people  from                                                               
taking pictures of other people  doing ordinary things in private                                                               
places that can  then be sold on the Internet.   He presented the                                                               
scenario wherein  someone takes  a picture of  a person  and then                                                               
links the  face of that  person with  the image of  whatever body                                                               
parts the photographer wants, in order  to sell the end result on                                                               
the Internet.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT  DUNNAGAN said  he thinks  HB 125  contains some  good                                                               
exceptions,  and he  agreed that  a few  more could  be added  as                                                               
suggested  by  Mr.  Buttcane.   He  opined  that  [AS  11.61.121]                                                               
specifically addresses  all photographs that are  taken of people                                                               
without their  consent in private  places.  He  acknowledged that                                                               
someone  can  take a  picture  of  people  on the  street  corner                                                               
because  they have  no expectation  of privacy  there.   But when                                                               
people  get into  their  homes  or the  bathroom  at the  Chevron                                                               
station or  any other place, and  they close the door  and are by                                                               
themselves or with  the people that they choose to  be with, then                                                               
these  people do  have  an expectation  of  privacy from  outside                                                               
viewers.  He  opined that these are the types  of situations that                                                               
HB 125 is trying to cover.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0644                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT  DUNNAGAN,  in  response to  questions,  relayed  that                                                               
there was a  case in Big Lake  a few years ago  wherein the owner                                                               
of an  apartment building had  placed a  sophisticated monitoring                                                               
system with pinhole  cameras in several rooms  in the apartments;                                                               
the  perpetrator  also  had  installed  false  walls  and  hidden                                                               
corridors to  enable him to  view residents in  their apartments.                                                               
Lieutenant Dunnagan  surmised that HB  125 would cover  this kind                                                               
of  behavior, especially  if the  perpetrator is  taking pictures                                                               
and  viewing everyday  normal activities  when the  occupants are                                                               
fully dressed and not doing  anything that "we" normally think of                                                               
regarding the term "indecent viewing,"  such as taking showers or                                                               
changing clothes.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL, on  the topic  of private  places, asked                                                               
whether the  term "interior of  a room" would provide  "an escape                                                               
hatch" for  someone's defense; he  then listed the examples  of a                                                               
swimming pool and  a hot tub as not falling  into the category of                                                               
being in the interior of a room.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT  DUNNAGAN replied  that it  certainly could  be.   For                                                               
example,  [an  enclosed] hot  tub  in  one's backyard  might  not                                                               
necessarily be in  a room but would be in  the curtilage of one's                                                               
home and  would be protected  against certain things.    However,                                                               
if  the perpetrator  is on  the  other [side  of a]  draw on  the                                                               
mountain  or  a  hill  overlooking  somebody's  backyard  and  is                                                               
watching and  taking pictures of  a hot  tub party, then  HB 125,                                                               
the way it is written,  wouldn't cover that situation because the                                                               
subjects would be outside.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that a  lot of  businesses, as a  matter of                                                               
course,  have their  own business  surveillance cameras  that are                                                               
not necessarily  security surveillance, which is  provided for in                                                               
[subsection (d)(1),  of Section  2].  And  he surmised  that most                                                               
employees  would be  aware, via  their employment  contract, when                                                               
they  were  under  surveillance   simply  during  the  course  of                                                               
everyday business.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN  said that both of  Chair Rokeberg's comments                                                               
are  correct.    There  are all  kinds  of  different  monitoring                                                               
systems out  there, he  explained, and  most businesses  use them                                                               
for some kind of security.  For  example, it could be to help law                                                               
enforcement  make an  apprehension  after a  robbery; to  monitor                                                               
what goes on in the parking lot,  because there are a lot of car-                                                               
related problems;  or to monitor  inside a store  for shoplifting                                                               
or to  prevent unauthorized  access to certain  areas.   He added                                                               
that in  the latter example,  the employees are  definitely aware                                                               
that that  sort of monitoring is  taking place.  He  also pointed                                                               
out that  most people know  that monitoring occurs in  stores and                                                               
are not  surprised to see their  faces on the monitor  behind the                                                               
counters of 7-11 stores, for example.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0867                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JERRY   LUCKHAUPT,    Attorney,   Legislative    Legal   Counsel,                                                               
Legislative  Legal  and  Research Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                               
Agency, speaking as  the drafter, explained that he  had used the                                                               
word "surreptitiously" in Section 2  because he felt he needed to                                                               
cover the situation  when someone is innocently  walking down the                                                               
street,  looks  off to  the  right,  happens  to look  through  a                                                               
window, and sees someone inside  the house; that subject would be                                                               
in  the  interior of  a  room,  but  that  viewing would  not  be                                                               
conducted  in   a  manner   that  anyone   would  see   as  being                                                               
unreasonable   in  any   way.     So,  by   inserting  the   word                                                               
"surreptitiously", the  application of this law  would be limited                                                               
to  situations in  which  someone  is doing  the  viewing or  the                                                               
photography in  a way that  is sneaky and  hidden:  it's  done in                                                               
such a  way that the subject  is unaware that the  observation is                                                               
occurring  and hence  is  unable  to stop  it,  as  opposed to  a                                                               
situation  in which  the  camera  is visible.    For example,  if                                                               
someone walks into  a person's office with a  camera, that person                                                               
can see that it  is occurring and can take steps to  stop it.  Or                                                               
if it is obvious that someone  is outside looking in, the subject                                                               
can close  the blinds or curtains.   But if the  subject does not                                                               
know  that  someone is  outside  looking  in, because  he/she  is                                                               
hidden,  the  subject can't  stop  that  activity from  occurring                                                               
because the subject doesn't know about it.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT explained  that HB  125 is  designed to  provide a                                                               
criminal penalty for those instances  when someone is [viewing or                                                               
photographing a subject]  in a manner that would  not normally be                                                               
expected  to  occur,  and  when  the  subject  has  a  reasonable                                                               
expectation of  privacy, for  example, when he/she  is in  a room                                                               
instead  of being  outside.   He  suggested that  using the  word                                                               
"surreptitiously" is a way to narrow  the reach of HB 125 because                                                               
[otherwise] it could be applied  indiscriminately to all kinds of                                                               
conduct  when a  person happens  to observe  a subject  who feels                                                               
that he/she deserves some privacy.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted  that questions  and  concerns  have  been                                                               
raised regarding  the use  of the  phrase "in  the interior  of a                                                               
room".   He brought  up the  point that  someone could  be inside                                                               
his/her home in the hallway and  it would not be considered "in a                                                               
room."  Chair Rokeberg asked  Mr. Luckhaupt whether expanding the                                                               
interior-of-a-room  concept  to include  "or  a  place where  one                                                               
would have  a legal expectation  of privacy" would be  too broad,                                                               
and whether it  would then become more of  a subjective argument.                                                               
He acknowledged  that Mr. Luckhaupt,  as the drafter,  was trying                                                               
to limit the application.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1078                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT  agreed that he was  seeking to limit the  reach of                                                               
Section  2, and  he  noted  that he  had  started  out using  the                                                               
concept of the  interior of some structure - some  building, or a                                                               
residence - but  he had not wanted to limit  the application just                                                               
to residences,  because there  is the  expectation of  privacy in                                                               
places of business as well.   With regard to the term "curtilage"                                                               
used by Lieutenant  Dunnagan, he noted that it  includes the yard                                                               
and all  the areas of  a person's real estate  - an area  that is                                                               
bounded by  a fence.  He  explained, however, that should  it be,                                                               
for example, a picket fence or -  as is the case with the Capitol                                                               
Building -  simply an open  area, then an expectation  of privacy                                                               
is not reasonable.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL  mentioned   a   reluctance  to   exempt                                                               
professional journalists  from Section  2 when they  are engaging                                                               
in surreptitious behavior.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to the  suggestion to use the term "in                                                               
the  structure of  a home",  said he  did not  want to  limit the                                                               
application of Section 2 just to  structures.  He added that some                                                               
of  the  cases  that  people have  gotten  upset  about  involved                                                               
businesses wherein someone has been  observed, not necessarily by                                                               
the  owner of  the business,  but by  someone else  via a  hidden                                                               
camera who has  watched and photographed the  subject do everyday                                                               
actions  such  as  picking  his/her  nose,  and  then  later  the                                                               
pictures were placed on the Internet.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that businesses  should be exempted from                                                               
Section 2.   He used the example of a  business that legitimately                                                               
monitors its holdings but then later  someone else gets a hold of                                                               
the tape/photographs  and uses them  to the  subject's detriment;                                                               
he said that the  original viewing/taping/photographing should be                                                               
legal, while misuse of the end product should be punishable.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the  misuse of the photograph may be                                                               
illegal under  Section 2, but the  business owner is going  to be                                                               
exempt under [Section 2, subsection  (d)(1)] page 2, lines 19-23,                                                               
which is the  same language used in the  indecent viewing statute                                                               
sponsored  by  Representative Mackie  in  response  to a  Klawock                                                               
incident.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1285                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  opined that this  language did not go  far enough                                                               
because  it  pertained  strictly   to  incidents  with  a  sexual                                                               
context.   He  added that  he thinks  the language  in Section  2                                                               
should  be  expanded  to  exempt  business  operations  that  use                                                               
surveillance  cameras to  monitor for  performance, not  just for                                                               
security  reasons.   He said  that employees  should not  have an                                                               
expectation of  privacy, and  they also  should be  notified, via                                                               
contract, that this  is the case.  He noted,  however, that there                                                               
is  no statutory  requirement for  notice of  surveillance, "just                                                               
like eavesdropping  on the phone  call of an employee  is legal."                                                               
As much as  "we" love privacy rights, he added,  the employer has                                                               
the right to monitor the productivity of staff.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  noted that  there  are  places where  it                                                               
would not be  appropriate for an employer to  monitor staff, such                                                               
as in  bathrooms, dressing rooms,  or changing  rooms; therefore,                                                               
he did not want to make that sort of allowance for employers.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  mentioned the word  "surreptitiously."   He added                                                               
that "that  type of conduct  needs to  be exempt from  this," and                                                               
said  he did  not agree  with the  drafter that  the language  in                                                               
[subsection] (d)(1) goes far enough.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the  language in [subsection (d)(1)]                                                               
had originally  been arrived  at in response  to the  incident in                                                               
Klawock.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG countered  that this language, at the  time of its                                                               
adoption, pertained  to viewing nude  women, which is one  of the                                                               
reasons that there is "an undergarment clause" in HB 125.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT acknowledged  that  the "private  exposure of  the                                                               
genitals, anus, or female breast"  could occur in changing rooms,                                                               
fitting rooms, and  bathrooms, and that the  only way [monitoring                                                               
could  be  done]  is  for  crime  prevention  purposes  or  other                                                               
security purposes.   So to  the extent  that a business  owner is                                                               
concerned  about  theft  by   employees  [this  monitoring  could                                                               
occur].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG countered that the  new [AS 11.61. 121, in Section                                                               
2] refers to people who have clothes on, generally speaking.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1414                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     I   guess    it   would   apply    to   the    use   of                                                                    
     "surreptitiously"; ...  I thought  long and  hard about                                                                    
     coming  up with  a way  to insert  something that  made                                                                    
     this criminal statute a little  harder to apply and ...                                                                    
     protected  that  innocent  conduct.     If  it's  truly                                                                    
     innocent, it isn't surreptitious.   If it's with notice                                                                    
     to the  person, I am  not sure that  it's surreptitious                                                                    
     at that point anymore.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said he  agreed but added  that he  was concerned                                                               
about potential lawsuits unless the  committee could come up with                                                               
a draft that [demarcates] that area strongly enough.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  reminded members that [Section  2] refers                                                               
to a  class A  misdemeanor, and  he questioned  how far  "we" are                                                               
going to go to "pursue a class A misdemeanor."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that if something  is going to be listed as                                                               
a  criminal  activity, then  [the  statute]  should specify  what                                                               
constitutes the crime.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT added that in  addition to the class A misdemeanor,                                                               
Section 1 provides for civil penalties.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG,  in an effort  to assist  with the drafting  of a                                                               
committee  substitute,  suggested   expanding  the  [language  in                                                               
Section 2] to include "the interior of a room or home".                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT offered to just  leave it at "peoples' residences".                                                               
With  regard  to  including  business  premises,  he  added,  the                                                               
committee could  make that choice.   People are entitled  to more                                                               
protection and to  have a higher expectation of  privacy in their                                                               
own homes,  however; so if the  committee chose to make  that the                                                               
demarcation, it  would not be  unreasonable.  There is  still the                                                               
protection against the private exposure of genitals, he added.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG opined  that the  sponsor is  concerned with  the                                                               
publication  and broadcasting  of  pictures,  even those  legally                                                               
obtained.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT  noted that the  taking of a legally  obtained tape                                                               
would  constitute  a  theft,  which  could  be  prosecuted  under                                                               
current statute.   He also noted  that a person could  pursue the                                                               
civil penalties  provided for in  HB 125 even  if there is  not a                                                               
criminal  charge  filed.    He added  that  the  civil  penalties                                                               
provided  for  are   substantial  and  will  act   to  provide  a                                                               
disincentive for engaging in this kind of conduct.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1586                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  with regard  to  the  drafting of  a  committee                                                               
substitute, said:                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     We need  to look  at the  definition of  the home  - or                                                                    
     that  scope   -  where  we  have   the  expectation  of                                                                    
     privacies;  I'd like  to  see  something specific  here                                                                    
     about  businesses performing  their business;  and then                                                                    
     Mr.  Buttcane  brought  up   some  concerns  about  the                                                                    
     agencies  and  their  day-to-day  operation,  some  [of                                                                    
     which] might be construed to  fall under this.  Plus, I                                                                    
     am concerned about this whole  issue of the rebroadcast                                                                    
     being  the  actual crime  and  not  the taking  of  the                                                                    
     pictures,  which I  think  meets  the sponsor's  intent                                                                    
     ....                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  then  asked for  clarification  on  this  latter                                                               
point.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HENDERSON indicated  that  the sponsor  did  intend for  the                                                               
taking of  the picture, as well  as the rebroadcast of  it, to be                                                               
included as a crime in HB 125.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked where in  HB 125 there is language regarding                                                               
rebroadcast.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BUTTCANE   noted  that  Section  1   contains  the  language                                                               
pertaining to transmittal.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised, then, that  only the civil provisions of                                                               
HB 125 could address the "downstream" aspect of this crime.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1726                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT noted that this is  his intent with drafting HB 125                                                               
in  this fashion.   "It  comes up  a lot  as to  how far  down we                                                               
provide the criminal penalty," he  added.  If the initial picture                                                               
was taken  legally and then  stolen, he  asked do we  then impose                                                               
criminal conduct  for the person  that acquires the tape  - maybe                                                               
through five  or six different  people down  the line -  and then                                                               
broadcasts it?  He noted that  in this example it would be easier                                                               
to impose a  civil liability rather than a  criminal liability on                                                               
a person  who may not  be aware that  this picture was  not taken                                                               
with the consent of the subject.   It becomes very hard to have a                                                               
successful criminal  prosecution at that  point.  He said  he was                                                               
trying to stop  the criminal liability at  some reasonable point,                                                               
and  he'd chosen  it  to be  with  the person  who  is doing  the                                                               
viewing  or  taking  the  picture, and  then  letting  the  civil                                                               
proceeding sort everything else out.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  he'd struggled  with it  because he                                                               
has been surreptitiously viewing people  in his job as a teacher,                                                               
as a  matter of course,  for years;  he said he  oftentimes would                                                               
surreptitiously watch  his substitute  teachers and  other people                                                               
as they interact with children at  the school.  He added that had                                                               
anyone  ever "got  crossways"  and  wanted to  sue  him for  this                                                               
activity, he would have been in  trouble.  He noted that although                                                               
he did  this as a  matter of safety, it  could be argued  that it                                                               
wasn't.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  said he  thinks  that  this is  entirely  proper                                                               
conduct,  and that  a lot  of the  business community  - in  both                                                               
public and  private sectors -  also have the legitimate  right to                                                               
oversee people and their activities.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT,  on the example  given by  Representative Coghill,                                                               
said that observing a person in  the school simply by standing in                                                               
the  public hall  off to  the side  of the  doorway would  not be                                                               
considered  surreptitious   as  compared  to  using   a  peephole                                                               
designed for that  purpose, which might be, and  maybe should be,                                                               
subject  to some  sort of  liability.   He added  that it  is all                                                               
going to depend  on the quality of how the  person undertakes the                                                               
viewing, for example, if that person  is doing it from the bushes                                                               
- like  a peeping Tom  - and  observing someone inside  who can't                                                               
protect himself/herself  from that.   He  noted that  Alaska does                                                               
not currently  have a  peeping Tom statute;  HB 125  could become                                                               
the peeping Tom statute, he added.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  suggested  that  the  phrase  "with  the                                                               
expectation of  privacy" should be incorporated  into [subsection                                                               
(a) of  Section 2], because  there are going  to be times  when a                                                               
person  is going  to be  in a  room that  he/she expects  will be                                                               
private, and there  will be times when that  expectation won't be                                                               
present.   And  if a  person has  made reasonable  efforts to  be                                                               
private, he opined, then that  person should have [the protection                                                               
of that privacy].                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1947                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.   LUCKHAUPT  reminded   [the  committee]   that  the   phrase                                                               
"expectation  of privacy"  is rather  nebulous and  has different                                                               
meanings  to different  people; he  said he  would try  to create                                                               
something  in a  committee substitute  that will  reflect what  a                                                               
reasonable person would  expect, which is often  done in criminal                                                               
law as well as in a civil  context.  He noted, however, that when                                                               
possible,  [drafters] try  to  get a  little  more definition  in                                                               
place when something  pertains to the criminal area;  this is why                                                               
he'd used  the terms "in  a room"  and "surreptitious" to  try to                                                               
express   the  concept   that   someone   observed  under   those                                                               
circumstances  does   have  an  expectation  of   privacy.    Mr.                                                               
Luckhaupt  spoke  at  length  on  the topic  of  drug  tests  for                                                               
employees  as it  pertained to  the expectation  of privacy,  and                                                               
then said  he would try  to craft appropriate  language according                                                               
to the committee's instructions.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  reiterated  his   suggestions  for  a  committee                                                               
substitute.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL  asked   whether   "image,"  under   the                                                           
definition  of "picture"  in  Section 4  applied  only to  actual                                                               
people or also applied to manufactured images of people.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT  said that the  definition of "image,",  which will                                                           
also apply  to the  existing law  regarding indecent  viewing, is                                                               
intended to apply  to representations that are  now being created                                                               
in different ways.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG  commented   that   perhaps   a  definition   of                                                               
"undergarments" might  be in order  so that  it is clear  that it                                                           
excludes T-shirts.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL,  on a possible amendment,  suggested that                                                               
[subsection (d)(2)],  pertaining to  journalists, be tied  to the                                                               
"journalists code."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 125 would be held over.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 196 - RIGHT OF ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2222                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 196,  "An Act  establishing a right  of action                                                               
for a legal separation; and  amending Rule 42(a), Alaska Rules of                                                               
Civil Procedure."   [With the  reading of  the title, HB  196 was                                                               
held over.]                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2238                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects