Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/04/1996 01:04 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 1996
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 450
"An Act relating to trademarks; amending Alaska Rule of Appellate
Procedure 609; and providing for an effective date."
- CSHB 450(L&C) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 520
"An Act relating to death investigations and inquests, coroners,
public administrators, and medical examiners, including the state
medical examiner; relating to the jurisdiction of district court
judges and magistrates in certain cases involving death."
- MOVED FROM COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 295
"An Act relating to the custody and disposition of property in the
custody of municipal law enforcement agencies."
- CSHB 295(2d JUD) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 450
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA TRADEMARK ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/19/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/21/96 2829 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 2DP 5NR
02/21/96 2830 (H) DP: KOTT, PORTER
02/21/96 2830 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, ELTON, KUBINA, MASEK
02/21/96 2830 (H) NR: SANDERS
02/21/96 2830 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 520
SHORT TITLE: INQUESTS, CORONERS, POST MORTEMS, ETC.
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/16/96 2791 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/96 2791 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 295
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/19/95 1390 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/95 1446 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5 DP
04/22/95 1447 (H) DP: PORTER, FINKELSTEIN, GREEN, BUNDE
04/22/95 1447 (H) DP: TOOHEY
04/22/95 1447 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS)
04/24/95 1485 (H) JUD ADDITIONAL FN (LAW)
02/01/96 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/21/96 2844 (H) RETURN TO JUD COMMITTEE
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 450 as sponsor
MIKE MONAGLE, Records & Licensing
Superintendent
Division of Banking, Securities & Corporations
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110808
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0808
Telephone: (907) 465-2530
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 450
ART SNOWDEN, II
Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
Telephone: (907) 264-0547
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 520
DR. MIKE PROPST, State Medical Examiner
5700 E Tudor
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 520
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 520
PETER RAISKUMS, Internal Auditor
City of Anchorage
City Hall
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 343-4438
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 295
DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief of Police
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Telephone: (907) 343-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 295
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division, Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 295
DAN MORRIS, Chief of Police
City of Kenai
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-7879
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 295
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 295
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 1:04 p.m.. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Toohey and Vezey. Representative
Finkelstein arrived at 1:11 p.m. Members absent were
Representatives Green and Davis.
HB 450 - ALASKA TRADEMARK ACT
WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Gene Therriault read the sponsor statement regarding
HB 450 into the record.
"This legislation is intended to update the State Trademark Act.
Alaska's current law is modeled upon the 1964 Lanham Act. The
proposed revision is to bring Alaska's trademark law current with
the changes to the Lanham Act over the past 30 years, and is
modeled closely to the Model State Trademark Bill written by the
International Trademark Association. This revision will allow the
registration of marks that currently cannot be registered under
state law, such as service marks, certification marks and
collective marks. The legislation was introduced at the request of
the Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations. Passage of
the legislation is needed to strengthen the intellectual property
rights for Alaska's business community."
MS. WHITAKER expanded this explanation by stating that current
state law only allows the registration of a trademark which is a
mark that's placed on a product to identify who made it. This
legislation would expand this to the registration of service marks
which identifies who provides a service versus a product. The
certification mark identify approval or certification of a quality
such as, "Made in Alaska" or "Good Housekeeping." She also stated
that collective marks identify who made a product, such as a union.
MS. WHITAKER noted a letter of support from Don and Rose Harris,
owners of the Red Dog Saloon, who said they've fought numerous
battles over the past several years when their trademark had been
infringed upon and diluted. They said that working within the
existing system, they found protection as vague at best and almost
impossible to defend. Ms. Whitaker also noted a letter from the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development. This department
said the major improvements allowed by this legislation include
broadening of trademark protection to service providers adding
additional remedies to trademark owners for infringement and
providing anti-delusion provisions for intellectual property owners
who's trade marks have become famous in this state.
MS. WHITAKER said that a few technical amendments were made to this
legislation in the Labor and Commerce Committee, both of which are
relatively minor. They are both on page 16, line 14 which changed
"section 5" to "section 6" because of a drafting error and line 21
which gives the department authorization to formulate their
regulations so that they can begin implementing them once this bill
goes into effect. Ms. Whitaker also pointed out the Mike Monagle
from the Department of Commerce and Economic Development was
available to answer technical questions.
Number 308
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE voiced his concern that maybe this
legislation was getting into federal jurisdiction of trademarks,
etc.
MS. WHITAKER believed that this legislation parallels the federal
law, but deferred to Mr. Monagle. She stated that this legislation
takes into account revisions to the federal law as well.
Number 354
MIKE MONAGLE, Records & Licensing Superintendent, Division of
Banking, Securities & Corporations, Department of Commerce &
Economic Development testified on HB 450. He initially responded
to Representative Bunde's question about federal jurisdiction for
licensing and noted that the federal Landum Act solely applies to
marks and interstate commerce. This Alaskan legislation would
apply soley to those marks used in this state.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked about trademarks for the Red
Dog Saloon as an example and wondered if the protection would reach
as far as Chicago.
MR. MONAGLE responded that this protection would only apply to
those businesses within the state. What typically happens is that
attorneys will advise their clients to get both a federal
registration as well as, a state registration, primarily because
state's will not check against the federal registers. Someone
could be federally registered and find out that someone else has
registered in the state either prior to this federal registration
or after the federal registration. Most states will not recognize
registration at the federal level, as a state registration
supersedes the federal registration. In cases where there is a
state registration that precedes a federal registration, they will
generally limit a market area to particular states for the various
parties.
MR. MONAGLE noted that there is a cost to this state registration
process, currently set at $10 a class code. The current fee is
written into statute prior to the 1964 Model Act. This legislation
would remove the registration process from statute and put it into
regulation. The fee proposed is $50 and the fiscal note is based
on this amount. Mr. Monagle referred to a survey which he would
make available to the committee if desired which the U.S. Trademark
Association conducted in 1990. Some states charge $100 - $150.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if they took this fee out of statute
would it prevent the state from increasing this fee.
MR. MONAGLE noted that in order to change a regulation it needs to
be published and allow for a time period to receive commentary from
people this legislation affects. He stated that there was no plan
to raise this fee and if it's set in regulation, the department can
set a fee however they deem appropriate. Mr. Monagle said that
they would be sensitive to any commentary they received from
affected individuals and could be obligated to follow through with
actions reflecting this commentary.
Number 709
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the $50 fee built into this
legislation covered the actual cost of processing the paperwork.
MR. MONAGLE responded that they have one full time person who works
approximately 15 to 20 percent of their time processing
registration applications and probably their cost to the division
is between $12,000 to $15,000 per year. The department bases the
fee on what is reasonable and customary for applications, as well
as, what other states are charging. He noted that there is a
contribution to the general fund from processing these
applications, so they do make some profit. Mr. Monagle stated that
this process of registering was not mandatory, but voluntary. The
act also considers the validity of a common law usage and
recognizes the rights of a person to use a mark. Typically in
litigation the burden of proof is on the person who fails to
register. Although it is not mandatory, it is advisable that
someone go through the registration process.
Number 830
MS. WHITAKER stated that Representative Therriault had indicated
that he would consider amendments regarding the fee depending on
the sentiment of the committee.
MR. MONAGLE responded to a question posed by Chairman Porter
regarding duplicate filings. In the event that filings are brought
forward, the first filing that the department is made aware of
prevails and he noted that this language is incorporated in the
pending legislation. The first applicant who comes through the
door prevails, but if there is a dispute to the rights or ownership
of the mark as part of the remedy procedure the statute defers to
the superior court ruling. He said that if someone can show that
they have been using a mark for years superseding filing of the
same mark then they could probably prevail in court.
Number 973
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 450(L&C) from the
Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note. Representative Vezey objected, then he withdrew this
objection. The objection was noted and hearing no additional
objection it was so moved.
HB 520 - INQUESTS, CORONERS, POST MORTEMS, ETC.
Number 1033
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System testified
by teleconference from Anchorage about HB 520. He provided
background to this legislation and noted that for many years the
state of Alaska ran a coroner's system wherein magistrates, judges
and other employees of the judiciary basically took on the coroners
function of determining cause of death. This system was frowned
upon by prosecution and police as very unscientific. The district
attorney felt often that they were unable to make good cases
because the way this system works. Jointly, the executive and
judicial branches some years back requested a creation of the
officer of medical examiners after the crime lab was built. This
took some of the burden off of the judiciary. A problem in the
judiciary is that in these coroner designations most of the
magistrates don't have a clue about the medical cause of death.
MR. SNOWDEN further stated that these magistrates are required to
certify in medical terms the cause of death. They often ask for
autopsies since they don't feel as though they have the ability to
determine causes of death. Otherwise, someone who was more skilled
in this area may perceive that an autopsy wasn't necessary. He
noted the example of policeman in rural Alaska removing bodies to
conduct autopsies and this being met with great resistance from
villages who did not want bodies removed. He added that trooper
planes have been surrounded by villagers at airports, etc.
MR. SNOWDEN offered a variety of names from different departments
which felt as though this legislation had met it's time and to give
the responsibility to determine death ultimately to the medical
examiner. The court system has held numerous meetings with the
executive branch, especially the Department of Health and Social
Services on this proposed legislation. They intend to take the
legislative appropriation which comes to the judiciary, namely
$320,000 and five auxiliary positions and transfer them to the
Department of Health and Social Services to facilitate this
legislation. The net fiscal impact on the state is zero.
Number 1265
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Snowden how this legislation would
prevent some of the unfortunate incidences he mentioned, such as
protests against having bodies removed from villages.
MR. SNOWDEN said it was his understanding that instead of using
their magistrates and coroners with the money being transferred,
the medical examiner would contract with doctors in the state;
Therefore, a doctor would be dispatched to the scene to help the
medical examiner to determine the cause the death, rather than a
judicial officer. He noted that there are regional hospitals
throughout the state of Alaska and individual health nurses in
communities with no doctors to offset travel expenses of a
contracting doctor. They do not anticipate extensive travel, but
they would submit that if there is more travel, this would be off-
set by the lessening of costs in other areas which the court
accrues.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked about private autopsies and how they
would be handled.
MR. SNOWDEN stated that they'd be handled the same way they are
now, except the request would come through the medical examiner's
office rather than the court.
Number 1388
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Health & Social Services testified on HB 520. He noted that the
department has been working with the court system for the last four
or five months and they fully support this legislation. He stated
that this was the first time in recorded history that this program
was not in a deficit situation for fiscal year 1996. In years past
there was traditionally a supplemental request for the post-mortem
examinations. This is what largely drove the decision to create
the state medical examiner position. This medical examiner has
done an extraordinary job in getting costs under control.
MR. LINDSTROM spoke to the transportation costs which have been a
burden to the program for years. This cost does not relate to
transporting live persons to the rural areas for an investigation,
but rather the transportation of remains of persons to Anchorage
for autopsy. With the state medical examiner program in place they
have done a very good job in reducing the number of autopsies,
particularly from rural areas because the state medical examiner
has been able to consult with people on scene and feel comfortable
with the cause of death. The families have not been disrupted by
the additional anguish which comes with transporting remains.
MR. LINDSTROM stated that they thought this was the logical next
step in developing the medical examiner system and it is truly
something to serve the criminal justice system as a whole.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if they anticipate a drop in the
financing for this legislation.
MR. LINDSTROM noted that the cost of the program has stayed level
for the past three years. Unnecessary autopsies have been reduced
tremendously, but there is an increasing population in the state
and deaths associated with this increase. There were a number of
air crashes last summer, for example, and the number of autopsies
needed to be performed is increasing. By further limiting the
number of marginal or probably unnecessary autopsies, the
department is able to hold their own. With the additional
resources being transferred to their department as outlined in this
legislation, they will be able to do more with training individuals
in rural communities which means cost containment.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted that there were a few things which he
did not understand about this legislation. He understood that
Alaska law requires that all deceased persons be embalmed before
their remains are disposed of.
MR. LINDSTROM said he wasn't sure about this, but did know that
this is one of the costs they incur when remains are transported to
Anchorage. The bodies are then taken to a funeral home in
Anchorage and embalmed.
MR. SNOWDEN responded that the only time that people have to be
embalmed is if they are transported by common carrier following 24
hours after they've died. If they are unable to transport the body
before this 24 hour period, they are required to be shipped in body
bags.
Number 1669
DR. MIKE PROPST, State Medical Examiner said he was available to
answer any questions which anyone might have. In regards to the
shipment of remains from a remote site, the remains are placed in
body bags and then in a metal shipping container un-embalmed. The
only time a body needs to be embalmed is when it is transported by
common carrier. If transport is not necessary for autopsy the body
can be interred without embalming.
Number 1714
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it was still procedure that any unattended
death required an autopsy. He assumed that this had changed.
DR. PROPST stated that this was one of the main things that the
establishment of the office of the State Examiner has done and now
they are trying to do only those autopsies which are necessary.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked when a body is shipped to Anchorage for
autopsy and then embalmed, was this done so at state expense.
DR. PROPST said that this was correct.
Number 1769
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move HB 520 from the
Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and fiscal
note. Hearing no objection, it was so moved.
HB 295 - PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Number 1830
CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced HB 295 as sponsor to this legislation.
He mentioned that the committee probably recollected this
legislation since they'd heard it before. This legislation dealt
with property residing in municipal law enforcement property rooms.
Within statute it says that this property should be turned over to
the state. Since then there has been a request to consider one
other element of property as it affects municipalities to correct
a situation caused by a court case in Fairbanks, Johnson v.
Johnson. This new element would return the standard procedure
where monies and other properties seized as a result of criminal
cases are forfeited through the federal system and provided in a
distributive fashion to the state and local communities, based on
the state or municipality's participation in the case. Because of
another state statute provision as interpreted by the court, this
practice was discontinued.
PETER RAISKUMS, Internal Auditor, City of Anchorage testified by
teleconference from Anchorage on HB 295. He stated that he had
conducted an audit on Anchorage's property room and is familiar
with the magnitude of property which is processed through the
department. Mr. Raiskums said he supports this bill and if the
state were to receive all the property which the statutes allow
for, it would be phenomenal. The passage of this legislation would
eliminate any inconsistencies between the state statutes and
current municipal ordinances.
Number 1980
DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief of Police, Municipality of Anchorage
testified by telephone regarding HB 295. He stated that there are
two aspects to this legislation which the department is most
interested, one, given the fact that Anchorage has it own municipal
ordinance on found property, etc., these provisions are
inconsistent with the requirements of state law. He noted that
this was not just an Anchorage problem. Secondly, regarding the
forfeiture aspect of the bill, the department thinks that it's only
appropriate that certain monies or properties come back to the law
enforcement entity. Mr. Udland, in response to Representative
Toohey's question about these monies going into the municipality's
general fund instead, he thought that this was a possibility, but
the federal money up until this time has always come back to the
police department.
Number 2140
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General provided information
regarding HB 295. He began by saying that this legislation
addressed a few issues which have been hanging around for a few
years with respect to forfeited property. The first is the state's
ability to transfer property to the federal government and have it
go through their forfeiture procedure. For a number of years this
is how this procedure has worked and it was very easy say, for
example, when money was found as a result of a large drug
forfeiture to turn it over to the federal government. The federal
government had a very easy administrative process to forfeit this
money, hence they could give it directly to the municipal police
agency involved with the case. Every thing was fine until the
Alaska Supreme Court interpreted some provisions in Alaska statute
to hold that this wasn't allowed. Once a state or municipal agent
under the authority of state law seizes property it becomes subject
to forfeiture under the state laws. This property can't be given
to the federal government until after the forfeiture procedure is
done. This often takes a long period of time.
MR. GUANELI noted that there are some instances, however,
particularly with smaller forfeitures which cannot go to the
federal government. The Justice Department won't process claims
under $5,000. These have to go through state court. When a
forfeiture does go through state court the state statutes
interpreted this to mean that this money goes in the state general
fund, rather than to the municipal police agency which made the
arrest. This agency sometimes spends a fair amount of money to
cover operations. The other main thing this bill does is to allow
money, once it has gone through a state forfeiture proceeding to be
given to the municipal police agency which seized the property.
MR. GUANELI pointed out that the legislative legal services
division had issued a memorandum or at least expressed some concern
that allowing this forfeited money to the state and by operation of
the judicial process this money would then go to a municipal
agency, rather than the state general fund, that this situation may
create some problems with avoiding the appropriations process. He
stated that they don't have a resolution to this issue. It's an
open question, but there are a number of people who believe that by
enacting this law and changing this statute in this way it notes
that the legislature has spoken that it is certainly permitting
these mostly small forfeitures to go directly to municipal police
agencies. If the legislature wants to change this at some point in
the future they certainly can. It's doubtful that a drug dealer
for example, would challenge the statute on this basis. Whether
their property goes to a state police agency, they've lost it.
It's not clear who would raise this objection and as long as there
is a statute which allows this forfeiture to be done, then they're
covered.
MR. GUANELI proposed an amendment to this legislation, on page two,
line 22, regarding a municipal ordinance to dispose of property and
the wait of 15 days before they dispose of the property after
disposition of a case. The department felt that this 15 days might
be too short and suggested that it be expanded to 30 days. He then
discussed the clause relating to forfeiture of weapons.
Number 2461
DAN MORRIS, Kenai Chief of Police testified by teleconference from
Kenai in support of HB 295. He felt as though it would take care
of a lot of small problems or issues which they've had in the past.
He did appreciate the option of the city to be able to pass an
ordinance to dispose of property. Right now Kenai has a lack of
space and as is the current law, they're required to wait two years
before they're allowed to dispose of this property. He noted that
some of this property can loose it's value over time. He felt as
though this legislation would simplify the process of disposing of
property.
CHIEF MORRIS also spoke to Section 6 regarding the forfeiture of
drug assets. He spoke to other chiefs on the peninsula this week
and they were in favor of the 75 to 25 split and suggested that
this not drop any lower. He thought this split was fair and
equitable.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE B
Number 044
SCOTT CALDER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks against HB
295. He shared a personal experience he had with property stolen
from his home. Mr. Calder contacted the local police when this
happened and he was informed he could not pursue this matter
because it involved a juvenile. The department was not able to
search their inventory to see whether or not some of this stolen
property was housed there. He felt that in this present
legislation they should allow for a reasonable attempt to be made
for these police stations to search their inventories for people's
property. Mr. Calder said it made him a little nervous when the
state and federal government discuss how they'll divide the "loot,"
regarding these forfeitures.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how this legislation would apply in
Fairbanks where he understood that Fairbanks doesn't charge under
any local statute, but under state statute. He asked that under
this scenario, if the state assumes these costs would Fairbanks
then be in line for some of these monies.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the monies they've been discussing
are used by the law enforcement agencies and Fairbanks does do
their own investigations of felony crimes. Costs such as informant
fees and "buy money" for drug investigations are incurred. These
funds must come from city sources. He made note that all drug
crimes would be considered felonious.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt CSHB 295(2d JUD)
version G. Hearing no objection it was so adopted. Representative
Bunde proposed an amendment to this version regarding line 22 on
page 2, instead of property being held for "15 days" after a
disposition of the case to read instead "30 days." Hearing no
objection it was so moved. Representative Bunde made a motion to
move CSHB 295(2d JUD) version G as amended from the Judiciary
Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Hearing no objection it was so moved.
HB 523 - STATE'S POLICY ON SOBRIETY
Number 417
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained to the committee why they had requested
a waiver for HB 523. The bill merely changes the opening statement
of the state code's policy for it's addressing the problems of
alcohol abuse. It incorporates as an alternative to the
traditional treatment a statement justifying the existence of the
goal of sobriety. The sobriety movement of the native community in
the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) is probably the best program
the state has seen in a long time. The existing state enabling
statute doesn't specifically recognize sobriety as a goal. There
are no burning statutory or constitutional provisions in the bill,
consequently Chairman Porter didn't think the Judiciary needed to
consider it.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was absent from previous discussions about
this bill and stated that she disagrees with the move that the
state needs to care and feed these people that continue to decide
to destroy themselves over and over again. This is a very
expensive program and it doesn't work as they know. She noted
language in HB 523, "should be afforded a continuum of treatment."
Representative Toohey did not want to get into the slippery slope
of saying the state will treat every alcoholic at state expense.
She said she appreciates the sobriety movement.
Number 534
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the continuum of treatment language is
in existing statute. He pointed out that the underlined portions
of the draft legislation is what they were adding.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he liked the new proposed new
wording. He doesn't either subscribe to the philosophy that the
state is to kinder and gentler to people who have substance abuse
problems. Representative Vezey said he'd like to see some of the
existing language removed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that for what it's worth the wording in the
state statute was a result of a total revision required by a U.S.
Supreme Court decision. It used to be a crime to be drunk in
public and this was found to be unconstitutional, hence the shift
to a medical problem rather than a criminal problem.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee at 2:12
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|