03/13/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| HB333 | |
| HB354 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 333 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2008
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrea Doll
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act relating to sex offenders and child kidnappers."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 333
"An Act relating to the reporting of child pornography."
- MOVED HB 333 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 354
"An Act relating to subsidies for a hard-to-place child;
relating to criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosure of
confidential information pertaining to a child; relating to
child support orders in child-in-need-of-aid and delinquency
proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 354(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 278
SHORT TITLE: SEX OFFENDER/CHILD KIDNAPPER REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUCH, DOLL, GRUENBERG
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) JUD, FIN
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 333
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTER PERSONS REPORT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FAIRCLOUGH
01/18/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/08 (H) JUD
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 354
SHORT TITLE: HARD-TO-PLACE CHILD SUBSIDY/CHILD SUPPORT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/28/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/28/08 (H) Moved CSHB 354(HES) Out of Committee
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/29/08 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 7DP
02/29/08 (H) DP: CISSNA, KELLER, GARDNER,
FAIRCLOUGH, SEATON, ROSES, WILSON
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LAUREN RICE, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 278.
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 278.
PAYTON MEREDITH, Detective
Fairbanks Police Department (FPD)
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 278.
RON TIDLER, Detective Sergeant
Cyber Crimes Unit
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 278.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 278.
ELIZABETH OUTEN, Staff
to Representative Bob Buch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 278 on behalf of
Representative Buch, one of the joint prime sponsors of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 333; provided a
comment regarding HB 278.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
"A" Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 333.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 354, on behalf of the
sponsor, Representative Coghill.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Child Protection Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 353.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:08:26 PM. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Holmes, and Ramras were present at the call to order.
Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representatives Samuels and Lynn were excused. Representative
Doll was also in attendance.
HB 278 - SEX OFFENDER/CHILD KIDNAPPER REGISTRATION
1:09:43 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 278, "An Act relating to sex offenders and child
kidnappers."
1:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 278, Version 25-LS1104\E, Luckhaupt,
2/21/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version E
was before the committee.
1:10:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 278, stated that the bill
would require sex offenders register their e-mail addresses and
on-line identifiers. He characterized this bill as a "common
sense" bill that would update Alaska's laws to current
technology. Currently, sex offenders have access to our homes
via computers, he stated. He surmised that since Alaska has the
highest per capita use of the Internet, that it places our
children at a greater risk from sexual predators. This bill
would provide law enforcement officers with an additional tool
to apprehend sex offenders who may be contacting our children
on-line. He explained that information collected under HB 278
would help parents to identify sex offenders who have contacted
their children on-line.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH relayed that HB 278 will bring Alaska in
compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act, legislation which organizes sex offenders into three
tiers, and mandates that Tier 3 offenders, the most serious
tier, update their whereabouts every three months. He stated
that failure to register and update residential information is
made a felony under the Act. The federal Act also creates a
national sex offender registry and instructs each state and
territory to apply identical criteria for posting offender data
on the Internet. Representative Buch offered that nine other
states have adopted similar legislation.
1:12:19 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to language on page 3, lines 15-19, in
proposed AS 12.63.010(c). He stated that last year he attended
a conference and from information gained at that conference was
persuaded that sex offenders would be alienated by the
notification provisions under the bill. He opined that
oftentimes sex offenders are normal people except for a huge
flaw. Thus, any attempt by the sex offender to "normalize"
his/her life is disturbed, he opined, since no one wants a sex
offender living in their neighborhood.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH recalled that the attorney generals from 20
or so states were concerned and devised language that would work
in all states and that would help the public and would curb a
sex offender's ability to chat on-line. This bill acts to help
protect the sex offender as well as to inform parents and police
of activities. He related that the intent of the bill is to
require sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and if
they do not do so the sex offender can be prosecuted.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to what the penalty is for not
complying with the requirement to register within one working
day.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH answered that not registering an address or
an electronic address would result in the sex offender being
charged with a class A misdemeanor subject to one year in jail,
with a minimum of serving 35 days in jail.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that a significant portion of sex offenders
are on probationary status. He maintained that it is difficult
for sex offenders to find a place to live.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as one of the bill's joint
prime sponsors, concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH acknowledged that point.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether this standard is too rigid, since the
sex offender is likely also serving on probationary status. He
stated that his goal is not to allow "sex offenders to hide in
the community." He noted that his line of questioning is with
respect to those sex offenders who are attempting to re-enter
society and comply with sex offender registry requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH relayed his understanding that this bill
mirrors existing language. He noted that currently, sex
offenders must provide written notice of a change in residence
by the next working day to the Alaska state trooper post or
municipal police department. This bill would extend that
requirement to changes in an electronic mail address, instant
messaging address, or other Internet communication identifier.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, line 10, in
proposed AS 12.63.010(c), and expressed a willingness to offer
an amendment to change the reporting requirement to five days.
1:20:42 PM
LAUREN RICE, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated that the department
currently performs physical address changes in one business day.
In response to Representative Ramras, Ms. Rice explained that
typically, the sex offender would call the sex offender registry
to advise the office that his/her address changed and would fax
or mail in the updated address information. She explained that
if the address change is mailed in that the notice of the new
physical address change would need to be postmarked within one
business day of the change.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to the requirements for changes to an
electronic mail address, instant messaging address, and other
Internet communication identifier. He opined it would be the
same standard for those addresses.
MS. RICE noted her agreement.
1:23:54 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), related that part of her duties is to manage the
sex offender registry. In response to Chair Ramras, Ms.
Monfreda explained that there has not been a problem with the
requirement for a one-day reporting deadline. She stated that
in addition to Ms. Rice's testimony, another way to report the
change of residence is for the sex offender to appear in person
at the registry office in Anchorage, an Alaska State Trooper
post, or a Village Public Safety Officer Post (VPSO). She
explained that is the typical way that sex offenders notify the
state of changes in their status. She stated that the DPS
anticipates that adding a requirement for reporting an Internet
identifier would be simply a matter of changing the form to
include space for the sex offender to report his/her e-mail
address and any Internet identifiers. She opined that the
notification process would happen in the same way as the sex
offender currently notifies the DPS of his/her physical address.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether many sex
offenders report changes past the 24-hour deadline.
MS. MONFREDA said it is hard to pinpoint that type of
statistics. She stated that sex offenders who intend to be
compliant seem to make every effort to meet that deadline. She
clarified that the requirement is to comply within one business
day so if the address change occurs on the weekend it is
required to be reported on Monday. She surmised that the DOL
could better advise the committee of any arrests for non-
compliance of the current sex offender registration
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the form requires the sex
offender to report the date the person moved, and if so, that
imposition might have self-incrimination, Fifth Amendment
implications.
MS. MONFREDA answered that the sex offender registration
reporting form has a space for the date the form is signed and
not the date of the sex offender's residence change.
1:28:16 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the requirement in the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act allows for a three-day reporting
requirement. He inquired as to why the Alaska statutes differ
from federal law.
MS. MONFREDA recalled that the Alaska statutes originally had a
more lenient requirement. However, sex offenders were not
reporting at all so the department narrowed the deadline. She
related that the federal definition of "immediately" has come to
be known as three days for sex offenders and missing persons.
In response to a request by Representative Gruenberg, Ms.
Monfreda offered to furnish the committee with specific language
from the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered that if a sex offender is using a
computer to change an address, that he/she has the means by
which to correct the address immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to Chair Ramras, pointed out
that when a person changes his/her job, he/she would typically
obtain a new e-mail address, and that other reasons for changing
a provider also routinely happen.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, in response to Chair Ramras, stated that
every e-mail address must be registered.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to proposed AS
12.63.010(b)(1)(I), which requires that each electronic mail
address, instant messaging address, and other Internet
communication identifier be registered.
1:32:49 PM
PAYTON MEREDITH, Detective, Fairbanks Police Department (FPD),
City of Fairbanks, stated that the FPD is also a member of the
Alaska Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. He offered
the Fairbanks Police Department's support for HB 278. He
relayed that his duties include the investigation of possession
and distribution of child pornography and distribution within
the Fairbanks area. The cases are serious cases, he opined. He
further opined that these crimes are the most heinous crimes
that he has ever seen in his life. Many of the people he
investigates ultimately are found to be currently registered sex
offenders. The registry generally is imposed as a condition of
bail, he stated. One of the most important provisions in HB 278
as it pertains to his job is that the sex offenders would be
required to provide current e-mail and Internet information. He
offered that the recidivism rates for sex offenders are quite
high and the child pornography recidivism rates are the same as
for pedophilia.
MR. MEREDITH suggested that perhaps specifying exact Internet
Protocol (IP) addresses assigned to them by the Internet service
providers. For example, if a person rents a cable modem that is
static, the person is assigned an IP address for the computer
and computer/modem. He offered that one way that sex offenders
are caught trading child pornography is through the IP
addresses. He opined that if the investigator had access to the
IP addresses that it would aid them in conducting the
investigation.
MR. MEREDITH offered that his experience is that sex offenders
can work out the details with their probation officers when they
wish to relocate to another state. He concluded that FPD
supports HB 278.
1:38:23 PM
RON TIDLER, Detective Sergeant, Cyber Crimes Unit, Anchorage
Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), stated
that he is the supervisor of the Cyber Crimes Unit and is the
current commander of the Alaska Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force. He offered that the federal Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act requires that sex offenders must
report any address changes within three working days. He
concluded with APD's support for HB 278 as currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to how the APD anticipates
the process of enforcing the reporting requirements.
MR. TIDLER stated that currently APD requires a sex offender to
register his/her physical address. He offered that the person
would be charged in the event he/she does not report an address
change. However, he opined that once the person complies and
reports his/her current residential address, that the charges
are generally dropped. He characterized the department's
efforts as desiring to gain compliance rather than to prosecute
sex offenders. He offered his understanding that due to the
felony nature of the sex offender crimes that sex offender would
generally be brought before a magistrate.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged the problem of widespread predator
behavior on the Internet and offered his hope that additional
funds could be allocated to the apprehension efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to the language "other Internet
communication identifier" that appears in several places in
HB 278 and inquired as to what those "identifiers" might entail.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH explained that several communications
mechanisms available and that are frequently used by high school
teens and that each person is able to obtain several monikers.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether an identifier would
be a "Facebook" or "MySpace" identifier and would not include
logins for bank accounts or shopping.
MR. TIDLER acknowledged that the bill would target the type of
identifiers such as "Facebook or MySpace identifiers" and to
also prepare for future changes in technology. He further
offered his understanding that the "other Internet communication
identifiers" would probably encompass all logins in which a
person transmits information to the public on the Internet.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered her belief that sex offenders
do not have the same rights or freedoms as law-abiding citizens
receive since the sex offender has taken actions and made
choices that have led to consequences of adhering to sex
offender registration. While she related her understanding that
the timing might not be convenient, that regardless of how
inconvenient it might seem that the sex offender registry is a
consequence.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that a broad spectrum of crimes exist
that require sex offender registry. He opined that 75 percent
of the people on the list have committed the worst types of
crimes. However, he expressed concern about sweeping up the
other 25 percent that have committed crimes that fall into a
different standard of conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered that sometimes logins require a
social security number.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pondered whether the IP address would be
sufficient. He related his understanding that the tracking
would happen using the IP address.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH answered that the legal drafter advises that
bank accounts are business accounts and do not include the login
identification.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that the committee is reviewing the bill to
identify any unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled an overview by Agent Flint who
related that companies are not required to keep a log. She
opined that the IP address might not provide investigators with
enough information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to the value of the IP
address and whether the login for chat room accounts and
"MySpace" is the identifier that is most valuable to
investigators.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. TIDLER suggested inserting a definition for "Internet
identifier." He noted that Arizona has a definition that it
means, "any electronic e-mail address, instant message, chat,
social networking, or other similar Internet communication name,
but does not include social security numbers (SSN), dates of
birth, or personal identification numbers (PIN). He opined that
inserting a definition might make committee members more
comfortable than just using the IP.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that he is aware that he has an
IP address, but he offered that if he were asked he could not
provide the address.
MR. TIDLER offered that the IP address is the address provided
by the Internet service provider and is registered to a specific
computer and subscriber.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered that the Internet provider can
also provide that information to the subscriber.
1:55:55 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), offered her
understanding that the bill drafters of HB 278 did not intend to
include PIN or login identification and the importance of having
the intent stated for the record. She related her understanding
that those types of communications are not with the world in
general so that is the distinction.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether the term, "Internet
communication identifier" should be made plural and whether the
term should be defined.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the bill drafters use singular, but
that it also includes the plural. She offered that people have
many addresses and that the language will capture multiple
instances.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether to prohibit access for sex
offenders from being able to access Internet places such as
"MySpace" altogether in the same way that they are precluded
from school zones. He inquired as to whether it would be
possible to exclude sex offenders from access to places
predators frequent.
1:59:32 PM
MS. CARPENETI offered that such restrictions might raise
concerns about First Amendment rights, though she noted that
persons on the sex offender registry do not have the same
breadth of rights. It might take some research, she opined.
She pointed out that the practicality of enforcing such
requirements might pose problems since computers are available
in public libraries and stores.
CHAIR RAMRAS posed a scenario in which a sex offender registers,
but immediately enters sites such as "MySpace" and chat with
children.
MS. CARPENETI noted that statutes prohibit online enticement of
minors so once a sex offender enters those sites that they are
subject to apprehension and arrest.
MR. TIDLER stated that statistically 40 to 80 percent of
offenders viewing images on the Internet also have inappropriate
contact with children. He offered that one area that is being
considered as a condition of probation is to ban sex offenders
from Internet use or from using computers altogether. He
recalled one instance in which a sex offender continued to
traffic pornography, however, it took nine months to build a
case to prove his trafficking in child pornography. In response
to Chair Ramras, Mr. Tidler stated that even though it may be
difficult to enforce laws that many people voluntarily comply
with laws. However, it is important to have the laws in place
such that when people violate the law, they are subject to
prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that he is still unclear about
the use of identifiers in the bill. He surmised that an IP
address is one part of an identifier. However, the places that
a sex offender might visit on the Internet are specific sites.
MS. CARPENETI answered that the DPS has broad regulatory power
under sex offender registration statutes and she opined that it
would be possible that the term "identifiers" could be defined
in regulation.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his concern that sex offenders could
register and then use the computer to access and peruse sites.
MS. MONFREDA answered that using the IP address is not a bad
idea. However, she offered that a mother who is monitoring her
child would not know the IP address of the person contacting her
child, but she will know the identifier. She acknowledged that
it could be difficult to interpret. However, she pointed out
that since the technology changes so rapidly, it is difficult to
predict what might be an identifier. She opined that the goal
is to help law enforcement track the sex offender who is
visiting specific sites.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that law enforcement is looking
for the IP address to identify who and where the person is and
the other identifiers are the location of an image that is
easily identified with the individual.
MS. MONFREDA surmised that IP addresses would include an address
so that law enforcement could check to see what sites the person
visited.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether the legislature can have a
sex offender requirement for someone who has an Internet
identifier, someone who has a "handle." He said that he would
like to protect Alaskans since predators are hanging out on the
Internet, such that people would know the person is a sex
offender.
2:10:32 PM
ELIZABETH OUTEN, Staff to Representative Bob Buch, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the way that an "Internet
communication identifier" would work under the bill is that for
a "MySpace" page or for a "Facebook" page, the person sign ups
and creates a handle. She noted that sex offenders using a
handle can communicate with a multitude of people on-line. She
explained that the intent of this bill is to allow a parent or a
police officer to be able to use those handles to identify sex
offenders. If the parent views the child communicating with a
specific handle, the parent can check the sex offender registry
to ensure that the child is not communicating with a known sex
offender.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that the burden is on the parents rather
than to put the onus on the sex offender to disclose that he/she
is a sex offender. Thus, he opined, it would make HB 278 a
stronger bill as a proactive piece of legislation rather than a
reactive approach. He surmised that it might not be legal to do
so, but that is the approach he would like to see in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH characterized that approach as a good idea,
but he said that type of identification isn't within the scope
of HB 278. He expressed that the intent of HB 278 is to provide
police and parents with a tool to protect children.
2:13:09 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested inserting such an enforcement methodology
to strengthen the bill would place a proactive element into
HB 278.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that currently the sex offender
registry identifies the person, but that HB 278 would identify
where the person is and where he/she is going. He said he would
like clarification regarding the identifiers.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in having the onus on the sex
offender to identify his/her handle to reflect that he/she is a
sex offender.
[REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, later in the meeting, during
discussion of another bill, opined that the police should have
complete access to sex offenders' IP addresses and should be
able to track the history of all of their Internet sites.]
[HB 278, Version E, was held over.]
HB 333 - COMPUTER PERSONS REPORT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
2:17:03 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 333, "An Act relating to the reporting of child
pornography."
2:18:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, thanked the committee for its proactive interest in
combating child pornography and in holding sexual predators
accountable. She related that statistics show that child
pornography generates approximately $3 billion annually. Thus,
people are spending more than $8.2 million every day. She
explained that HB 333 would add individuals providing computer,
Internet, cellular telephone and related services to the list of
individuals who are required to report finding images of
unlawful exploitation of a minor. She offered that one of her
constituents repairs computers and discovered child pornography
on computers sent in for repair. She surmised that some
computer repair services do not report the pornography since the
computers belong to their customers. This bill would level the
playing field by ensuring that all businesses report any child
pornography.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to page 1, line 11, to "shall immediately
report" and inquired as to what burden "shall" would place on a
person who does not report child pornography.
2:22:07 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, "A" Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST), Department of Public
Safety (DPS), stated that "shall" generally means by the most
immediate means available so if the person had access to a
telephone would be required to notify law enforcement of the
discovery of child pornography.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether the provisions in
HB 333 would be useful to law enforcement.
LIEUTENANT DIAL offered his understanding that some people
believe that releasing the information would represent a
liability to the company or personal liability. Thus, this bill
would be helpful since it will offer them protection. He said
he thought that it would increase the number of people who would
report these types of crimes without first checking with an
attorney. Thus, it would benefit law enforcement in dealing
with this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to how enforcement would be
able to determine who violated this law in instances in which a
person is working for a company that processes photos.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the DPS might not know that
information. He opined that the DPS would use this bill as a
tool to gather information and not as a means to prosecute those
that aren't complying with the law. He explained that the bill
could help speed the process of obtaining information from
companies since the DPS can point to the statute as a specific
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether the company
would be prosecuted.
LIEUTENANT DIAL surmised that if DPS knew that a company had
knowledge of the requirement and were still refusing to furnish
the child pornography that the DPS would work with the DOL to
determine whether a legal case could be made.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether each picture or
film constitutes a violation.
LIEUTENANT DIAL surmised that the violation would be the
knowledge of evidence of child pornography would constitute one
failure to report.
2:26:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 333.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her support for HB 333.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that the statistics that she
previously provided came from the January 2007, KTUU report by
Angela Unruh. She later provided a comment regarding a bill
that was heard earlier in the meeting.
2:27:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 333 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 333 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 354 - HARD-TO-PLACE CHILD SUBSIDY/CHILD SUPPORT
2:29:37 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 354, "An Act relating to subsidies for a hard-to-
place child; relating to criminal sanctions for unlawful
disclosure of confidential information pertaining to a child;
relating to child support orders in child-in-need-of-aid and
delinquency proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 354(HES).]
2:30:27 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Coghill, explained that the legislation was brought forth by the
Office of Children's Services (OCS), the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), the Department of Law (DOL), and a
private family law practice in Fairbanks, Alaska. She related
that the firm had a client who turned 18, had lived with his
mother and step-father for 18 years and wanted to be adopted by
his step-father, but could not due to a conflict in language.
She explained that proposed AS 25.23.050(a)(7) would allow a
person 18 years old to be adopted without notice or consent of
the parent.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. MOSS noted that two amendments to the bill, suggested by the
DOL, would clean up HB 354. She referred to proposed language
in Section 2, and said it is no longer necessary since the
proposed changes to Section 1 deleted the language that required
the court to dispense with consent of a parent.
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, noted her
agreement that proposed Section 3 is also being deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked for clarification whether all of
proposed Sections 2 and 3 of HB 354 would be deleted.
MS. MOSS referred to page 2, line 29, in proposed
AS 25.23.100(a), and advised that only the words, "Except as
provided in (k) of this section, at" are being deleted. She
further referred to page 3, line 3, and advised that the
language "(7)" is also being deleted. She explained that
Section 4 is being revised to reflect that small monthly sums
are not always necessary, such as in cases in which the child is
adopted at birth, with no evidence of physical or mental issues.
She stated that this language will allow the department to defer
a subsidy unless a physical or mental issue arose, but that the
subsidy would be limited to foster care rates. Ms. Moss noted
that Section 5 would add language to reflect that when requested
by the governor, that the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) and
other agencies and would have to provide certain confidential
information. This clarifies that if a person obtains
information under that section of law and discloses that
information, that the person could be convicted of a
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Holmes,
offered that a violation would not be a class B misdemeanor,
because the fine is only $500.
2:36:01 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Child
Protection Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), answered that she thought that Representative Gruenberg
is correct. She offered that she works in the civil section and
not the criminal section of the DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that this is over an infraction
but is only up to $500.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that this bill has similar
language as in Title 28, since the fines are up to $500 and are
misdemeanor fines.
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed that the fine is up to $500 and that it
constitutes a misdemeanor.
MS. MOSS referred to proposed Sections 6 and 9, which she
explained clarify that the child support services division is
authorized to establish child support orders administratively as
is the court. She noted that a proposed amendment exists to
delete proposed Section 7. She explained that subsection (a) is
unchanged, but that a proposed subsection (b), which is language
from a bill that Representative Gara introduced, says that
nothing in this subsection can be construed as prohibiting a
civil action for negligence or wrongful death if a child is
injured or dies while in custody of the state.
2:39:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, lines 12-15:
Delete all material.
MS. MOSS referred to page 4, lines 12-15 in proposed
AS 47.10.960, and advised that Amendment 1 would delete this
language. She explained that it is unnecessary to say, "Except
as provided in (b) of this section." She noted that Section 8
was added to clarify that the state can be held liable for a
civil action for negligence or wrongful death if a child is
injured or dies while in state custody.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:40:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 29:
After "petition."
Delete "Except as provided in (k) of this
section, at [AT]"
Insert "At"
Page 3, line 3:
After "(6)"
Delete "(7)"
Page 3, lines 6-11:
Delete all material
MS. MOSS explained that Amendment 2 would delete unnecessary
language because in proposed Section 1 on page 2, line 13-15,
language was deleted that requires the court to dispense with
parental consent since the child is 18 and no longer would
require parental consent.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM, after first determining that no one else
wished to testify, advised that public testimony on HB 354 was
previously closed.
2:42:58 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to report CSHB 354(HES), as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 354(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|