Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/22/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB324 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 324 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2010
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act relating to the crime of failure to appear; relating to
arrest for violating certain conditions of release; relating to
release before trial, before sentence, and pending appeal;
relating to material witnesses; relating to temporary release;
relating to release on a petition to revoke probation; relating
to the first appearance before a judicial officer after arrest;
relating to service of process for domestic violence protective
orders; making conforming amendments; amending Rules 5 and 41,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules 206 and 603,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 324
SHORT TITLE: FAILURE TO APPEAR; RELEASE PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/03/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/19/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/19/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN McLEAN, Division Director
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of proposed HB 324.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Central Office
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of the fiscal notes for HB 324.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of the DOC fiscal notes on HB 324.
JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 324.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:15:47 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Herron, Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 324 - FAILURE TO APPEAR; RELEASE PROCEDURES
1:15:58 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 324, "An Act relating to the crime of failure to
appear; relating to arrest for violating certain conditions of
release; relating to release before trial, before sentence, and
pending appeal; relating to material witnesses; relating to
temporary release; relating to release on a petition to revoke
probation; relating to the first appearance before a judicial
officer after arrest; relating to service of process for
domestic violence protective orders; making conforming
amendments; amending Rules 5 and 41, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and Rules 206 and 603, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:16:10 PM
SUSAN McLEAN, Division Director, Legal Services Section,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained that
Section 8 of HB 324 rewrites the provision addressing appeal
from the conditions of release, and she noted that there was not
any dispute about this section.
1:17:56 PM
MS. McLEAN summarized Section 9 which addresses the temporary
release for emergency, such as the death of a family member.
She explained that this allowed certain people to be released
prior to bail for certain reasons, but requires information from
the Department of Corrections prior to release. She noted that
this would require the individual to appear back in court at the
end of the release, and she confirmed that there was not any
dispute from DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why this section of the bill was
necessary.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. McLEAN explained that Section 9 clarifies who could qualify
for temporary release.
1:20:48 PM
MS. McLEAN reported that Section 10 addresses release of persons
found guilty but not yet sentenced or pursuing an appeal. She
pointed out that it requires clear and convincing evidence to
assure both the safety of the community and the appearance by
the person. She explained the similarity to current law, but
that HB 324 attempts to correct a provision of existing law by
now prohibiting release of a person found guilty of all sexual
felonies.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if sexual felonies could be Class A,
B, or C.
MS. McLEAN, in response, agreed. She relayed that she was aware
that some defense attorneys have objected to this provision, but
that the basis of objection was that release should always be
available pending appeal.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. McLEAN directed attention to Section 11, which clarifies
changes for the retention or release of material witnesses. She
explained that a material witness could be detained for enough
time to take a deposition, and added that the court retains the
authority, in the interest of justice, to detain a material
witness for longer.
1:24:33 PM
MS. McLEAN pointed out that Section 12 specifies that a person
who is in custody in connection with a petition to revoke
probation does not have a right to release under AS 12.30, which
is the same as current law, but may request release under AS
12.30, with the assurances of appearance and safety discussed
earlier.
1:25:10 PM
MS. McLEAN, in response to Representative Gruenberg, explained
that proposed AS 12.30.011 detailed all of the conditions of
release.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Section 11, asked for an
explanation to the changes from the current statute.
MS. McLEAN replied that it specifically says that a judicial
officer may order the arrest of a person.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if an arrest as a material
witness would be on an individual's record.
MS. McLEAN replied that this would not be on a criminal record,
but would be on a police record.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that an individual
would have a police record solely for arrest as a material
witness.
MS. McLEAN clarified that the police have to make a record for
anyone taken into custody, but that this record is not made
available.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if a person would have to reveal
their arrest as a material witness.
MS. McLEAN surmised that this would depend on the employer.
1:28:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that under current law a
person was taken into custody as a material witness, and not
arrested.
MS. McLEAN clarified that being taken into custody was the same
as being arrested, as an arrest warrant has been issued by the
court. In response to a question, she said that Section 11
ensures that a recalcitrant witness is available for testimony.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked that Ms. McLean identify any sections in
proposed HB 324 which related to sexual assault and domestic
violence.
1:29:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether, if she is a material
witness, she would be aware that she is one. She also asked if
it was necessary to arrest her in order for her to give a
statement.
MS. McLEAN replied that this section addressed those who had
refused to come testify.
MS. McLEAN, in response to Representative Gruenberg, suggested
that it might be necessary to reveal this police record of
arrest during the application for a job with a very high
security clearance.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that many job applications asked
if the applicant had been arrested. He suggested an amendment
to address this.
1:32:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether there were different
categories of material witnesses.
MS. McLEAN explained that a material witness was an individual
with information about a case, and an arrest warrant would only
be issued if a material witness indicated that they would not
appear to testify. She pointed out that most employers are not
asking about arrests but are asking about convictions for a
crime.
1:34:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is a connection between
being placed in protective custody and being arrested.
MS. McLEAN explained that protective custody pertains to mental
illness, or debilitation, as defined in AS 47, and was
confidential. She specified that this was an example of being
on the police record. In response to a question, she said she
can't envision a situation for the arrest of a material witness
during an investigation, but can envision the arrest of a
material witness during a trial for refusal to appear.
1:36:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to HB 324, page 14, line 19,
"that it may be impracticable to secure the presence of the
person by subpoena" stated that this was a considerably
different standard than Ms. McLean had referenced earlier.
1:37:08 PM
MS. McLEAN, in response, said that this did track the language
of the current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the language needed "to be
tightened."
MS. McLEAN pointed out that this has been the language since
1966. She noted that material witness warrants for arrest were
very rare.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG allowed that the practice could be
different than the technical language in the bill.
1:38:34 PM
MS. McLEAN moved on to address Section 13, which she explained
is a conforming amendment to current law. She stated that
Section 14 provides that, for purposes of the bail statutes, a
conviction occurs at the time a person is found guilty, either
by verdict or by plea. She explained that Section 15 adds
definitions into the bill, and that Sections 16-18 are
conforming amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Section 14, asked if this
was now defining when someone was technically guilty.
MS. McLEAN clarified that this was now defining conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reflected that, in a civil case,
liability was not established until a judge signed the judgment.
He noted that this was also the case in a criminal case. He
asked if this was moving the conviction forward, as a jury
verdict or a plea would be prior to sentencing. He questioned
if this is a change from current law.
MS. McLEAN agreed that the definition of conviction varied and
said that Section 14 explains conviction for the purposes of the
bail bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what changes Section 14 would
make to current law.
1:42:09 PM
MS. McLEAN replied that current law made no provision for
conviction for purposes for bail statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to clarify that if a person was
found guilty of a charge yesterday, and today pleads guilty to
another charge, would this be considered a second offense, as
the judge has not yet signed the judgment of conviction.
MS. McLEAN replied that this was one of the most litigated
issues. She asked to research other examples, and, in response
to Representative Gruenberg, offered to answer in writing.
1:44:55 PM
MS. McLEAN discussed Section 19, which "provides that service of
domestic violence protective orders on respondents need not be
made by law enforcement officers if the respondent has already
been served with the protective order on the record in court."
She said that the current statutes require that the defendant be
served by a law enforcement officer, but if a defendant is
already in court for a crime, it is not necessary for them to be
served again.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to proposed HB 324,
page 16, line 15, and asked whether there is any technical
difference between the terms "process" and "court's order." He
explained that civil law defined "process" as served with a
packet of documents, including complaint, summons, pre-trial
order, and assignment order. He allowed that a judicial
domestic violence order that wouldn't necessarily be totally
served "within the meaning of (Alaska) Civil Rule 4." He opined
that this point should be clarified, adding that he supports it
"if all the documents under process are served on the person in
court."
MS. McLEAN replied that she would investigate this, but she
explained that the documents in a domestic violence case are
often just an injunction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Section 19 just
required a copy of the court order, and not a copy of the
domestic violence petition. He asked that the phrase "court's
order" be completely inclusive, so that a person in court would
receive the same documents as when a policeman came to their
home.
1:48:00 PM
MS. McLEAN asked to further research the issue. She opined that
this was for expediency, but she agreed with Representative
Gruenberg that it was also necessary to maintain due process.
1:48:25 PM
MS. McLEAN examined Sections 20-21, which amend Rule 5, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure. She elaborated that current law
requires a person who has been arrested to be brought before a
judicial officer within 24 hours of being arrested, but the bill
would change this to 48 hours, in order to allow more time to
gather information, and more time to inform the victim of the
right to be present at release procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to page 17, line 4, asked if
this should instead say "exceeding forty-eight hours after
arrest."
MS. McLEAN replied that this would be the same.
1:50:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he could envision
circumstances to support the change, but he is "loath to change
existing law generally, in something like this." He noted that
extraordinary circumstances could necessitate more time, but he
would prefer to keep it at 24 hours unless the judicial officer
makes a finding that 48 hours was necessary.
MS. McLEAN, in response to Representative Gatto, offered to
amend the earlier referenced wording on page 17, line 5, to
"necessary delay does not exceed forty-eight hours."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if an amendment was necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that the new wording was
reasonable.
1:51:51 PM
MS. McLEAN continued, and said that Sections 22 and 23 are
conforming amendments. She explained that Section 24 amends
Rule 41(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, by providing
that a court may not change or add to a bond requirement without
the agreement of the surety. She said this arose from
complaints from sureties. She went on to state that Section 25
was also a conforming amendment. She declared that Section 26
amends Rule 603(b), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, to
clarify that release of a person whose conviction is being
appealed may be allowed as provided by the provisions of AS
12.30. She affirmed that Sections 27-29 include the repealers
of the laws in the interest of streamlining, the applicability
sections, and the effective date of the law.
MS. McLEAN, in response to an earlier request by Chair Ramras to
point out the provisions which effect domestic violence and
sexual assault, said that Section 1 does to some degree, as
failure of the offender to appear does not allow for prompt
disposition, and may present a threat to the victim.
1:55:40 PM
MS. McLEAN shared that Section 2 is a conforming amendment and
that Section 3 is very directly related to domestic violence and
sexual assault. She said that it requires that the court must
consider the comments of the victim regarding release of the
offender.
1:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there was a statute giving the
court the ability to appoint a guardian for a minor in a
criminal case.
MS. McLEAN offered her recollection that the court had quite a
bit of discretion, but she was not aware of a specific statute
that allowed it in a criminal case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed to the Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, 90.7, which discussed the appointment of a guardian
in child custody proceedings. He did not recall any rules
governing the appointment of a guardian in a criminal case. He
offered several examples of necessary circumstances, including
the child as a victim and the child as a material witness. He
asked Ms. McLean to research the extent of the authority of the
court to make this appointment.
2:00:37 PM
MS. McLEAN moved on to summarize that many subsections of
Section 4 have a direct impact on sexual assault and domestic
violence, as proposed AS 12.30.011 would synthesize all the
current conditions of release into one statute. She stated that
many of the Section 4 provisions pertain either directly or
indirectly to conditions of release to protect a victim from
further violence.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that the ACLU has objections to Section 4,
asked Ms. McLean to compare "safety for the public versus
liberty for the accused."
2:01:59 PM
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. McLEAN replied that almost all of the conditions in the
statute already exist. She pointed out that the ACLU objection
was to a "suspicion-less search." She noted that the
differences were that the court could now order someone to
continue to take medication and to maintain or seek employment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to an earlier question by
Representative Gatto, surmised that another need for protective
custody was to ensure the individual's safety. He pointed out
that Section 11 seems to be limited to the circumstance that an
individual would not respond to a subpoena. He opined for the
need of a provision that allows this.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO concurred of the need to protect the
victim, without arresting them.
2:06:16 PM
MS. McLEAN offered her belief that no current statute in Alaska
allows the court to order that the victim of an offense be taken
into any custody to protect the victim. She described the
system of support for shelters, but allowed that this was
completely voluntary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed the necessity for a means to
protect the witness.
2:06:59 PM
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, expressed
necessity for protecting an individual, not just placing them in
a shelter.
MS. McLEAN replied that there was not a source for funding. She
expressed hesitation for taking a victim into involuntary
custody.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated a need for authorization, and
this would allow for funding.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM relayed the need for a fiscal note for
HB 324.
MS. McLEAN continued her discussion of domestic violence and
sexual assault issues within Section 5, which provides standards
for the appointment of a third-party custodian for a person
released before trial and specifies that an offender will only
be released into a situation in which they are kept away from
the victim.
2:10:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether the law was being written as
a "one size fits all."
MS. McLEAN explained that in the vast majority of cases, the
prosecution agrees to a release on own recognizance with simple
conditions, and that won't be changed by the bill. She stated
that it is seeking to protect against the situation where a
third party custodian is not capable of protecting the victim.
She emphasized that the state was most concerned with release
during domestic assault and sexual violence cases, in order to
keep the offender away from the victim.
2:12:52 PM
MS. McLEAN stated that Section 6 conforms the language that
pertains to domestic violence.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how the provision would be enforced
without stipulating an exact numerical distance.
MS. McLEAN replied that this was often a condition of release.
She offered her belief that there could not be a guarantee of
"no danger." She reflected that often a third party custodian
will add to the security of the victim.
2:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if a third party custodian has
ever been put in danger as a result of accepting the duty.
MS. McLEAN offered one example, and explained that it was
important for the qualifications of the custodian to be
examined.
2:17:14 PM
MS. McLEAN continued and stated that Section 7 is directly
related to domestic violence release and aimed at ensuring there
is a cooling off period.
MS. McLEAN explained that Section 8 declared that everyone
should have the right to appeal the conditions of release. She
stated that Section 9 is not directly related to domestic
violence and sexual assault, but tangentially, as a temporary
release can allow contact between offender and victim. She
pointed out that Section 10 protects the victim from retribution
by the convicted offender.
2:18:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 8, page
13, line 4, which stated that "the appeal shall be determined
promptly" and asked whether the Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure would need to be amended.
2:20:28 PM
MS. McLEAN said that Section 11 deals with witnesses who did not
want to appear, and that Section 12 pertains to petitions to
revoke probation. She opined that sexual assault and domestic
violence crimes would often lead to arguments about conditions
of release for people in violation.
MS. McLEAN discussed Section 13, noting that it was a conforming
amendment to current law. She said that Section 14 only related
to sexual assault and domestic violence to the extent that these
crimes were included, that Section 15 defined sexual felony and
stalking, and that Sections 16-18 were conforming amendments.
She reported that Section 19 is directly related to the
interplay of service of a domestic violence protective order.
MS. McLEAN reviewed Sections 20 and 21, which amend Rule 5,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow prosecutors 48 hours
to bring someone before a judicial officer.
2:23:49 PM
MS. McLEAN pointed out that Section 22 dealt with release
pending appeal, and gave the courts criteria to consider. She
explained that the remaining sections were all conforming
amendments.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if this revision of bail restriction would
result in more jail time.
MS. McLEAN replied, yes.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would be questioning the Department of
Corrections (DOC) about its submitted zero fiscal note.
2:26:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES added that the Alaska Court System is the
only department that has submitted something other than a zero
fiscal note.
MS. McLEAN said that anyone who is in jail has a bail hearing,
and that the Alaska Court System is projecting that the bail
hearings would be longer, but that the DOL did not agree. She
opined that the increase of criteria would allow prosecutors to
move more swiftly, and she expressed her disagreement with the
time estimates presented in the fiscal note.
2:29:58 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Central Office, Office
of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, declared
that his department has worked closely with other departments to
create the fiscal note. He expressed the Alaska Court System
concerns with the bill, which include the requirement of court
clerks to submit a criminal history report to the judges, which
was redundant to the prosecutorial presentation, as outlined on
page 4, lines 14-16. He pointed out that it was not a
responsibility of the court to do independent fact research, and
the department would ask for that to be removed from the bill.
2:33:28 PM
MR. WOOLIVER expressed concern with page 11, lines [21-23],
discussing the third party custodian, and he pointed out the
extreme difficulty of finding third-party custodians using a
blanket rule.
2:35:19 PM
MR. WOOLIVER asked for clarification regarding Section 24, page
18 lines 25-27, which stated that "the court may not change or
add to a bond requirement that was ordered in a previous
proceeding unless the surety agrees to the change or addition."
He expressed an understanding with the DOL's concern of current
practices, but he pointed out that any change to the bond
requirement could be stopped, simply because the surety did not
respond. He agreed that the concern with concurrent bail should
be clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered to change the wording from "agrees"
to "has been notified of the change."
MR. WOOLIVER opined that this would not be sufficient to remedy
the concern of the DOL.
2:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, lines 26-
29, and asked whether the court now had the ability in statute
to appoint a guardian in a criminal case.
MR. WOOLIVER said that when he read that provision, he was
assuming that the victim already has a guardian, but offered to
research that and the prompt appeal question in Section 8, which
Representative Gruenberg had questioned earlier.
2:40:13 PM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections (DOC), replied that DOC has been
unable to accurately determine the fiscal impact of HB 324. He
determined that HB 324 would be dependent upon the delays for a
person being released from jail, and that the impact would be on
the jails.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that more man-days in jail would
generate a fiscal note.
2:44:20 PM
MR. PEEPLES, in response to Chair Ramras, deferred to Ms. McLean
regarding HB 324 causing an increase of man-days in jail.
MS. McLEAN replied that the purpose of HB 324 is to protect the
public, and the victim, while the offender is awaiting trial.
She acknowledged that she could not know if this would result in
longer sentences. She noted that there were parameters of
sentencing that would not change.
2:46:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether HB 324 would make it easier
for DOC to request more funding.
MR. PEEPLES replied that it would.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the DOC's fiscal note be revisited.
MR. PEEPLES ascertained that it would be difficult for an
accurate estimate. He suggested that the committee view the DOC
fiscal note as indeterminate, as the point of impact was
difficult to forecast.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked for more thorough fiscal projections.
2:50:01 PM
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Representative Herron.]
JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU), explained that the ACLU was concerned
with the constitutionality of some parts of HB 324. He pointed
to page 2, lines 4-6, and explained that an individual could be
convicted of a felony without a specific culpable mental state.
He offered his belief that the court would find this to be
unconstitutional.
MR. MITTMAN directed attention to page 3, lines 24-26, and said
that "when a person is charged, there is, of course, a
presumption of innocence." He offered his belief that holding a
person for 48 hours could be unconstitutional.
2:52:16 PM
MR. MITTMAN referred to page 6, lines 2-4, and stated that it
would not be constitutional for the court to "meddle in a
person's personal affairs." He explained that bail is focused
on the issues of flight risk and potential harm to the
community. He offered his belief that should employment not be
found to bear on either of these factors, then this would be
"constitutionally suspect."
MR. MITTMAN moved on to discuss page 6, lines 22-26, and said
that requiring the continued use of medication would be an
invasion of an individual's medical privacy. He offered his
belief that this could only be required to ensure their
appearance in court or to lessen their threat to public safety.
MR. MITTMAN pointed to page 7, lines 19-22, and stated that the
language to seek rebuttable presumption was "extremely
constitutionally problematic" as it would seek to overturn the
Alaska State Constitution.
2:55:04 PM
[Representative Herron returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. MITTMAN moved on to discuss page 8, lines 18-22, and page 9,
lines 7-12. He described this as the "warrantless search," and
explained that the right of presumable innocence can't require
that a person submit to a search without a warrant, as that
would force them to agree to give up a constitutional right.
MR. MITTMAN referred to page 10, line 28, and shared that the
imposition of third-party custodians was to ensure appearance
and avoid the threats to public safety. He offered that third-
party custodians were an alternative for individuals who could
not afford bail, and not as an additional condition. He
summarized that these changes needed to be addressed to avoid
any constitutional challenges.
[HB 324 was held over.]
2:57:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB324 HJUD Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2010 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |
| 02 HB324 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2010 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |
| 03 HB324 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2010 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |
| 05 HB324 Court Records.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |
| 04 Svobodney letter 3.10.10.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 06 HB324 ACLU Position paper 2010 03 22.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |
| 07 HB324 FN- CTS.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 324 |