Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/14/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar | |
| HB175 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2011
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Amy L. Demboski - Chugiak
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Alaska Judicial Council
Donald J. Haase - Valdez
- HEARD AND HELD [Addressed again on 3/16/11]
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Nora G. Barlow - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
William A. Granger - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to an appearance before a judicial officer
after arrest; relating to penalties for operating a vehicle
without possessing proof of motor vehicle liability insurance or
a driver's license; relating to penalties for certain arson
offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
02/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/11 (H) JUD, FIN
03/09/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/09/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/11 (H) PRIME SPONSOR CHANGED: JUDICIARY BY
REQUEST
03/14/11 (H) BILL REPRINTED 3/14/11
03/14/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY L. DEMBOSKI, Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC)
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct (CJC).
DAVID HAEG
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during the confirmation
hearing of Amy L. Demboski as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct.
DONALD J. HAASE, Appointee
Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC).
NORA G. BARLOW, Appointee
Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB).
WILLIAM A. GRANGER, Appointee
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar.
THERESA OBERMEYER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a few comments during the
confirmation hearing of William A. Granger as appointee to the
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 175 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, the sponsor by request.
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 175.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:31 PM
VICE CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives
Thompson, Keller, Pruitt, and Holmes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Gatto was excused.
^Confirmation Hearing(s):
Confirmation Hearing(s):
^Commission on Judicial Conduct
Commission on Judicial Conduct
1:08:15 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would first
consider the appointment of Amy L. Demboski to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct (CJC).
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON reminded members that signing the reports
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
1:08:44 PM
AMY L. DEMBOSKI, Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct
(CJC), relayed that she has become interested in serving the
State of Alaska, has been building and managing dental
practices, has obtained both a bachelor's degree in justice and
a history degree, and is in the process of obtaining an M.B.A.
in finance, adding that she feels that with her education and
work experience in the private sector, she would be an asset.
She said she loves the study of law and economic development,
and so when she saw an opportunity to become involved with the
CJC, she applied and was thrilled to have been appointed.
MS. DEMBOSKI, in response to questions, indicated that she has
used her legal expertise in the course of her employment; that
she specifically applied for a position on CJC because she felt
that with her educational and legal experience she could provide
the CJC with a citizen's common-sense perspective; and that she
attended the last meeting of the CJC and discussed the details
of what its duties entail with members and staff, has gone over
the statutes, [court rules, and codes of conduct] pertaining to
the CJC, and anticipates becoming completely familiar with them
before the CJC's next meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES thanked Ms. Demboski for her willingness
to serve.
MS. DEMBOSKI, in response to other questions, offered her belief
that there is no reason legislators ought to be hesitant to
confirm her appointment; relayed that she generally considers
Alaska's judges to be upstanding citizens, adding that in the
past she has dealt with issues similar to those faced by the
CJC; opined that when a judge acts inappropriately, it's
important for the CJC to hold him/her to a high standard,
offering her understanding that such is already the case; and
assured the committee that she would be keeping an open mind
while fulfilling her duties on the CJC so as to be able to
accurately assess a given situation, that she is willing to
stand up for what she believes is right, and that she is up to
the task of learning all that's necessary in order for her to
fulfill her duties as a member of the CJC.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER and REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT thanked Ms.
Demboski for her willingness to serve.
MS. DEMBOSKI, in response to further questions, reiterated some
of her earlier comments, and relayed that the concept of serving
on the CJC was something she'd come up with on her own as being
an enjoyable way of giving back to the community; that aside
from having served on a jury in the past and having obtained her
bachelor's degree in justice, she's not had any interaction with
the judicial system; and that she's always had an interest in
public service.
1:29:19 PM
DAVID HAEG, noting that he'd filed a complaint against a judge
in 2006 and offering his belief that improprieties occurred
during the subsequent investigation, expressed interest in
hearing the committee discuss such issues with Ms. Demboski
further.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:32 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.
1:33:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Amy L. Demboski to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct. There being no objection, the confirmation was
advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
^Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Judicial Council
1:34:01 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would next
consider the appointment of Donald J. Haase to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC).
1:34:19 PM
DONALD J. HAASE, Appointee, Alaska Judicial Council (AJC),
recounted some of his employment history and that he has a
bachelor's degree in political science, and indicated that this
year, he, himself, specifically chose to apply for a position on
the AJC because of his interest in the law and in "seeing that
justice is done in Alaska," that he wants to ensure that
Alaska's judges are not biased and are cognizant of the people
who come before them, and that he would be taking judicial
candidates' interpersonal skills into account when deciding
whether to forward a particular name, because he wants judges
who make people feel at ease and who are going to ensure that
all the parties feel that they're being heard regardless of the
trial outcome. In response to further questions, he
acknowledged that when he ran for a seat on the Alaska State
Legislature in 2010, he'd responded affirmatively to the
following question on a questionnaire distributed by [Alaska
Family Action, the lobbying arm of the Alaska Family Council]:
Would you support a state constitutional amendment
that would allow the Governor the same leeway for
appointing state judges as the U.S. President has for
appointing federal judges, i.e., the Governor could
nominate any candidate of his or her choosing for a
judicial vacancy, and such nominee would have to be
confirmed by the Alaska Senate?
MR. HAASE clarified that although he still believes such a
process would be a good way to appoint judges and that he could
support such a change, in responding "yes" to that question he
wasn't saying that it would necessarily be better than the
current process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized such a change as
essentially doing away with that function of the AJC.
MR. HAASE, in response to other questions, assured the committee
that his applying for a position on the AJC was not motivated by
a desire to change the current process, surmising that he would
not be able to effect such a change from within the AJC anyway
even if that were his motivation.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, in response to comments and a request,
indicated that the committee would set aside consideration of
the appointment of Donald J. Haase to the Alaska Judicial
Council (AJC) in order to allow members more time to compile
further questions for Mr. Haase.
[The House Judiciary Standing Committee considered the
appointment of Donald J. Haase to the Alaska Judicial Council
(AJC) again on 3/16/11.]
^Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
1:44:50 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would next
consider the reappointment of Nora G. Barlow to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB).
1:45:03 PM
NORA G. BARLOW, Appointee, Violent Crimes Compensation Board
(VCCB), relayed that she's been serving as the attorney member
of the VCCB for a year, having been appointed to finish a
retiring member's term; that as a lawyer, she's had experience
with sexual assault prosecutions, and with working with abused
and neglected children; that serving on the VCCB has allowed her
to do something proactive and helpful to the State of Alaska;
that she's enjoyed working with the other members of the VCCB;
and that she would like to continue with that work and so is
seeking to be reappointed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed that Ms. Barlow and her
husband are personal friends of his, and indicated that he is
happy to support her reappointment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES disclosed that she is a neighbor of Ms.
Barlow's and has spoken with her in the past about her reasons
for wanting to serve on the VCCB, and relayed that she is
therefore happy to support Ms. Barlow's reappointment.
MS. BARLOW, in response to a question, relayed that the VCCB has
discussed with the legislature the possibility of the VCCB
becoming involved with the sexual assault response team/sexual
assault nurse examiner (SART/SANE) exams and possibly providing
some additional funding, and is awaiting more information from
those currently researching that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in receiving any
suggestions the VCCB might have regarding possible future
statutory changes.
1:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Nora G. Barlow to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board. There being no objection, the confirmation
was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
^Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
1:50:49 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would next
consider the appointment of William A. Granger to the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar.
1:51:25 PM
WILLIAM A. GRANGER, Appointee, Board of Governors of the Alaska
Bar, after providing some personal information, relayed that he
became active in Alaska's legal community through his work as a
banker, became interested in its workings as a result of his
participation with the Alaska Bar Foundation - which distributes
Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funds to various
charitable and judicial enhancement endeavors - and was then
appointed to the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar.
Expressing a continued interest in serving on the Board of
Governors [as a public member again], he characterized it as an
important position requiring someone with a keen understanding
of how the legal community operates.
MR. GRANGER, in response to questions, offered his belief that
some of the important and rewarding duties and accomplishments
of the Board of Governors pertain to having developed a free,
online, legal research program, a valuable service for smaller
practitioners in particular; to addressing problems brought
before it by members of the bar; to attempting to streamline
interactions between the bar at large and the judiciary; and to
the Alaska Bar Association's financial aspects and budgetary
processes. In response to comments and further questions, he
acknowledged that some members feel the Alaska Bar Association's
dues are high, but agreed that it's important, regardless, for
the Alaska Bar Association to operate in a fiscally responsible
manner so that it won't have to seek funding from the State of
Alaska.
MR. GRANGER noted that when he'd served on the Board of
Governors before, it was mindful of costs and so was able to
maintain, and build up, a small surplus that would enable the
Alaska Bar Association to continue functioning should an
emergency or some unforeseen funding crisis arise, and relayed
that he is aware that high bar dues might put a strain on small
practitioners. The establishment of the aforementioned legal
research program, therefore, is an important thing for the Board
of Governors to have accomplished - giving something of actual
monetary benefit to the Alaska Bar Association's members. Also,
the services that the Alaska Bar Association provides to the
public at large - for example, reimbursing clients harmed by
attorneys who can't themselves make restitution - is important
work but it comes at a cost.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred that it's important for the
Alaska Bar Association to remain self sufficient and therefore
independent, and offered his belief that Mr. Granger is very
qualified [to serve on the Board of Governors of the Alaska
Bar].
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked Mr. Granger why there was a break in
his service.
MR. GRANGER indicated that after being appointed initially, when
his term then expired, he was simply reappointed by then-
Governor Murkowski, but then when that [second] term expired,
then-Governor Palin appointed someone else since he hadn't
applied for reappointment at the time.
2:02:16 PM
THERESA OBERMEYER provided a few comments [unrelated to the
confirmation hearing of William A. Granger as appointee to the
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar].
2:04:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of William A. Granger to the Board of Governors
of the Alaska Bar. There being no objection, the confirmation
was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.
HB 175 - COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
2:08:24 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act relating to an appearance
before a judicial officer after arrest; relating to penalties
for operating a vehicle without possessing proof of motor
vehicle liability insurance or a driver's license; relating to
penalties for certain arson offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1),
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules
of Administration; and providing for an effective date."
2:09:14 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained
that HB 175 would correct four problems in current law.
Specifically, Sections 1, 2, and 6 - pertaining respectively to
AS 12.25.150, rights of prisoner after arrest, AS 12.70.130,
arrest without warrant of a person charged with a crime in
another state, and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, proceedings before the judge or magistrate - would
conform those provisions of law to reflect changes made last
year via House Bill 324. That bill last year increased the
timeframe - from 24 hours to 48 hours - in which a person must
be brought before a judicial officer after being arrested;
unfortunately, that bill neglected to also make conforming
changes to AS 12.25.150 and AS 12.70.130.
MS. CARPENETI explained that Section 3 - pertaining to AS
28.15.131, license to be carried and exhibited on demand - would
conform that statute to current court rules in the Alaska Rules
of Administration which provide that not having one's valid
driver's license in one's possession while driving is merely a
correctable infraction, with bail set at $50, rather than a
class B misdemeanor. Section 4 - pertaining to AS 28.22.019,
proof of insurance to be carried and exhibited on demand [and]
penalty - would similarly conform that statute to current court
rules in the Alaska Rules of Administration which provide that
not having proof of insurance in one's possession while driving
is merely a correctable infraction, with a mandatory fine of
$500, rather than a class B misdemeanor with a discretionary
minimum fine of $500.
MS. CARPENETI explained that Section 5 - pertaining to AS
41.23.220, penalty [for committing violations in the Knik River
Public Use Area] - would conform that statute with AS 11.46.420,
pertaining to the crime arson in the third degree. Enacted in
2006, AS 41.23.220 and associated regulations provided that
burning a vehicle in the Knik River Public Use Area would be a
violation, with a bail amount of $50. In contrast, when enacted
in 2008, AS 11.46.420 provided that burning a vehicle on state
or municipal land would be a class C felony property crime.
Under Section 5, all burning of vehicles in public areas would
be a class C felony, and this is in keeping with the latest
expression of legislative intent as evidenced by the enactment
of AS 11.46.420. In response to a question, she confirmed that
under Section 4, not having proof of insurance in one's
possession while driving would remain a correctable infraction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a Department of Law
memorandum in members' packets dated March 1, 2010, regarding
other states' rules about first court appearance after arrest.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, clarified that in
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin - one of the cases cited in
that memorandum - the U.S. Supreme Court approved a 48-hour
time-period for holding someone without probable cause; and that
no state court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution as
requiring a different time period, though other states have
approved a variety of different time periods in their state
laws. She confirmed that Alaska's courts hadn't addressed this
issue yet because existing Alaska Statute provided for a 24-hour
time-period including weekends and holidays.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that Alaska's courts
haven't yet interpreted the U.S. Constitution regarding that
issue, and suggested, therefore, that a specific severability
clause be added to HB 175 since its proposed change to the time
limit could invite a constitutional challenge.
2:23:34 PM
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), noting that he'd submitted
written testimony regarding HB 175, pointed out that in Alaska
there is already a rule allowing for an exception to the
existing deadline when necessary. It's an open question, he
ventured, whether the Alaska Supreme Court would find that a 48-
hour time-period is reasonable. To the extent that HB 175 is
intended to allow for the extended period of time only when
needed, he remarked, the ACLU of Alaska suggests that it would
instead be better to have a 24-hour time-period and continue to
allow for additional time to be requested when necessary.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:26 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to comments, pointed out that the
constitutional issues regarding this time period were discussed
thoroughly last year when House Bill 324 - which proposed the
change from 24 hours to 48 hours - was debated, and reiterated
that HB 175 would merely correct an oversight in that when that
time period was changed, some of the associated statutes weren't
similarly changed.
2:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the language on
page 2 of Mr. Mittman's written testimony, specifically that
which read [original punctuation, along with some formatting
changes, provided]:
Given that the currently existing rules of criminal
procedure already provide an exception for defendants
arrested far from urban centers and allow the
prosecution to request a delay to gather more
information where necessary for a bail hearing, the
state's success over the last 18 years in providing an
initial appearance within 24 hours strongly suggests
that a delay of more than 24 hours would represent
unnecessary delay, making the statute
unconstitutional.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions and comments, clarified
that although Alaska's statutes do allow for a delay if the
person is charged with a felony, that delay only applies after
the person's initial appearance before the court, whereas the
bill addresses the time period in which a person must initially
be brought before the court after his/her arrest. Regardless of
what the deadlines is, the best practice, she pointed out, is to
bring the person before a judicial officer as soon as possible
because that's better for all concerned. However, there are
situations in which it could be difficult for law enforcement to
gather enough information within a 24-hour time-period to
determine what the appropriate charges should be, and it would
therefore be better to wait a day before arraignment. The bill
would extend the deadline in those cases where it is necessary
for the orderly administration of justice. Furthermore, the
victim has a constitutional right to appear at that initial
hearing, and sometimes he/she either can't be found or would be
unable to attend within a 24-hour time-period. She assured the
committee that having a 48-hour deadline doesn't mean that the
DOL is automatically going to wait another day before bringing a
person in for his/her initial court appearance, because the DOL
is not interested in keeping someone an extra day just because
the law allows it.
2:39:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DOL was having to
release people because it wasn't meeting the 24-hour deadline.
MS. CARPENETI said not to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned, then, why the deadline was
changed.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the 24-hour deadline was
problematic in that when a person was arrested in the middle of
the night or was arrested in a rural area of the state, for
example, it was sometimes very difficult to gather enough
information within 24 hours for the DOL to make reasonable
decisions. Referring to the aforementioned DOL memorandum, she
noted that most other states provide for a significantly greater
amount of time than 24 hours. She offered her belief that the
change from 24 hours to 48 hours hasn't affected the majority of
cases, and would instead be very helpful. In response to
further questions, she acknowledged that because the statutes
weren't changed under House Bill 324, most jurisdictions are
still operating under the 24-hour deadline, though some
jurisdictions have somewhat relaxed that deadline depending on
the particular case.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify on HB 175, closed public testimony, and relayed that
HB 175 would be held over.
2:45:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Amy L. Demboski Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| William A. Granger Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Nora G. Barlow Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |