03/01/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2023
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative David Eastman
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to homicide resulting from conduct involving
controlled substances; relating to the computation of good time;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/23 (H) JUD, FIN
02/27/23 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/23 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): WRIGHT
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) JUD, FIN
03/01/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on HB 66, on behalf
of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the
governor.
MIKE MATTHEWS, Lead Research Analyst
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
66.
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 28.
ALLAN RIORDIAN-RANDALL, Staff
Representative Stanley Wright
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered introductory information on HB 28,
on behalf of Representative Wright, prime sponsor.
VITTORIO NASTASI, Director of Criminal Justice Policy
Reason Foundation
Tallahassee, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 28.
DAVID MORGAN, Government Affairs Associate
Reason Foundation
Atlanta, Georgia
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 28.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
28.
LISA PURINTON, Bureau Chief
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
28.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:44 PM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives C. Johnson, Gray,
Groh, and Vance were present at the call to order.
Representatives Carpenter, Eastman, and Allard arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 66-CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.
1:01:42 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to homicide resulting from
conduct involving controlled substances; relating to the
computation of good time; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:02 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), referred to a document, titled "Controlled Substance
Statutes References Chart" [included in the committee packet].
He directed attention to the state drug classifications on page
2, noting that Fentanyl was a schedule 1A according to Alaska
Statutes. He proceeded to provide a summary of the controlled
substances found in schedule IA through VIA.
1:07:11 PM
MR. SKIDMORE returned to page 1 of the document, which
summarized the statutory tiers of misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first through fifth degree. He
described the presumptive range in addition to the criminal
conduct associated with the first degree.
CHAIR VANCE asked why age 19 was chosen [in regard to the
conduct classified as misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the first and third degree].
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not know the answer. He added that he
would need to analyze the legislative history to understand that
policy decision.
CHAIR VANCE noted the lack of consistency in statute in terms of
the age of minors.
1:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH referred to the drug classifications on page
2 of the supporting document and asked whether the comprehensive
listing of schedule IA through VIA controlled substances
included lesser "B" or "C" tiers.
MR. SKIDMORE conveyed that additional subsections were not
utilized in this particular classification system.
1:13:58 PM
MR. SKIDMORE returned to page 1 and resumed his overview of the
controlled substances statutes reference chart, detailing
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the second
through fifth degree. He reiterated that this was not an
exhausted listing of the laws.
1:18:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suspected that the bill would give
prosecutors added discretion. He asked which schedule Adderall
fell under.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that Adderall was a schedule IIA. He
disagreed with Representative Eastman's assertion that the bill
would provide prosecutors with greater discretion, adding that
HB 66 would simply change the classification of offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
What I mean by that is currently, you would not be
able to charge an individual for second degree murder
without the bill, and when the bill passes, if it
does, you would then have the discretion of being able
to charge some of the same conduct as second degree
murder. Is that correct?
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that it would change the
classification of offense from manslaughter to murder in the
second degree; however, he contended that such a change was not
providing additional discretion. He defined prosecutorial
discretion as deciding whether to charge a person, which would
not be impacted by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the bill would accomplish. He
considered a hypothetical scenario in which a parent shared
his/her Adderall prescription with a child. He asked whether
that conduct could be prosecuted as murder in the second degree
if the bill were to pass.
MR. SKIDMORE said the proposed legislation did not address
prescription sharing with a child. Nonetheless, he emphasized
that the conduct was illegal under current law, regardless of
the outcome of HB 66.
1:22:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill would change the
classification for that conduct.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to Section 1, paragraph (2) of
the bill, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that
results in the death of another person under
circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to
the value of human life;
CHAIR VANCE asked whether "indifference to the value of human
life" should be referenced in paragraph (6) on page 2 of the
bill.
MR. SKIDMORE supposed one could argue the theory that the
distribution of drugs could be considered an extreme
indifference to the value of human life given the unregulated
increased use of Fentanyl. Ultimately, he opined that the
element of extreme indifference belonged under the provision for
murder in the second degree, as drafted. He remarked, "In order
for the state to get to a murder two, we would need to move the
subsection, as the bill proposes, from manslaughter to murder
two."
1:26:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how good behavior was determined by
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
1:27:23 PM
MIKE MATTHEWS, Lead Research Analyst, Division of Administrative
Services, DOC, offered to follow up with the requested
information, adding that the determination of "good time" was a
process that occurred within each individual institution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how much a sentence could be reduced
for good behavior.
MR. MATTHEW answered one third.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked which offenses were excluded from
receiving good time.
MR. MATTHEW offered to follow up with the requested information.
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to Representative Gray, cited AS
33.20.010(a)(1)-(4), which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(1) to a mandatory 99-year term of imprisonment
under AS 12.55.125(a) after June 27, 1996;
(2) to a definite term under AS 12.55.125(l);
(3) for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i)
(A) and has one or more prior sexual felony
convictions as determined under AS 12.55.145(a)(4); or
(B) that is an unclassified or a class A felony;
or
(4) for an unclassified felony under AS 11.41.100
or 11.41.110.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether removing eligibility for a
good time deduction would remove a tool for encouraging good
behavior while incarcerated.
MR. MATTHEW offered to follow up with the requested information.
1:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the percentage of drug
dealers that were also drug users.
MR. SKIDMORE was unsure of the answer. He anecdotally reported
that there was significant overlap between those that use drugs
and distribute drugs to support their own addiction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how to reduce recidivism.
CHAIR VANCE asked Representative Gray to narrow the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how recidivism could be reduced for
individuals struggling with substance abuse issues.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that one tool available to the courts was
rehabilitation, such as substance abuse treatment, which could
be received either in or out of custody. Additionally, he cited
educational programs and stipulations of probation or parole.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there was evidence that longer
sentences lead to lower rates of crime.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that it was possible; however, the notion
behind the proposed legislation was to consider appropriate
criteria for individuals who were distributing "poison" to
Alaskans, which was resulting in their death. He listed the
five components of the Chaney Criteria as follows:
rehabilitation, general deterrents, specific deterrents,
community condemnation, and isolation. He submitted that
isolation and community condemnation should be imposed on more
egregious offenses, such as the one in question.
1:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to the added provision
under good time exclusions on page 3, lines 10-12, of HB 66. He
shared his understanding that the provision, which removed the
possibility of good time deduction for those charged with a
felony under AS 11.71.010 11.70.040, would remove good time
eligibility for all drug offenses, not just those that resulted
in death.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the bill would exclude anyone
distributing drugs from receiving a good time deduction, the
rational being that all drug dealers were participating in the
larger industry that was responsible for the substantial
increase in overdose deaths.
1:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked why Section 1 of the bill
expressly focused on schedule IVA controlled substances.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the reference to schedule IVA
controlled substances was a policy decision that was made
previously when the manslaughter provision was initially
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that the bill
would not apply to a person who died from consuming a schedule
IA or IIA drug, such as heroin or PCP. He suggested that HB 66
would only apply to a person who overdosed from consuming a
schedule IVA controlled substance.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He directed attention to page 2, line
21, of HB 66, which referred to a person who knowingly
manufactures or delivers a controlled substance in violation of
AS 11.71.010 11.71.030. He clarified that AS 11.71.010
11.71.030 covered misconduct involving a controlled substance
for schedule IA IVA drugs.
1:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked for verification that, unlike
bath salt, a loophole could not be created by altering the
synthetic composition of fentanyl to make it legal.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that fentanyl had a definitive chemical
composition that could not be easily changed. He explained that
now, the attorney general (AG) had the ability to add altered
chemical compositions of synthetic controlled substances to the
statutory schedules, pending approval by the legislature, based
on recommendations from the Controlled Substance Advisory
Committee an option that was not available to the state during
the bath salt wars referenced by Representative C. Johnson.
1:43:08 PM
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman, disagreed with his analysis of Section 2 of the bill,
explaining that the restriction [of good time eligibility] was
based upon the sentence imposed on the prisoner for a particular
crime. Therefore, if a person were convicted of both misconduct
involving a controlled substance, for which a good time
deduction would not be permitted per HB 66, and a DUI, the
individual could receive a good time deduction for the DUI
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where that was specified in
statute. He contended that, per his reading of the language, an
offender would not be eligible for a good time deduction if
he/she had been sentenced.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred the question to the Department of
Corrections (DOC). He shared his understanding that the intent
of restricting good time for specific crimes was not so that a
person would be ineligible from receiving good time for
additional offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a person
committed suicide with a controlled substance. He asked whether
the person who sold or delivered that controlled substance could
be charged with second degree murder if HB 66 were to pass.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the bill would allow the prosecutor
to hold the distributor of the controlled substance responsible
for causing another person's death, regardless of whether the
death was intentional suicide.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Skidmore to opine on a scenario
in which a substance was altered between distribution and
ingestion.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would need to follow up after further
analysis of the question.
1:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the daily cost of keeping
someone incarcerated.
MR. MATTHEW answered $176 per day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the costs associated with
extending sentences and asked why the fiscal note was zero.
MR. MATTHEW said the fiscal note was zero because there was a
current capacity of 750 beds [in DOC facilities]. He estimated
that the bill would increase the prison population by a maximum
of 38-39 people per day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inferred that the cost remained at zero
because there were extra beds available in the DOC facilities.
He asked whether that was correct.
MR. MATTHEW said, generally speaking, yes. He said additional
money would not be requested unless maximum capacity was
exceeded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that as long as there were
available beds, housing the incarcerated population was free.
MR. MATTEW answered, "Yes and no." He explained that DOC
charged federal agencies a daily bed rate of $176 for holding
their prisoners.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether state prisoners were held free
of charge.
MR. MATTHEW remarked:
It's a mathematical formula based on how many people
we have per day and how much the costs are for that at
a given period of time. In a sense, yes, it is free
in that context but of course there are costs any time
you have additional people. But we are budgeted for a
certain amount of people and right now, our budget is
under that many people.
1:53:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY surmised that it would cost money to
increase the prison population, which would require a fiscal
note. He asked whether that was wrong.
MR. MATTHEW asked Representative Gray to repeat the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY declined. He maintained his belief that a
zero fiscal note inaccurately reflected the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD offered an analogy between the cost of
incarceration and the cost of driving a school bus, indicating
that the cost would be the same whether there were 10 students
or 20 students. She asked whether that was an accurate analogy.
MR. MATTHEW said, "That's a pretty good analogy."
1:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH calculated that $176 multiplied by 365
equaled over $64,000. He asked whether that was correct.
MR. MATTHEW confirmed.
1:55:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether DOC's budget was based
on capacity or the number of incarcerated individuals.
MR. MATTHEW indicated that the formula was based on the budgeted
amount in addition to the number of people incarcerated and the
number of days served.
1:56:49 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 66 would be held over.
1:57:25 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 28-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
2:00:41 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act restricting the release of certain
records of convictions; and providing for an effective date."
2:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, provided introductory remarks on HB 28. He said the
bill was an important and necessary step to increasing
opportunities and reducing barriers for individuals who were
convicted of low-level cannabis possession. He noted that the
Alaska Court System had already initiated a process similar to
that of the proposed legislation. With the passage of HB 28, he
said, the ruling of the Alaska Court System would be protected
and codified.
2:02:07 PM
ALLAN RIORDIAN-RANDALL, Staff, Representative Stanley Wright,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Wright,
prime sponsor, paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaskans voted to legalize the cultivation, sale, and
possession and recreational use of marijuana for
persons 21 years of age or older in 2014. Despite this
change in state law, some Alaskans remain blocked from
employment and housing and other opportunities due to
previous marijuana possession convictions that today
are recognized as non-criminal activities.
House Bill 28 would make confidential the records of
individuals who were convicted of minor marijuana
crimes, were 21 years of age or older at the time of
the offense and were not charged with any other crimes
in the same incident. These records would
automatically be removed from Court View. The records
would also be removed from some background checks
administered by the Department of Public Safety, if
requested by the convicted individual.
According to figures provided by the Alaska Department
of Public Safety, not less than 8,000 Alaskans are
hindered in day to day life by marijuana convictions
that are eligible for the confidentiality protections
in this bill.
This bill would recategorize low level marijuana
offenses for individuals 18-21 years of age from Class
B misdemeanors to minor violations punishable by a
fine and eliminate unnecessary use of judiciary
resources for court hearings. It would also prohibit
the Alaska Court System from publishing records of
these violations on Court View, from the effective
date of the bill going forward.
With Alaskans having spoken by means of legalization
of marijuana this bill would allow those that by
todays standards would not be considered as a criminal
offender to move forward with their life without the
obstruction that can be incurred by such a conviction
on ones record while still allowing provisions for
adequate access to background or statistical
information for those appropriate agencies.
2:04:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT concluded by noting that the bill would
grant people who were being held back by a low-level infraction
the opportunity to reach their full potential. He conveyed that
[people who had been convicted of minor marijuana crimes] were
facing employment barriers, which inhibited them from taking
care of their families.
2:04:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked the sponsor to define "low level"
marijuana convictions and to elaborate on how that was holding
people back.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT defined "low level" as infractions that
were legal today. He explained that the criminal records of
these violations on Court View were barring people from gaining
employment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked, "If it's personal use that's legal
in Alaska, would that be something that would be holding folks
back that could be expunged from their record but perhaps stay
on federally but it would allow them to get the jobs that they
deserve and they need?"
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT agreed. He said it was unfortunate that
people were "marked" for life for mistakes they made in their
past.
CHAIR VANCE commenced invited testimony.
2:06:21 PM
VITTORIO NASTASI, Director of Criminal Justice Policy, Reason
Foundation, stated that there was not a compelling public safety
interest in publicizing [on Court View] minor marijuana crime
convictions. He noted that the records in question would still
be accessible to law enforcement should HB 28 pass. He added
that the question at hand was whether to release those records
to the public upon request or in background checks for job
applications. He argued that releasing low level marijuana
possession conviction records could actually undermine public
safety by making it harder for people to engage in productive
activities such as securing housing, obtaining occupational
licenses, joining the military, gaining admission to
universities, accessing financial services, and maintaining
child custody. He reported that 90 percent of employers conduct
background checks on job applicants; further, applicants with a
criminal conviction were 50 percent less likely to receive a
call back. Furthermore, research indicated that employment and
community ties were important indicators in ceasing criminal
behavior. He summarized the bill, explaining that HB 28 sought
to address the problem by prohibiting agencies from releasing
criminal records related to cases in which the defendant was
convicted of possessing less than one ounce of marijuana upon
request of the offender. Additionally, the Alaska Court System
would be prohibited from posting records related to low level
possession convictions on publicly accessible websites [Court
View]. He opined that the proposed reform would provide needed
relief to many Alaskans.
2:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON pointed out that there were
commercially available background checks. He asked whether the
bill would expunge these violations from publicly accessible
websites. Additionally, he asked whether the bill was
retroactive.
MR. NASTASI said nothing in the bill would directly address
private companies with existing databases.
2:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether, from an employer's
perspective, there was a compelling public interest to know
whether a prospective candidate followed the law. He opined
that a minor marijuana charge, much like a speeding ticket,
represented a violation of the law.
MR. NASTASI emphasized that marijuana possession was legal and
no longer considered a criminal offense. He argued that the
collateral consequences of having a criminal record released for
minor marijuana convictions did more harm than good.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that he had been elected to
public office despite the speeding tickets on his record. He
opined that nothing was stopping someone with a prior marijuana
possession charge from gaining employment or seeking elected
office. He argued that employers should have the right to know
whether an applicant was capable of violating the law.
2:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH drew a broad distinction between speeding
tickets and criminal offenses. He requested real life examples
of the hardships faced by individuals convicted of low-level
marijuana charges.
MR. WRIGHT said he spoke with many individuals on his path to
Juneau who had low level marijuana convictions, which prohibited
them from gaining employment.
2:17:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she was struggling with the bill
because people were supposed to be held accountable for
committing crimes. She considered an example in which heroin
was legalized and asked whether it would be fair to expunge
felony offenders' records simply because they couldn't get a
job.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT shared his belief that people shouldn't be
marked for the rest of their life if they paid their debt to
society. He reiterated that these individuals don't have a lot
of options.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how an employer would know whether
an applicant had poor judgement and violated the law.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT said after speaking with many employers
about this issue, many of them wished that the box [indicating
whether an applicant had violated the law] wasn't there.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD noted that marijuana was still illegal at
the federal level.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT opined that federal law should not dictate
what Alaskans do.
2:21:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON inquired about similar policies in
other states. He stressed that this was a serious policy
decision. He said he tended to agree with the intent of the
legislation; however, it appeared that the courts were
formulating policy on behalf of the legislature.
CHAIR VANCE said she shared the same concern. She noted that
Nancy Meade was available to speak to the decision made by the
Alaska Supreme Court and its implementation.
2:23:37 PM
DAVID MORGAN, Government Affairs Associate, Reason Foundation,
highlighted that approximately seven years after legalization,
many Alaskans were marked with criminal records for low level
marijuana possession. He stated although an early leader in
cannabis reform, Alaska lagged behind 24 other states that had
adopted reforms to facilitate the expungement or sealing of
marijuana related criminal convictions. He acknowledged that it
could sometimes be in the interest of public safety to provide
information to the public about an individual's criminal
background; however, he argued that a one-size-fits-all approach
to lifelong criminal records did not make sense. He reported
that there was no evidence that an individual convicted of
marijuana possession posed a threat to public safety. He
believed that HB 28 was an overdue step towards justice for
Alaskans harmed by the war on drugs.
2:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that as a member of the military,
he would be kicked out if he were to smoke marijuana. He shared
a personal anecdote about a young person who wanted to join the
military despite being a marijuana user. He indicated that if
the individual was honest on his application, he would have been
denied acceptance. He believed that teens who smoke marijuana
could make good soldiers. He asked whether there was evidence
that expunging marijuana conviction records allowed people to
join the military.
MR. MORGAN deferred to Mr. Nastasi.
MR. NASTASI said to his knowledge there was no specific research
on record expungement and military service. Nonetheless, he
cited research that considered the effect of having a criminal
record on job applications and university admission. Findings
showed that between two people with identical work experience,
the individual with the criminal record was 50 percent less
likely to receive a call back.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that while the legalization of marijuana
in Alaska had changed, it was still illegal under federal law.
She emphasized that in terms of military service, federal
standards remained in effect.
2:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether a minor marijuana conviction
would still show up on a federal record despite being expunged
in Alaska if the bill were to pass.
2:30:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:30:41 PM
CHAIR VANCE inquired about recent changes made by the Alaska
Court System, which mirrored the proposed legislation.
Additionally, she asked how the decision would be implemented.
2:31:22 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, clarified
that the bill would not expunge any records, nor would it
eliminate or vacate a person's criminal history. She stated
that HB 28 would do two things: Firstly, Section 1 and Section 2
of the bill addressed the release of criminal background checks
through the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which was the
repository for official criminal records in the state of Alaska;
secondly, Section 4 and Section 5 would make it so certain
records concerning criminal cases for marijuana possession would
not appear on the public version of Court View. She reiterated
that those records would not be made confidential, expunged, or
eliminated. She explained that court rules were often amended
periodically, adding that the list of unpublishable criminal
cases on Court View was one of the most modified rules to date.
She further noted that, per the legislature, all dismissals or
acquittals were also removed from Court View. She conveyed that
unpublished cases could always be found by an employer if he/she
went to the courthouse. In response to Representative Vance,
she stated that the Alaska Supreme Court recently decided that
[minor marijuana possession charges] was a recent category of
offenses that should not appear on the public version of Court
View. For that reason, the technology department would be
removing them as of May 1, 2023.
2:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether Court View was regulated
via statute or whether the court management system was solely
decided upon by the Alaska Court System.
MS. MEADE explained that Court View was the court's own case
management system. However, legislation like House Bill 11
sponsored by former Representative Tammie Wilson in 2015
directed the courts to exclude from Court View criminal cases
that ended in a dismissal or acquittal, thereby effectually
regulating Court View by statute. Additionally, in 2016, Senate
Bill 165 removed all minor consumption of alcohol cases from
Court View.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked which court rule expressly
provided authority over Court View to the Alaska Court System.
MS. MEADE cited administrative Rule 40 from the Alaska Court
Rules [Rules of Administration], which provided that the court
system shall maintain a database of all cases and make available
to the public a subset of the database with the exclusion of the
following cases: confidential cases, legislative directives,
dismissed cases, and low-level marijuana convictions.
2:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to verify that HB 28 did not seek
to expunge criminal records.
MS. MEADE confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether applicants would still be
required to disclose any criminal convictions by checking a box
on employment applications. Additionally, she asked whether
that disclosure was required under existing state law.
MS. MEADE said she was not aware of any state law that required
the disclosure of criminal history on job applications; however,
she indicated that some applications may include that question.
She noted that the recent court decision to remove certain cases
from Court View should not change a person's answer on the job
application, as their criminal history was not being altered.
She added, "It still happened from the court's point of view."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether employers could ask
applicants to disclose their criminal history without violating
anyone's rights.
MS. MEADE answered, "That's my understanding but I'm not exactly
that type of lawyer."
2:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to verify that the rate of dismissals
was significantly higher than acquittals in criminal cases.
MS. MEADE answered affirmatively.
2:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that the court system
was taking it upon itself to make a legislative decision
regarding the sealing of records [from Court View]. She asked
whether that was fair.
MS. MEADE explained that the Alaska Court System had authority
over Court View, much like the governor had authority over
what's displayed on the Office of the Governor's website. She
emphasized the public version of Court View was in the purview
of the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to clarify the difference between
Court View and accessing court records from the courthouse. She
asked what would happen if the court system decided to dispose
of Court View entirely and whether that would affect the
public's access to courthouse records.
MS. MEADE conveyed that the Alaska Supreme Court had the
authority to dispose of Court View; however, such a scenario was
extremely unlikely, as the court system wanted to maintain a
system of transparency for the public. She emphasized that the
court system adhered to the principle of democracy and practiced
an open-door policy in all cases.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD recalled that people did not have access
to courthouses during the pandemic. She maintained her belief
that the court system was making decisions that were beyond its
scope.
MS. MEADE acknowledged that there was a short period of time
during the COVID-19 pandemic that people were not allowed in the
courthouse lobbies; however, during that time, requests for
criminal records were being responded to via phone. To further
illustrate the court system's desire to keep the public
informed, she recalled the effort to stream trials during the
pandemic.
2:47:29 PM
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the nuances between the Alaska Court
Rules decision and the proposed legislation.
MS. MEADE indicated that Section 4, lines 5-14 on page 3 of HB
28, was aligned with the court's decision to remove from Court
View the conduct that was legalized by voters eight years ago.
She noted that to be applicable, the offender must be over 21
and must have been in possession of less than 1 ounce of
marijuana; further, the possession charge must not be
accompanied by any other convictions in that case. She pointed
out that Section 4, subsection (b), was already an existing
practice; therefore, she believed that the language was
unnecessary. She further noted that per the court decision, the
cases were being removed retroactively.
2:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the 2021 rule change went
through the rules committee process.
MS. MEADE explained that administrative rules, like the one in
question, did not have a rules committee. Rules committee, she
explained, was preserved for substantive areas, such as criminal
rules, civil rules, appellate rules, child in need of aide
rules, and probate rules.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the authority to approve
administrative rule change belonged to the Alaska Supreme Court.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the Alaska Court Rules were available
online and whether an updated version could be provided to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MS. MEADE acquiesced. She noted that the Alaska Court Rules
were also available online via the Alaska Court System's
website.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the DPS was impacted by the court rule
change.
2:53:30 PM
LISA PURINTON, Bureau Chief, Division of Statewide Services,
DPS, said the court rule wouldn't impact the state's criminal
history repository.
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Purinton to speak to the DPS fiscal note.
MS. PURINTON stated that the fiscal note from DPS cited
programming costs associated with sealing records in the state
repository.
2:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the court rule change
had a fiscal impact on the department.
MS. PURINTON said the court rule had no impact on the release of
information. She explained that the rule change affected the
release of records on Court View; however, the information was
still available in the state repository and would still be
disseminated upon request, as HB 28 was not in effect.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed confusion and inquired about
the cost associated with the court rule change.
MS. PURINTON reiterated that the court rule was limited to the
information available on the court's website, Court View, adding
that it had zero impact on the state's official criminal history
repository. She reiterated that until there was a statutory law
that prevented the dissemination of criminal convictions for
marijuana possession under 1 ounce, per AS 11.71.060, the
repository would still provide those records upon request. She
noted that should HB 28 pass, a one-time cost for programming
changes would be required, as referenced in the fiscal note, to
seal the necessary records.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON said he did not understand the answer.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to Section 3, on page 2, line 27
of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, in response to Representative C.
Johnson, explained that there were two different databases:
Court View, under the purview of the court system, and the
state's repository, which was regulated via state statute.
2:59:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the bill would be held over.
3:00:51 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 28 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Support Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/23/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - AMIA Support for HB 28 - 2.9.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Alaska Dept. of Health Drug Facts (07-25-22).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 28 - Sponsor Statement (02-28-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Controlled Substances Reference Chart 3.1.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |