Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/16/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in
a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to
submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal
history background check, and relating to the use of criminal
justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE:LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/01 0365 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/01 0365 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/16/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide, provided information on
HB 132, which was sponsored by the House Judiciary Standing
Committee by request.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on HB 132.
LINDA KESTERSON, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 132.
ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 132.
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Street 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 132.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Representatives
Murkowski, Meyer, Kott, Rokeberg, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order. Representative Halcro joined the
meeting as it was in progress.
HB 132-LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING
Number 0060
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would take up HOUSE
BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to the possession or distribution
of alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor license
applicants to submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting
a criminal history background check, and relating to the use of
criminal justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; providing for a review of alcohol server education
courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the chair of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which
sponsored HB 132 by request, said the bill was requested by
three different groups: the Office of the Attorney General
brought the bootlegging provisions; the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC Board) brought the criminal justice
information records on fingerprinting; and the Cabaret Hotel &
Restaurant Retailers Association (CHARR) brought the techniques
in Alcohol Management (TAM) training [requirement] change from
[every] three years to [every] two years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was distressed with the proposed
fiscal notes and looked forward to testimony on them.
Number 0263
HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking as committee aide for the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, said there are four bootlegging
provisions in the bill. The first one reduces the amount of
alcohol by half that a person may possess in a restricted
community with the presumption that the person possesses the
alcohol with the intent to sell it.
MS. NOBREGA stated that the second provision reduced the amount
of alcohol by half that a package store may send to a person in
a calendar month in a community that has restricted the sale of
alcohol. The third provision changes the penalty for the
illegal sale or transportation of alcohol to a local option
community by reducing the amount of alcohol by half; [alcohol]
illegally sent to a community qualifies as a class C felony.
MS. NOBREGA explained that the fourth provision requires a
package store within 50 air miles of a local option community to
keep a record of each sale in excess of the amount of alcohol
that may be sent to an individual in a local option community in
a calendar month. And failure to keep these records is a
violation, she pointed out.
Number 0397
MS. NOBREGA referred to a map that her office brought to the
meeting to assist committee members. She explained that the map
shows what would be considered a 50-mile radius, showing which
communities are affected and the package stores that need to
keep records. She explained that a local option community has
quite a few options when restricting alcohol: a complete ban on
the sale of alcohol; a "community-license-only option"; a ban on
the sale and importation of alcohol; a ban on possession; and
the "package-store-license-only community."
Number 0490
MS. NOBREGA went on to explain the fingerprinting portion of the
bill. The bill requires a liquor-license applicant to submit
his or her fingerprints to the ABC Board for a national criminal
history background check. The board will be required to submit
fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety to obtain a
report of criminal justice information, and will allow the
department to submit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) for a national criminal check. The FBI
requires that the state mandate this in the statutes before
accepting fingerprints for a national background check.
MS. NOBREGA stated that the third section [of the bill] would
change the TAM educational course from [being required] every
three years to every two.
Number 0579
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, commented
that the provisions related to bootlegging were ideas adopted by
the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission ("C-JAC"), a
commission created in 1997 to study prison overcrowding. He
explained that one of the spin-offs from that has been [to look
at] alcohol abuse, which is the number-one social problem in
Alaska relating to prison crowding.
MR. GUANELI said C-JAC was composed of representatives from all
criminal justice agencies in the executive branch, the executive
director of the [Alaska] Judicial Council, members of the
judicial branch, and members from the legislative branch. Among
the issues that [C-JAC] came up with were the ones to address
issues involving bootlegging. Cutting the presumptive amounts
makes it easier to enforce laws involving liquor with the intent
to sell.
Number 0719
MR. GUANELI stated that keeping track of people who buy large
amounts of liquor in and around local option areas is a tool for
law enforcement to effectively enforce the laws. These are
modest changes to the bootlegging laws, he remarked, and this
alone would not be enough to address the problems involving
bootlegging. More enforcement resources are needed.
MR. GUANELI referred to the fiscal note and said it might have
been large in order to provide for enforcement resources;
however, the state was fortunate, within the last couple of
weeks, to be awarded a federal grant. The state troopers were
awarded $1.4 million to deal with bootlegging cases; some of
that money has been sub-granted to the Department of Law for
prosecutors. He said those additional resources will provide
for investigators and prosecutors, along with the new tools
provided in this bill to make some inroads regarding the
problems of bootlegging in rural Alaska.
Number 0835
MR. GUANELI said that he had a list of the [affected] package
stores, which was provided by the ABC Board; he made it
available to the committee. It appears that the largest cities
affected with package-store licensees are in Fairbanks, Cordova,
Valdez, and Sitka, he noted, because they are within 50 air
miles [of local option communities]. It is a tool for directing
enforcement efforts.
MR. GUANELI relayed that cracking down on bootlegging is
extraordinarily difficult. Bootleggers generally have a
clientele that they know; it's not like drug dealers who often
sell to anyone who comes up with enough money. Getting
undercover agents to go in and make purchases of bootleg liquor
is a difficult thing, but getting some sense of where large
purchases of alcohol are being made may help focus efforts.
These are small steps in the right direction, he remarked.
Number 0986
MR. GUANELI, responding to a question about record keeping for
package-store licensees within the 50-mile radius [of a local
option community], said [record keeping is only required] for
sales above 6 liters of distilled liquor, 12 liters of wine, or
6 gallons or more of malt beverages. These are the same
presumptive levels that apply in the other statutory changes,
where the law will presume, if one lives in an area where the
sale of alcohol has been banned and a person has that amount,
that there is intent to sell.
MR. GUANELI, responding to a question about how much those
liquor levels equate to, said about 10 six-packs [of beer] would
get a person close to the six-gallon limit, which is about two
and a half cases of beer.
MR. GUANELI said anything over that limit would be written down,
along with [the purchaser's] name and address. Anything
purchased two weeks before the Fourth of July would probably be
discounted, he added. He said patterns of purchases over time
would be looked at, and he surmised that "they" would be
focusing efforts on residents from rural villages who buy at
package stores and take it into the village.
Number 1192
MR. GUANELI explained that the real problem is not so much the
beer, but the distilled hard liquor. He said $75 a bottle is
not a high price to pay in a lot of villages, and in many
villages it is much higher than that. He said it doesn't take
long to make a good living when a person is buying a bottle of
booze for $7 to $10 [at a package store], and selling it for
$75.
MR. GUANELI referred to the report from C-JAC and said this was
one of many [proposed suggestions] made by the commission on a
variety of topics; these are the ones relating to bootlegging.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked for a list of the businesses that
will be impacted. He said perhaps CHARR would comment on this,
since he thought it would be putting a burden on businesses,
because additional records would have to be kept. He asked
about the origin of the 50-mile radius.
MR. GUANELI explained that the recommendation by C-JAC was for a
100-mile radius; however, in reviewing that and looking at the
map, it was determined that it would reduce the impact on
package stores by cutting it down to 50 miles, for those that
are fairly close to local option [communities]. He explained
that the federal money received for enforcement is not directly
tied to this, so if this bill doesn't pass, the federal money
will still be available.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he thought the fiscal notes [$112,800
from the Department of Corrections, and over $200,000 from the
Public Defender Agency,] were "steep," but he wondered if that
amount was [sufficient] because catching bootleggers out in
rural Alaska is difficult.
Number 1369
MR. GUANELI said from the public defender's standpoint, "they"
were probably reacting to the amount of money the Department of
Law has been sub-granted from [the Department of] Public Safety,
which is $500,000 this year. He said "our" intent is to put an
attorney, a paralegal, and a secretary in Bethel, where a large
amount of this activity occurs, and also to put an attorney and
perhaps a secretary in Anchorage because "we" believe that a lot
of the really large sales occur in Anchorage and then the
alcohol is shipped to rural Alaska on planes and through the
mail. There needs to be someone in Anchorage to work with
federal inspectors to get search warrants to search the mail.
He said there is cooperation with the federal government, but
someone is needed in Anchorage to do some of this work. He
thought the public defender was reacting to that [with the
fiscal note]. As a result of more state troopers, there are
going to be more cases and more deterrence, he remarked.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it is legal in Alaska to ship
alcoholic beverages to someone who has called the [order] in; he
said he was told that it couldn't be done.
MR. GUANELI replied that he thought it could be done unless the
person lives in a "dry" area. Responding to a question about
someone living in a "damp" community being restricted on how
much alcohol could be acquired from a package store, Mr. Guaneli
answered affirmatively. However, he deferred the question to
the ABC Board for specific enforcement [specifics] involving the
statutes and regulations.
Number 1610
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if that is indeed the case, couldn't
that person who is acquiring the shipment go to multiple package
stores and get the same thing? He said he would think that it
would be somewhat of an "administrative nightmare," and asked if
that wouldn't offer an opportunity for that person to go to
another person and ask him or her to purchase [alcohol on his or
her behalf]. He asked if there was a prohibition built into the
system today that wouldn't allow this.
MR. GUANELI commented that people would find ways around the
law. If someone wants to get a big "store" of liquor, and the
only way that it can be done is by going to multiple stores, it
could happen. He said [the purchaser] may even buy less than
the threshold amount so his or her name doesn't get written
down, but at least [the legislation] will make it more
difficult. It is a matter of drawing a line between someone
who, every once in a while, purchases that amount that will last
a fairly long time, versus those doing it on a regular basis.
Number 1803
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if [package-store owners] would keep a
running tally to track when someone exceeds the monthly limit,
which would then trigger a report.
MR. GUANELI referred to Section 2 of the bill, which limits the
amount that may be shipped. He said some sort of running tally
would be required, but deferred the question to the ABC
representatives. If there is a monthly [limit], then there has
to be some kind of record kept of how much is shipped to that
area in a month. He said under current law, there are some
records being kept, and this is simply an amendment to the
current law.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there could be some kind of
exception put into the statute that would allow for large
purchases of alcohol for special occasions.
Number 1969
MR. GUANELI replied that the crime is selling liquor or
possessing it with the intent to sell, but mere possession is
not a crime; in order to prove that crime, one of the ways is by
the amount of liquor in one's possession, giving rise to a
presumption that there is intent to sell. [Reference was made
to Section 1, AS 04.11.010(c).]
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, "So, in a damp community like Bethel,
I could fly back and forth from Anchorage and bring as much as I
want and warehouse it in my home for my own personal use, as
long as I didn't sell it."
MR. GUANELI said he believed that to be correct. He said it is
not a crime in Bethel to possess [alcohol]. When asked if any
presumption can be rebutted by the evidence, he responded that
presumptions in the law allow a jury to come to certain
conclusions, which can be rebutted. He used the example of
drunk driving. He said if a person has a blood-alcohol [level]
of .10 or above, that person is presumed to be under the
influence; however, the jury might disregard that based on other
evidence.
Number 2135
MR. GUANELI explained a case in which a person had around 100
gallons of hard liquor in a compartment on a boat coming up the
Yukon River. This person was prosecuted for possession with the
intent to sell; the amount in question, the 100 gallons, was so
much, and there was other evidence to indicate that sales were
involved. The defense was that the person was bringing the
alcohol for a wedding, however, and the person was let off.
That is the type of defense that is impossible for the state to
beat, he said. If there is any question, "we" don't even go
after cases like that. That is where law enforcement has to
focus investigative efforts on the sellers, the people making a
huge amount of money selling liquor in areas where it results in
death and destruction.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said there are several things in [the
bill] that concern him. He asked if it wouldn't be a "boon" to
someone who is 51 air miles out of a dry community, or a boon to
Anchorage. He said when he worked at Merrill Field, planes on
numerous occasions were being loaded with cases of vodka. If
this is just done with a 50-mile limit, the crime will move
around.
Number 2215
MR. GUANELI agreed that this could happen. The idea of writing
down sales within the 50-mile radius is to deter people from
buying large amounts of liquor in areas where it is a really
quick, easy trip to a dry community. People who buy large
amounts are forced into Anchorage, which from an investigative
standpoint may be preferable because there are more
investigative resources in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to keeping the records for a
year. He said it doesn't address what happens if the person
were to lose these records, and Section 3 looks "fairly onerous"
for legitimate businesses.
MR. GUANELI said he would be open to hearing comments from
people in the industry as to what this additional record keeping
would do to them; his sense is that keeping adequate records is
part of what one is used to doing. With these kinds of cases,
it has to be recognized that it is a serious problem with
serious consequences, and that some additional record-keeping
burden is not too much to ask for an industry that makes a large
amount of profit on a product that causes such havoc in certain
parts of the state.
Number 2343
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to the criminal justice
information records. He said it is a substantial process for
the people applying for a [liquor] license, and he asked why
"we" want to know all of that [information].
MR. GUANELI deferred the question to the ABC representative. In
general, he explained, fingerprints are required to get records
from across the nation, and without fingerprints "we" are
limited to records just in Alaska's criminal history record
system. If one is dealing with a licensee who may have had
problems out of state, one wouldn't know [without going through
this process]. As with a lot of programs in Alaska, there is a
trend to require fingerprints to check records from throughout
the country. He said he wasn't sure exactly what the concern
was.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, switching gears, asked if the postal inspector
has the needed [resources] to check and see if shipments are
going out to the dry or damp communities.
Number 2446
MR. GUANELI said he didn't know the answer. The specific topic
of the inspector general's role in stopping alcohol has been the
subject of a number of discussions within Alaska, and possibly
as far as Washington, D.C., through U.S. Senator Stevens'
office. There has been some concern that the process for
getting search warrants and federal cooperation was more
burdensome than it needed to be, he said, and there has been
some improvement in the cooperative efforts. He said he could
find out how well "they" are staffed.
TAPE 01-34, SIDE B
[A portion of the tape was inaudible.]
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said if he gets caught selling, he's
already violated the law regardless of what he has. Instead of
setting arbitrary limits, what about having some sort of
registration for a person receiving liquor through the mail -
providing a point of registration? He said to him it seems to
be a questionable effort that arbitrary limits are going to be
set and that there is this presumption when there are ways
around the limits. And, in some instances, there is a good
justification of why a person would have more than the limit
requires. He said he is looking for another way that this could
be enforced without getting people caught in some kind of
unnecessary trap.
Number 2370
MR. GUANELI responded that the idea mentioned of having a
central distribution site where liquor coming into the community
has to go first, and requiring a person to register to get it,
is [an idea] that has a lot of merit. It was considered by the
ABC Board as a possible regulation that might be adopted.
Number 2344
LINDA KESTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, said it
was adopted; however, no community has ever used it. She added
that it might have been used in Fort Yukon, but she deferred the
question to the director of the ABC Board.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if it was just an optional tool for
communities.
MS. KESTERSON replied that it is a regulation, not in statute.
Responding to a question about the existing statutes that
address provider liability for someone who provides [alcohol] to
someone living in a dry community, she said if there is a ban on
importation [in a community], a package store wouldn't be allow
to ship alcohol into that dry community. She further explained
that the package-store owner who sold in a wet community to
someone taking the [alcohol] into a dry community wouldn't have
liability. The liability would come in when there is a
shipment; however, coming into an area that has no restrictions
on sale, there is no liability on the owner of a package store
for what the purchaser does with that alcohol.
Number 2215
MS. KESTERSON said the limitations are for written orders or the
new provision that would be added by this bill if a package
store is within 50 air miles of a local option community; then
there would be the requirement of keeping track of those sales.
However, the liability of the package store [owner] would be the
failure to keep the record; the bootlegging [liability] would be
on the person actually selling [the alcohol].
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there is any additional liability
or responsibility that [the legislature] could [enact] to make
sure that not only [is the package-store owner] keeping track of
the records, but that the owner is also just as liable as the
person selling it. He said the enabler statute makes the
[enabler] liable to some degree, and he asked if there is
connection that could be made with the sellers of alcohol.
MS. KESTERSON responded that this bill doesn't provide for that,
and she deferred the question back to Mr. Guaneli.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarification that there are
prohibitions against mailing or selling [alcohol] to dry
communities.
Number 2146
MS. KESTERSON replied affirmatively, but said that is different.
She said there is an existing provision that requires keeping
track of written orders when one is shipping into a restricted
community, and there are penalties against the licensee for
violating that provision.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he agrees with the concept and intent
[of the legislation]. He asked: In addition to requiring those
package stores within a 50-mile radius of a dry or restricted
community to [keep records of alcohol purchases above the set
amount], could it be said that if a person comes into one of
those package stores and presents his or her state license, as
is required, and if this person has an address from one of these
[restricted] communities, [there could be] an automatic
notification system that would let [the community know that this
person purchased alcohol]?
Number 2013
MR. GUANELI replied that it is a record-keeping problem and
[package-store owners] are not really set up to do that; it
would require a person to look at everybody's driver's license
and ascertain where someone resides to make that type of
distinction.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the bill, page 2, Section 3,
already requires that [a package-store owner] check a
government-issued identification card ("ID") with a photograph;
then a person needs to keep a written record for a year.
Therefore, the bill already requires that a person note who is
buying it and where he or she is from.
MR. GUANELI responded that if a person buys less than the amount
set forth in the bill, then Section 3 dealing with record
keeping doesn't kick in.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO clarified that he was talking about those
people who buy over that amount.
Number 1947
MR. GUANELI stated that it puts more pressure on the package-
store owner to know what communities are restricted. He pointed
out that for written orders "we" have a list of people that
can't be sold to, those that have been convicted of bootlegging.
He said there are other means of having a "red flag" list of
notification too; however, he recognized that there could be
something along those lines.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked how many troopers would be needed to
do this properly.
Number 1865
MR. GUANELI responded that the federal grant that the state
troopers got is sufficient to provide five additional state
troopers and two lawyers, which will go along with the ones
already dedicated to alcohol interdictions. He said there are
three or four already doing it; there will be a fairly sizable
unit for the state troopers; however, it does have to deal with
cases all over the state, mostly Western and Northern Alaska.
The federal funding is only for a year, and "we" will continue
to go for this funding and try to get it every year; however,
there is no guarantee that this will be the case. All "we" know
for sure is that the money is available for this year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned because he didn't
realize that Fairbanks would be inside the "net." He asked if
Minto, which is a dry community, is connected by road to
Fairbanks.
Number 1770
ALIVA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), via teleconference, clarified
that Minto is connected to Fairbanks by road, and is within 50
air miles of the Fairbanks International Airport. He said there
is also a liquor store in Manley Hot Springs, which is close to
Minto, and that the community is an "all-option-ban-sales-
possession" village.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned about the statement
that it would be better if all of the major purchasing were
concentrated in the Anchorage wholesale or retail market,
because of the burden added to businesses. "We've" discussed
some of the problems that revolve around that, he remarked, and
said he has a little bit of a problem including Fairbanks in
this. He mentioned that there is a growing drug problem in
rural Alaska, and asked if this was discussed in C-JAC.
MR. GUANELI said it was not specifically considered. "We" are
finding that there is a bit of an increase of harder drugs in
rural Alaska, and efforts have been focused on the Anchorage
International Airport to stop it at the place where it is most
likely to come into Alaska, thereby preventing it from getting a
foothold elsewhere. He recognized it as a potential problem,
but said that getting a handle on alcohol is really the primary
consideration.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said it sounds as if this is really a pilot
project because the grant is just for one year, and funding for
continuation [is not assured]. With a different administration
coming on in two years, this may not even be a focus, he said,
and asked what would happen if the funding was not there after
the first year.
MR. GUANELI responded that the approach of this administration
has been to focus efforts on rural Alaska, to solve some of the
problems, with alcohol being a primary one. "We've" done our
best to apply for whatever non-state general funds possible, and
were successful in getting those. If this program works, "we"
would hope that further federal funding would be forthcoming.
He said he wasn't certain that it was completely accurate to
characterize it as a "pilot project."
Number 1453
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI explained that the committee has
focused exclusively on the bootlegging component of the bill.
The other two components will be considered on Thursday [March
22, 2001].
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA),
Department of Administration, via teleconference, offered
comments about the fiscal note that [the PDA] presented in the
bill. He said "we" thought about the increased bootlegging
effort early on, and just recently the Department of Law and
Public Safety got funding to work on this anti-bootlegging
effort. Most of these cases will be brought in state court in
rural locations, and funding and resources to respond to the law
enforcement efforts would be needed. A lot of these cases have
defense attorneys appointed by the court, and [the PDA] is
responsible for them.
Number 1329
MR. McCUNE said as far as the policy is concerned, there was a
complete and interesting discussion about the effects of
reducing the [alcohol] levels. One thing that "we" brought up
at the C-JAC meetings was that there may be some unintended
consequences. The decision to go wet, damp, or dry is a local
option decision made by the local community. [The public
defender] caseloads drop when communities decide to go damp or
dry. He said there would be concern about an unintended
consequence if the presumptive levels got too low. If someone
in Bethel is concerned about staying under those levels and may
make a trip to Anchorage once or twice a year, that person might
be tempted to reverse the damp local option and go to a wet
local option, which would end up causing quite a few more
problems.
Number 1231
MR. McCUNE referred back to the question about the legality of
shipping alcohol to a person in a local option community. He
said he thought it was illegal to mail, but not illegal to ship
though an airfreight service. He added that the point-of-
registration idea is in AS 04.11.491(f).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. McCune if he has a full-time
attorney, paralegal, and support [staff person], and what the
caseload is anticipated to be. He said he had a feeling that
the bill is being "loaded" for another person because the
caseload is already terrible.
MR. McCUNE said it is a valid criticism of the fiscal note, but
said "we" are most concerned with the impact of the increased
enforcement and funding that other agencies are going to have.
He said he hasn't tried to get an exact caseload, but remarked
that it is just the amount of work that (indisc.) $1.4 million
in increased enforcement efforts could end up costing "us." He
said the $209,000 [outlined in the fiscal note] is a little
conservative. He pointed out that it isn't to "load up" the
bill because [the PDA] is really strapped now; it is
anticipating the enforcement efforts that are going to be
affecting [the PDA].
Number 1092
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what an average caseload is now
for one of his attorneys.
MR. McCUNE said national standards are about 400 new
misdemeanors a year for a misdemeanor lawyer, and about 150
felonies per year. He said [the PDA] is way over that with
19,000 new cases per year, with about 68 lawyers.
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN commented that he agrees with Mr. Guaneli
that the steps that this bill takes are fairly modest to reduce
illegal alcohol possession and consumption in rural Alaska. It
is a complicated issue. Speaking from his Bush experience, he
said it is very easy to tell when a large shipment of alcohol
comes into one of these villages because for the next day or
two, the Village Public Safely Officer (VPSO) and the Alaska
State Troopers are inundated with calls, [ranging] from
domestic violence and suicide to missing persons, because the
alcohol came in and turned the village upside down.
Number 0973
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN explained that having a reporting
requirement in communities close to villages that have this kind
of option would be very helpful for law enforcement. [Law
enforcement would] be able to query those liquor stores after a
two- or three-day session when a village has received a large
shipment to find out who was buying it, and could focus efforts.
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN recounted a situation a couple of years ago
in Minto, where a large shipment of alcohol came in. Somehow, a
15-year-old child got a hold of alcohol and drank to excess,
crawled up underneath a house, and froze to death. He said it
is hard to determine who brought [the alcohol into the village],
but with the new requirement, [the DPS] will be able to do that
much more efficiently. He explained that bootleggers don't care
about the age or identity of the people they sell to; the only
thing that they care about is the money generated from the
sales.
Number 0863
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Lieutenant Dunnagan about the
federal grant and the added troopers. He asked for the number
of bootlegging cases prosecuted now, the conviction rate, and
that which is anticipated under the new grant and manpower.
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN responded that the number [prosecuted] in
Fairbanks in a given year is probably only ten bootlegging cases
that [the DPS] submits. He said he didn't have the statewide
number, but by adding five state troopers to that particular
enforcement area, there would be an increase in the number of
cases that [the DPS] would be able to put together, especially
if cooperative efforts were developing with federal postal
regulators and so forth. He said he would be happy to find and
provide that information to the committee prior to the next
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that all of the agencies
coordinate fiscal notes, since it appeared that they hadn't had
a chance to do that yet. He asked Mr. Guaneli to assist with
that.
MR. GUANELI said he would see what he could do.
[HB 132 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|