Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/19/2018 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB127 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2018
9:05 a.m.
9:05:55 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Mia Costello, Sponsor; Joshua Walton, Staff,
Senator Mia Costello; Dean Williams, Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Representative Justin Parish;
Representative Lora Reinbold; Nancy Meade, General Counsel,
Alaska Court System; Representative Charisse Millett;
Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency;
Representative Saddler; Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General,
Department of Law; John Skidmore, Director, Criminal
Division, Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Aaron Lautaret, President, Building Owners and Managers,
Anchorage; Walt Monegan, Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 127 CRIMINAL LAW;PAROLE;PROBATION;SENTENCING
SB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to victims
of criminal offenses; relating to probation; relating
to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit
for time spent toward service of a sentence of
imprisonment; relating to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board; relating to permanent fund
dividends; relating to electronic monitoring; relating
to penalties for violating municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the duties of the Department
of Health and Social Services; relating to civil in
rem forfeiture actions; providing for an effective
date by repealing sec. 193, ch. 36, SLA 2016, sec. 79,
ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017, sec. 81, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017, and
sec. 83, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an
effective date."
9:07:56 AM
SENATOR MIA COSTELLO, SPONSOR, introduced herself. She
thanked the committee for hearing the bill. She stated that
Alaskans were speaking out on crime. She felt that the
committee was taking the issue seriously by taking a day to
hear the bill. She explained the legislation. She shared
personal stories. She shared a story of Kimberly. She
remarked that she was a cosponsor of the legislation that
she is looking to amend the legislation knows as the
criminal prosecution reform bill from the previous
Legislature known as SB 91.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there were multiple
changes that had already replaced different portions of
statutes in response to community outcry about the passage
of criminal justice reform package known as SB 91. She
wanted to draw attention to any issues that had already
been addressed in statute or other legislation.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the sectional analysis
would reference SB 91 or a brand new bill with different
ideas on each section.
9:15:06 AM
JOSHUA WALTON, STAFF, SENATOR MIA COSTELLO, replied that
the Sectional Analysis was for SB 127. He remarked that the
concept of SB 127 would return to the status quo ante
before SB 91 was passed into law.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that the bill would undo fixes
that were put in place by SB 91.
Mr. Walton agreed.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there would be
reasonings for how returning to before SB 91 would reduce
crime.
Co-Chair MacKinnon replied that the structure would be
discussed.
9:18:22 AM
Mr. Walton discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: deletes language allowing restrictions on
purchasing alcoholic beverages as a condition of
probation or parole "for any other crime."
Sections 2-3: changes references to AS 11.71.021 and
11.71.030.
Sections 4-11: removes inflation adjustment language
in theft crimes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the thought behind the
repeal would be that it was creating too high a barrier, so
the prosecution was not happening, because the felony was
increasing. Mr. Walton replied that as the threshold was
adjusted for inflation, it would take a higher bar to clear
to a felony theft. He stated that the justification for
most of the sections was that Section 91 was passed as an
omnibus legislation, so the challenge was addressing every
issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that she had respect for
Senator Costello and all the people who had contacted the
offices to look at the issue from a holistic perspective.
She sensed that there was not support for a total repeal.
She remarked that there was already an effort to replace
some problems in SB 91.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether it was understood how
the sections would interact with one another. Mr. Walton
replied that he could not speak to how the sections
interact with one another. He stressed that it was a
challenge to anticipate how a multitude of changes would
interact with each other. The intent of the bill was to
return to a time when the system was understood and to
limit the unintended consequences.
9:25:30 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 12: adds a reference to AS 11.46.40(a)(4) or
prior convictions.
Section 13: removes inflation adjustment language in
vehicle theft crime.
Section 14: amends arson in the third degree statute
to change "public" to "state or municipal" land and
removes the element of the crime if a person
intentionally damages a motor vehicle by starting a
fire or causing an explosion while a vehicle is on
private property.
Section 15: changes the crime of disregard of a
highway obstruction from a violation to a class B
misdemeanor.
Sections 16-21: removes inflation adjustment language
in criminal mischief and other crimes.
Section 24: amends violation of condition of release
to make the crime either a class A or B misdemeanor.
Section 25: adds language that a person convicted of
disorderly conduct shall receive a sentence of not
more than 10 days imprisonment.
Section 26: makes promoting exhibition of fighting
animals a class B misdemeanor for the second offense
instead of a violation.
Sections 27-28: makes obstruction of highways a class
B misdemeanor.
Section 29: removes language from sex trafficking in
the first degree that requires inducing another person
to engage in prostitution.
Section 30: requires intent to promote prostitution
for sex trafficking in the third degree.
Section 31: deletes language requiring a person to
receive compensation for prostitution services
rendered by another in order to commit sex trafficking
in the fourth degree.
Section 32: makes gambling a class B misdemeanor for
the second and subsequent offenses.
Section 33: creates the crime of misconduct involving
a controlled substance in the second degree, which
punishes crime involving methamphetamines and
precursors of methamphetamines.
Section 34: changes second degree misconduct involving
a controlled substance to third degree. Adds a
manufacturing and delivery crime for schedule IIA or
IIIA controlled substances.
Section 35: makes third degree punishable as a class B
felony.
Section 36: changes third degree misconduct involving
a controlled substance to fourth degree. Adds various
possession crimes.
9:31:19 AM
Mr. Walton continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis:
Section 37: makes fourth degree punishable as a class
C felony.
Mr. Walton stated that the bill drafter was available for
questions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 34, and wondered
whether the crime had been decreased. She asked whether a
second degree carry harsher penalties than a third degree
crime. She stated that it could be discussed later.
Senator Micciche stated that there were several instances
where there was a "softening" of the sentencing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that it was a conversation
about a general repeal, so the general public had an
opportunity to participate in the discussion. She remarked
that there should be an examination of how the penalties
interacted with the current law, to note that the previous
law was not necessarily appropriate.
9:35:06 AM
Senator von Imhof noted that there was a year after the
passage of SB 91 to identify which areas would be repealed,
and SB 54 "really toughened up crime in many areas." She
felt that repealing all of SB 91 would return to more
lenient conditions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the issue of a class C felony
would be discussed at a later date.
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 38: changes fourth degree misconduct involving
a controlled substance to fifth degree. Adds various
possession crimes.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered what that section would address,
and asked whether it was actually a class C felony. Mr.
Walton replied a higher level crime was inserted, so
misconduct involving a controlled substance moved all the
other felonies down. He stressed that there was not a
desire to decrease the crimes for those felonies.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered whether it was a felony. Mr.
Walton responded that misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fourth degree was currently not a felony,
but the change would move it from a misdemeanor to a class
C felony.
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 38: changes fourth degree misconduct involving
a controlled substance to fifth degree. Adds various
possession crimes.
Section 39: changes fifth degree misconduct involving
controlled substances to sixth degree.
Section 40: updates a reference to AS 11. 71.050.
9:40:38 AM
Senator Micciche shared that he had cosponsored SB 91,
because it removed obstacles that were in place for those
who wanted to find success in life. He also felt that the
lower level drug crimes did not make sense. He stressed
that bad people should be in prison with violent criminals.
He wondered whether there was research around the section
related to the lower level drug crimes. He asked whether
they should be in jail. He remarked that SB 54 pushed those
offenders toward treatment. Senator Costello replied that
the bill was to gain the public trust again. She stated
that the public had not been heard.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there would be public
testimony on the bill.
9:46:45 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 41: requires a person arrested to be taken
before a judge or magistrate within 48 hours and
removes language relating to pretrial services
officers.
Section 42: removes class C felonies from the list of
crimes that an officer may issue a citation for
instead of arresting.
Section 43: removes violation of conditions of release
and failure to appear from the crimes where the
presumption is arrest as opposed to citation.
Section 44: requires the time specified in the notice
to appear to be at least five days after issuance of a
citation.
Section 45: allows a person charged with a felony to
be detained for up to 48 hours to allow the prosecutor
to demonstrate release would not ensure the appearance
of a person or protect the victim, other persons, or
the community.
Section 46: deletes language that requires a judicial
officer to revise conditions of release that have
prevented a defendant from being released.
Section 47: states that "new information" for a bail
hearing does not include a person's inability to post
bail and deletes language that allows only one bail
review hearing solely for inability to pay.
Section 48: deletes language referring to a pretrial
services officer.
Section 49: reverts AS 12.30.011, regarding bail
procedures, to how it read prior to passage of ch. 36,
SLA 2016.
Sections 50-51: removes references to pretrial
services.
Section 52: for a person charged with manufacture of
methamphetamines, if the person has previously been
convicted of a similar crime, the judicial officer
shall require posting of a minimum of $250,000 cash
bond before the person may be released.
Section 53: removes a reference to pretrial
supervision under AS 33.07. Removes other conditions
related to appointment of a third-party custodian.
Section 54: prevents a person from being appointed a
third-party custodian if the person may be called as a
witness in the prosecution.
Section 55: removes a reference to technical
violations of probation.
9:51:22 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 56: provides credit towards a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent on electronic monitoring
only as provided in AS 12.55.027.
Section 57: repeals and reenacts AS 12.55.027(b) to
set out the requirements for a defendant to get credit
for time spent in a treatment facility.
Section 58: repeals and reenacts AS 12.55.027(c)
relating to requirements for a treatment facility in
order for a defendant to get credit for time spent in
that facility credited against a sentence of
imprisonment.
Section 59: removes references to AS 12.55.110 in AS
12.55.051(a).
Section 60: removes a reference to suspended entry of
judgment.
Section 61: provides that community work in lieu of a
fine is to be paid at $3 per hour instead of the
state's minimum wage.
Section 62: amends AS 12.55.090(b) to allow a court to
revoke or modify a condition of probation, or change
the period of probation, but removes the ability of
the court to terminate probation and discharge the
defendant from probation.
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 63: sets the maximum period of probation for a
felony sex offense at 25 years, and 10 years for any
other offense.
Section 64: removes limitations on the type of
proceeding where a defendant and prosecutor can agree
to a reduction of the period of probation.
Section 65: raises the presumptive sentence ranges for
class A felonies.
Section 66: raises the presumptive sentence ranges for
class B felonies.
Section 67: changes the presumptive sentence ranges
for class C felonies.
9:55:59 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop surmised that he would be penalized for
trespassing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the section number that was
discussed currently. Mr. Walton replied that he was on
Section 68. He continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 68: adds language to AS 12.55.125(q) stating
that a defendant sentenced under AS 12.55.125(i)
cannot have the period of probation set out in this
section suspended or reduced.
Section 69: sets the punishment for a class A
misdemeanor of up to one year.
Section 70: sets the punishment for a class B
misdemeanor of up to 90 days.
Section 71: adds new language that a person may not
receive a sentence of imprisonment or suspended
imprisonment for possession of marijuana in violation
of AS 11.71.060 if the possession was for personal use
in the defendant's residence and the defendant has no
previous marijuana possession convictions.
Section 72: requires a prosecutor to confer with a
victim of a crime involving domestic violence, as
opposed to a victim of any crime, before entering into
a plea agreement.
Section 73: removes language that prevents an employer
from penalizing a victim of a crime if the victim
reports an offense or participates in the
investigation of an offense. Adds a definition for
"penalize."
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the section was an old
or new definition. Mr. Walton replied that it was an old
definition prior to SB 91.
Senator Micciche stressed that there were so many sections
that reduced what could be very effective. He explained
that there was a requirement to confer with the victim of
any crime before a plea agreement. He noted the problems
with a "wholesale repeal."
10:01:22 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the meeting may go longer
than normal to fully discuss the legislation.
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 74: updates a reference to AS 11.66.130(a).
Section 75: allows a person to be held for up to 48
hours following an arrest before being taken before a
judge or magistrate.
Section 76: removes physician assistant or advanced
nurse practitioner from the list of options for the
physician seat on the violent crimes compensation
board.
Section 77: updates a reference to AS 11.66.130(a).
Section 78: removes language requiring a person to
surrender a license if the person has been ordered to
refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages as a
condition of probation or parole for any crime. The
section now applies to conviction under AS 28.35.030
or AS 28.35.032, or a similar municipal ordinance.
Sections 79-80: makes driving with license canceled,
suspended, or revoked a class A misdemeanor and sets
out the sentence for committing the crime.
Section 81: removes language that allows a court to
reduce a person's fine or license revocation based on
compliance with a treatment plan.
Section 82: makes changes to where imprisonment can be
served under AS 28.35.010(k).
Adds community residential center as a place where
imprisonment can be spent. Removes language requiring
imprisonment to be spent at a private residence if
electronic monitoring is not available.
Section 83: removes language that requires regulations
to include the cost associated with electronic
monitoring.
Section 84: removes language relating to restoration
of a license for a person with limited license
privileges under AS 28.15.201(g).
Section 85: makes changes to where imprisonment can be
served under AS 28.35.032(o).
Adds community residential center as a place where
imprisonment can be spent. Removes language requiring
imprisonment to be spent at a private residence if
electronic monitoring is not available.
Sections 86-87: removes a reference to AS
29.25.070(g), which is repealed in sec. 123.
10:06:01 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 88: removes references to the administrative
sanctions and incentives program for probation
officers. Removes language requiring a probation
officer to recommend early termination from probation.
Section 89: removes a reference to special medical
parole. Previously, a prisoner who is not eligible for
special medical parole was to be released on
discretionary parole after a certain period of time.
Section 90: removes a requirement that the parole
board consider suitability for discretionary parole at
least 30 days before the prisoner's first date of
eligibility.
Section 91: Removes language requiring a person to be
released on discretionary parole if the prisoner is at
least 60 years old, has served at least 10 years, and
has not been convicted of an unclassified or sexual
felony.
Section 92: expands the list of crimes that are
eligible for release on discretionary parole.
Section 93: removes language that limits discretionary
parole only to those convicted of an unclassified
felony.
Section 94: removes a reference to pre-parole reports.
Section 95: authorizes the parole board, if the board
denies discretionary parole, to make a prisoner
ineligible for further consideration of discretionary
parole or require additional time be served before the
prisoner can be considered for discretionary parole.
Section 96: removes a reference to a parole plan.
Removes prisoner information that was prevented from
being shared with the victim of a crime.
Senator von Imhof stressed that repealing the sections
would result in victims losing the ability to allow victims
to request that they confer with prosecutors concerning a
proposed plea agreement; allowing sex assault victims to be
notified of impending parole board hearings to review or
consider prisoners' parole; victims may no longer request a
copy of the defendant's parole plan; victims would not
longer be notified of parolee discharge; and the court did
not need to provide victims information about potential
release of the defendant. She felt that repealing those
items would deny so many rights and provisions to victims.
She felt it would be a travesty.
10:10:15 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 97: removes a reference to AS 33.16.090, so
that the parole board does not have to notify a victim
if a prisoner is released under AS 33.16.090.
Section 98: removes victims of sexual assault from the
people required to be informed by the board in advance
of a hearing considering discretionary parole.
Section 99: repeals and reenacts AS 33.16.130,
relating to applications for discretionary parole.
Section 100: removes a reference to AS
33.30.011(a)(10), which is repealed in sec. 108.
Section 101: removes various duties from the
commissioner of corrections, including establishing an
administrative sanctions and incentives program for
parolees.
Section 102: increases the period of time required to
be served on parole before unconditional discharge
from one year to two years.
Section 103: requires a person to serve at least two
years on mandatory parole before unconditional
discharge.
Section 104: removes a reference to technical
violations of parole.
Section 105: removes a reference to preliminary parole
hearings.
Section 106: removes language requiring tolling of the
period of probation for a person who has absconded and
provides that the parole board cannot extent the
period of parole beyond a person's original maximum
release date.
Senator Micciche felt that there would be an opportunity to
address the good things in the bill. He stressed that there
may not be support for some of the sections in the bill
that would be problematic for victims.
10:14:03 AM
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 107: provides that a prisoner may not be
awarded a good time deduction for any time spent in a
treatment program, in a private residence, or while
under electronic monitoring.
Section 108: removes duties from the commissioner of
corrections, including requirements of a written case
plan for prisoners, establishing a reentry program for
prisoners, and establishing minimum standards for
electronic monitoring.
Vice-Chair Bishop felt that Section 107 was a good
reflection Senator Micciche's concerns.
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 109: removes a requirement that the
commissioner of corrections notify the victim if the
offender is discharged from parole under AS 33.16.
Section 110: removes a reference to private electronic
monitoring contractors.
Section 111: removes certain requirements and
standards for correctional restitution centers.
Section 112: updates a reference to the misconduct
involving a controlled substance statutes in light of
the changes in secs. 33 -39.
Section 113: updates a reference to the sex
trafficking in the third degree statute in light of
the changes in sec. 30.
Section 114: removes a requirement that the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission make annual
recommendations to the governor and legislature on how
savings from the criminal justice reforms should be
reinvested to reduce recidivism.
Section 115: removes certain requirements from the
annual report filed by the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission.
Section 116: sunsets the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission on June 30, 2018.
Section 117: updates references to the misconduct
involving a controlled substance statutes in light of
the changes in secs. 33 -39.
Section 118: changes the types of crimes that can be
referred to the alcohol safety action program.
Section 119: makes changes related to the alcohol
substance abuse monitoring program and removes the
requirement that the department of corrections
contract for the program.
Section 120: changes the recidivism reduction program
to only apply to transitional re-entry programs.
Section 121: changes the requirements of transitional
re-entry programs.
Section 122: amends the repeal date for AS 22.20.210
to June 30, 2018. AS 22.20.210 is a statute requiring
the judicial council to provide staff and
administrative support to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission.
Section 123: repeals various statutes.
Section 124: repeals a court rule change from ch. 36,
SLA 2016. Repeals conditional effect sections from ch.
1, 4SSLA 2017.
Section 125: provides the applicability provisions for
the bill.
Section 126: repeals effective date provisions from
ch. 36, SLA 2016 and ch. l, 4SSLA 2017.
Section 127: provides for an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried any closing thoughts to the
portion of the conversation. Senator Costello replied that
she was extremely thankful for examining the important
issue to her constituents.
10:20:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that SB 91 passed the legislature
because there was a problem. She stated that the next step
in the meeting's conversation would be to address the
problem within SB 91. She stressed that there were many
people who felt that there was more to be done to address
safety in Alaskans' homes.
Senator Costello noted that work had been done with
drafters to replace bills. She shared that she was open to
introduction of the legislation about victims' rights. She
hoped that the bill would begin a conversation.
Senator von Imhof noted that the sponsor statement said
that there should be a continued thoughtful, focused
dialog. She interpreted "focused dialog" was not a broad
repeal. She read it as a more intricate dialog around the
issue and current bills. She stressed that the dialog had
been ongoing for three years, because there were current
bills that dealt with specific aspects of crime.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether Senator Costello would
like to respond. Senator Costello replied in the negative.
10:24:23 AM
Senator Micciche understood and appreciated the efforts
behind the bill.
Senator Costello thanked Senator Micciche.
Senator Olson applauded the effort. He disagreed that there
would be a "right" move, but felt that there were steps
taken to protect society. He remarked that his constituents
would sometimes leave the house armed, because there was no
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) in his district.
Senator Costello replied that she was listening to her
constituents' concerns.
10:29:09 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the legislators were
elected to represent the public. She remarked that there
was a foundation that the majority of the legislature
supported. She thought that there were many things in SB 91
that had been subsequently corrected. She noted that there
was a survey posted online.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was a 187 page document
from change.org (copy on file). She stated that there were
predominantly Alaskan signatures and some commenters from
outside of Alaska. She wanted to know what was asked in
that document.
Mr. Walton did not have the precise wording of the petition
in front of him, but had seen the change.org petition. He
stated that the wording straightforwardly asked for the
repeal of SB 91.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested Mr. Walton to provide the
exact wording that accompanied petition, and whether there
was an underlying document explaining SB 91.
Mr. Walton replied that he did not believe that there was
an underlying document. He agreed to provide further
information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon was curious about the percentage of
Alaskans versus out-of-state residents that signed the
petition.
10:34:28 AM
AARON LAUTARET, PRESIDENT, BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. He stated that his members had experienced multiple
break-ins and vandalisms.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was an issue of
the arraignment tool. Mr. Lautaret observed that the
perpetrators were all release with bail under $500. He felt
that the lesser punishments resulted in higher repeat of
crimes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the judge was using the
assessment tool within SB 91. Mr. Lautaret replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the bail amount was too
small. Mr. Lautaret replied in the affirmative. He felt
that the bail would allow the criminals to recommit crimes.
10:39:45 AM
Senator Micciche shared that the Kenai had experienced an
uptick in crime due to the increase in opioid usage. He
remarked that the increase was substantial that what
occurred in the early 2000s. He wondered whether there was
a frustration with repeat offenders previously to SB 91.
Mr. Lautaret replied that the uptick had coincided with the
opioid problem. He stressed that there was a violent crime
every night in Anchorage.
Senator Micciche shared that Kenai did not have a high
violent crime rate, but had high property crime. He
wondered whether there should be an adequate analysis of
the issues. Mr. Lautaret agreed. He did not want to take
away victims' rights.
Senator von Imhof thanked the testifier for focusing on the
arraignment issue.
10:45:05 AM
AT EASE
10:45:48 AM
RECONVENED
10:46:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there would be discussions
with various representatives from various departments. She
stressed that the focus was on public safety.
Senator Micciche recognized that the Kenai soccer team was
in the audience.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the underlying conversation
about SB 91, and any changes in the legislation to alter
the foundation.
10:48:46 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
discussed the Department of Corrections (DOC) perspective
on the legislation. He remarked that there was an opioid
crisis in the state. He stressed that there was a major
issue with drugs.
10:53:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained the definition of
"recidivism."
Commissioner Williams stressed that the most important
piece of the reform effort was in the Pretrial Enforcement
Division. He stated that there was approximately 70 people
on staff for the division. He shared that people had the
right to bail in the country since the formation of the
constitution. He stated that the department had a 37
percent failure rate of people charged with a crime and
committing a new crime before their first case was
resolved. He stressed that the Pretrial Enforcement was
specifically tasked to address that issue. He stated that
hired officers supervised those folks and approximately
1100 people who were under current supervision; and 320 who
were on tense supervision. Those people had never been
supervised before the change.
11:00:41 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that the implementation had failed
for criminal justice reform. She wondered when there was
roll out in the bill. She queried the supervision piece
happening. She felt that people could adequately defend
themselves. She specifically queried the supervisory piece.
Commissioner Williams replied that it was enacted January
1, 2018. He stated that the development took time, because
training was required, and lead time was required. He
stated that the assessment piece was the most misunderstood
piece in the entire effort. He stated that the risk
assessment tool could help a judge make a decision at the
time of arraignment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there was feedback that it
was not a tool, but a mandate to the courts. She wanted
clarification about why there was a belief that the courts
interpreted the tool as a mandate.
11:05:00 AM
Senator von Imhof commented that some people were
considering the scoring system as a "score and release."
She felt that the low and medium, from the public's
perspective, was too generous. She queried more information
on the scoring system, and whether it was a tool or a
mandate. Commissioner Williams responded that there was an
unexpected opening about what would be fixed in the data,
and stressed that there were issues that should be
addressed.
Senator von Imhof noted that SB 91 and subsequent fixes
gave hard prison time for violating conditions of release.
She wanted to understand the pretrial and arraignment. She
understood that there may be a misalignment of sentencing.
She remarked that there may be a nuance related to someone
who might have petty offenses of $1000, and continual
property crime behavior. Commissioner Williams replied that
the Department of Law (LAW) or Alaska Court System (COURT)
might be better equipped to answer the question. He
furthered that the assessment scoring looked at different
factors in a criminal history.
11:12:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the efforts to address a 65
percent recidivism rate, and how it compared on a national
level. Commissioner Williams replied that Alaska was worse
than some states and approximately the same as others. He
felt that the statistics were difficult to evaluate,
because Alaska was a unified state. The recidivism rates
were counted the same between someone with a short sentence
and long sentence.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried closing comments on a repeal of
SB 91. Commissioner Williams stressed that it was a
difficult issue, and he wanted to make the right decisions.
He felt that changing midstream would be difficult for
Department of Corrections (DOC). He understood that there
were nuances within the bill, but he wanted to improve
public safety.
11:18:28 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that there were certain times when the risk assessment
score provided that the individual must mandatorily be
released on their own in their own community. She remarked
that the judge can release people with certain conditions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the certain charges that would
allow for the release. She understood that there was a cost
associated and a right to bail. Ms. Meade replied that
Section 59 of SB 91 rewrote the bail statute. The courts
would get the two scores. She stated that most use a matrix
of the prose, which was a chart of low, moderate, and high
risk on one side and the crime the person was being charged
on the top of the chart. She stated that it would be
determined what decision making authority or provision that
the judge must apply. She explained that there were certain
crimes that had no presumption that the person should be
released on their own, such as the most serious crimes. She
stated that the lower risk had a presumption that the
person should be released. That presumption could be
overcome if the judge makes a finding based on clear and
convincing evidence that something more was needed in
monetary bail to detain the person; protect the safety of
community; and ensure that the person would appear in the
court.
Senator Stevens wondered whether the tool was considered a
rule. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative, because the
court must look at those scores.
11:25:44 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for a copy of Ms. Meade's prepared
notes. Ms. Meade shared that the notes were prepared for
the judges and were considered attorney-client privileged.
She, however, agreed to provide to the committee. She
stressed that it was her interpretation of the statute.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the tool was working.
Ms. Meade replied that COURT did not take a position on
policy issues. She remarked that there should be an
examination of what was meant by "working."
Senator von Imhof felt that the lens and impetus was about
whether it was working to protect Alaskans from crime. She
stressed that crime could be defined as assault, burglary,
property crime, etc. She understood that it might be too
early to evaluate its effectiveness. She remarked that the
previous 12 to 18 months showed that crime had increased.
She hoped that COURT as examining whether that assessment
tool was working properly. Ms. Meade replied that the tool
was only used for just under three months. The Court System
was not in a position to amend the tool, other than apply
the bail statute and use the scores that were provided by
the pretrial enforcement.
11:30:34 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was a current
bill to address the repeat offender portion of the
assessment tool. Ms. Meade replied that the only bill that
she was aware of that would affect the tool was alluded to
earlier, which stated that if an individual had out-of-
state criminal history then they would not qualify for
release.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled that there was an issue on
catch and release for property crime. She stated that there
was an accumulation to assess a different kind of penalty.
She thought that state statute had been changed to address
that issue, so when people were released and reoffending.
She wondered why those two offenses were not combined
within the assessment tool. Ms. Meade replied that SB 54
changed what SB 91 had done with the very low level thefts,
or items under $250. Those low level thefts, under SB 91,
did not have a chance for active jail time. She stated that
the thefts had probation and suspended time that could be
imposed. She explained that SB 54 allowed for active jail
time for those level thefts.
11:34:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there had been a
recommendation for a bail schedule change. She felt that
there was convoluted conversation about the SB 91 repeal
effort. She wondered what occurred with the implementation
of the bail schedule change. She also asked whether there
was a change after the initial implementation, because it
intersected with criminal justice reform. She noted that
the reason that an assessment tool was examined was due to
subjectivity. She remarked that judges were expected to be
fair and distribute the law in a just and fair manner. She
stressed that the assessment tool was created as a "yard
stick" for a judge to create a fair playing field. She
remarked that there was testimony by the sponsor of SB 91
that was supported by various organizations. It was noted
that there was a higher proportion of minorities that were
staying in the pretrial component and arraignment section.
Ms. Meade replied that with respect to the bail schedule,
it should not be confused with the bail statute. The COURT
had a bail schedule for decades, since the 1960s. The bail
schedule was a document that allows release or assigns a
certain dollar amount to certain offenses for some
circumstances. She stressed that it only applied to
misdemeanors, and never felonies. She announced that it
would not never apply for domestic violence crimes. She
explained that a person with certain offenses could be
immediately released immediately if someone pays the bail.
She stressed that if law enforcement or judge feels that
there should be a deviation from the bail schedule. She
stated that the judges did a statewide bail schedule at the
same time as SB 91, and certain things were deemed
inappropriate such as a high blood alcohol content. She
stated that SB 54 added a provision for DOC tests everybody
that would be released under the bail schedule to ensure
that the blood alcohol content was below 0.08 percent. She
remarked that she had not heard any issues with the bail
schedule in the recent months. She stressed that there
would be a reaction and adjust to law enforcement and
enhance public safety.
11:40:11 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted a testimony from someone that
considered the $500 as too low a bail amount. She remarked
that some minority populations might be held longer,
because of a financial reason versus a risk reason. Ms.
Meade replied that the issue of the dollar amount of bail
was an important issue for judges and public safety. She
agreed that judges could use discretion to set a bail that
they believe was appropriate for that individual. She
stated that one of the drivers for pretrial reform was a
sense that money and the inability to pay was keeping
people inappropriately.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there would be a break to
prepare for the public hearing in the afternoon.
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared that law
enforcement's function was to enforce the laws that were
mandated by the state. He stated that there was some
resistance by a number of law enforcement after the passage
of SB 91. He remarked that the vast majority had understood
the reason behind the changes. He stressed that there was
more of a process than a project. He felt that a massive
overhaul would result in some underestimations.
11:45:47 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there were families who were
victimized by individuals who disregarded their property
and livelihoods. She wondered whether a repeal of SB 91
would improve public safety. Commissioner Monegan responded
that there would probably be no difference, because the
individuals who currently commit the crimes were driven by
their addictions primarily. He felt that they needed to
address the addiction.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the vacancy rate in the
department. Commissioner Monegan responded that it was
slightly over 10 percent, with 45 vacancies in the State
Troopers. He shared that there was work to fill those
positions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the time of the next academy to
address the vacancies. Commissioner Monegan replied that
there was one that could be in the fall with 20
participants. The following spring would see a slightly
higher number.
11:49:17 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop appreciated the comments on recruitment
and retention. He assumed that there was a multiplier in
the recruitment and academy process for those that do not
complete the job within the first year, so there could be a
fully staffed department.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that there was a request for
additional public defenders, but asked that the
conversation occur at a different time. She requested
comments on public safety.
QUINLAN STEINER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
shared that his observations were mostly anecdotal. He
remarked that there were some predicted impacts in terms of
shifting the focus from incarceration as a remedy to
support and treatment to address the underlying issue that
drive individuals to come in contact with the criminal
justice system. He noted that guaranteed incentives drove
people to complete their rehabilitation. He felt that the
package of reforms was supportive to drive rehabilitation.
He stressed that it began with a release decision. He
remarked that bail needed to be put into context. He shared
that a judge did not make a decision to release or not
release that person, because it was unconstitutional. The
judge must set conditions of bail. He shared that one of
the conditions could be to pay a bond. He remarked that
paying a bond could result in a release. He shared that an
unsecured bond was as effective at getting people not to
commit a crime in the future and to comply with terms of
their release and appear. He remarked that the past system
was very much about poverty. He stated that there were
currently more options and some restrictions.
11:56:18 AM
Senator von Imhof remarked that the increase in crime was
largely associated with opioid use. She wondered how the
increase in detox beds would intersect with the bail
conditions. Mr. Steiner replied that he could not confirm
the added capacity. He stated that the money had been
allocated for that effort. He stated that the availability
was key to helping someone succeed.
Senator von Imhof wondered why rehab was not offered in
jail. Mr. Steiner replied that there should be treatment
available to people at every stage. He shared that
incarceration was not appropriate for everyone.
12:01:00 PM
Senator Micciche wondered how different the public defender
job was from prosecution. Mr. Steiner replied that the
state made an allegation. He stated that his job was to
review and investigate that case to check the voracity of
the statements and allegations.
Senator Micciche felt that defense and prosecution viewed
the rights of crime victims differently. He wondered
whether eliminating conditions of release "let down"
victims, because they might feel like they was not
reasonable protection. Mr. Steiner replied that the bail
system had more options than have ever been available,
including more potential restrictions and direct
supervision. He shared that all of the conditions could be
applied to anyone. He stressed that there could not be a
required monetary bail and a third party custodian, because
those things were keeping poverty stricken people in jail.
12:06:47 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether there should be an
examination of the felony permanent fund dividend (PFD)
policy. He wanted to give an incentive to those that commit
a felony that living crime free would allow for a PFD. Mr.
Steiner replied that nondiscretionary programs were highly
effective. He stated that making benefits at the
discretionary decision of someone else would be less
effective. He felt that it was in line with that principle.
Senator Stevens remarked that DOC had made attempts to
supervise and follow up, but there was an implication that
it did not work well. Mr. Steiner replied that it worked
for some people. He stated that too much supervision could
be counterproductive for low-risk individuals. He stated
that conditions and supervisions for higher or moderate
risk individuals could be effective.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the intent of the meeting
was to understand the basics of the bill.
12:11:32 PM
JAHNA LINDEMUTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
stated that SB 91 was not perfect, but a full repeal was
not warranted. She felt that the approach in SB 127 was ill
advised. She remarked that LAW was continuing to monitor
and evaluate the impacts of the criminal justice laws. She
stated that LAW would bring forward any changes that were
needed, which was the impetus behind SB 54 and SB 55.
12:17:02 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she was the former executive
director of Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), and
prosecution percentages had not adjusted much when
discussing the issues.
Attorney General Lindemuth stressed that she was the most
concerned with the rise in crime. She felt that, along with
the fiscal crisis, it was a high concern in the state. She
stated that she had spent more than half of her time on
criminal justice.
Senator Micciche shared that there were discussions with
law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, defenders, and
community people. He stressed that there were people who
were "fed up" with the increase in crime. He wondered what
was done to catalog the changes in SB 91, the changes that
occurred since its passage, and an ongoing plan on a better
system. Attorney General Lindemuth replied that all the
changes that LAW identified had already be presented to the
legislature. She stressed that it was an ongoing process.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was a very low
number of sexual assault criminals that were actually
prosecuted.
12:23:22 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, spoke to the impacts of the department. He stated that
the impacts were threefold. He shared that the pretrial
enforcement division currently had over 1000 that were
currently supervised by DOC. He stated that SB 127 had an
immediate effective date, which would cause how those 1000
cases should be altered. He noted that SB 91 was a sweeping
reform effort that was phased in over three years. He
remarked that the reason for the three years was because it
took time to train the judges and practitioners. It also
took time to determine how those new laws would be
interpreted and impact things. He stressed that making
those changes took time to adjust. He felt that the
immediate effective date would be extremely problematic.
SB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
12:27:33 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 12:27 p.m.