Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/22/2023 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Court Rules and Grand Jury Overview | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2023
1:48 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA COURT RULES AND GRAND JURY OVERVIEW
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"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
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
SENATE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/23 (S) JUD, FIN
03/22/23 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
Alaska Court Rules and Grand Jury Overview.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 64 and responded to questions
about the Alaska Rules and Grand Jury Overview.
SANDY SNODGRASS, Chief Executive Officer
AK Fentanyl Response Project
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 64.
KAREN MALCOLM-SMITH, Founder
The David Dylan Foundation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 64.
STACY EISERT, Representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 64.
JULIE BOUCHARD, Representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 64.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:48:38 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:48 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kaufman, Tobin, Kiehl and Chair Claman.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Court Rules and Grand Jury Overview
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Court Rules and Grand Jury Overview
1:49:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of the Alaska Court
Rules and Grand Jury Overview.
1:49:48 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, provided a summary of the grand
jury process and functions. She planned to speak about a recent
court rule change related to grand jury functions. She offered
to answer committee member questions related to the grand jury
process.
1:50:26 PM
MS. MEADE informed the committee that a grand jury was comprised
of 12-18 citizens empowered by law to consider evidence
presented by a prosecutor. The grand jury decides whether to
issue a true bill of indictment or a no true bill, when the
evidence presented is not substantial enough to charge the
defendant. She explained that the grand jury was a legal
proceeding used to ensure that the state has probable cause to
believe that a crime was committed by the defendant. She
remarked that a grand jury serves for an established time and
hears felony charges only. The grand jury process continues
until the prosecutor concludes the case presentations.
MS. MEADE explained that the grand jury presents a list of
indictments and decisions following the prosecutors
presentation. A judge then accepts the grand jurys list and
recommendations. A grand jury might hear multiple cases per
sitting. She added that the grand jury proceedings are private.
The secrecy of the proceedings protects the target, protects the
grand jurors, and prevents the target from interfering in the
proceedings. The secrecy also allows witnesses to provide full
and frank disclosure of the facts without fear.
MS. MEADE stated that a grand jury proceeding houses 12-18
jurors: the prosecutor presenting the evidence, witnesses called
by the prosecutor, and a court clerk recording the hearing.
Witnesses are not allowed to bring an attorney. The evidence is
presented by the prosecutor alone and the defense is unable to
rebut the evidence. The grand jury proceeding is a preliminary
step to ensure that the state has probable cause to continue a
felony case.
1:53:58 PM
MS. MEADE explained that the Alaska Constitution, Article 1,
Section 8 states that the power of grand juries to investigate
and provide recommendations concerning the public welfare or
safety should never be suspended. This power led to the recent
court rule changes. She remarked that the constitutional right
was exercised rarely in the past. She cited the history of grand
jury investigations in 1985 related to Governor Sheffield and
irregularities found with awarding a contract. She furthered
that an investigative grand jury was convened by the attorney
general resulting in a report recommending impeachment
proceedings against Governor Sheffield.
MS. MEADE continued that the next investigative grand jury was
summoned in 1990 when the attorney general submitted a case
concerning a teacher in the Anchorage School District who was
allegedly having inappropriate relationships with students. The
police department was involved in the investigation. She
recalled that litigation termed the OLeary case alleged that
the power of the grand jury to investigate should be completely
unfettered. The court disagreed with the analysis and
recommended continued constraints.
1:56:47 PM
MS. MEADE elaborated that the next grand jury investigation in
Alaska occurred in 2015. She mentioned that a legislator wished
to have a grand jury assess the Office of Childrens Services
(OCS) for perceived irregularities. The request was brought to
the attorney generals office and presented to an investigative
grand jury. The final report concluded that the issue was better
addressed by the Office of the Ombudsman within the legislative
branch.
MS. MEADE continued to provide a history of investigative grand
juries in Alaska. She noted that in 2022, there were three
different requests brought to the courts attention by citizens
requesting an investigative grand jury. She explained that the
court system lacked adequate procedures to honor the requests
consistently across the districts. The three different requests
came to the attention of three different judges in three
different courts. The issue came to the attention of the Alaska
Supreme Court, which has the constitutional power to make rules
of practice and procedure.
MS. MEADE discussed the Alaska Supreme Court rules of court
including criminal, minor offense, civil and probate rules. She
reminded the committee that Article 4, Section 15 states that
the Alaska Supreme Court shall adopt these rules. Before 2022,
concerned citizens approached the attorney generals office to
request an investigative grand jury. She stated that the Alaska
Supreme Court determined that it required recommendations to
approach the issue and a group was commissioned to develop the
recommendations. She added that the recommendations were
considered by the Alaska Supreme Court, which led to the
adoption of change to Criminal Rules 6 and 6.1. She stated that
Criminal Rule 6 relates to indictments in a criminal case
through the grand jury process. The rule addresses issues such
as how a grand jury is summoned, how a foreperson is chosen, and
where they will meet. In addition, the court adopted explicit
changes related to summoning an investigative grand jury.
2:00:14 PM
MS. MEADE referred to "In the Supreme Court of the State of
Alaska Order No. 1993 (copy on file). She pointed out changes
on page 2 to Criminal Rule 6.1. The Alaska Supreme Court
provided rules about public welfare and safety matters that lead
to a grand jury investigation. She added that Subsection (b) on
Page 4 addresses a grand juror requesting an investigation
related to public welfare and safety. She cited a statute
stating that a seated grand juror can bring up issues to fellow
grand jurors related to investigations.
2:01:19 PM
MS. MEADE moved to Page 5 of the order related to citizens
requesting an investigative grand jury. She noted no gap in past
procedures because citizens routinely approached the district
attorney for investigative grand juries. To provide consistency
and clarity, the Alaska Supreme Court developed the updated
court rules. The new rules allow a citizen to direct their
concern to the attorney general's office where the issue is
reviewed for a grand jury proceeding and possibly an
investigation.
MS. MEADE noted criticism and comments by people seeking a
citizen-led grand jury. The concerned citizens fear that the new
court rule suspends or curbs constitutional rights. She
clarified that the court rule effectuates constitutional and
statutory rights by clearly ensuring that people understand how
to proceed when seeking an investigative grand jury. She added
that the prosecutor brings criminal cases to the grand jury. The
court rule ensures that the grand jury considers admissible
evidence and is led formally down a path toward an
investigation.
2:03:17 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked about the reason for the differing
opinions related to summoning a grand jury investigation.
MS. MEADE replied that three people requested investigative
grand juries in three different areas of the state. One person
requested that the grand jury investigate problems with the
judicial system. She mentioned an allegation of corruption
permeating different legal entities. She sensed that the person
found it improper for the Alaska Supreme Court to adopt a rule
that would guide a person to the attorney generals office. She
noted that the court rule has provisions for a conflict of
interest with the attorney generals office. She stated that the
rule ensures that the attorney general can appoint a neutral
prosecutor to lead the investigation. She added that a person on
the grand jury who believed there was a continued conflict of
interest without appropriate prosecution, can bring the issue to
the attention of the judge.
2:06:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the process used when the Alaska
Supreme Court adopts new criminal rules.
MS. MEADE replied that the Alaska Supreme Court receives
recommendations for rule changes from a rules committee. Alaska
has eight standing rules committees with members appointed by
the Alaska Supreme Court. She explained that the Criminal Rules
Committee and Civil Rules Committee consider proposals and make
recommendations to the Alaska Supreme Court. She added that the
Alaska Supreme Court also has the authority, when necessary, to
adopt rules in another manner. After adopting the rule changes,
the court may ask the rules committees for additional analysis.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked how the Criminal Rules Committee is
populated.
MS. MEADE responded that the Criminal Rules Committee is
comprised of thirteen members, including five judges, and four
people with a prosecutorial outlook. She furthered that four
defense attorneys, two private defense lawyers, and an attorney
from the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) complete the committee
makeup. She noted that the Alaska Supreme Court appoints a
balanced committee to allow a full airing of the issues.
2:09:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for additional information about an
investigative grand jury.
MS. MEADE suggested that the query was best suited for the
Department of Law. She noted that the rule change leaves the
conduct of the grand jury to the attorney generals office. She
noted that some aspects of grand jury selection are left in the
hands of the Department of Law. She admitted her lack of
knowledge about the investigative grand jury selection.
2:11:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL reported that some Alaska delegates struggled with
understanding the differences between traditional and
investigative grand juries. He requested further help
understanding how investigations are summoned by a person
sitting on a grand jury.
2:12:31 PM
MS. MEADE noted that in 1959, grand juries would meet annually.
She stated that a person can currently waive a grand jury, but
few do. She referred to the Alaska Supreme Court order, 1993,
beginning on page 4, new rule 6.1(b), grand juror request to
investigate a manner of public welfare or safety. She quoted
rule 6/1(b)(1), An individual grand juror may propose to the
prosecuting attorney that the grand jury investigate a matter
concerning the public welfare or safety.
2:15:06 PM
MS. MEADE explained that shortly after the effective date of the
new court rule, the Alaska Supreme Court reconsidered one
change. She noted that the original change stated that the same
grand jury who investigates should not thereafter be the same
individuals who consider the possibility of an indictment. Upon
reconsideration, the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed minutes from
the Alaska Constitutional Convention leading them to remove the
restriction. The prosecutor is no longer prohibited from both
investigating and indicting with the same sets of facts. The
change she referred to was titled the Alaska Supreme Court
Order 2000, effective February 6, 2023 (copy on file).
CHAIR CLAMAN welcomed Mr. Skidmore to contribute to the overview
of grand juries and court rules.
2:17:29 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, echoed and agreed with Ms. Meades comments. He offered
to answer the query about the differences between investigative
and other sitting grand juries. He noted that the primary
function of the grand jury is to screen cases and decide whether
a person ought to be tried for a felony charge. An investigative
grand jury can address criminal matters and is similar to a
federal grand jury. The grand jury process can be used as an
investigative function in cases where it is cumbersome for
police to investigate a case. A grand jury subpoena need not be
based on probable cause, while a police department seeking
records, must have a search warrant to obtain them.
MR. SKIDMORE continued that grand juries serve subpoena
authority, involve citizen participation, and grant immunity to
certain witnesses via closed proceedings. He highlighted the
grand jurys secrecy requirements. Investigative grand juries
are generally considered for racketeering or drug operation
cases. He stated that the grand jury process can be powerful,
however, investigative grand juries typically address public
welfare or safety as opposed to criminal matters. Grand juries
were traditionally convened once a year to consider state issues
of citizen concern.
2:21:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN understood that federal investigative grand juries
outnumber state investigative grand juries. He asked if the
federal power for investigative grand juries was different than
the states power.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the state of Alaska can conduct an
investigatory grand jury to charge a crime, but cases of that
nature are rare. He noted the different types of conduct
assessed by a state versus a federal grand jury. He explained
that the Alaska State Ombudsman was enacted by law in 1975. The
ombudsman office now receives complaints related to the state
government. He shared the ombudsman statute, AS 24.55.010-340
that enables the investigation of issues and when appropriate,
refers cases to a grand jury. He added that the ombudsman
adopted some of the prior grand jury investigations related to
public welfare or safety within the state. He stated an example
of a recent grand jury investigation involving OCS that was
resolved with a referral to the ombudsmans office. He noted
that the rule change was designed for citizens requesting a
grand jury proceeding. He clarified that a neutral prosecutor
might be a member of the Department of Law through the Office of
Special Prosecutions. He acknowledged that some cases are best
served by an attorney appointed from outside of the department.
2:25:20 PM
MR. SKIDMORE offered to respond to further questions about the
grand jury process or new court rules.
CHAIR CLAMAN allowed time for committee member questions.
2:26:08 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked Mr. Skidmore about a comment originating
from the Alaska Supreme Court stating that decisions about what
to present to the grand jury rest with the executive branch.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the grand jury is the function of two
branches of government that must cooperate, the judicial and
executive. The judicial branch is the entity that can summon a
grand jury and review decisions to determine whether they follow
the law. The presentations of evidence by the grand jury occur
via the executive branch. He believed that the Alaska Supreme
Court adopted the rule to indicate that the executive branch
would review the issue first to determine whether the public
welfare or safety threshold is met. The executive branch intends
to bring any case that meets the threshold of public welfare or
safety to a grand jury. He added that grand juries are
recognized to be costly and cumbersome but can offer citizens
protection.
SENATOR KIEHL grappled with the requirement that the executive
branch serves as a precursor for invoking a grand jury.
2:30:19 PM
MS. MEADE explained that all grand jury proceedings require a
legal advisor (prosecuting attorney) in the room. The commentary
related to the executive branch is pinned on statute AS
12.40.070, which states that the prosecutor must bring
everything to a grand jury. She cited Criminal Rule 6(i) The
prosecuting attorney shall prepare all indictments and
presentments to the grand jury, shall attend its sittings to
advise it of its duty and to examine witnesses in its
proceedings.
2:31:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL discussed the Alaska Constitutional Convention
delegates concern with runaway grand juries. He appreciated the
description of the rules of evidence. He struggled with the
constitutional provision stating that the power of the grand
jury should never be suspended.
2:32:57 PM
MS. MEADE agreed that the Alaska Constitution is worded uniquely
to clarify the rights of the citizens. The statement that the
power of the grand jury will not be suspended is further
evidence that citizens are not afforded a direct right to
confront a grand jury, but grand juries themselves can determine
whether to move forward with an investigation. She mentioned
runaway grand juries in other jurisdictions that did not utilize
investigative grand juries. She noted that the court rule change
does not suspend the power of the grand jury.
2:34:50 PM
MR. SKIDMORE agreed with Ms. Meade's comments. He understood
that the power should never be taken from the grand jury. He
added that the court rules indicate how the power of the grand
jury should be exercised. He noted that the amendments create a
clear path for grand jury functions. He agreed that most other
rights articulated in the Constitutional Convention minutes were
those of the citizens. A grand jury is not an individual
citizens right, but a power of the body itself. He highlighted
a significant case law addressing individuals who approached
grand juries in an attempt to influence the operation.
2:36:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that the language shall not be
suspended held for the recent Covid-19 pandemic closures.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the grand jury did continue to
function during the pandemic.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the Alaskans reacting negatively to the
court rule are concerned that the gatekeeper rule has become a
bar to entry. The gatekeeper has become a suspension of the
grand jurys power of inviting new cases.
2:37:51 PM
SB 64-CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.
2:38:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to homicide resulting from conduct involving
controlled substances; relating to the computation of good time;
and providing for an effective date."
2:39:26 PM
MR. SKIDMORE introduced the bill. He remarked that the annual
number of deaths from drug overdose increased substantially in
Alaska. The increase in deaths requires a response and SB 64
provides one piece of the proposed response. He explained that
the provision in question relates to the crime of manslaughter.
If a person knowingly manufactures or delivers a controlled
substance in violation of other state laws and a person dies as
the direct result of the ingestion of that controlled substance,
the crime is classified as manslaughter, a Class A felony
offense. Manslaughter has a presumptive range of four-to-seven
years for a first-time offender and a maximum of twenty years.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the bill would lift the provision of
manslaughter and move it to murder in the second degree. The
bill lifts the provision because of the dramatic increase in
drug overdose deaths. He noted that the increase in deaths is
driven by fentanyl and methamphetamine poisoning.
2:41:54 PM
MR. SKIDMORE pointed to a document in committee members' packets
titled, Alaska Department of Health 2021 Drug Overdose
Mortality Update." He moved to the graph on page 5, "Overdose
Death Rates by Drug (2012-2021)." He quoted the language on page
6, of the drugs evaluated in the report, the largest increases
were seen in overdose deaths involving fentanyl (a synthetic
opioid) and methamphetamine (a psychostimulant), increasing 150
percent and 148 percent, respectively. He added that the
ability to prosecute overdose death cases is limited. The court
must prove that the drugs supplied were a direct cause of death
for the person involved. The drugs must be traced back to the
individual who provided them. The bill attempts to authorize a
greater penalty associated with engaging in the conduct.
2:44:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to invited testimony.
2:45:03 PM
SANDY SNODGRASS, CEO, AK Fentanyl Response Project, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 64. She reported that her
son, Robert Bruce Snodgrass died from fentanyl poisoning on
October 21, 2021, in Anchorage. Since viewing the toxicology
report following her sons death, she works in various
capacities to create a response to the fentanyl epidemic. She
utilizes prevention and outreach efforts and states that SB 64
addresses public safety. She expressed hope that the legislature
will consider moving the bill along to protect Alaska's
children. She opined that SB 64 could be used by prosecutors to
negotiate with lower-level drug dealers. She seeks the
prosecution of drug trafficking organizations that are targeting
Alaskans because of the inflated prices of illicit drugs in
rural areas. She mentioned a newer drug known as xylazine that
is gaining momentum as another dangerous substance and is often
paired with fentanyl.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed sorrow for the death of Ms. Snodgrasss
son.
2:49:01 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN referred to an earlier conversation with Ms.
Snodgrass where she compared drug overdose deaths to aircraft
crashes. He asked her to share the comparison with the other
committee members.
MS. SNODGRASS offered the estimate that 300 Americans die from
drug-related overdoses every day in the United States. She
pointed out that 300 people can travel on a jumbo jet therefore
the daily deaths were analogous to a daily plane crash. She
presumed that the country would cease all flying operations if a
jet crashed, killing 300 people every day. She acknowledged the
lack of response to the increase in drug overdose deaths and
fentanyl poisoning.
SENATOR KAUFMAN offered to connect Ms. Snodgrass with community
councils and other community meetings. He asked how the
legislature might otherwise signal the issue in Alaska.
MS. SNODGRASS reminded the committee about her grassroots
efforts through the AK Fentanyl Response Project, a community-
based organization used to educate Alaskans about fentanyl
poisoning. She noted that her organization works closely with
the Alaska Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to provide
Naloxone training and distribution. She provided an anecdote
about utilizing Naloxone to save a life in Washington DC.
2:53:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN appreciated having Naloxone available. He asked
about her priority of targeting larger drug trafficking
organizations versus street dealers. He wondered about the
distinction.
MS. SNODGRASS replied that the person who sold her son the drugs
that led to his death was likely a person with an addiction
disorder. She did not believe that prison was the appropriate
place for low-level drug dealers unless they have a long
criminal history and are felons. She stated that the person who
sold or shared drugs with her son was likely a friend who needed
help with addiction rather than a prison sentence. She hoped
that large drug distribution organizations would be disabled and
that people who profit from suffering would go to prison.
2:54:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony.
KAREN MALCOLM-SMITH, Founder, the David Dylan Foundation
testified that she is a member of the Alaska Mental Health
Advisory Board, but she clarified that her statement does not
reflect the opinions or recommendations of that board. She
informed the committee that her 25-year-old son, Dylan passed
away in 2017 from a drug overdose death. She started the David
Dylan Foundation to provide education about fentanyl poisoning.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his condolences for Ms. Malcolm-Smiths
loss.
3:01:52 PM
STACY EISERT, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 64 and HB 66. She stated that she lost her son to
fentanyl poisoning. On March 10, 2021, her son ingested drugs
laced with fentanyl. She spoke about the tragic loss of her son.
She perceived that her sons death was an act of homicide by
people who knowingly delivered a controlled substance. She
wondered how many more lives would be ruined by the blatant acts
of homicide. She advocated for consequences for the actions of
trafficking dangerous substances.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his condolences for Ms. Eiserts loss.
3:05:45 PM
JULIE BOUCHARD, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 64. She reported that her 21-year-old son was
killed by a lethal dose of fentanyl. She held the person who
sold her son drugs responsible for his death. She noted that an
open trooper investigation was ongoing, which prevented her from
sharing too many details. She reported knowing five other
Alaskan mothers who lost children to fentanyl poisoning. She
remarked about the 58 percent increase in fentanyl poisoning
deaths in Alaska. She believed that a person found guilty of
selling fentanyl-laced products should be charged with second-
degree murder.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his condolences for Ms. Bouchards loss.
3:08:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony and held the bill for
further review.
3:09:35 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Order No. 1993 - Amending Criminal Rule 6 and Criminal Rule 6.1 concerning grand jury 12.1.2022.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Order No. 2000 - Amending the Criminal Rule 6.1 concerning grand jury 2.6.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 64 version A 2.8.2023.PDF |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Transmittal Letter version A 2.7.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Highlights version A 2.8.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sectional Analysis version A 2.8.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Additional Document - Alaska Department of Health Drug Overdose Mortality Update 2021 7.25.2022.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Additional Document - Controlled Substances Reference Chart 3.1.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.1.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.1.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 1.28.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note DFCS-JJ 1.30.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note DPS-ABI 1.24.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 1.4.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/22/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |