01/25/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Court System | |
| SB8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2019
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Grier Hopkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BEGICH
01/16/19 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
01/16/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/19 (S) JUD
01/25/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered an overview of the Alaska Court
System.
SENATOR TOM BEGICH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 8.
SYDNEY LIENEMANN, Ph.D., Staff
Senator Tom Begich
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 8 on behalf of the sponsor.
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Director
Partners Reentry Center (PRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:26 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Micciche, Kiehl, Reinbold, Shower and Chair
Hughes.
^Overview: Alaska Court System
Overview: Alaska Court System
1:34:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the Alaska Court System by Nancy Meade.
1:34:58 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System (ACS), offered to provide a brief summary of the
Alaska Court System describing the operations of the court
system and the services it provides. A specific budget overview
will be given later to the Senate Finance Committee by Deputy
Administrative Director Doug Wooliver, and she handles the ACS's
legislative bills before the legislature, she said. The court
system is the primary component of the judicial branch of
government, established by Article IV of the Alaska
Constitution, often referred to as the third branch of
government. The judicial branch includes two smaller components,
the Alaska Judicial Council and the Commission on Judicial
Conduct, which are not related to the ACS but impact the court
system. Article IV of the Alaska Constitution established the
courts as a unified court system, which means it has one
administrative office. Every court in Alaska reports to the
administrative office located in Anchorage, which has sway over
the entire state. Alaska does not have any municipal, borough,
or city courts. Thus, the administrative office in Anchorage
handles citations issued by the Kenai Peninsula Borough police
or Anchorage police departments. She paraphrased the ACS
mission, which is to provide an impartial forum for the just
resolution of disputes.
MS. MEADE said that people sometimes confuse the ACS with the
work of Department of Law's assistant attorneys general,
district attorneys, public defenders and Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA) of the [executive branch] under the governor, but
the ACS is separate. She works directly for the Alaska Supreme
Court and the ACS's administrative director, not the executive
branch. As a separate branch of government, the ACS works to
provide an impartial forum for dispute resolution. She respects
the separation of powers and does not opine on policy issues in
testimony or otherwise but allows the legislature to make
decisions that will be reflected in the statutes. Her job is to
help ensure that laws are as clear as possible to minimize
litigation and inform the legislature how the policy issues
might be applied or impact the criminal justice system, she
said. She clarified that she also does not opine on
constitutionality or whether a bill represents good or bad
policy, except in very rare circumstances, for example, if
something might impact the operation of the courts.
1:38:52 PM
MS. MEADE referred to a map in members' packets, "Alaska Court
Locations, FY 2018," that identifies the four judicial districts
in Alaska with the 40 court locations identified by "dots", with
superior and district courts indicated by a larger "dot." The
state owns 11 ACS buildings, including the Juneau court
building, yet 27 of 40 court sites are rented from
municipalities, organizations, or private parties. Turning to
the map, she pointed out the four judicial districts and
specifically the Fourth Judicial District to illustrate the
structure. She related that aside from the superior and district
courts located in Fairbanks and Bethel other locations are
variously staffed. This district has one circuit magistrate
judge who travels between Aniak, Delta Junction and Nenana,
while a local magistrate judge covers Hooper Bay and Emmonak,
and lower level magistrates and deputy magistrates handle some
proceedings. Each judicial district has one presiding judge with
jurisdiction over administrative matters for the specific
district.
She reported that the ACS has 747 employees, including 73 judges
and justices, down about 70 positions from three years ago, with
a budget of $108 million, largely consisting of general fund
dollars, representing 1.4 percent of the state's budget. The ACS
receives its funding from legislative appropriation and has a
tiny amount of grant funding, she said. Any money received by
the ACS is deposited to the state's general fund.
1:42:50 PM
MS. MEADE briefly reviewed the three levels of courts in the
system. She said the Alaska Supreme Court (ASC), the highest
court, consists of five justices, who elect a chief justice,
noting that the current chief justice is Joe Bolger. The Alaska
Constitution allows the chief justice to serve more than one
term but not two consecutive terms. The chief justice will
deliver the State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of
the legislature in early February. She described how the ASC
handles cases in the state, noting it primarily functions in
Anchorage but travels to Fairbanks and Juneau several times a
year to hear cases in the district in which the dispute arose.
The ASC also performs community outreach at one of the high
schools every year. Citizens have a right to appeal their cases
and the ASC oversees all court appeals. The ASC also takes
criminal cases by discretion. No witnesses appear before the ASC
since it is an appellate court. The court issues written
decisions after oral arguments, and these decisions become
common law, which is binding. The ASC can adopt court rules of
practice and procedure and administrative rules. She provided
types of procedures, including criminal rules of procedure and
civil rules of procedure.
MS. MEADE turned to the court of appeals, which consists of
three judges with jurisdiction only over criminal matters and
related matters such as juvenile delinquency or post-conviction
release cases. The Court of Appeals primarily handles sentencing
and merit appeals, she said.
MS. MEADE said the trial courts are divided into two types:
superior court and district court. The superior court is the
court of general jurisdiction and the court can handle any trial
issue that may arise, such as felonies, child in need of aid
(CINA), probate matters, and domestic relations, she said. The
district court can handle a subset of the cases, including
misdemeanors, civil cases up to a certain dollar amount and
domestic violence petitions.
1:47:37 PM
MS. MEADE noted that therapeutic courts are special-problem
courts operated in six locations in the state, including Juneau,
Anchorage, Kenai, Palmer, Fairbanks and Bethel. These courts
handle cases including driving while under the influence (DUI)
drug-related misdemeanors and felonies. Some locations in Alaska
also have a mental health court. She related that Anchorage has
a veterans' court and family courts. The goal of the therapeutic
court is to identify defendants whose involvement with the
criminal justice system stems from underlying problems of
addiction to alcohol or controlled substances or from mental
health disorders. The goal of the therapeutic court is to
address the underlying issues to stop the criminality and
recidivism. She reported that recidivism is about a third lower
rate for therapeutic court participants The therapeutic court
program is resource intensive and requires interagency
collaboration typically involving a judge, district attorney,
public defender or defense counsel, probation officer, and
social services providers from the ACS, the Department of Law
(DOL), Department of Administration (DOA), Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), and Department of Corrections (DOC),
who all work together to resolve an individual's issue. The
person must volunteer for the therapeutic court and must be
approved as an appropriate candidate, who typically will receive
a benefit, such as less jail time or fines.
MS. MEADE reviewed the various committees and groups in the
court system. The ACS relies on collaboration with other
agencies and groups, including the criminal justice working
group (CJWG) comprised of the chief justice and other high-level
agency criminal justice system staff. The CJWG's purpose is to
identify and resolve operational issues, hurdles and barriers in
an open environment. She pointed out that the ASC recently
created a guardianship committee to address issues for Alaska's
aging population, noting the increase in guardianship hearings.
The committee consists of judges, court staff, and the office of
public advocacy (OPA) staff who work to try to solve problems.
In addition, the federally-funded court improvement project
aimed at CINA cases involves public defenders and other staff
who work to address CINA matters. She reiterated that the ACS
works with many other committees and administration staff to
address issues related to the criminal justice system.
1:51:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that yesterday the criminal justice
commission (CJC) met and today the criminal justice working
group (CJWG) will meet. She asked for further clarification on
the two groups and how they correlate their work.
MS. MEADE answered that the criminal justice commission (CJC),
established in [Alaska] statute in 2016, sets out who serves on
the commission and their duties and tasks. Its purpose is to
study issues related to the criminal justice system and make
recommendations to the legislature on ways to address them. She
described the criminal justice working group (CJWG), which has
been ongoing for many years, as a group who primarily works on
operational issues rather than structural ones, for example, the
CJWG could assess how a pilot project in Juneau or Fairbanks is
being implemented.
1:53:13 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the CJC and CJWG are separate
entities.
MS. MEADE agreed that the two groups are separate; however, some
crossover between the two exists since some of the same people
serve on the CJC and the CJWG. For example, the chief justice,
attorney general, and some commissioners serve on both groups,
she said.
1:53:44 PM
MS. MEADE referred to the pie chart in members' packets titled,
"FY 18 Court Case Filings Statewide," that represent the ACS's
workload and case filings and what happens with them. She
referred to the top pie chart, which shows the district and
superior trial courts combined. She briefly reviewed the
workload by case type, noting that about 29 percent of cases are
civil cases, 23 percent are criminal cases, nearly 50 percent
are minor offenses, and 3 percent of the cases are children's
cases.
MS. MEADE turned to the superior court filings on the lower-left
pie chart. She reported the 2018 statistics, that 28 percent of
the case filings were probate cases, consisting of mental
commitment cases, guardianship and conservatorship cases. These
cases relate to people who are unable to take care of their own
affairs so the court must appoint someone to assist them. These
two pie charts also show the number of cases filed in those
areas; however, it does not reflect the amount of work involved
in individual cases. Probate cases often do not take as long to
process as felony cases, but these cases still represent 28
percent of the cases filed. The 7,186 felony cases represent 30
percent of the caseload and the court processed 5,000 petitions
to revoke probation (PTRP). The PTRPs are those individuals who
were placed on felony probation but were brought back before the
court for not complying with the conditions of probation. She
explained that merely looking at the figures does not provide a
complete picture, for example the PTRP individuals are entitled
to counsel so the proceedings can be time consuming.
1:57:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the 5,000 PTRP cases are included in
the pie chart listing 30 percent felonies.
MS. MEADE answered no, that they are not reflected in the pie
chart since these cases retain the original case number for the
underlying felony and are merely considered an extension.
She continued her overview. She said that domestic relations
cases comprised 18 percent of the superior court's caseload, and
these cases include divorce, child custody, and child support
cases. Domestic relations cases take considerable time to
complete since they are often not resolved until the child
reaches 18 years of age. She reported that the ACS also
processed 1,400 modifications to child support orders in FY 18.
1:58:23 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the 1,400 modifications were in
addition to the domestic relations cases.
MS. MEADE answered that is correct.
1:58:37 PM
MS. MEADE continued. In 2018, three percent of the cases filed
were CINA cases. She pointed out these cases take considerable
time and court effort to complete and may involve numerous
parties, including guardians, tribal representatives and
multiple counsel. Juvenile delinquency represented three percent
of the cases filed. She noted these cases are not prosecuted but
are adjudicated cases for delinquent minors and the division of
juvenile justice (DJJ) follows them. The superior court
processed 2,452 general civil cases or about 10 percent of its
caseload.
MS. MEADE said the 98,518 district court filings relate mostly
to citations for traffic or fish and game violations. These
minor offenses resolve quickly. In fact, about 70 percent are
filed electronically with the court. She noted the officers have
hand-held devices that automatically transmit citations. The
district court handled 21,232 misdemeanors, which are crimes
that are punishable by one year or less in jail; these cases are
often easily resolved by a plea bargain. She pointed out eight
percent are domestic violence cases, but these cases are civil
domestic violence protective order petitions and do not refer to
criminal cases. These cases are ones initiated by citizens who
request a protective order against a respondent. In these cases,
the district attorney or the DOL is not involved, she said. The
general civil cases represent 8 percent and small claims cases
represent six percent of the court's caseload.
2:01:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for the dollar cutoff for superior court
cases and district court cases.
MS. MEADE answered that cases with more than $100,000 in
controversy are handled by superior court, cases less than
$100,000 are referred to district court, and cases less than
$10,000 is the jurisdictional limit for small claims cases. She
said cases involving requests for equitable relief are referred
to superior court even if the dollar amount is low.
MS. MEADE discussed disposition of criminal cases. Of the 7,186
superior court cases filed last year, about 65 percent were
resolved with a guilty plea, or plea bargain, 32.5 percent were
dismissed, and 1-2 percent went to trial. In FY 18, the
superior court held 138 felony trials, she said.
2:03:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for a breakdown of reasons 32.5 percent of
cases were dismissed.
MS. MEADE replied that she did not have the specific statistics
but could provide it if needed. She stated that the prosecutors
dismiss the majority of the cases, although the court may
dismiss a few cases due to timing issues or on motions for
illegal search and seizure.
MS. MEADE turned to the district court and stated that less than
129 misdemeanor cases or one percent went to trial, 42 percent
were dismissed, and 56 percent were resolved by plea bargain.
She stated that plea bargains are dependent upon lots of
interrelated factors, including the DOL's priorities or funding.
2:05:30 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for clarification on class A and B
misdemeanors. She recalled that Senate Bill 91 reduced penalties
for class A misdemeanors significantly from 1 year to 30 days
and class B misdemeanor from 6 months to 10 days. She also
expressed concern over the high percentage of dismissals.
MS. MEADE responded that she could not speak to reasons
prosecutors dismiss cases since the charging decisions are
solely at the prosecutor's discretion. She reviewed the penalty
provisions for class A and B misdemeanors, noting the general
reductions for the maximum jail time imposed by Senate Bill 91.
Generally, class A misdemeanors are punishable by a maximum of
30 days in jail. However, AS 12.55.135(a) outlined some
exceptions, including increasing maximum penalties for assault
in the fourth degree and for class A misdemeanors related to
online sexual offenses that are punishable by up to one year in
jail. The person's second offense of a class A misdemeanor can
be punishable by up to one year in jail. She said class B
misdemeanors under AS 12.55.135(b) are punishable by a maximum
of 10 days in jail. She recalled prior to Senate Bill 91, the
penalty for class B misdemeanors was 90 days with some
exceptions for offenses that could result in longer jail time.
2:07:54 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for examples of class A and B
misdemeanors.
MS. MEADE deferred to the Department of Law for more precise
information but recalled that the most common class A
misdemeanor is assault in the fourth degree, which is typically
placing a person in fear of injury. She was unsure of the types
of crimes that fell into class B misdemeanors.
2:08:33 PM
CHAIR HUGHES noted that the DOL will testify later and can
answer specific questions.
MS. MEADE corrected the percentage for dispositions of
misdemeanors, stating 56 percent pled guilty, and 42 percent
[were dismissed] and a small percentage went to trial. In
response to Senator Micciche, she reported that 43 percent of
cases were dismissed.
2:09:18 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for the felony figures.
MS. MEADE reported the felony statistics, that 1-2 percent of
felony cases go to trial, 62.5 percent result in guilty pleas
and 32.5 percent of felony cases are dismissed. She clarified
that while the court collects statistics, it does not track
reasons for case dismissals.
She said that the court does not typically track trends;
however, she did review data from the last 10 years to report
today. The total number of superior court case filings in FY 18
at 24,048 represents the highest number ever seen. She offered
her belief that this figure is driven by the subset of felonies,
which also hit a record high in FY 18 at 7,186 filings. She
reported that previous felony filings were in the 6,000 range,
then jumped substantially in FY 17 to 6,200 cases. In FY 18,
felony cases increased by 500 cases more than in any other year.
She reported that the CINA cases experienced increases beginning
in FY 15, when cases jumped from 1,700 - 1,800 cases to 2,500.
She said CINA cases have held steady since FY 15. Delinquency
cases have gradually dropped every year for the last 10 years,
from 1,200 in FY 10 to 750 in FY 18. Domestic relations cases
have slowly decreased from 5,400 in the past ten years to 4,300
in FY 18. General civil cases have remained steady; however,
probate cases continue to grow, especially for conservatorships,
due to Alaska's aging population. She reported that currently
83,000 Alaskans are over the age of 65, up from 55,000 in 2010.
2:13:49 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether probate cases included wills and how
it compares to guardianships and conservatorships.
MS. MEADE agreed that the figures include probating wills, which
represents a small part of probate. She offered to provide the
committee with the exact numbers but pointed out that all the
figures are in the ACS's annual report available at
https://public.courts.alaska.gov/web/admin/docs/fy18.pdf.
2:14:24 PM
MS. MEADE reported the statistics for felonies, beginning with
the largest category for felonies: offenses against the person,
sometimes referred to as "11.41 crimes" which is the chapter and
title set out in statute. In FY 18, the state experienced the
highest numbers of cases of crimes against the person, 2,569,
which is up by 400 cases from the prior year. She pointed out
that these figures represent case filings for crimes against
persons, which include homicides, assaults, sexual assaults and
similar crimes. She has heard the criminal justice working group
(CJWG) and criminal justice commission (CJC) caution that these
figures should not be used as evidence of the crime rate because
the numbers only reflect cases filed with the court. The court
does not know anything about arrest rates or reports of crime.
She reported that property crimes were also the highest ever in
FY 18 at 2,508 and include theft, burglary, robbery, vehicle
theft, arson, criminal mischief and criminal trespass. She
pointed out that many cases have more than one charge, which
means the person being charged often broke more than one law.
The court categorizes crimes by the most severe level of crime,
she said.
2:16:22 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that property crimes seemed lower than she
thought. She recalled seeing vehicle thefts in Anchorage exceed
these figures.
MS. MEADE said she was unsure of the figures she was referring
to but explained that 2,508 represents the number of felony case
filings for stolen property with a value of $750 or greater. She
stated that vehicle thefts are felonies and would be included in
these figures.
2:17:13 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his belief that many vehicles are stolen
by the same people, which might explain the figures.
MS. MEADE suggested the Department of Law (DOL) could clarify
the figures on cases with multiple thefts.
She turned to the third category of felonies: felony drug
crimes. She reported that the ACS had the lowest number of drug
felonies filed in FY 17 and FY 18 at 330 cases, and 371 cases,
respectively. In FY 16, 1,000 felony drug cases were reported.
She characterized the trend for felony drug cases between FY 16
and FY 18 as a huge drop.
2:18:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the figures were due to changes in
the criminal charges such that simple possession no longer fell
under felony drug cases.
MS. MEADE responded that she hesitated to say why, but it could
well be the reason.
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that one could assume by these
figures that the drug problem is going away.
MS. MEADE turned to felony DUIs [driving while under the
influence], noting in FY 18, 276 cases were filed as compared to
577 cases in FY 10. She added that the first and second DUIs are
generally considered misdemeanors, with felony charges for the
third or subsequent charges. Although these charges have
fluctuated somewhat, she did not think it reflected the actual
DUIs occurring, but rather that cases are impacted by resources
and decisions of what charges to file. Other felony categories
were less common, such as offenses against public order, which
includes riots or gangs and number about 100 annually. She
reported that weapons charges are rising and the 240 cases [in
FY 18] was the highest ever, although due to the small number of
cases she was unsure if it was a statistically significant
increase.
2:20:28 PM
MS. MEADE stated that the ACS also touches the public through
jury summons. She reported that the court summoned 21,000 jurors
in FY 18, including 3,500 jurors for grand jury, which is held
in 12 locations in Alaska. She reported that the court held
fewer than 300 trials. She pointed out the cost of jurors is not
insignificant and although jurors are paid $25 per day, in
outlying communities the court pays travel costs, including
transportation, food, and lodging. For example, Bethel and
Dillingham's extremely high juror costs last year totaled $1.5
million. The court works on summoning jurors efficiently and
appropriately, she said. It has a jury management committee who
works on online questionnaires and finding the most effective
use of jurors without disturbing the public more than necessary.
She said the court system also interacts with the public and
noted last year Anchorage had 32,000 walk-ins per month and
Palmer had 6,500.
2:22:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the number of
jurors who are summoned as compared to an estimate of the number
of jurors who served. He further asked for the overarching goal
and whether it was for the court to never miss a day or if it
was to inconvenience as few Alaskans as possible. He said the
figures seemed high.
MS. MEADE answered that these figures are the number of people
who received the jury notice in the mail, not the number of
people who were called to serve on a jury. She said the court
constantly strives to balance inconveniencing jurors and having
sufficient numbers of jurors serve. In further response to
Senator Kiehl, she offered to try to provide the number of
jurors who were called to serve.
2:24:03 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he spoke to Ms. Meade a few days ago about
this issue. He related that the public perception is the system
is bogged down. He recalled she thought perhaps prosecutors or
other areas of the criminal justice system were bogged down.
Since the budget is going to be an issue, he asked whether the
court system has sufficient budget resources to do its job.
MS. MEADE responded that the ACS has been proactive about its
budget and only requests what it needs. She said the current
budget request reflects the Alaska Supreme Court's and the
administrative director's determination to fully and adequately
do what the ACS needs to do. She said with 70 fewer positions,
the court system's budget is "bare bones." The ACS strives to
make less staff not very visible to the public and provides a
judge for criminal trials when the parties are ready. She
explained that four people currently perform jobs that six
people previously did. She offered her belief that the court
system was doing a great job at not being the bottleneck. With
fewer resources, staff might be behind in filing and data entry
for CourtView, which may be frustrating for some people trying
to access records, she said. She reiterated that the court
system tries not to have an impact in the pace of criminal
cases, which is what most people are concerned about.
2:26:49 PM
CHAIR HUGHES commented that she had heard criminal cases were
backlogged, so she was glad to hear otherwise.
2:27:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it is likely that Alaska's criminal
justice laws will be amended this year and it will probably
increase the caseload. He asked whether the ACS is evaluating
potential impacts.
MS. MEADE responded that the ACS has not seen a big case drop
with the latest round of changes to the criminal laws. She said
the ACS submitted zero fiscal notes on the previous bills. She
said that depending on content in the [four] proposed crime
bills, the ACS will try to react to potential changes in the
caseload.
SENATOR MICCICHE highlighted one problem on the Kenai Peninsula
has been that judges are not available in the wee hours of the
morning when offenders are picked up and that in many instances,
people are released. He asked whether the court was looking at
availability of judges.
MS. MEADE replied she was unaware of that problem. She related
her understanding that judges are on call throughout Alaska for
bail setting. She acknowledged that bail schedules allow law
enforcement personnel to release people for certain
misdemeanors, but not for crimes such as domestic violence
without judicial officer contact. She offered to specifically
review this issue on the Kenai Peninsula and report back.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the Department of Law representative report
to the committee on the reason for dismissals, including the
32.5 percent of felony cases dismissed and the 42 percent of
misdemeanor dismissals. She further recalled questions on
whether vehicle thefts were grouped together. She also asked for
clarification on the drop in the number of DUI cases and reasons
these cases might not be coming to the court since it seemed as
though DUIs continue to happen.
2:30:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that when other states have changed
their criminal laws to something similar to Senate Bill 91,
these states also reported lower crime rates. He said he
thought there was a connection between the penalty reductions
for DUIs and the reductions in the number of cases.
SB 8-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
2:30:37 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 8:
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration;
and providing for an effective date."
2:31:54 PM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 8,
introduced himself and his staff, Sydney Lienemann. He thanked
Chair Hughes for hearing the bill. This bill is identical to the
bill that was considered, passed, and supported by the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee last year. This bill would restrict
the release of certain criminal records for the possession of
marijuana, which is a class B misdemeanor. These crimes would no
longer be considered criminal based on the legalization of
marijuana that occurred some years ago.
He stated that the original bill was brought to him by a
constituent who works on employment issues at the Mountain View
library. His constituent witnessed people start to complete
their employment forms but not finish the process. When he asked
why, the response was that these applicants did not believe they
could obtain employment or housing options because of a single
prior conviction related to a crime that is no longer considered
a crime today. He stated that employment and housing issues are
critical throughout the state due to homelessness and situations
in which people find themselves unable to get into housing or a
job because they made a single mistake.
SENATOR BEGICH said SB 8 would automatically remove the
conviction from CourtView. The records would also be removed
from some background checks administered by the Department of
Public Safety, if requested by the individual. It would not fall
on the state to proactively remove the conviction; the bill
places the responsibility on the person. He emphasized that the
records would be available for any criminal justice search,
including employment checks related to the medical field or for
those working with children or dependent adults. He has worked
with the Department of Law (DOL), Department of Public Safety
(DPS), the Alaska Court System (ACS), and non-profit providers
on the bill. He reiterated that recurring issues adversely
affect re-entry programs that work to ensure people do not come
back into the criminal justice system. The governor recently
spoke about opportunities for hope and success and this bill
could provide an opportunity to Alaskans. He reported an
estimated 700 people would be affected by the bill. He asked Dr.
Lienemann to review some of the changes discussed for a proposed
committee substitute.
2:35:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES stated that Representative Hopkins joined the
meeting.
2:35:38 PM
SYDNEY LIENEMANN, Ph.D., Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State
Legislature, offered to review proposed changes to SB 8 for a
committee substitute.
DR. LIENEMANN presented sectional analysis of SB 8 on behalf of
the sponsor, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: Describes the legislative intent to reduce
barriers to re-entry for those convicted of low-level
marijuana possession, which would no longer be
considered crimes today.
DR. LIENEMANN referred to page 1, line 9, and stated that
the language currently states, "a criminal history
background check," and the intent is to clarify certain
types of background checks since this protection would be
limited to certain parties requesting background check
related to employment and housing, but the individuals'
criminal history would still be available to law
enforcement and prosecutors.
DR. LIENEMANN continued.
Section 2: Prohibits the Department of Public Safety,
and any designated reporting agency, from disclosing
any criminal records associated with possession of
less than one ounce of a schedule VIA controlled
substance conviction, covering both State Statute and
municipal ordinance, if requested. These cases will be
protected from disclosure only if marijuana possession
is the only crime for which the person was convicted
in a particular criminal case. A schedule VIA
controlled substance considered to have the lowest
degree of danger to users. Marijuana is the only VIA
drug.
DR. LIENEMANN explained that this prohibition would not
include any search related to the criminal justice system.
She referred to page 2, line 12, noting the DOL, DPS, and
ACS suggested replacing "Notwithstanding," with "In a
request under" for clarification.
DR. LIENEMANN continued.
Section 3: Limit access to Alaska Court System's
records of criminal cases involving convictions for
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana on
Court View.
DR. LIENEMANN explained that the departments requested removing
the word "confidential" [on page 2, lines 6, and 7] in order to
ease the ability to transfer records between agencies. She
related the sponsor's intention is to replace "confidential"
with similar language from Representative Drummond's bill that
passed the House last year that will remove defining the records
as confidential. She reiterated that this language would
restrict this information from being available on CourtView but
would allow the DOL, DPS, and ACS to have ongoing access to the
records.
2:38:29 PM
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that one problem that
arose with "confidential" is that the ACS would not be able to
release records to the DPS.
2:38:42 PM
Section 4: Indirectly amends Alaska Court System Rules
of Administration by limiting access to certain
criminal records.
DR. LIENEMANN stated [on page 2, line 17] the word
"confidential" would also need to be removed in that section.
Section 5: Because Section 4 indirectly amends a court
rule, this legislation will require a two thirds vote
as described by the Alaska Constitution.
Section 6: Provides 120 days for this legislation to
take effect after bill signing, giving the Courts, as
well as affected agencies, time to change their
reporting protocols.
2:39:19 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said he understands additional work still needed
to be done on the bill.
2:39:39 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that other concerns
exist. She referred to page 1, lines 6-7, which read, "It is the
intent of the legislature to reduce barriers to employment ?."
She referred to the analysis of [Section 2], which read, "These
cases will be protected from disclosure only if marijuana
possession is "the only crime" for which the person was
convicted in a particular criminal case." She pointed out that
on page 2, lines 3 and 12, the language reads "was not convicted
of any other charges in that case ?." She said that this
language limits the application of the restriction of records to
specific cases where the possession is the only crime resulting
in a conviction, but it ignores the fact that an existing
criminal history involving other crimes would remain a barrier
to employment for that person.
She asked for the rationale for ignoring the rest of a person's
criminal history if the intent is to reduce barriers to
employment for people convicted of low-level misdemeanor
marijuana possession if the person's criminal history includes
other crimes that already create barriers. She asked whether it
was possible to reduce the number of people that would [benefit
from having their records removed from CourtView].
SENATOR BEGICH answered that if the only crime the person
committed was related to marijuana and the record had no other
crime associated with it, the prior record would be cleared from
CourtView. He said the person's record would still contain any
other prior convictions.
SENATOR BEGICH, after a brief reiteration of people charged with
a single conviction of simple possession and those with multiple
convictions, said he understood her point. He suggested that the
only reason would be to remove these cases from the 700 or so
cases. He was unsure of the total number SB 8 would affect.
CHAIR HUGHES said in the materials or in discussion of other
states, including Vermont, he stated the individuals could have
[the record] removed by petition. However, Vermont also set out
additional conditions, including that the person would only be
eligible 5 years after sentence completion and that all
restitutions must be paid. She said that in instances in which
the person was convicted of a subsequent crime 10 years must
have passed since the sentence was completed and restitution for
all crimes had been made. She recapped that the bar in Vermont
was much higher than a simple petitioning the court. She asked
whether he would be open to raising the bar to be certain people
were clean. She asked for further clarification on when the
marijuana law passed.
2:44:39 PM
DR. LIENEMANN recalled that the marijuana law went into effect
in February 2015.
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that Vermont is not one of the states
that has legalized possession and use of marijuana. He related a
scenario in which a person committed a crime of possession of
marijuana, first in 2012 and again in 2014. He pointed out that
three years has lapsed since 2015. It is not currently illegal
for a person to use marijuana so it would be difficult to assign
a criminal penalty, and he was not willing to do so; however, he
offered to sit down to hold discussions with the Chair's office.
2:45:35 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked how plea bargains are considered in the
bill. He said it seemed like it might be a loophole, but he was
unsure.
DR. LIENEMANN related her understanding from discussions with
the court system, that the final criminal record is reflected in
the court system's database. She said if the person was charged
with several crimes but pled down to the elements listed in SB
8, the charges would be removed from CourtView. She reiterated
that the conviction would still remain in the system for most
higher-level background checks, but it would no longer appear in
CourtView.
2:47:14 PM
SENATOR BEGICH added prosecutors would also have access to the
records and case file. He recalled that had been discussed last
year.
SENATOR SHOWER offered to discuss this with the sponsor. He
referred to the rights of the employer and what is restricted.
He would like to better understand when the provisions would be
specifically applied or excluded. He offered his belief that in
certain fields an employer needs to know information about their
employees, for example, in the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOTPF).
2:48:20 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked the record to reflect that simple
possession and someone making a mistake is one thing, but a
person with a long history of criminal behavior is different
since it demonstrates judgment issues that a future employer may
wish to know about.
CHAIR HUGHES concurred with that point.
2:49:02 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said Senator Micciche's comment was an
appropriate one. He expressed a willingness to work with Senator
Micciche to find a way to make it work.
2:49:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD echoed Senator Micciche's concern. She asked to
have Mr. Duxbury come before the committee to provide his
perspective on the number of times an individual uses marijuana
before being arrested as well as the number of cases that are
typically dismissed prior to conviction. She recalled Mr.
Duxbury discussed on KTVA the percentage of cases involving
marijuana. He also indicated marijuana use was a gateway to so
much more. She said she is not an expert and would like to hear
his views on marijuana use.
2:50:11 PM
CHAIR HUGHES expressed her concern about SB 8 creating a
loophole for the 18-20-year-old age group, since marijuana is
still not legal for them. She expressed further concern that a
person could permanently lose eligibility for employment with
the state if the person unintentionally or otherwise conceals a
fact when submitting a job application. She did not want to set
up a person to fail.
[CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 8.]
2:51:56 PM
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Director, Partners Reentry Center (PRC),
offered to make comments to put this into perspective. She
stated the PRC has served 7,500 high-risk high-needs individuals
who would be homeless if the PRC had not assisted them. The PRC
works with reentrants whose parole and probation conditions
mandate that they do not use marijuana. That condition still
holds true whether marijuana use is legal or not, she said. She
offered her belief that SB 8 would only retroactively affect 700
people and the bill does not necessarily affect those being
served in the criminal justice system. She related a scenario in
which the PRC wanted to hire someone deemed as highly qualified,
but the person had previously been convicted of simple
possession of marijuana 10 years ago, prior to attending
college. That banned the person from being employed in this
industry, she said. She surmised that SB 8 intends to target
this type of person rather than the clients the PRC serves.
2:54:17 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on what she
meant by high-risk and high-needs individuals.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said the PRC assists people who would otherwise
be homeless, whose chance of recidivism is very high. She
related that Alaska has a 66 percent recidivism rate and the PRC
focuses on this population in an effort to reduce recidivism and
enhance public safety. These are individuals with strong and
lengthy continual felony and misdemeanor records. She stated
that the PRC uses a tool called the LSIR, that those with a
score of 29 or higher are considered high-risk high-needs
individuals. These are individuals whose criminal behaviors
create a risk to the community when they are released, she said.
2:55:20 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to explain the acronym LSIR.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN explained the acronym LSIR helps the DOC classify
individuals with a minimum, medium, or maximum risk-leveled
behaviors. She offered to report back on the acronym.
2:55:46 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether alcohol was also on the list of
conditions for parole or probation.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered absolutely, that the court establishes
probation and parole conditions based on the underlying crime.
SENATOR MICCICHE said she had previously mentioned the age group
18-20 and noted that the legislature treats minor consuming
differently for that age group, which is worth evaluating.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the 700 individuals were statewide.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said she was referring to an attachment by Nancy
Meade that gave a ballpark figure.
2:56:43 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked the sponsor to provide information on the
proposed 700 people potentially affected by SB 8 and whether
these individuals had other convictions.
2:57:16 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN reported that the acronym LSIR refers to level of
service inventory revised.
2:57:22 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related his understanding that the people with a
higher risk and a demonstrated behavior are not necessarily the
ones that SB 8 would clear, since those are the ones who would
present problems for employers, housing, or other issues that
the public would want to know about. He suggested that the
potential 700 people SB 8 would address do not seem to be the
people that PRC treats. He said it seemed like the intent of the
bill and the people she serves are like "apples and oranges".
MS. MCLAUGHLIN agreed. She said that none of the individuals the
PRC serves or who work with the center have only one conviction.
2:58:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 8. She held SB 8 in
committee.
CHAIR HUGHES made announcements on the future committee
schedule.
2:59:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 1.25.19.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
1.24.19 Agenda |
| SB8 VerA.PDF |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB8 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB8 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB8 Supporting Document - Leg Research Report.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB8 Supporting Document - State Marijuana Criminal Record Confidentiality Actions.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB8 Fiscal Note (AK Court System).pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Letter of Support ACLU.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| 2-1-19 Letter to Sen Hughes re Prosecution Dismissals.pdf |
SJUD 1/25/2019 1:30:00 PM |
DOL Response |