04/18/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB146 | |
| SCR3 | |
| HB265 | |
| HB286 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 2024
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Chair
Senator Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 146(STA)
"An Act relating to fireworks; repealing restrictions on the
sale of fireworks; directing the Department of Public Safety to
adopt fireworks regulations; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Recognizing the shortage of affordable housing available in the
state; supporting public- private partnerships that maximize the
impact of public funding; and urging the state to support
Housing Alaskans.
- MOVED SCR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 265
"An Act changing the term 'child pornography' to 'child sexual
abuse material.'"
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 146
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF FIREWORKS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/29/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/23 (H) STA, L&C
04/13/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/23 (H) Moved CSHB 146(STA) Out of Committee
04/27/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/01/23 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR
05/01/23 (H) DP: CARPENTER, C.JOHNSON, ALLARD,
WRIGHT, SHAW
05/01/23 (H) NR: ARMSTRONG, STORY
05/08/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/08/23 (H) Heard & Held
05/08/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/24/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/24/24 (H) Moved CSHB 146(STA) Out of Committee
01/24/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/26/24 (H) L&C RPT CS(STA) 7DP
01/26/24 (H) DP: FIELDS, CARRICK, PRAX, WRIGHT,
RUFFRIDGE, SADDLER, SUMNER
03/21/24 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/21/24 (H) VERSION: CSHB 146(STA)
03/22/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/24 (S) STA, L&C
04/18/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SCR 3
SHORT TITLE: HOUSING SHORTAGE;PUBLIC-PRIV. PARTNERSHIP
SPONSOR(s): DUNBAR
05/05/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/05/23 (S) STA
04/11/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/24 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/24 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/18/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: HB 265
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL
SPONSOR(s): VANCE
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) STA, JUD
02/01/24 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/01/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/24 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/24 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/24 (H) Moved HB 265 Out of Committee
02/08/24 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/24 (H) STA RPT 7DP
02/09/24 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, CARRICK, CARPENTER,
ALLARD, STORY, WRIGHT, SHAW
02/19/24 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/19/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/21/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/23/24 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/24 (H) Moved HB 265 Out of Committee
02/23/24 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/24 (H) JUD RPT 6DP 1AM
02/26/24 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, CARPENTER, ALLARD, GROH,
SUMNER, VANCE
02/26/24 (H) AM: GRAY
02/26/24 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/26/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/13/24 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/13/24 (H) VERSION: HB 265
03/15/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/24 (S) STA, JUD
04/18/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
LISA PURINTON, Legislative Liaison
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Summary of Changes for HB 146.
MARK BRAUNEIS, Assistant Fire Marshall
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on HB 146.
SHAUNA HEGNA, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 3.
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, District J
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, District 6
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 265.
DEREK BOS, Chief of Police
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HB 265.
MATTHEW DUBOIS, Officer
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HB 265.
MAXINE DOUGAN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 265.
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 265.
TARA BURNS, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 265.
JULIE SMYTH, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 265.
LAUREE MORTON representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 265.
REPRESENTATIVE JULIE COULOMBE, District 11
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 286.
JORDAN WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Julie Coulombe
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Office of
Victims Rights.
KATHY HANSEN, Senior Staff Attorney
Office of Victims' Rights
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HB 286.
BRENDA STANFILL, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 286.
NANCY MEADE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 286.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:57 PM
CHAIR SCOTT KAWASAKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators, Bjorkman, Wielechowski, Merrick, and Chair
Kawasaki. Senator Claman arrived thereafter.
HB 146-REGULATION OF FIREWORKS
3:32:38 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 146(STA) "An Act relating to fireworks; repealing
restrictions on the sale of fireworks; directing the Department
of Public Safety to adopt fireworks regulations; and providing
for an effective date."
3:33:07 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony for HB 146.
3:33:30 PM
LISA PURINTON, Legislative Liaison, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), Anchorage, Alaska, presented the Summary of Changes for
HB 146. She stated that HB 146 was previously heard as a
companion bill under SB 117 back in January. She explained that
HB 146 was modified in the House State Affairs Committee, where
the word "any" was changed to "a" to add specificity regarding
the buildings the Department of Public Safety could enter for
reviewing potential violations of the fireworks law. She noted
that the committee planned to provide a quick refresher since
some time had passed since the bill was printed. She offered to
provide a summary of the changes from Version A to Version B or
to provide a sectional analysis if needed.
3:34:50 PM
MARK BRAUNEIS, Assistant Fire Marshall, Department of Public
Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, said HB 146 would repeal statutory
restrictions on the sale of fireworks as defined in AS 18.72 - a
statute that is over 15 years old. The bill would direct the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) to adopt regulations in place
of the statute, transferring governance of fireworks' sale,
storage, and use from the latter to the former. This change
would expand the definitions of nationally approved fireworks
and allows for more flexibility in regulating sales and
licensing. The statute includes language over 50 years old, no
longer used in the industry, limiting its effectiveness. For
example, "dangerous fireworks" are now subdivided at the federal
level into display-grade and pest control fireworks.
MR. BRAUNEIS explained that HB 146 would update "saleable" to
"consumer-grade fireworks" for better consistency with industry
standards. The statute currently recognizes 11 types of consumer
fireworks, while federal regulations recognize 42. The
regulation would allow DPS to adapt to these changes more
quickly and manage fluctuations in the industry, rather than
relying on slow legislative updates. When the statute was
adopted, only two regulatory agencies oversaw fireworks; today,
there are seven, each with varying levels of responsibility.
Regulations would allow DPS to better manage these overlaps
without requiring frequent statutory amendments. Maintaining the
relevance of the current statute is difficult due to rapid
changes in federal regulations and industry standards. The shift
to regulations will ensure Alaska's fireworks rules remain
current and adaptable. DPS will engage stakeholders throughout
the process to ensure the regulations are efficient and
sustainable. He urged support for HB 146 and suggested that it
would modernize and improve Alaska's fireworks governance.
3:38:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that HB 146 came before the committee
several months ago, and there were substantial concerns over the
changes, particularly regarding the repealing language. It
appears that none of those concerns have been addressed in the
committee substitute. He highlighted several provisions being
repealed, including AS 18.72.020 and AS 20.20, which relate to
liability insurance requirements. This was a significant concern
for many members of the committee. Additionally, he referred to
HB 146, page 2, line 26, which lists three repealing proposals,
and noted that these are substantial changes. He pointed out the
fireworks wholesaler's license provision being altered and noted
changes to the definition section. He recalled hearing from one
of the largest state suppliers of fireworks, who suggested that
some of these issues could be addressed by changing certain
definitions. He expressed confusion as to why these concerns had
not been addressed in the committee substitute.
3:40:13 PM
MS. PURINTON replied that all the repealing language and the
information that will be repealed from the statute are planned
to be addressed in the regulations, with the intention to add
those definitions into the regulations.
3:40:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that while regulations are outside
the control of the committee and the body, he emphasized that
this committee and the body have control over what is set as
state policy and statute. He expressed uncertainty about what
would happen with the regulations after HB 146 passes, noting
that once the bill passes, the process is beyond the body's
control. He mentioned hearing people say many times, "Oh, we'll
fix it in regulations," but pointed out that this does not
always happen. He opined that this approach is taking a
sledgehammer to a problem that could be fixed with a scalpel.
3:40:46 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN joined the meeting.
3:41:16 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked whether any regulations were being
propagated based on HB 146. He inquired if there were any draft
regulations at this point.
3:41:35 PM
MR. BRAUNEIS replied that great discussions are underway to
build out the framework of HB 146, and conversations are being
held with the affected agencies. However, staff hours would only
be dedicated to developing the regulation once the bill becomes
law. He confirmed that a basic framework exists, which addresses
the senators' concerns and speaks to all of those issues.
3:42:42 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI concluded invited testimony for HB 146.
3:43:09 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held HB 146 in committee.
3:43:12 PM
At ease
SCR 3-HOUSING SHORTAGE;PUBLIC-PRIV. PARTNERSHIP
3:44:09 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Recognizing
the shortage of affordable housing available in the state;
supporting public- private partnerships that maximize the impact
of public funding; and urging the state to support Housing
Alaskans.
3:44:34 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on SCR 3.
3:44:53 PM
SHAUNA HEGNA, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SCR 3. She said she is the chair of Housing Alaskans.
She stated that Alaska's critical housing shortage has led to
economic investment and development struggles around the state
and created a crisis in public safety, health, and education.
She highlighted that in her home region of Kodiak, the school
district, Fire and Police Departments, healthcare providers, and
private business owners have all reported difficulty attracting
and retaining talented workers due to the lack of available or
affordable housing. This shortage is impacting the safety and
well-being of the community. Housing Alaskans, a public-private
partnership, has proven effective in addressing housing
shortages by pairing public funding with private donations.
MS. HEGNA said that last year, Housing Alaskans was able to
leverage state funding and private donations to provide gap
funding for over 80 Alaskan families, both on and off the road
system. Additionally, the organization partnered with the Alaska
Municipal League to fund a housing track at the annual Alaska
Infrastructure Symposium, where subject matter experts provided
technical assistance to local governments across the state to
help them address their housing needs. This track was the best
attended of the entire conference, underscoring the priority
local governments place on the housing crisis. She asked for
continued support to address the housing shortage through SCR 3.
3:47:45 PM
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, District J, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SCR 3. He noted that SCR 3 was
introduced at the end of the last session or the first half of
the session, and that they have been working with Housing
Alaskans and other partners on this issue. He acknowledged that
many on the panel and in the committee are aware of the housing
shortage. He also pointed out that the capital budget voted on
last week included $6 million for the Housing Alaskans
partnership, which he was very excited about. He viewed this
resolution as a companion to that investment, noting that with
$1 million, Housing Alaskans had helped tip about eight housing
projects into economic viability and construction just last
year.
3:48:46 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited the will of the committee.
3:48:46 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to report SCR 3, work order 33-LS0798\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
3:49:06 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no objection and SCR 3, work order 33-
LS0798\A was reported from the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee.
3:49:20 PM
At ease
HB 265-CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL
3:50:55 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 265 "An Act changing the term
'child pornography' to 'child sexual abuse material.'"
3:51:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, District 6, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 265, said this
legislation would change the term "child pornography" to "child
sexual abuse material" throughout Alaska statutes. She
emphasized that the bill's importance lies in the recognition of
child sexual abuse as a heinous crime that causes lasting harm
to its victims. The terminology used to describe such offenses
is more than just semanticsit plays a crucial role in shaping
public perception and legal frameworks. The shift to "child
sexual abuse material" (CSAM) reflects a move towards more
accurate and victim-centric language, as the term "child
pornography" misleadingly suggests a consensual act, which fails
to reflect the abusive nature of the crime. The use of the term
CSAM helps correct this misconception, highlighting the non-
consensual and abusive nature of the acts depicted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that Sergeant Matt Dubois, a dedicated
investigator with the Juneau Police Department, could explain in
more detail why this change matters. She praised Sergeant Dubois
for his work safeguarding children and emphasized that victims
of these crimes are not just statistics but children who belong
to the community. Other organizations, including the Alaska
Department of Law and Public Safety, are supporting the
legislation and using the term CSAM instead of child
pornography. This shift in language reflects a commitment to
acknowledging the trauma suffered by victims and reshaping
societal perceptions of these crimes. National groups, including
possibly the Department of Justice, are advocating for the
adoption of this language. While pornography is protected under
the First Amendment, child sexual abuse material is a malicious
crime that inflicts harm on children and must be distinguished
from broader pornography.
3:55:18 PM
SENATOR MERRICK thanked her for bringing this legislation
forward. She expressed pride in being a co-sponsor and noted
that HB 265 passed the House with overwhelming support, but
there was one objection. She asked if she could explain what the
concern was.
3:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the concern was one
individual who thought that the legislature should not be
changing the term "pornography" due to its cultural connotation.
The concern was that this change would cause AS 11.61.127 to be
out of alignment. However, she clarified that this is an
inaccurate perception, as these materials are still covered
under the term "child sexual abuse material." She emphasized
that this law would not change anything else and would not alter
any of the crimes related to the introduction of material or the
penalties associated with themit only changes the terminology.
3:56:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether there is a difference between
the definition of "child pornography" and "child sexual abuse
material."
3:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied no.
3:57:18 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony for HB 265.
3:57:21 PM
DEREK BOS, Chief of Police, Juneau Police Department (JPD),
Juneau, Alaska, invited testimony for HB 265. He stated that
when he began his career as a law enforcement officer, he took
an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, which included
the phrase "and to be the voice of the victim." He expressed
that today, he comes before the committee to ensure that the
voice of child victims is not lost in the busyness of everyday
life. He reiterated that HB 265 seeks to replace the term "child
pornography" in Alaska statutes with "child sexual abuse
material." While this change might seem trivial to some, it
holds significant meaning from a law enforcement perspective.
Throughout his career, he said he has seen people mistakenly
associate the term "pornography" with consent, implying that
there is some level of willingness on the part of the child
victim. Consent is rarely, if ever, given by the victim for the
exploitation or distribution of such materials. Using language
that downplays the significance of this exploitation normalizes
harmful behaviors, which makes it harder for victims to seek
help and support. This creates a cycle of victimization that
negatively affects more children. By accurately labeling these
materials as "child sexual abuse material," he believes the
state would send a clear message that child victims matter. He
urged the committee to reject the normalization of child
exploitation in any form. He introduced Officer Dubois.
3:59:57 PM
MATTHEW DUBOIS, Officer, Juneau Police Department (JPD), Juneau,
Alaska, invited testimony for HB 265. He said he has been a
police officer for almost 17 years and has worked as an
investigator with the Anti-Crime Against Children Unit since
2015. He has been part of the FBI and U.S. Marshals ICAP Task
Force and has been exposed to numerous photographs and videos of
child sexual abuse material, currently known under state law as
child pornography. He emphasized that there is no such thing as
"child pornography" and believes language plays a crucial role
in shaping understanding. Unclear language can lead to
misunderstanding, confusion, and harm, and the continued use of
the term "child pornography" perpetuates harmful misconceptions.
MR. DUBOIS stated that the term "child pornography" wrongly
implies that these materials are a subcategory of legally
acceptable pornography, rather than recognizing them as a form
of child abuse and a crime. Referring to CSAM as "pornography"
shifts the focus to the material itself instead of the impact it
has on children. He suggested that changing the language to CSAM
would force society to confront the true impact on children, as
the term "child pornography" minimizes the harm children
experience. From his training and experience, he noted that
victims of such abuse often grow up with feelings of shame,
guilt, and fear, knowing that the abuse material may resurface
at any time, perpetuating their trauma. He explained that this
ongoing victimization occurs every time the material is viewed,
shared, or downloaded. He also mentioned that using the term
"child pornography" diminishes the seriousness of the crime,
which can hinder children from receiving the support and
protection they need. He opined that changing the terminology to
CSAM would force everyone to recognize the material as abuse and
help ensure that victims are supported. In closing, he shared
that, as a lifelong Alaskan, he believes this is an opportunity
for Alaska to lead the nation in making this important change.
He thanked Representative Vance for her work on HB 265 and
expressed his personal commitment to the cause, revealing that
he attends counseling due to his exposure to this crime. He
shared the emotional toll of his work, stating that he has
witnessed the abuse of young children and opined that it is time
for Alaska to make a change.
4:03:02 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN expressed appreciation for his candid statement
and asked whether other states have made the legislative change.
4:03:13 PM
SERGEANT DUBOIS replied that four states, including Connecticut,
New Jersey, Virginia, and New Jersey have adopted the change.
4:04:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on HB 265.
4:04:36 PM
MAXINE DOUGAN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
on HB 265. She said she has been a working prostitute for over
30 years and plans to continue for at least another 30 years.
She said she is part of the Community United for Safety and
Protection (CUSP), which includes current and former sex
workers, sex trafficking victims, and their allies. She
expressed her support for the change in terminology from "child
pornography" to "child sexual abuse material" in HB 265, as well
as the expansion of immunity for clients of sex workers. HB 265
would provide an opportunity to amend AS 11.66.100(c) to include
a provision that extends immunity to clients of sex workers.
Alaska was the first state to provide immunity to sex workers
reporting certain crimes, including what is now referred to as
child sexual abuse material. However, current state law does not
extend this immunity to clients of sex workers, who are often
first responders to situations where they encounter individuals
in need of help. She stressed the importance of allowing clients
to report these situations to the authorities without fear of
legal repercussions. She urged the committee to consider
expanding the immunity in the bill to include clients, ensuring
that all Alaskans have access to protection under state law.
4:06:47 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
on HB 265. She said she is a member of CUSP and asked the
committee to amend HB 265 to extend immunity to clients of sex
workers so they can report crimes like sex trafficking or
murder. She shared a personal account from attending the Brian
Steven Smith double murder trial in Anchorage, where a sex
worker provided crucial testimony, including graphic images and
recordings from the perpetrator's phone. However, she feared
arrest for prostitution and theft and did not know she had
immunity under Alaska law. She suggested that if the sex worker
had known about the immunity, additional evidence could have
been found. The trial revealed that Smith had been texting a
person, Ian Calhoun, about the torture and murder of a victim.
Calhoun may have had further information but chose not to come
forward for fear of arrest. Under current Alaska law, failing to
report a violent crime is not even a felony, which creates an
incentive to stay silent. She urged the committee to extend
immunity to clients of sex workers in the bill, emphasizing that
such immunity would encourage clients to provide truthful
testimony without fear of incrimination, ultimately helping to
bring criminals to justice. She noted that immunity for Calhoun,
Smith's associate, was granted, which allowed him to testify,
but his refusal to share information led to further evidence,
such as images of another unidentified woman, remaining
undisclosed. Extending immunity to clients aligns with Alaska's
public safety goals and increases the likelihood of securing
convictions against guilty parties. She urged the committee to
amend HB 265 to include immunity for clients of sex workers.
4:10:19 PM
SENATOR MERRICK asked if the amendment to HB 265 was offered in
the House.
MS. NICKERSON replied yes.
4:10:39 PM
TARA BURNS, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified on
HB 265. She introduced herself as a member of the Community
United for Safety and Protection (CUSP), a sex worker in Alaska,
and a survivor of sex trafficking. She explained that she
conducted graduate research at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF) on the lived experiences and policy
recommendations of individuals involved in Alaska's sex trade.
Currently serving as the Research and Policy Director of COYOTE,
she expressed support for HB 246, but urged the committee to
amend it by including clients under the immunity statute. She
recounted a 2019 case in which a man who had posted concerning
online content about harming sex workers was later found to be
trafficking minors. Ms. Burns and others, working under
immunity, identified the man's phone number and warned
vulnerable sex workers about him. This led to the man confessing
to trafficking minors through text messages with an ally of
local sex workers.
MS. BURNS said his actions were subsequently reported to the
FBI, resulting in his conviction for trafficking a minor. She
emphasized that had the individuals involved been clients
instead of sex workers, they might have faced legal consequences
for reporting, forcing them to choose between their own safety
and protecting minors. Despite years of efforts by law
enforcement agencies, including the State Troopers' Special
Crimes Investigative Unit and an FBI-ATF task force, there were
no charges for trafficking actual minors in Alaska's sex
industry over the preceding decade. This contrasted sharply with
the successful outcome of the 2019 case, which she attributed to
the ability of sex workers to report crimes without fear of
prosecution. She suggested that extending immunity to clients
would be a more effective strategy to combat trafficking than
relying solely on law enforcement. She urged legislators to take
this step to help end the trafficking of minors in Alaska. She
clarified that this measure was not previously voted on in the
House because a floor amendment had been withdrawn before a
vote.
4:13:49 PM
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 265. She advocated for the proposed amendments as
stated by the previous testifier. However, she acknowledged that
she did not have as much knowledge or expertise as the previous
speakers but shared her perspective as a client of the Interior
Alaska Center for Non-Violent Living. She recounted hearing
numerous accounts of the challenges victims face in having
various crimes taken seriously by law enforcement. Fear and
hesitation to approach law enforcement remain significant
obstacles for many individuals. She emphasized that removing as
many barriers as possible to reporting crimes would help hold
more predators accountable, ultimately enhancing public safety.
4:15:17 PM
LAUREE MORTON representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 265. She noted that she is the Deputy Director of
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(ANDVSA) and is testifying on behalf of the State Coalition of
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim Service Programs.
She emphasized the critical role that language plays in shaping
perceptions and addressing societal issues. She discussed how
adjectives and terminology influence how concepts are
understood, perceived, and acted upon. She provided an example
of how the term "pornography" has evolved over time,
transitioning from a seedy, hidden connotation to a normalized
and even glamorized concept through terms like "food porn" or
"flower porn." This evolution, she argued, has diluted the
gravity of terms associated with exploitation and abuse. The
term "child pornography" may lead to perceptions of neutrality
or glamorization, which undermines the severity of the issue.
Ms. Morton clarified that child pornography is not provocative
or artistic but represents graphic and harmful criminal acts
against children. She stressed that such materials involve the
abuse and exploitation of children, who do not understand why
they are being harmed and do not deserve to have these acts
committed against them. She advocated for renaming "child
pornography" as CSAM, a term that accurately conveys the
criminal nature of the acts involved. She concluded by urging
the committee to use precise and appropriate language to ensure
the severity of these crimes is neither minimized nor
misunderstood.
4:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified for the record that an earlier
document provided to the sergeant contained incorrect
information. She corrected the record by stating that the states
that have adopted the "CSAM" terminology are Vermont, Utah,
Arkansas, and California. The states currently working on
adopting this terminology include Connecticut, New Jersey,
Virginia, and Missouri.
4:20:02 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how many states have adopted the "CSAM"
terminology.
4:20:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied four states have adopted it and
four others are considering it.
4:20:30 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if she would like to comment on immunity.
4:20:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that the focus of HB 265 is narrowly
centered on updating the terminology used to describe the
exploitation of children. She acknowledged ongoing discussions
around related bills addressing sex trafficking and broader
protections for children and vulnerable populations in Alaska.
The primary policy decision for HB 265 is to change the terms
used to describe child sexual abuse, which she stated would have
a profound impact on public perception of these crimes. She
expressed her preference for maintaining this bill's focus
solely on updating the language to accurately reflect the abuse
and exploitation of children. Other legislative measures
addressing criminal reforms and protections for vulnerable
groups could be discussed in separate conversations, as this
bill is not the appropriate vehicle for broader policy changes.
She urged the committee to prioritize the specific goal of HB
265 by revising terminology to protect vulnerable children and
better represent the severity of these crimes.
4:21:50 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony; he held HB 265 in
committee.
4:22:21 PM
At ease
HB 286-CRIME VICTIM RESTITUTION
4:23:38 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 286(STA) "An Act relating
to victim restitution and compensation."
4:24:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JULIE COULOMBE, District 11, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 286. She delivered
the sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement
HB 286 Crime Victim Restitution
(33-LS1012\S)
House Bill 286 seeks to make a clarification in the
current Alaska statute regarding victim restitution
for crimes. Currently, AS 12.55.045(a) allows the
court to order a defendant convicted of a crime to
make restitution to the victim of that crime for
injuries related to counseling, medical, or shelter
services. However, the statute does not provide much
clarity on what type of services would qualify,
resulting in fewer prosecutors asking for that
particular type of restitution. HB 286 would clarify
that lost income, child care, elder care,
transportation, or any other expenses incurred during
the victim's participation in legal action related to
the case (such as the investigation or prosecution),
would be eligible for restitution.
HB 286 will strengthen the ability of victims to
receive compensation for costs related to their time
spent in court, and make it more difficult for
convicted defendants to appeal restitution payment for
the costs that their actions have inflicted on the
victim. This is particularly relevant to cases
involving domestic violence, as the continuation of
court cases involving restitution can result in a
perpetuation of the cycle of abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE noted that HB 286 originated from
discussions with the Office of Victims' Rights during the
interim. The office had expressed frustrations in securing
specific restitution for victims, leading to the creation of
this legislation. She said her office worked closely with the
Department of Law (DOL) and the courts to refine the bill's
language. She added that representatives from DOL and the courts
were present to answer questions from the committee. She shared
that her staff member, Jordan Wright, could deliver a
presentation or a sectional analysis of the bill, depending on
the chair's preference.
4:25:39 PM
JORDAN WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Julie Coulombe, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented on HB 286. He moved
to slide 2 and described the Office of Victims' Rights, which
operates similarly to an inspector general's office. As part of
the legislative branch, it is designed to avoid potential
conflicts with other state offices. He described the office's
role in advocating for victims in court and investigating any
complaints they have. The office collaborates with various
criminal justice organizations to gather and share information.
He clarified that the Office of Victims' Rights is funded
through forfeited Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) checks from
convicted criminals, as outlined in AS 43.23.005.
4:26:42 PM
MR. WRIGHT moved to slide 3 and described statute changes under
HB 286. He explained that HB 286 aims to clarify the current
statute, making it easier for prosecutors to secure compensation
for victims for various expenses incurred due to their
involvement in legal proceedings. These expenses may include
lost income, childcare, transportation, or any costs related to
attending court or participating in an investigation.
4:27:13 PM
MR. WRIGHT moved to slide 4 and read the intent of HB 286. He
said the purpose of the language in HB 286 is to strengthen
victims' ability to request compensation for these costs,
thereby ensuring they are not financially burdened by their
involvement in the criminal justice process.
4:27:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a current definition for
restitution in existing law.
4:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE expressed her belief that there is an
existing definition in current law. However, she deferred to a
representative from the Department of Law to respond to ensure
accuracy.
4:28:15 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN shared his appreciation for the intent of HB 286,
noting that it aligns with what he frequently hears from
victims. He emphasized that while victims often seek resolution,
many express dissatisfaction with the current compensation
process. However, even with forfeited PFD funds from prisoners,
the compensation victims receive does not meet their
expectations. Victims often hope for restitution to make them
whole, but their experiences often fall short. Some victims,
after spending significant time and effort navigating the
system, end up with minimal compensationsometimes as little as
$500 to $1,500. He recalled speaking with Angela Harris, a woman
who was stabbed at a library, and how she received only $2,200
to $3,200 from the Office of Victims' Rights. He expressed
concern that the system creates a false expectation of
restitution that cannot truly address the financial and
emotional losses victims face. He expressed strong support for
the legislation but raised concerns about the gap between the
system's promises and the actual support victims receive. He
wondered why, in the current economic climate, the system is not
capable of fully compensating victims for their losses.
4:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE acknowledged the concerns raised about
victim compensation and restitution. She explained that the
issue had been discussed extensively, especially in relation to
the changes within DPS. She said she became involved in this
matter due to her role as the subcommittee chair for DPS. As a
result, she started researching the various victim services the
department was addressing, particularly focusing on victim
restitution and related challenges. DPS was undergoing
significant restructuring, including the creation of a separate
division focused specifically on victimization. This was aimed
at addressing some of the gaps in victim services, including the
process for accessing restitution. However, she confirmed that
there are still limitations on the available funds and that
victims often face significant barriers in accessing these
resources. She acknowledged that there are strict limits on the
compensation that can be requested, which vary depending on the
type of crime. While DPS is actively working to improve these
processes, the Office of Victims' Rights expressed frustration
over the inability to even get the ball rolling in some cases.
Some requests for compensation were either being denied or not
even considered, further complicating the situation. She agreed
that the funding for victim compensation needs to be corrected
and that ongoing efforts to improve the system are still in
progress.
4:31:54 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN spoke to the Office of Victims' Rights role as
part of the legislative branch. He reflected on the decision to
place the office within the legislative branch, noting his lack
of involvement in that decision. He also reflected on the
challenges facing public safety in Alaska, particularly in rural
areas, which experience some of the highest rates of sexual
abuse and assault in the country. He stressed the importance of
increased resources for public safety, specifically to enhance
investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators. He pointed out
that while victim compensation is crucial, victims often express
frustration with the lack of progress in holding perpetrators
accountable. Given the limited budget, he said he would
prioritize allocating more funds to public safety and increasing
resources for DPS to bolster investigations. He expressed that
if he had to choose between allocating additional funds to
victim restitution and more resources for DPS, he would
prioritize the latter.
4:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE highlighted recent efforts to address
public safety and victim compensation, particularly in rural
Alaska. She shared that her subcommittee in the House has
advocated for substantial increases in funding for DPS,
including the addition of 10 new Public Safety Officers (PSOs)
and new investigators dedicated to tackling sexual assault and
sex crimes. These efforts stemmed from feedback and requests
from the public, emphasizing the pressing need to enhance
investigations in rural areas. She spoke to the current state of
victim restitution, noting that much of the funding comes from
permanent contracts from incarcerated individuals, but
questioned whether this is the best long-term solution. She
suggested that alternative sources for restitution could be
explored. The Victim Crime Compensation Board has been improving
its processes by adding staff, which has led to greater
efficiency and a more streamlined system. While funding was
previously not seen as the primary issue, there was a
significant need for more personnel to manage restitution claims
effectively. Both the conviction process and victim compensation
efforts are being actively addressed.
4:35:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI cited AS 12.55.045 (a), line 10; he
requested a definition of "other person."
4:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE discussed restitution eligibility,
specifically the language that allows the court to order
restitution when credible evidence is presented. HB 286 includes
provisions for victims as well as public or private
organizations, such as those providing counseling, medical, or
shelter services for the victim. She expressed concern about the
interpretation of the law and the potential inclusion of those
directly affected by the crime, such as family members of
victims. She acknowledged that she is not a lawyer but wanted to
highlight the need for clarity around the scope of individuals
or entities eligible for restitution under the bill.
4:36:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why AS 12.55.045 (a), lines 6-7 exclude any
mention of the loss of income.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked him to clarify his question.
4:37:34 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for clarification on the use of capital
letters and brackets to indicate text that is being removed from
existing statute. He inquired why certain provisions were being
removed and expressed concern about the impact of these
deletions.
4:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that the issue with the
statutory language, which was indicated with capital letters and
brackets, stemmed from a mistake in a previous version of the
bill. She clarified that the error had been identified and
corrected during the House State Affairs committee process.
CHAIR KAWASAKI confirmed that the correct version of HB 286 is
the "S" version, which does not contain the statutory language
error.
4:38:24 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony for HB 286.
4:38:45 PM
KATHY HANSEN, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of Victims' Rights
(OVR), Anchorage, Alaska, invited testimony for HB 286. She
noted that she has served as an attorney for the Office of
Victims' Rights for the past 20 years. She outlined the proposed
changes to the restitution statute in HB 286, which were
requested by OVR. She noted that OVR attorneys assist crime
victims by providing legal representation, advising on
restitution claims, and helping resolve any legal disputes
regarding restitution. She highlighted two recent Court of
Appeals cases that raised questions about whether courts could
award restitution for lost wages victims incur when attending
criminal court proceedings: Keane Smith v. State (2022) and
Sealy v. State (2023). These cases brought uncertainty regarding
victims' rights to compensation for lost wages due to attendance
at court proceedings.
MS. HANSEN said that HB 286 seeks to explicitly affirm that
victims are entitled to restitution for lost wages incurred
while attending court hearings related to the crime. This
provision would not require additional funding, as it simply
ensures the court can award restitution for such losses as part
of the judgment against the defendant. The bill would track
existing federal law on restitution for criminal cases and is
intended to provide clear guidelines for judges and prosecutors
in Alaska. It aims to create uniformity and predictability in
restitution awards and ensure that victims are fairly
compensated for expenses that prevent them from exercising their
constitutional rights to attend court proceedings. She
emphasized the importance of passing HB 286 to reduce the need
for victims to litigate these restitution issues and to save
court resources. She also referenced a recent Alaska Supreme
Court decision, Brennan Grubb v. B (2024), in which the court
recognized the legislature's trend in expanding victims' rights
to restitution. This decision further underscores the need for
clearer guidelines in HB 286.
4:43:14 PM
MS. HANSEN referenced the case of the David Grunwald homicide as
an example of the financial hardship victims may face while
attending court hearings. Katie Grunwald, David's mother, had to
attend numerous court hearings over a period of more than two
years involving multiple co-defendants. During this time, she
incurred lost wages, which should be recognized as a legitimate
claim for restitution. She addressed a question raised by
Senator Claman about funding, clarifying that the funding for
OVR primarily comes from the forfeited PFDs of convicted
criminals. She noted that the OVR's entire operating budget is a
small fractionabout 1 percent or lessof this pot of money.
4:44:15 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification on the procedural
process of restitution, noting that it seems to be a heavily
litigated area. He asked if it was correct to say that when a
victim is harmed by a crime, they would first go through the
conviction process, and then the victim would need to provide
evidence of the damages they've suffered. He asked if the
purpose of HB 286 is to define what restitution victims are
entitled to.
4:44:44 PM
MS. HANSEN explained that after the defendant is sentenced, the
victim would have the opportunity to submit documentation and a
total amount requested for restitution to the prosecutor's
office. This information would be shared with the defense, who
has 30 days to object. If no agreement is reached, a hearing
would be scheduled where the victim would provide live, sworn
testimony in court with the defendant present, answering
questions about their losses. The court would then make a final
decision on the restitution award.
4:45:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired whether restitution for victims
typically covers only specific expenses like lost income,
childcare, elder care, transportation, and other similar costs.
He asked if there have been any instances in the past where
courts ordered restitution for pain and suffering or other types
of damages.
4:45:50 PM
MS. HANSEN clarified that under current Alaska law, non-economic
damages such as punitive damages and pain and suffering, which
may be awarded in a civil case, are not permitted in a criminal
case. Therefore, only economic damages, such as lost income,
childcare, and other related expenses, can be ordered in
criminal cases.
4:46:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI posed a hypothetical scenario in which an
individual is a victim of assault, unable to work for three
months, and as a result, their employer loses income. He asked
whether the employer would be considered an "other person" who
could apply for restitution under the current statute.
4:46:44 PM
MS. HANSEN replied that theoretically, an employer could be
considered an "other person" eligible to request restitution for
financial losses, such as lost income resulting from an assault.
She clarified that there is no current legal definition of
"restitution" in the Alaska statute. The phrase "other person"
in AS 12.55.045 is meant to include individuals or entities,
like insurance companies, that suffer financial loss as a result
of a crime, as confirmed by appellate case law. In the
hypothetical scenario presented, if the employer's claim for
restitution was contested by the defendant, the employer would
need to litigate the issue in a restitution hearing, where the
judge would make the final decision. She noted that OVR would
not represent non-statutory victims, meaning they would not
assist with litigation involving employers or other entities
seeking restitution.
4:47:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed concern about the broad
definition of "other person" in the restitution statute,
suggesting that it could lead to unintended consequences such as
employers or insurance companies seeking restitution,
potentially crowding out compensation meant for victims. He
cited the possibility of a government entity claiming a loss of
tax revenue due to an individual's job loss. He questioned
whether there had been any discussions about narrowing or better
defining what constitutes an "other person" eligible for
restitution.
4:48:29 PM
MS. HANSEN responded that in her experience over the last 20
years, she has not seen abuses of the statute. She acknowledged
that she sees only a small percentage of cases where victims
contact OVR for legal representation. She referenced a reported
decision called 'LONIS,' which addresses whether an insurance
company could seek restitution, and offered to provide the
committee with the case for further review.
CHAIR KAWASAKI requested that information in writing.
4:49:36 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired whether the list of restitution items,
such as compensation for lost income, child care, elder care,
and transportation, could be considered an exclusive list rather
than an inclusive one. He expressed concern that a more general
definition of restitution might be better than specifying these
particular items, as there could be other types of restitution
that are not currently considered. He suggested that the law may
need to be revisited in the future to address any unforeseen
expenses.
4:50:18 PM
MS. HANSEN explained that the reason the restitution items were
specifically outlined in HB 286 was to align with the federal
statute, allowing for the use of reported decisions from federal
jurisdictions as a guide for Alaska courts. This would help
apply victim restitution law uniformly, potentially saving money
and resources. The phrase "including, but not limited to" had
been considered to address any potential gaps in the list, but
it was ultimately excluded after legal review. She suggested
that the sponsors might be able to provide further insight into
that decision.
4:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE replied that she does not have any
additional information to provide.
4:51:29 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on HB 286.
4:51:56 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 286. She said she is the Executive Director for
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(ANDVSA), which represents 24 member programs across the state,
direct services for victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault. She shared her experience as a member of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, noting the challenges victims face
in the criminal justice system. While the 1994 constitutional
amendment granted victims the right to receive restitution from
offenders, the current law lacks clarity on what expenses
qualify for restitution. This ambiguity has created confusion
for both victims and prosecutors. HB 286 would help address this
by clearly outlining expenses such as lost income, child care,
elder care, transportation, and other necessary costs,
particularly those related to attending court proceedings.
Studies show restitution helps reduce long-term harm for
victims, fosters trust in the justice system, and encourages
future crime reporting. She urged support for HB 286 to provide
clear guidance on what constitutes restitution in Alaska,
ensuring victims are properly compensated.
4:55:26 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on HB 286.
4:55:45 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN inquired about the amount of restitution paid in
Alaska, asking for data on how much is collected annually, how
much is paid out, and how many individuals receive restitution
payments.
4:55:59 PM
MS. MEADE said the court collects restitution on behalf of
victims, with a small team in the administrative office
dedicated to this task full-time. She explained that when a
defendant is incarcerated, no restitution can be collected from
their PFD because it is redirected to a different state fund. As
a result, restitution cannot be collected from an incarcerated
individual's PFD until they are released. Some incarcerated
individuals may earn small amounts through prison jobs, and
occasionally, those earnings are sent to the court for
restitution payments, but this does not significantly impact the
overall collection process. Restitution is more commonly paid in
cases involving crimes such as guiding or fishing offenses,
where the defendants generally have more financial means, while
restitution from defendants incarcerated for crimes under Title
11 is more challenging. She provided data from the last five
years, stating that around 1,500 restitution orders totaling $7
million were issued, but only about $2.5 million, or 36 percent,
was collected and paid to victims. The collection rate for 2023
has been lower, at 13 percent, but she expects this to rise as
defendants are released from prison and their PFDs become
available for garnishment. Businesses, particularly Walmart, are
the most frequent recipients of restitution due to theft cases.
The second-largest recipient is the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board (VCCB), which provides immediate financial assistance to
victims before restitution is fully paid. Other entities, such
as the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) in
Medicaid fraud cases, and insurance companies like State Farm,
also receive restitution.
5:02:02 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if there is any estimate of the resources
spent by the court, public defenders, and prosecutors to collect
the $2.5 million in restitution, not including private counsel.
He asked how much is being invested in terms of court and public
resources to collect restitution, given the total amount ordered
versus what has actually been collected.
5:02:31 PM
MS. MEADE replied that the process of collecting restitution is
quite efficient. She explained that the public defender and the
state prosecutor are not involved in this process. In the past,
the collections unit within DOL handled it, but that was
dissolved around six or seven years ago. With no one else
handling restitution collections, the court made the decision to
dedicate one and a half staff members to ensure that victims are
able to collect their restitution. This is considered the
primary cost of fulfilling these orders. The court uses a global
writ to the PFD and has established a system with the PFD to
facilitate garnishments for restitution collections.
5:03:23 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if it is fair to say that, as a practical
matter, the compensation for being a victim of a crime may not
be large in the grand scheme of things, but at least the state
is getting a good return on its investment to collect that
money. He added that while the compensation might not be
significant, the state is not spending a large amount of money
to collect it.
5:03:45 PM
MS. MEADE replied that she understands what he is saying and
agrees with the sentiment. The court system is quite proud of
its ability to provide this service with just 1.5 persons. She
added that the hardest part of the process is keeping track of
the victims' addresses.
5:04:03 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how much money other persons get versus the
victim of the potential crime like Walmart.
5:04:30 PM
MS. MEADE explained that Walmart would be considered the victim
of theft because they are the ones who absolutely lost the
money. The term "other person" was added by the legislature when
they passed the statute. This was discussed in the loan-in-case,
as the legislature's intent was to ensure that anyone who
suffered in any way due to the crime could be reimbursed by the
defendant, to the extent that economic damage had occurred. The
damage caused by the crime must be related to it, and this
principle was further clarified in the case that Ms. Hansen
referred to. This case, which was recently decided, refined the
statute and highlighted that the damage must be a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the crime. For example, when
someone's legs are broken, it is reasonably foreseeable that
they might incur medical bills, and the insurance company might
have to cover the costs. These are all compensable damages, and
Lowe's would be the direct victim of the theft in such a
situation. The state is considered a direct victim if someone
commits Medicaid fraud and takes state funds that were not
theirs. From her understanding, "other person" is simply
intended to ensure that the statute does not exclude anyone who
has suffered as a result of the crime.
5:05:47 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked for more information regarding how much
money the "other persons" receive compared to the actual victims
of the potential crime. He referenced Walmart and Sportsman's
Warehouse as examples, noting that these entities often receive
restitution. He asked for a broad explanation of how this
process works.
5:06:14 PM
MS. MEADE replied that Walmart and Sportsman's Warehouse, as
businesses, are considered the victims in cases of theft, as
they are the ones who lost the money. The "other person"
category was added by the legislature to ensure that anyone who
suffers due to a crime, in any way, can be reimbursed by the
defendant for economic damages. This includes victims like
insurance companies, which may cover medical costs or other
expenses related to the crime. She noted that a recent case
refined this understanding, clarifying that the damages must be
a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the crime. For example,
if someone is injured, it's foreseeable that an insurance
company might have to pay medical expenses, making them eligible
for restitution. The "other person" designation is meant to
include all parties that have suffered economic harm due to the
crime, ensuring that no one is excluded from seeking
restitution.
5:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE noted that she did not put forth this
bill forward to resolve all restitution issues in the state. She
suggested that this is one step the state could take.
5:07:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether restitution to a victim or
another person injured by the offense is limited to
compensation. He referenced a previous question, inquiring if
restitution only covers compensation or if it could extend
beyond that.
5:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE deferred to a representative from DOL to
respond.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested that HB 286 would be litigated.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that restitution is not
limited to the listed forms of compensation, despite the use of
the term "limited to." She noted that there had been
conversations in the other legislative chamber about this
interpretation. Based on her understanding, the original statute
was too broad, leading to significant issues with requests being
made repeatedly. The items listed in the revised statute were
meant to clarify and specify the scope of restitution rather
than impose strict limitations.
5:08:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI sought clarification on whether restitution
could cover compensation for lost income, childcare, elder care,
transportation, and potentially more.
5:09:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE replied yes.
5:09:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if "compensation for the value of
lost income" applies broadly to all lost income or only to
income lost during the victim's or other person's participation
in the investigation or prosecution. He pointed out that the
wording could be interpreted in two ways and asked whether
expenses such as childcare are covered comprehensively due to
the offense or only if they are incurred during participation in
the investigation or prosecution.
5:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked for clarification regarding his
question about litigation.
5:10:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification using an example
involving childcare expenses. He inquired whether a victim could
receive restitution for the full two months of childcare
expenses incurred as a result of the offense, or if the
restitution would only cover childcare expenses incurred during
the victim's or other person's participation in the
investigation, prosecution, or a court proceeding related to the
offense.
5:10:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE clarified her understanding that
restitution includes expenses related to the litigation process.
She explained that if a person is harmed and unable to take care
of their children, any childcare expenses incurred for attending
the trial or participating in litigation would be covered. She
said that all such related expenses would be included.
5:11:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held HB 286 in committee.
5:12:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kawasaki adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 146 Ver B.PDF |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146 Sectional Analysis Version B 5.8.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146 Summary of Changes Ver A to B 5.8.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB0146 DPS Zero Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 DPS Follow-Up.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Transmittal Letter 03.28.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| CSHB286 Additional Documents- Yani Morley Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Bill Hearing Request 3.07.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 JUD-ACS 2.05.34.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Sectional Analysis ver B 2.27.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Sponsor Statement 2.08.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Summary of Changes ver. B 2.27.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 ver B 2.28.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286 ver A.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| Letter of Support ANDVSA HB 286.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB 265 - JPD Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - v.B.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - PowerPoint Presentation.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - Letters of Support & Back-Up Information.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOA-PDA Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOA-OPA Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DPS-ASTD Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOL-CJL Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |