HOUSE BILL NO. 91 am "An Act relating to indecent exposure." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, stated that the bill is best presented by the language in the Sponsor Statement that reads as follows. Several young girls in Delta Junction were subjected to a man exposing himself to them in the parking lot of a local store last summer. He was apprehended and arrested. In a background check it was reported that he had a prior conviction of a similar incident in Arizona. When arrested in the Arizona case, police reported that he matched the description of a man reported for the same activity several times but they could never catch him. In the Delta Junction incident, the local magistrate charged him with three felonies but because of the circumstances, he could not be convicted of a felony. He plea-bargained down to one misdemeanor. Children are more vulnerable and innocent than adults and children fall prey to sex offender more easily than adults. This legislation makes repeat convictions of indecent exposure within the observation of a person under the age of sixteen a felony. 1:58:02 PM Senator Dyson voiced being "intrigued about the circumstances that kept" the offender from being charged. To that point, he asked how this bill would address those circumstances. Ms. Lidster responded that, "the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor in an act of this nature is whether or not the offender touches himself". This is the reason that the Delta Junction offender "could only be charged with a misdemeanor ….it appears that it's possible that this person had been suspect of doing these kinds of things previously but seemed to understand" the line "that should not be crossed". This bill would correct this situation by specifying that if an individual had previously been convicted of indecent exposure before a minor, regardless of whether the person touched themself or not, they could be charged with a felony. Co-Chair Green asked whether this legislation had been referred to the Senate Judicial Committee. Ms. Lidster affirmed that the bill had reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without any changes. Co-Chair Green stressed the importance of the fact that the Judiciary Committee had heard this legislation, as that committee has, as a matter of course, thoroughly discussed the misdemeanor verses felony issue. Ms. Lidster affirmed. She noted that the bill's sponsor is conscious of "not ratcheting up penalties". The bill does specify that there must be an "intent to frighten or shock a person", specifically minors in this case. There must also be total disregard "for the person that this is happening in front of as opposed to sometimes stopping alongside the road" and inadvertently being observed. AT EASE: 2:01:16 PM /2:01:17 PM Ms. Lidster specified that, "an offender commits the crime of indecent exposure in the second degree if the offender knowingly exposes the offender's genitals in the presence of another person with reckless disregard for the offensive, insulting, or frightening affect the act may have." Co-Chair Green asked whether such language was included in AS 11.41.460. Ms. Lidster affirmed its inclusion. In response to a question from Senator Olson, Ms. Lidster understood that parents would be protected from this penalty were their actions not intended "to frighten and have total disregard for the affect of the act on the children". Senator Olson inquired to a situation in which a minor might be exposed to a child being borne. Ms. Lidster voiced that the purpose of the bill would be to address intentional episodes of indecent exposure. 2:03:44 PM Co-Chair Green asked whether the concerns begin raised by Senator Olson might be addressed by further clarification of the "knowingly" or "intentional" act language or "the shock" element in the bill. Care should be taken not "to exonerate all family members" in this regard. DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, informed the Committee that he had "never heard of indecent exposure prosecution being leveled against somebody in a family situation". However, he agreed that a family member should not "be exempt from the law". Continuing, he noted that there is a relationship between indecent exposure and child abuse as well as "indecent exposure and grooming activities". "Sadly, a lot of that goes on in the family." Mr. Guaneli voiced the hope that were "there two parents present, one would be watching out for the children". Mr. Guaneli determined that it would be difficult to imagine that such situations would "come to the attention of authorities unless they are particularly egregious circumstances that we would not want to exempt from the coverage of the law". He was unsure as to "how to draft in some sort of an exemption that wouldn't sweep too broadly and protect activity that we don't want to protect". 2:05:59 PM Senator Dyson noted that the term "masturbate" is included in Section 1(a)(1), page one, line eight of HB 91(am), Version 24- LS0098\A.A. The inclusion of the word "and" in Section 1(a), page one, line six, indicates that the act of masturbation must accompany the offense in order for it to deemed as first-degree indecent exposure. This would "limit the application". Family members should be prosecuted were that activity to occur. Ms. Lidster responded that the intent of bill was to prevent someone who continues to knowingly expose himself or herself to a minor, and who knows that they could only be charged with a misdemeanor were they to not touch themselves, from simply being charged with a misdemeanor. Evidence has concluded that indecent exposure offenders elevate their offenses overtime. Co-Chair Green pointed out that the word "or" in Section 1(a)(1), page one, line nine would negate Senator Dyson's concern that the felony charge could not be levied unless masturbation accompanied the indecent exposure act. Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee. 2:08:59 PM