HB 296 - CRIME OF ESCAPE/DEF. OF CORRECT. FACILITY 1:16:57 PM CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 296, "An Act relating to service of process on prisoners; relating to the crime of escape; relating to the definition of 'correctional facility'; amending Rule 4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, to introduce HB 296, which was sponsored by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, explained that HB 296 was introduced in order to address issues that arose in two court cases: Hertz v. Carothers, 225 P.3d 571 (Alaska 2010); and Bridge v. State, 258 P.3d 923 (Alaska App. 2011). In Hertz, the Alaska Supreme Court held that prison officials were not considered peace officers for purposes of [serving legal summons and complaints on incarcerated prisoners, and so Section 1 of HB 296 - by adding a new subsection (c) to AS 09.05.050 specifying that the term "correctional facility" as used in AS 09.05.050 has the meaning given in AS 33.30.310] - would allow prison officials to be designated by the facility superintendent to serve legal summons and complaints on incarcerated prisoners. In Bridge, the Alaska Court of Appeals held that under AS 11.56.310(a)(1)(A), a person may not be convicted of escape in the second degree if he/she escapes from a facility that isn't secure, and so [Sections 2, 3, and 4 - by clarifying what constitutes the crime of escape in the second degree under AS 11.56.310(a)(1)(A), what constitutes a "secure correctional facility" under a proposed new subsection (c) to AS 11.56.310, and what constitutes a "correctional facility" under AS 11.81.900(b)(9), respectively] - would codify the court's ruling. [Section 5 would specify in uncodified law that AS 09.05.050, including Section 1's proposed change to it,] constitutes an indirect court rule change to Rule 4 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. 1:21:23 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), referred to an amendment labeled 27-LS1199\D.2, Gardner, 1/28/12, [which later became known as Amendment 1 and] which read: Page 1, line 2, following "'correctional facility';" Insert "deleting the repeal of a provision  relating to electronic monitoring as a special  condition of probation and parole for offenders whose  offense was related to a criminal street gang;" Page 2, following line 23: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 5. Section 3, ch. 27, SLA 2007, is repealed." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 would repeal the sunset on a law allowing a judge, as a condition of [probation/parole], to require a gang member to wear an electronic monitoring device. In response to a question, he indicated that the sunset was added to that law simply to satisfy a concern of the then-committee chair. 1:24:28 PM QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), referring to Section 4 of HB 296, cautioned that attempting to codify the court's ruling in Bridge could result in the very unintended consequences that the court warned about, that of broadening the definition of what constitutes a correctional facility to the point where it could potentially impact a lot of other criminal statutes. For example, currently the statutes [prohibiting] contraband in [correctional facilities] don't address behavior occurring in camps, halfway houses, group homes, and other placements, but under Section 4's proposed definition of what constitutes a correctional facility, those contraband statutes might be applied, possibly resulting in criminal prosecutions for things like bringing tobacco into a group home. And there might also be other impacts to the criminal code, he concluded. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking that that isn't the sponsor's intent, indicated that if Section 4 is retained at all, it would be narrowed so that its proposed definition wouldn't apply to the entire criminal code, thereby addressing Mr. Steiner's concern. Furthermore, consideration is being given to possibly including a "purposes" section in the bill, or providing a letter of intent, in order to clarify that the bill's intended purpose is to codify the Bridge decision. MS. CARPENETI said HB 296 does clarify the Bridge case, and mentioned that the DOL agrees that providing a letter of intent specifying that point would be a good idea. However, the DOL shares Mr. Steiner's concern with Section 4's proposal to change the definition of "correctional facility" as that term is used in Title 11, to something similar to the broader definition of that term as it's used in Title 33. "We really need to make sure that there aren't consequences that ... we don't like or we're not expecting ...," she opined, adding that a search of the term, "correctional facilities" in Alaska's statutes resulted in four pages worth of references to that term, and that each of those references should be scrutinized. Furthermore, Section 3's proposed definition of the term, "secure correctional facility" should also be scrutinized and perhaps amended, she opined, because although it reflects what the court said in Bridge, as currently written it might be construed to mean that simply having a lock on the front door would suffice to render a correctional facility secure. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a preference for adding a "purposes" section to HB 296, rather than merely providing a letter of intent, which might never be seen. MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, said the DOL doesn't have a problem with Amendment 1, and relayed that the DOL would like some time to research how [the Bridge decision and the bill's proposed definition changes] might impact the statutes pertaining to "good time" credit. 1:35:14 PM LESLIE HOUSTON, Director, Central Office, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Corrections (DOC), in response to questions, indicated that the DOC is supportive of HB 296; characterized the use of community residential centers as a fairly critical component of the reentry process; and said the DOC doesn't have a problem with Amendment 1. 1:43:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 296 [as amended] would be held over.