SB 22-CRIMES; VICTIMS; CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT  2:35:20 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 22 and noted there were several amendments for the committee to consider. [Version U was before the committee.] CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Dyson to move Amendment 1, labeled 28-GS1587\U.1. SENATOR DYSON moved Amendment 1. AMENDMENT 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR DYSON TO: CSSB 22(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 1, lines 1 - 2: Delete "and felony human trafficking" Page 1, line 7: Delete "or human trafficking" Page 3, line 15, following "minor;": Insert "or" Page 3, lines 16 - 17: Delete "; or  (5) felony human trafficking" Page 7, lines 12 - 13: Delete ";  (9) human trafficking in violation of  AS 11.41.360 or 11.41.365" Page 7, line 18: Delete "AS 11.41.120 - 11.41.330 [AS 11.41.120 - 11.41.370]" Insert "AS 11.41.120 - 11.41.370" Page 9, line 7, following "AS 11.71;": Insert "or" Page 9, lines 9 - 10: Delete "; or  (5) human trafficking in the first degree  under AS 11.41.360" CHAIR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. CHUCK KOPP, staff to Senator Fred Dyson, explained that Amendment 1 deletes the references to human trafficking because the term "human trafficking" is so broad that it could apply to anyone who is compelled, duressed, or deceived to use their labor skills. He cited examples of people brought to work at a remote mining site or on a commercial fishing boat to illustrate that the term encompasses more than sex crimes and sex trafficking. He opined that the nature of human trafficking would open the possibility of future legal action, both civil and criminal. He reviewed the amendment and noted that two references to "human trafficking" are in the title. He explained that the deletions on page 3 relate to Section 2, bringing a civil action at any time. The deletions on page 7 relate to Section 10, general time limitations for prosecution of offenses. The deletions on page 9 relate to Section 14, authorizations by the court for the attorney general to intercept communications. 2:40:15 PM SENATOR DYSON stated that Amendment 1 encompasses a simple concept, which is that most people mistake the term human trafficking to be human sex trafficking, not labor violations. He said the committee saw that confusion in a previous hearing and they heard that public safety hasn't had any of those trafficking cases to prosecute. The amendment simply removes the term "human trafficking" and keeps the bill centered on human sex trafficking. He offered his perspective that the amendment offers clarification. MR. KOPP said the last change in Amendment 1 is in Section 28 on page 15, line 20, paragraph (M). That section relates to incidents and offenses to which the chapter applies. 2:41:31 PM CHAIR COGHILL noted that change did not appear in Amendment 1. MR. KOPP responded that a member of Senator Coghill's staff caught the omission. Both legislative legal and the sponsor's office missed it. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the Department of Law (DOL) had any comment. 2:42:06 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Legal Services Section, Department of Law (DOL), explained that human trafficking covers a broad range of behavior as the result of an amendment last year that removed the requirement that one of the elements of the offense is bringing people to the state and then subjecting them to labor violations or adult entertainment. She agreed that removing that element was problematic, but the director of the criminal division has said that there have been serious cases involving human trafficking in this state that DOL wouldn't be able to prosecute because of the [statute of limitations]. She said she understands the argument as a result of the change last year, but human trafficking does cover serious felony conduct that sex trafficking does not. For example, when some women were brought to this state from Russia under false pretext they were not forced to engage in prostitution; they were forced to engage in adult entertainment and work for very little money. 2:43:55 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE stated unequivocal opposition to Amendment 1 and reminded the committee that she was part of those discussions last year. She said slavery is slavery and Alaska does not tolerate bringing people to the state under the pretense that they will have the opportunity to be paid a wage for their services when the real intent is to keep the people in confinement. She recognized that Alaska has a number of industries that make it ripe for that kind of activity and opined that the statute should be very clear that Alaska does not tolerate slavery, human trafficking, or sex trafficking. She agreed with Ms. Carpeneti that these sophisticated networks won't entice under sex trafficking; they'll invite people to the state to be a part of a cultural dance troupe, for example. She reiterated support for maintaining status quo with regard to human trafficking. 2:46:05 PM SENATOR DYSON asked if she was saying that there is no law against deceiving somebody, bringing them to the state, not paying them, and keeping them confined against their will. MS. CARPENETI said there are other possibilities but they would be very fact dependent. Depending on the circumstance, kidnapping or theft by deception or various other charges might apply. Although the human trafficking statute is broad, serious crimes are committed that would not fall under felony sex trafficking. She suggested the committee consider having only first degree felony sex trafficking in these various provisions. SENATOR DYSON said he was astonished that somebody who brings people to the state and holds them against their will can't be prosecuted without that term being on the books. 2:47:44 PM MR. KOPP clarified that human trafficking would still be a crime; the amendment simply applies the normal statute of limitations to mount a civil action after a prosecution for human trafficking. MS. CARPENETI confirmed that human trafficking would still be in the law, and clarified that she was talking about the civil and criminal statutes of limitations. Right now, if human trafficking is removed from the civil statute of limitations provision and added to the criminal statute of limitations provision, someone could bring a cause of action for 10 years. 2:49:22 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE said her point is that there should be parity between the crimes of sex trafficking and human trafficking because they mingle and the lines are sometimes difficult to differentiate. She disagreed with arbitrarily limiting a right of action on human trafficking because there was no good policy reason to treat it differently. The bill brings it all together and says this is the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated. She noted that at one time there was a statute of limitations on rape and child molestation. That was changed and this should be as well. CHAIR COGHILL asked if both a conviction and sentence were required. 2:51:08 PM MS. CARPENETI said she thought a conviction was required for a civil action. CHAIR COGHILL said if the criminal action was already satisfied under this conviction, the next question is whether the potential for a civil action should forever be held open. MS. CARPENETI said she would follow up because the statute doesn't say it, but her understanding is that the practical effect of bringing a civil action based on a criminal act is that it would be easier if the person has been convicted. 2:52:26 PM SENATOR DYSON withdrew Amendment 1 without prejudice. 2:52:49 PM SENATOR DYSON moved Amendment 2, labeled 28-GS1587\U.2 AMENDMENT 2 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR DYSON TO: CSSB 22(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 6, line 25: Delete "AS 11.66.100(a)(2), 11.66.100(c), [AS 11.66.100(c)] or 11.66.110 - 11.66.135" Insert "AS 11.66.100 - 11.66.135 [AS 11.66.100(c) OR 11.66.110 - 11.66.135]" CHAIR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. 2:53:11 PM MR. KOPP explained that Amendment 2 expands the possibility of criminal forfeiture to everyone who participates in the crimes of sex trafficking and prostitution. The provision is discretionary with the court. The statute also covers those who manage, own, or supervise prostitutes. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the Department of Law (DOL) had any comment on Amendment 2. 2:55:26 PM MS. CARPENETI said DOL has no object to the amendment since the committee has already made it discretionary at sentencing. She added DOL did some research on the equal protection question raised in an earlier hearing and found cases that upheld disparate penalties for the two parties involved in prostitution. 2:56:08 PM CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection and finding no other objection, announced that Amendment 2 passed. 2:56:23 PM SENATOR DYSON moved Amendment 3, labeled 28-GS1587\U.3. AMENDMENT 3 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR DYSON TO: CSSB 22(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 10, line 6, following "privileged": Delete "and inadmissible" Insert "; [AND] inadmissible, and may not be  used" CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation. MR. KOPP explained that Amendment 3 refers to the proffer under AS 12.50.101. It clarifies that the testimony of the witness and the proffer of the attorney is privileged, inadmissible, and may not be used for any other purpose. He opined that this was fair balance because the person is waiving their Fifth Amendment right. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the Department of Law (DOL) had any comment on Amendment 3. 2:59:21 PM MS. CARPENETI said Department of Law has no objection to the amendment, but she wanted to clarify the mistaken testimony the committee heard on Friday regarding who has access to the information the witness has provided the judge in the written proffer and testimony. Mr. Stenson assumed that both the prosecution and the defense get to know that information, but that is not correct. The state doesn't know what's in the proffer, which makes it difficult to appeal the court's finding that the witness has a valid claim of privilege. This is only a problem in those cases that the judge decides the witness has a Fifth Amendment privilege and says that if the state doesn't grant immunity and get that witness to testify he will dismiss the underlying charge against the defendant. CHAIR COGHILL asked about potential witness intimidation and, in Section 17, how the state could appeal something it didn't know about. MS. CARPENETI said the state moves cautiously when it doesn't know. She added that after Mr. Stenson testified she thought about adding clarification in Section 17 that the parties don't get to see what's in that written findings. If the state appeals the decision, that sealed document goes to the court of appeals. 3:02:40 PM CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection and finding no other objection, announced that Amendment 3 passed. 3:03:14 PM SENATOR DYSON moved Amendment 4, labeled 28-GS1587\U.4 AMENDMENT 4 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR DYSON TO: CSSB 22(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 19, line 14: Delete "or volunteer" Page 20, line 1: Delete "or volunteer" CHAIR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. MR. KOPP explained that the amendment makes it clear that athletic coaches should be mandatory reporters, but that the same criminal liability is not applied to volunteers. 3:03:52 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE stated opposition to Amendment 4. To set the stage for her objection, she read the purpose of the child protection statute, Chapter 47.17 as follows: In order to protect children whose health and well- being may be adversely affected through the infliction, by other than accidental means, of harm through physical injury or neglect, mental injury, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or maltreatment, the legislature requires the reporting of these cases by practitioners of the healing arts and others to the department. It is not the intent of the legislature that that persons required to report suspected child abuse or neglect under this chapter investigate the suspected child abuse or neglect before they make the required report to the department. Reports must be made when there is a reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or neglect in order to make state investigative and social services available in a wider range of cases at an earlier point in time, to make sure that investigations regarding child abuse and neglect are conducted by trained investigators, and to avoid subjecting a child to multiple interviews about the abuse or neglect. It is the intent of the legislature that, as a result of these reports, protective services will be made available in an effort to prevent further harm to the child; safeguard and enhance the general well-being of children in this state; and preserve family life unless that effort is likely to result in physical or emotional damage to the child. SENATOR MCGUIRE applauded the governor for adding athletic coaches and volunteers to the list of persons required to report, because it will enhance the safety and well-being of children in Alaska. Coaches and volunteers are on the front lines and see kids with great frequency, sometimes more often than their busy parents, she said. She pointed out that the standard is a reasonable suspicion and that there is no requirement that the volunteer investigate. They are only required to pass their suspicion along to the professionals. She said she cannot imagine that a volunteer who truly cares about kids and is volunteering for the right reasons would suddenly stop volunteering because this bill passed. SENATOR MCGUIRE reiterated her vehement opposition to Amendment 4. It may be a volunteer that suspects a coach of child abuse, she concluded. 3:08:07 PM CHAIR COGHILL held SB 22 in committee with Amendment 4 pending.