HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS  8:03:54 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 8, "An Act relating to protective orders." 8:05:47 AM TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 8 on behalf of Representative Edgmon, prime sponsor. He paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In 2014, a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and former Sen. Mark Begich eliminated the "Alaska Exemption" from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This brought attention to the state's obligation to enforce protection orders issued by other jurisdictions, including other state, territorial, or tribal courts. As current statutes are written, law enforcement is only compelled to enforce a tribal or another state's protection order if it has been filed (that is, registered) in an Alaska court. However, with Alaska subject to the VAWA, the state is required to enforce protection orders issued in another jurisdiction even if the order has not been registered. HB 8 follows the recommendation of the Department of Law to amend conflicting state statutes in order to bring Alaska into compliance with the federal law. HB 8 will not only clarify the duties of law enforcement but also will eliminate potential lawsuits that could stem from the contradictions currently found in state statutes. Additionally, the bill adds a presumption of validity on the part of state law enforcement, so that they are required to enforce a protective order issued in another jurisdiction so long as it appears authentic on its face. HB 8 also more clearly specifies in statute that "other states" and "other jurisdictions" include courts of another state or territory, United States military tribunals, and tribal courts. It's important to note that the state still encourages registration of protection orders from other jurisdictions. As the Department of Law has noted, the state's central registry "gives officers access to tribal and foreign protection orders anywhere in Alaska, even if the victim does not have a copy of the order at hand." 8:09:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO clarified there are concerns that Alaska be given the ability to enforce [protective orders of other jurisdictions], and the general idea behind HB 8 is to support the victims of sexual assault. He added, "We want to be expedient with this." MR. CLARK said Representative Talerico stated that summary very well. He gave an example of someone in Ohio who has a protective order in place and moves to Alaska, but is not aware of the need to register the protective order in Alaska. That person then is menaced in some way by the person against whom the protective order was made and needs help immediately. The proposed legislation would ensure that help is "legal and possible." 8:11:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whose job it is to register the protective order and whether the person with the order would need an attorney to complete such a registration. MR. CLARK offered his understanding that it would be the holder of the protective order - the victim - and would be a fairly routine matter of contacting the court. 8:12:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE questioned how the registration process would work, in terms of a police officer in a rural community being able to look up information and "get a hit." MR. CLARK answered that the registration process is well- established in Alaska. Under HB 8, if someone has failed to register a protective order, the enforcement could take place immediately anyway. He reiterated that the proposed legislation would add "a presumption of validity." He noted that often, a person who has taken out a protective order possesses a hard copy of that order; therefore, in a threatening situation, the person could call law enforcement, who could enforce the order if it "appears authentic on its face." 8:14:38 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if he is correct in saying that everywhere else in the U.S. is "on board with this" and enforcing protective orders issued by other jurisdictions. MR. CLARK answered that is correct. He emphasized that the State of Alaska is on board with this and is working under the requirements of the federal law. He said the intent of HB 8 is to address contradictions that exist in state statute. He said such change would not only act in favor of the victims, but also assist law enforcement, because continued contradictions in statute can cause conflicts in prosecutions going forward by presenting ambiguities in the prosecution of a case. 8:16:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER directed attention to language on page 4, lines 21 and 22, which read as follows: (d) A protective order issued in another jurisdiction that appears authentic on its face is presumed valid. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "What's the procedure they're going to use to validate this, and do they need to validate anything?" MR. CLARK replied that the reason for that language is to "err on the side of caution." He said if someone does not register a protective order from another jurisdiction, is in a threatening situation, and law enforcement arrives, and the person has the protective order in hand, then law enforcement is authorized to determine whether the hard copy looks valid and, if so, proceed to enforce the protection. He said, "It exists in other states as a precaution in order to ... give as much help and assistance to someone in a threatening situation as possible. And to put it plainly, those matters can be sorted out; the validity itself can be sorted out after the situation is brought under control and people are safe." MR. CLARK, in response to follow-up questions, confirmed that the matter would be settled in terms of validity before any prosecution would go forward. He said the section of the Violence Against Women Act that authorizes what the bill is describing includes certain criteria that a protective order from another jurisdiction must meet: the issue in court must have jurisdiction in the parties and the matter under the laws of the state, territory, or tribe, and that the issue in court must give reasonable notice and opportunity to the person against whom that order is sought in order for that person's due process to be protected. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER queried as to whether there are any statistics showing whether there have been any "frivolous orders." 8:21:05 AM MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals & Ethics Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department of Law (DOL), stated that she is not aware of any frivolous use of protective orders. She deferred to Casey Schroeder to more specifically address questions regarding protective orders. 8:21:48 AM CASEY SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), stated, "We're not aware of any frivolous or perhaps fraudulent uses of protective orders in this context, and we don't have any specifics on that either, unfortunately." 8:22:26 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Lundquist for an estimate of how many people in Alaska have protective orders from other jurisdictions. MS. LUNDQUIST deferred to Ms. Schroeder. MS. SCHROEDER answered that the division could obtain statistics showing the overall number of protective orders and those registered with the court; however, she said she does not know if there would be a specification of which of those are from other jurisdictions. CO-CHAIR PARISH indicated that he did not require Ms. Schroeder to research information if she did not already have it on hand, as the information is not vital. He added, "It's a pretty clear bill." 8:23:51 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER opened public testimony on HB 8. 8:25:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said he endorses and embraces the proposed legislation. He said at the village level, when someone wants to leave to get away from a bad situation, he/she goes to bigger city, and [HB 8] addresses that. 8:26:25 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER closed public testimony on HB 8. 8:26:50 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated support for HB 8 as a way to ensure there are no problems between federal and state law. 8:27:32 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to report HB 8 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 8:27:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER [objected] to note that Co-Chair Parish had asked for information that [Ms. Schroeder] had said she could provide, and he said if possible he would like more time to review the bill. 8:28:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for purpose of discussion. 8:28:50 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH reiterated that he does not think there are conflicts between state and federal law, and he clarified that he had withdrawn his request for information. He urged Representative Rauscher to support HB 8, but reminded him that he had the right to pass the bill with "no recommendation" and the opportunity to move an amendment on the House floor. 8:29:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE offered his understanding that the state is basically already doing what is proposed under HB 8, but the proposed legislation would [make it official]. He indicated he would like to ask more questions of the representatives from the state agencies. 8:30:33 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:30 a.m. to 8:32 a.m. 8:32:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that [during consideration of a similar bill heard during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature,] three members [of the House Judiciary Standing Committee] had voted "no recommendation." He said he would like to vote in support of HB 8, but wonders what problem those legislators in the former legislature saw in regard to [House Bill 221]. He expressed interest in finding out an answer. CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked Representative Rauscher if he had any questions. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered no. 8:34:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked Ms. Schroeder if Alaska is already compliant or if the proposed legislation is an attempt to make the state compliant with federal law addressing domestic violence and protective orders. MS. SCHROEDER answered that is correct: "the federal law already requires us to do this." The proposed legislation "cleans up direct conflicts" of unconstitutionality and streamlines the process, which will help with prosecutions. She continued as follows: The current law, the way it reads, it's an element of the offense that ... the protective law be registered, and the federal law says no, we can't do that anymore - that cannot be a requirement. So, what this is going to do, is when it comes to prosecuting people for violating protective orders, it's really going to help us out when the law is clear and it matches the federal law and we're all doing what we're supposed to do. It'll hopefully cut down on litigation ... so we can just focus on protecting victims. 8:35:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed appreciation that Ms. Schroeder had mentioned the desire to protect victims. She opined that it is of the utmost importance to hurry the bill along in order to afford that protection. 8:36:18 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated his intent is to move HB 8 out of committee today. He suggested that because there is another committee of referral, Representative Rauscher would have time to get his research done and work with the bill sponsor. 8:37:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO removed his objection. 8:37:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to Co-Chair Fansler, clarified that he has no objection [to the motion to move HB 8 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes]. 8:37:54 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that there being no further objection, HB 8 was reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.