HOUSE BILL NO. 64 "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first and second degrees and providing penalties for their violation; providing a peace officer with the authority to arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking; relating to the release before trial of a person accused of stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of imposition of sentence of a person convicted of stalking." Representative Brown asked what would be accomplished by extending the parole requirement. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that the extended parole requirement will help to keep perpetrators in line. The original proposal was 5 to 99 years. Representative Parnell asked if other crimes would be impacted. Representative Toohey clarified that all crimes with a five year probation period would be brought up to ten years. Representative Brown noted that the legislation has been broadened to cover all crimes. She expressed concern that the zero fiscal note is inadequate. MARGOT KNUTH, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW explained 9 that the legislation originally addressed the stalking offense. The Department of Law expressed concern that probation for a single offense was dramatically altered. She pointed out that legislation in the prior legislative session would have extended probation for all felony offenses to ten years. The House Judiciary Committee incorporated the legislation to extend the probation period for all felony offenses into HB 64. She asserted that the fiscal cost will be minimal due to the fact that most probation violations are new crimes. She stressed that offenders would be returned to jail via a probation revocation rather than through a new prosecution. Probation revocation proceedings are faster and less costly than prosecution proceedings. Representative Brown emphasized that because the potential time that an offender could have their parole revoked is extended there would be an impact on the department of Corrections. JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDERS AGENCY (PD) stated that the parole extension will result in an increased caseload. He disagreed with Ms. Knuth. He stressed that most probation revocations are due to technical violations such as failure to appear for meetings with probation officers, failing to comply with rehabilitation programs or change of residence or employment without approval. He added that probation officers feel they must report technical violations because of civil liability concerns. He expected a number of new cases would be filed as a result of the parole extension. He disagreed with the Department of Corrections's assumption that the impact would be zero. The PD is asking for two paralegal assistants. Representative Brown observed that the fiscal note submitted by the Public Defenders Agency suggests that the anti- stalking provision may be susceptible to a constitutional challenge. Mr. Salemi stated that the sponsor has worked with the Department of Law to address the constitutional challenge. Representative Brown asked if the probation extension was limited to the anti-stalking provision if the fiscal note would be lower. Mr. Salemi stated that if the original probation provision was reinstated that the fiscal impact would be minimal. He stated that there would be no need for a fiscal impact note. Representative Toohey offered Amendment 1 (Attachment 6). She observed that the amendment would return the probation period to five years. 10 Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. Representative Martin OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. He asked for clarification of the amendment's effect. Representative Toohey clarified that the deletions in Amendment 1 would return current law. Co-Chair Larson reiterated the motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted. Representative Foster asked if a person sitting in a car all day long near to the victims place of employment would be considered "stalking." Ms. Knuth emphasized that in order for an offense to be committed the defendant must place the person in fear of death or physical injury. She did not think the example given would be an offense. Representative Brown MOVED to report CSHB 64 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. (Tape Change, HFC 93-44, Side 1) Representative Navarre questioned if the creation of a new law as proposed in Amendment 1 would have fiscal impact on the Public Defender Agency. Mr. Salemi clarified that the impact will be minimal. He stated that it would be difficult to quantify. Representative Navarre WITHDREW HIS OBJECTION. Representative Parnell referred to page 2, line 23, CSHB 64 (JUD). He asked if it is the intent that the victim be held in reasonable fear of death. Ms. Knuth answered that line 23 refers to the victims subjective fear. She added that there must be a basis for the fear in reality. She noted that since stalking often results from a prior relationship it is possible for the perpetuator to have an inside knowledge of what will frighten the victim. Representative Parnell asked Mr. Salemi to expound on the definition of "in fear of death". Mr. Salemi replied that the fear must be reasonable. He stated that the course of conduct issue may be a larger issue. He did not think that constitutional problems would arise. In response to a question from Representative Parnell, Ms. Knuth explained that the fear of death element is included in existing assault statutes. 11 Co-Chair Larson reiterated the motion to MOVE CSHB 64 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 64 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes by the Department of Administration and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Corrections and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety, dated 3/1/93 and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law, dated 3/1/93.