SENATE BILL NO. 323 "An Act relating to sexual offenses, to those who commit sexual offenses, and to registration of sex offenders; amending Rule 6(r)(2), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." KRISTIE TIBBLES, STAFF, SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, explained that the use of children in the production of sexually explicit material, including photographs, films, videos, and computer images is a form of sexual abuse that can result in physical or psychological harm to the children involved. Individuals who utilize children as sexual objects or are sexually attracted to children often seek out and collect sexually explicit materials for their own sexual gratification. Ms. Tibbles pointed out that access to the Internet has become one of the preferred methods of distributing and collecting child pornographic materials; several investigations across the country have revealed thousands of pieces of child pornography in the hands of child pornographers. Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 1996 and several states are taking action to strengthen their pornography laws. Ms. Tibbles continued, the Alaska penalty for distribution of child pornography, a Class C felony, is not more than five years. Law enforcement officers are encountering problems in trying to prove distribution. Offenders are often charged with or plead down to possession of child pornography, a Class A misdemeanor offense with a penalty of not more than one year in prison, unless the offender is convicted of more than one count and receives a consecutive sentence. SB 323 would increase the offense for possession of child pornography to a class C felony, and the offense for distribution to a Class B felony offense, punishable by not more than 10 years in prison. Ms. Tibbles pointed out that SB 323 also would create the offense of indecent exposure in the first degree if the offender knowingly masturbates within the observation of a person under 16 years of age. The crime will be a Class C felony offense. The bill makes the existing offense of indecent exposure, indecent exposure in the 2nd degree. The penalty for this offense is a Class A misdemeanor when committed before a person under 16 years of age, and a Class B misdemeanor when committed before a person 16 years or older. Ms. Tibbles explained the SB 323 would require sex offender registration for the offenses of indecent exposure in the first degree, indecent exposure in the second degree if committed before a minor under the age of 16 for the second offense, and possession of child pornography. Currently, only offenders who are convicted for distribution of child pornography are required to register. Ms. Tibbles summarized that the existence and distribution of child pornographic images creates the potential for many types of harm in the community and presents a clear and present danger to all children. Strengthing the penalties for these crimes send a clear message that the degradation and exploitation of our children will not be tolerated. Agencies in support of SB 323 include the Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Peace Officers Association, the Anchorage Police Department, UAF Police, and STAR. JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTICE VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, voiced support of the proposed legislation. Representative Grussendorf questioned the proposed title of offense of "possession" of child pornography. He thought that "possession" was proposing a bit too stiff penalty. Ms. Andreen pointed out that there is a network that takes place for people who are interested in these types of materials. These are materials that are explicitly set up to sexualize children. She stressed how frightening it is that people are preying upon children for sexual gratification. Representative Martin echoed the avalability of vicious materials taking advantage of children. Representative J. Davies inquired the placement in statute of the definition of "child pornography". Ms. Tibbles replied that the statute that pertains to possession refers back to that definition under the exploitation of a child. The statute site for possession of pornography is AS 11.61.127, and was included on Page 3 of the bill. Representative Grussendorf reiterated that current state law seems adequate when addressing "possession". He questioned the need to escalate it to a Class C felony. Representative J. Davies agreed that the "effort" should be made to "stamp out" those people who are producing the materials. He asked if there was evidence which correlates the possession of child pornography to other kinds of exploitation of children. Ms. Andreen replied that there is a very significant connection between them, which is part of the entire cycle occurring at this time. She emphasized that with the Internet accessibility, it has become an industry. Representative J. Davies warned the possibility of those who are curious, surfing the Internet, and the need to establish the gray areas, so that the otherwise innocent are not tracked. He asked if there was a way to draw a line and limit, perhaps including a rebuttal defense. Representative Kelly asked if possession would include the casual surfer pursuing the Internet. REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ responded that it was possible to possess without intending to "possess". He agreed this could create problems and that these issues were discussed in the House Judiciary Committee. Representative J. Davies asked if including "intentional" or "knowing" possession could address the problem on Page 3, Line 2. Representative Kelly thought that "knowingly" would be easier to prove. Representative Berkowitz explained that "possession" was the exercise of dominion and control over an object. Representative J. Davies inquired if storing an images on the computer would be classified as possession. Representative Berkowitz could not answer that. Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Representative Berkowitz asked that Lines #1 - #3 be deleted from the amendment. He explained that the amendment would address indecent exposure in a crowded situation. He stated that such an act would be difficult to prove that it was directed at a specific individual. Representative Kelly MOVED to amend Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was amended. There being NO OBJECTION to the amended Amendment #1, it was adopted. Representative Mulder questioned the point at which a person would move beyond curiosity and into collection. Representative Berkowitz advised that testimony in the House Judiciary Committee indicated that a collection of over 100 was clearly a serious collector with a high correlation of trading and sexual assaults. Following discussion regarding trading and possession, Representative J. Davies MOVED to amend Page 3, Line 2, inserting "knowing" before "possession". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Legislative drafters should phrase that language appropriately. Representative J. Davies questioned if there should be a distinction between "possession" as a Class A misdemeanor and "knowing possession" as a Class C felony. Representative G. Davis pointed out that distribution is the problem, not the possession. Representative Berkowitz elaborated that there is no limit to the number of counts that a person could possess. Representative Mulder spoke to the fiscal note. BRUCE RICHARDS, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, noted that the Department had submitted an unsigned fiscal note. (Tape Change HFC 98-157, Side 1). Mr. Richards remarked that he had spoken with the Anchorage Police Department asking them what the anticipated caseload would be, based on previous experience. They anticipate three cases a year. The Department's submitted analysis provides the cost to cover that projected average. Representative Mulder noted that he would support the original fiscal note which represented a lesser amount. Mr. Richards pointed out that the proposed bill would transfer the cost of incarcerating people from the federal government to the State government. Ms. Tibbles acknowledged that Senator Pearce had not seen the new fiscal note. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the bill would be HELD in Committee in order to discuss the fiscal impact with Senator Pearce. SB 323 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.