CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 206(FIN) An Act relating to contempt of court and to temporary detention and identification of persons. Representative Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft #24- LS1197\N, Luckhaupt, 5/6/06. NO OBJECTIONS, the Committee Substitute was ADOPTED. NO OBJECTIONS. SENATOR CON BUNDE, SPONSOR, testified regarding the bill. He noted that the bill was an attempt to address a growing inner city problem regarding material witnesses. He gave a recent example of a circumstance when a group engaged in violent criminal behaviors refused to provide identification in Anchorage. He proposed that it was a balance to protect the freedoms of regular citizens, while giving the police the ability to prosecute criminals. He noted attempts to maintain constitutionality, and stated that the chief of police in Anchorage supported the bill. 12:54:09 PM Senator Bunde gave an example of the importance of being able to identify individuals even if they are not an active participant in a crime. He referred to a group shooting, which occurred in the Anchorage area. An individual who was in the area at the time, but was not involved in the crime, lead to the identification and location of the murderer. He stated that the bill protected people from unnecessary questioning, but would aid police by requiring individuals to identify themselves. These witnesses would be given protection. 12:57:29 PM Representative Hawker asked if the Sponsor supported the CS. The Sponsor does support this version. 12:57:55 PM Representative Kerttula asked regarding the ability of an individual to quash a subpoena was removed in the committee substitute. LAUREN RICE, STAFF, SENATOR BUNDE explained that the section was removed since it implied that if a person provided their identification, the police could not ask for further testimony. She explained that if identification was offered, and the police decided that more information was needed, a subpoena could be issued. Representative Kerttula noted that normally the courts would decide. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW explained that it is the obligation of every citizen to provide testimony in court if they are required to, unless they would incriminate themselves; there is a statutory scheme that covers fifth amendment claims. The legislation attempts to provide a mechanism to identify persons that witness crime. Persons without of identification could be given a subpoena. 12:59:28 PM Mr. Guaneli added that they may be other reasons that a prosecutor would need their testimony before a grand jury beyond the need to identify themselves. This provision allows that if a prosecutor had a need for testimony, the individual could no longer quash a subpoena. He maintained that a person should not be allowed to avoid their obligation to appear before a grand jury by simply showing identification. They can still move to quash a subpoena for other reasons. Representative Kerttula maintained her concern that this could be used more broadly and committed to speaking with the department of Law. Representative Kerttula also referred to the language "in the vicinity" of a crime. She asked how broad the language was intended to be. Mr. Guaneli suggested that this provision must be read in context with other requirements, such as the officer must suspect that the person has material evidence that applies to the situation, as well as having witnessed the situation. He concluded that police often must make a quick determination of who might be involved for the sake of public safety. He noted that they would be unlikely to go far from the scene of the crime, and contended that the language limited that location. 1:05:03 PM Senator Bunde noted that a similar discussion had occurred in the House Judiciary Committee, and a suggestion had been made to change the language to "immediate vicinity". He pointed out however, as in the earlier example he gave, the information had been obtained in an area removed from the crime scene. He noted that this should be left to the discretion of the police officer. 1:06:09 PM Representative Stoltze referred to section 2, pertaining to the protection of potential crime victims, and asked if a person that might have been involved in a group, such as a gang, might by extension become a victim in a gang activity. He asked if a witness in a gang activity might be protected under the bill. 1:07:25 PM Senator Bunde confirmed that by requiring identification, a person may appear to have been required to cooperate with police, which may protect them from ramifications. 1:07:57 PM Representative Stoltze asked for clarification on temporary detention for the protection of a witness. Mr. Guaneli noted that there is a general a definition of victim of a crime in Title 12. the officer did not have to know that a person was a victim, for this statute to apply, but only have reasonable suspicion. He gave an example of report of a beating, not witnessed by police, and a subsequent belief that a woman and man driving away might be involved in this incident. He added that the statute proposed a scheme in which police officers could then request identification. 1:10:31 PM Representative Holm asked if there was a difference provided between adults and juveniles. Senator Bunde did not recall the difference in how this identification would be obtained. 1:11:17 PM Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 206 (JUD) out of Committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There being NO OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 206 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with three Previously Published Zero Fiscal Notes: #5 (ADM); #6 (COR); #7 (LAW); #8 (ADM) and a Do Pass Recommendation.