HOUSE BILL NO. 98 "An Act relating to minor consuming and repeat minor consuming; and providing for an effective date." JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, presented the sponsor statement explaining three fixes in the bill. HB 98 fixes a problem that occurred with the enactment of HB 359, a bill that passed the House unanimously in the 25th Legislative Session. HB 359 originated due to the desire of Alaskan youths to join the military and not being able to due to probation restrictions from a minor consuming charge that may have occurred 5 years previously. Unfortunately, when the bill was drafted, it left a loop-hole in the repeat minor consuming law. HB 98 fixes this loop-hole by amending the language of AS 04.16.050(c) to include in the list of predicate offenses for repeat minor consuming "previously granted suspended imposition of sentence", and "a prior conviction under AS 04.16.050 (b)(2)." This new language will now cover all repeat offenders, no matter how their previous minor consuming charges were adjudicated. Co-Chair Stoltze requested a summary of the ultimate goal in passing House Bill 98. Ms. Pierson referred to HB 359 that states a minor convicted of minor consuming could be taken off probation in order to join the military, play sports, or cross into Canada, so their lives would not be placed on hold because of a mistake. House Bill 98 is a technical fix to that bill. Representative Gara questioned what would happen if this bill passed. He wondered if it was correct that a young person, with a first time arrest for having a beer, the law now states they are convicted. Ms. Pierson stated that the minor may be convicted two ways; first under AS 04.16.050 (b)(1) which grants a suspension of sentence and places the minor on probation or AS 04.16.050 (b)(2) which imposes a fine of at least $200 but not more than $600, requires the minor to attend alcohol information school or be on probation for up to one year. It further states that the court may suspend a portion of the fine if the minor is required to pay for education or treatment. Representative Gara reminded the committee that when this bill came before them last year some members wanted to fix the law, but were met with resistance. He contended that he disliked the "convicted" language for a 17 year old caught having a beer. He judged this offense could be settled with a fine or require education but not use "conviction" language. 1:45:43 PM Ms. Pierson replied that under AS 94.16.050 (1) (3) the statute states that previously convicted to exclude a conviction for minor consuming, therefore there is some leeway. Representative Gara emphasized he did not want this person treated as a criminal and reiterated it should not be considered a crime. Ms. Pierson replied it would be a crime. Representative Gara believed the bill needed further examination. 1:46:50 PM Representative Austerman expressed the same concern as Representative Gara. He believed more time was needed to investigate this bill. Co-Chair Stoltze expressed there had been intent to pass the bill, but he believed if there were still questions, the bill needed further examination. QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, testified via teleconference, and affirmed the department would look into the questions expressed by Representative Gara and Representative Austerman. Representative Gara contended the statute is strange in that it is only statute on the books that talks about probation and a suspended imposition of sentence for something that does not receive a jail sentence. 1:49:36 PM ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW agreed that a minor consuming is not a crime for the first and second time but the word "crime" is used because it is not clear what else to call it. In 2001 the law was changed for minor consuming in the state to recognize that minors try things and should not be tagged with a crime but at present there is no other label to assign to this offense. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if this was a semantic issue, calling it a crime for lack of a better definition. Ms. Carpeneti agreed it should not be a crime, but crime-related language is used. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Ms. Pierson's testimony was in error. Ms. Carpeneti asserted that the first and second offenses are not crimes but the third would be a Class B misdemeanor. Representative Gara asked if language could be inserted into the statute that said the first two offenses are not considered crimes. Ms. Carpeneti expressed the need to look at the statute more carefully before making any final decisions. 1:51:48 PM Representative Gara asked if this was the only statute that had probation and suspended imposition of sentences where there is no possible jail time. Ms. Carpeneti believed that was true, but needed to investigate further. 1:52:16 PM Representative Austerman reiterated he was not trying to protect the habitual drinker, but he also did not want to penalize a minor for trying something for the first time. Representative Joule wondered if citations, something less than crimes, could be used in this case. Ms. Carpeneti explained that a citation is a charging or ticketing document and caution would be needed in using that word, but it could be considered. Chair Stoltze interjected that this discussion would depart from Representative Ramras's intent from a technical fix to a substantive change to an exiting statute. He would want all interested parties to have a say before making such a change. HB 98 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. 1:55:02 PM