CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(2d JUD) "An Act providing for the release of certain property in the custody of a law enforcement agency to a crime victim under certain conditions and relating to requests for that release by the office of victims' rights." 2:39:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, CO-SPONSOR, provided opening remarks on SB 30: Senate Bill 30 is about restorative justice. When a victim of a crime has their property held as evidence by law enforcement agencies, it could be months or even years before they are able to have their possessions returned. By holding a victim's property as evidence for a prolonged period of time, extra burden is placed on the property owner to replace what has been taken as evidence. The consequences are even higher for small business owners who may face bankruptcy if their property loss is a crucial component of their daily operations. SB 30 will introduce a process for victims of property crime to petition the court for relief in recovering property held as evidence. Representative Wilson elaborated that the bill was about a process that would enable victims to receive their property more quickly. CHUCK KOPP, CHIEF OF STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, addressed the sectional analysis (copy on file). He explained that currently the return of property was discretionary at the advocate attorney level; the return of property could take quite a bit of time if the attorneys did not agree. Often crime victims were businesses and were therefore unable to complete a sale or were underinsured on a property, which could be very problematic. He referred to letters of support in member's packets (copy on file). The bill allowed a neutral decision maker the opportunity to weigh in on the decision and provided the victims with direct access to courts in order to ask the judge to determine whether the interests of the victim outweighed those of the other party. He read Section 1 of the sectional analysis: 1. Provides that a crime victim who is the owner of property in the custody of a law enforcement agency may request the agency for the return of their property through the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR). 2. OVR will file the request with the agency after conducting an investigation into the request to make an initial determination if the crime victim is entitled to return of the property being claimed under the requirements of proposed 12.36.070(c): the crime victim provides satisfactory proof of ownership, and the party that objects to the return of the property fails to prove that the property must be retained by the agency for evidentiary purposes. 3. Once OVR makes such a determination, they will request on behalf of the crime victim that the agency return the property. 4. Within 10 days after receipt of request and following reasonable notice to prosecution, defense and other interested parties, the agency will request a hearing before the court to determine if the property shall be released to the crime victim. 5. The court of jurisdiction is identified in cases involving a pending criminal case and in situations where no criminal case is pending. 6. Establishes the burden of proof to be a preponderance of the evidence, for both the crime victim showing ownership and the objecting party proving the property must be retained by the agency. 2:43:21 PM Mr. Kopp continued to read from Section 1 of the sectional analysis: 7. Establishes that if the court orders the return of the property to the crime victim, the court may impose reasonable conditions on the return to maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property. 8. Identifies the term crime victim as having the meaning given to victim in AS 12.55.185, the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Kopp concluded with Section 2 of the sectional analysis: 1. Establishes within Title 24, Chapter 65 Office of Victims' Rights the authority of OVR to request a law enforcement agency for return of property on behalf of a crime victim claiming property after conducting an investigation as proscribed in AS 12.36.070(c). 2. Provides that the victims' advocate may use any of the powers granted to the advocate under Title 24, Chapter 65. Representative Guttenberg wondered about the preponderance of evidence in the situations presented in the bill. He discussed multiple agencies involved. He wondered what would happen if there was a lien or judgment on property that an individual was trying to get back. Mr. Kopp replied that the language "may order the return" was included on line 7, page 2 of the bill, which allowed flexibility on contested claims that the court could rule on. The preponderance of evidence language had been recommended by the Department of Law; it was more probable that a party deserved to have their property returned despite claims to the contrary by other parties. He delineated that the court could make a determination based on the provision in the bill or any other law that dictated when property could be released. He pointed to language "if the court orders the return of the property, the court may impose reasonable conditions on the return" (lines 14 and 15, page 2); the specific language was for situations where a person needed the property back quickly, but conditions were applied. Conditions could include: a returned item could not be sold or the condition of the item needed to be maintained. He used a heavy piece of equipment as an example of an item that could be photographed and documented and returned to a business owner to allow them to commence business activities, but the court may ask the owner not to sell the item until the case was closed. The sponsor felt that the language was permissive and broad enough to allow the court the discretionary authority it needed in the situations. 2:47:22 PM Co-Chair Thomas referred to a letter in the packet from Hal Ingalls (copy on file) who had a vehicle and equipment confiscated. He discussed deterioration that could result from leaving a vehicle to sit for too long. He wondered whether the bill required the state to return property in the same condition. Mr. Kopp replied that the bill did not guarantee the condition of returned property. He explained that the legislation provided crime victims with an avenue to directly appeal to the court in circumstances when they could not get a party to agree to release their property. Co-Chair Thomas read from the sectional analysis: "establishes that if the court orders the return of the property to the crime victim, the court may impose reasonable conditions on the return to maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property" (Section 1, line 7). He thought the court should return the property in its original condition. He wondered what the point would be to return a vehicle in a deteriorated condition. Co-Chair Stoltze understood that the bill addressed a small portion of the problems experienced by property victims. He believed the process to a solution was incremental and recognized the hard work of the sponsor. He pointed out that small business owners could not absorb a loss of their only working vehicle or set of tools. He had heard anecdotal remarks by trade union members who were forced to take a loss because it was too cumbersome to deal with the legal system. Mr. Kopp appreciated the comments and noted that it had taken three years to develop the current bill. Vice-chair Fairclough referred the committee to letters of support from the Alaska Homebuilder's Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses; both letters cited battles between the government and smaller businesses. She read an excerpt from a letter from Hal Ingalls, CEO, Denali Drilling, Inc., Anchorage: It has been 13 months since that accident with no police report or indication that we will be able to get our equipment back any time soon, nor are we able to make a settlement with the insurance company. If we were a smaller business than we are, we would be out of business by not having access to our equipment to continue to operate. Renting equipment to replace what is in impound until the case is settled would be a financial burden we would have to incur until the troopers complete their paperwork. Vice-chair Fairclough noted that at present it had been 14 months since the accident had taken place. She observed that it was difficult to fight the government and that the bill provided a process to help individuals acquire their property. She believed that the bill would help with recourse in the event that property was damaged while in the possession of the government. 2:52:41 PM Representative Costello asked whether the legislation would help Mr. Ingalls and others currently in the same position. Mr. Kopp replied in the affirmative. Representative Costello spoke in support of the legislation. ANDREW WALKER, OWNER, COMPUTER RENAISSANCE, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), explained that in 2010 the company had been defrauded of a laptop with a bad check. He relayed that the $1,100 laptop had been sitting in police custody since the fraud had occurred. He had received his laptop during the last week, but the item value was worth less than half of its original value and had been damaged cosmetically during that time. He had tried to convince the court to remove the hard drive and to return the laptop, but that had not occurred. He explained that he was out the money as a business owner because of the court system and the associated delays. He expressed that it would have been very helpful to have had an avenue to appeal in order to get his money back. Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Mr. Walker for his time. Mr. Walker replied that he was happy to be part of anything that would help victims of crime get their property back in an expedient manner. 2:56:55 PM VICTOR KESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (via teleconference), spoke in "enthusiastic" support of the legislation. He believed the bill provided a valuable tool for crime victims to attain the return of their property held during the course of criminal prosecution. He highlighted positive aspects of the legislation. He opined that the bill provided a balanced means for crime victims to seek return of their property thereby mitigating the costs associated with the underlying criminal activity. The legislation would allow crime victims to seek the return of their property in a timely manner in accord with principle decision making through the operation of OVR, the judicial branch of government, and other criminal justice agencies. The bill aligned with Article 1, Section 24 of the Alaska Constitution mandating that crime victims be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness in a criminal prosecution. He stated that the bill was fair and established a legal framework that would consider the institutional perspectives of the Department of Law, law enforcement, the judiciary system, and OVR before property was returned to a crime victim. Mr. Kester discussed that the bill promoted restorative justice by putting the victim in the position they had been in prior to the crime and allowing them to move forward in a positive and constructive manner. He communicated that the bill amplified the victim's voice regarding the request for the return of their property and added clarity and specificity to the victim's constitutional rights. The bill required decision makers in a criminal prosecution to hear and consider a victim's voice regarding the return of their property. He believed that the justice was improved when a crime victim's voice was heard and considered in the criminal justice process. The bill helped victims that may lack the ability to hire a private attorney or who was unfamiliar with the legal process. The bill allowed the expertise of OVR to assist crime victims with attaining their property. The office was dedicated to helping crime victims and sought to collaborate and cooperate with others throughout the criminal justice system. He discussed that there was a zero impact fiscal note. He thanked the committee for the ability to testify on the legislation. 3:01:02 PM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. He referred to the indeterminate fiscal note from Department of Law and zero fiscal notes from Department of Public Safety and the Legislature. Representative Costello MOVED to report CSSB 30(2nd Jud) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. Representative Doogan wondered whether the faster return of property would impact a victim's insurance claims or ability to make a civil suit. Representative Wilson hoped that the quicker receipt of property would help victims to take care of the issues sooner. She believed the legislation would result in fewer court cases because victims would have direct access to the courts and would receive their property more quickly. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSB 30(2nd Jud) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three previously published fiscal notes including, one indeterminate note: FN4 (LAW); and two zero notes: FN3 (DPS) and FN5 (LEG). 3:04:30 PM AT EASE 3:07:33 PM RECONVENED