HB 442 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION Number 603 CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced discussion of HB 442, Criminal Justice Information. He requested an overview of the bill from representatives from the Law Department before embarking upon specific testimony and was advised that a previous hearing had not been held. DEAN GUANELI was requested to provide an overview of the provisions of the bill and advised that he would be called back later in the hearing to testify. Number 615 DEAN GUANELI of the Criminal Division of the Department of Law explained: "This bill that you have before you has been in the works for a number of years. It does a number of things relating to criminal justice information systems: (1) It sets up an advisory oversight committee to assist the agencies in dealing with criminal justice information systems. Current law provided a fairly unworkable committee to oversee these systems, and as the law developed over a number of years, it turns out that some of the systems in existence don't really fall under the current law. It's been pointed out by a number of different agencies -- Legislative Audit, for example --that there needs to be some continued oversight of criminal justice information systems. The first section in the bill sets up an advisory committee to provide some guidance as to how agencies ought to deal with their systems. (2) The second section of the bill imposes duties upon the Commissioner of Public Safety regarding criminal justice information systems. Essentially, what this does, is it sets up, within the Department of Public Safety, what's called a central depository for criminal justice information. It basically says that we are going to have within the Department of Public Safety a place for keeping criminal history records where people can go to get accurate criminal history records. It's one thing to -- a lot of these, particularly to the extent they are conviction records -- are public records and you can get them at the court, but the courts are scattered all across Alaska, and really across the United States, and there ought to be one central place where they are located, and that's to be Public Safety. (3) The third part of this bill mandates that fingerprints be taken as part of the criminal justice process. I think it will come as a surprise to all of you that there is no statute in Alaska that requires that fingerprints be taken when someone is arrested. It's a fairly standard police practice, but, at times, and in certain places, it's not done uniformly, it's not done regularly, it's not done well, in other words -- the fingerprints are smudged, they can't be read. This sets up a statutory requirement that fingerprints be taken, and that they be legible; and if they aren't legible, that they be taken over again. Several years ago the legislature appropriated $7 million to the Department of Public Safety for an automated fingerprint system, and the only way that can work well, and the only way we can have accurate criminal history records, is if the fingerprints are taken, and taken uniformly. "Some of the other sections require that criminal justice agencies provide the Department of Public Safety with information; the kind of information they need to have a good central criminal justice information system. That is something that does not exist in current law. Among the most important provisions... starts on page 7... which basically says how, to whom these records can be released. It sets up specific statutory guidance as to when and for what purposes these records can be released. I'll be in a position to say some more about that later. But that is something that is needed in current law. The remainder of the sections impose certain requirements about correcting information that is found to be inaccurate. It allows people to get access to their own records, to be able to correct them. It sets out ways in which people can do that. And then there are a long list of definitions. "In essence, what this bill does is, it sets up a statutory framework for bringing Alaska really into the 21st century in terms of criminal justice information systems and collecting information. As you know, there are a wide variety of uses for this information; sentencing, certain proceedings need this information for a wide variety of licensing functions that require checks of criminal records. The Department of Health and Social Services uses these records to assess the suitability of foster parents and daycare centers, people who work with children, teachers. For better or worse, we've got the Brady bill that was enacted at the federal level, and we need accurate information to be able to do the records checks required by that, and in order for the State of Alaska to participate in a large number of interstate criminal justice systems. In other words, in order for Alaska to get good information about criminals from other states, we are going to have to have certain procedures set up, and this bill sets out a framework for that. So, it does a lot of things, but it basically sets up the statutory guidance for doing, really, what we have needed to do for a long period of time. I also have, for anyone who is really interested in the details, I have a 17 page commentary and section by section description of the bill, and I will provide it to counsel for the committee. That is available if you want to get into the details." CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked MR. GUANELI for the presentation and introduced CHIP THOMA. Number 704 CHIP THOMA testified on behalf of himself in support of HB 442: "I strongly support HB 442 and the companion legislation SB 276. It has been requested for over two decades, beginning with the Governor's veto of similar legislation, SB 387, in 1972, having to do with the right of privacy in public safety records, and then the subsequent passage of SJR 68, the right to privacy by a six-to-one vote of the people, which of course became the constitutional amendment also in 1972. Additionally, the legislative audit of 1986, [the] 1991 report of the UAA Justice Center, the Ombudsman report of December 10, 1992, and the many reports of the Search group of Sacramento who have been contractors with the Department of Public Safety for over 20 years. Importantly, all these subsequent reports and concerns were generated by the lack of statutes and the regulations concerning the privacy, security, access and, importantly, the release of criminal records, and the need for controls so there would not be misuse of those records. I am happy to see that this legislation finally attempts to address the shortcomings in state law which are present in federal law; specifically, 28 CFR, part 20. "However, in the most sensitive area of these provisions, the release and dissemination of records, HB 442 presently fails in some ways to provide adequate protections. The door is still open for abuse of records, both state and federal. And I trust the committee will consider some minor but substantive amendments to the legislation. In that vein, MR. CHAIRMAN, if I may, I have the amendments that were adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'd be happy to hand those out to the committee, and briefly go through those, at least the ones that I'm interested in." CHAIRMAN PORTER directed MR. THOMA to provide these amendments to the Judiciary Committee counsel and to incorporate any information he desired from his own suggestions for the bill into his testimony. MR. THOMA continued, "On page 7, line 1, after `maintain' add the word `or released by an agency' instead of `by the agency.' For the committee's information, there are over 20 state and federal agencies presently with access to APSIN, and the definition `by the agency' should not just apply to Public Safety. The reason I am requesting `or released' in this section is that it does apply to page 6, line 17, Section 3, where the `completeness, accuracy and security of the information'... under Section 3, `to provide adequate procedures and facilities to protect criminal justice information from unauthorized access and from accidental or deliberate damage by theft, sabotage, fire...' and so on. I believe that the addition of `released' in this section will tighten up the [indiscernible] that this information does retain security and provide completeness and accuracy. And I would ask the committee to consider that, as an amendment. "Also, on page 9, line 23, after the word `records' add `and maintains for at least three years the name of the person or agency that is to receive the information, the date of the information if it is released' and then add `the purpose of the request and the nature of the information.' Both of these additions tie the release of information to the audit procedures that are envisioned under page 6, line 29, of the bill, and the purpose of the request, as stated very clearly on page 9, line 27, in the next section, Section 5, where it states the purpose. I think that those two additions to that section will go to the heart of the matter, which is the release of information. Finally, on page 3, lines 7-9, the clause beginning `In adopting the regulations, the Commissioner shall consult with effective law enforcement agencies regarding the fiscal implications of the regulations,' I believe this clause is too strong and should not be mandatory. Despite the fiscal impacts, Public Safety and all agencies linked to APSIN should adopt regulations that provide for the security, the accuracy and the release of this federal and state [inaud. - history?] of information. I believe substituting the word `shall' with the word `may' allows the Commissioner the latitude to consult with them, but `shall' for this purpose is too strong. There is an onus on the Commissioner to consult with any and every police agency, whether it be a small town... a small village... and in effect giving the chief of police or the person in charge of that information a hand in determining whether these regulations and statutes should be adopted. I don't think that was the purpose of the legislation. I think that `shall' should be replaced with `may'. Those are the three main amendments that I would propose for the committee, and I hope that there will be some consideration of those, MR. CHAIRMAN." Number 793 CHAIRMAN PORTER invited other individuals testifying to respond to all of MR. THOMA's recommendations save the last, which he chose to take up himself. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "Having been one of those police officials that this is suggesting that they should consult with, I think it is appropriate that the Commissioner should consult with them, so as to make sure that he receives any information that would be relevant. What this provides, is that he consult -- not that he be guided by the response of -- but that he does consult. Really what this is requiring is that he at least requests the feedback from all those who are going to be affected by this bill. And I think that's a reasonable request. It does not, as you suggest, indicate that he must respond to any consideration that they will present." Number 808 MR. THOMA acknowledged CHAIRMAN PORTER'S points, adding, "I feel differently. I think that Public Safety has in effect dragged its heels on implementing these regulations, and I think that this is another [inaud. - clause?] that allows them the latitude to again drag their heels, and I think it should be just `may'." CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that he appreciated MR. THOMA's considerations and thanked him for testifying. Number 814 DUNCAN FOWLER, Ombudsman, testified in support of HB 442, stating: "I am really pleased that you have HB 442 in front of you. It has been an issue that has been a real concern in my office for several years, and we've been anxious to have the Governor introduce this for at least the past three years, and I'm really pleased that it's here now. I see this as being a very important piece of public policy legislation. It's one of these situations where, since the late 70's, we really haven't had any legislation that helps insure the integrity and the security of the criminal justice information in the state. And I think this bill does that. It also provides a way that citizens can go in an and attempt to correct any errors that may appear on their records. Obviously, we get people who complain about the fact that an error may have been made, either purposely or inadvertently, to their record, and they want to get it corrected. And this provides a formal mechanism for them to go through and appeal the accuracy of their records and to be able to have something done about them. "The thing I probably like the most about this bill is that it also defines the rules for the appropriate access and use of this data and also sets out penalties for the abuse of the data. Over the years we'd get about one to two complaints a year that talks about somebody abusing this data. There have been some cases where I think, frankly, prosecution should have been considered, but there really hasn't been a framework that the law could be able to proceed under. This provides that. Some of the examples of some of the kinds of things we have had over the years: We had a Corrections employee whose daughter had a car accident. The employee used the accident system to be able to trace the car license numbers and he eventually attempted to file a private lawsuit against the person who hit his daughter. Now, that is not an appropriate use of this information. He was using the state justice system for his own personal economic gain. That is not appropriate. If the law enforcement agency is doing an investigation, they should be able to proceed and do that. There should not be a [personal] involvement in this. We've had a couple of welfare fraud investigations where individuals have used APSIN data to be able to go out and, in one case, one person was watching the business associates of the ex-spouse, and calling up and harassing these people, and checking on license plates on cars, calling up and giving them a hard time -- the person was eventually dismissed, but not for lack [sic] of a good, solid legal framework within which the state could act. "We also had a situation where we had a complaint that the Governor's Office made inquiries and received criminal justice information about a person who was taking some issues against the Governor and that they released this information in an attempt to intimidate other people to not listen to the person involved. We found some very strong circumstantial evidence that this really occurred. The Governor's Office didn't disagree with it, but nobody could really put the finger on the name of the person who did it, even though we were able to find evidence of the inquiries that were made into the justice records. And we could document those. But we didn't know who received them. And I think this is part of some of the logging information that will eventually occur through having a bill like this available. I think this helps solve things like this. My office certainly supports this. It is a very important piece of legislation and I am just tickled that it's up here." Number 867 BILL COTTON, Director, Alaska Judicial Council, testified in support of HB 422. He said, "The Judicial Council took the rather unusual step of voting to support this legislation. It lays the groundwork for accurate criminal history records in Alaska." TAPE 94-28, SIDE B Number 000 MR. COTTON continued his discussion of HB 422: "...[We have a] bit of a unique interest... in that the legislature assigned us a task last year to work with the other criminal justice agencies to coordinate the various criminal justice computer information systems. We have hired some consultants to work with us. We have come to believe that this is just an essential first step for that task, also. We are going to share information and save time by not reentering information time and time again. We have to be able to accurately identify the criminals in the system and tie their identity to fingerprints, so it is accurate. This is really a prerequisite for any coordination of the data in these different systems. "We did propose two minor changes before the Senate Judiciary Committee that were adopted there. One would be to add official counsel as a member of that advisory group. I have given the exact language to your counsel. The other was suggested by our consultants. There is, on page 3 of the legislation down at the bottom, I believe it's on line 30, a requirement that a criminal justice agency taking fingerprints required by this section send the fingerprints in to the central office within five working days. Our consultants suggested that that be shortened to one working day. The point there is -- not that there couldn't be extenuating circumstances -- but at least the standard should be to get those things in as quickly as possible to avoid situations where someone might be released because their real identity wasn't known. "With or without those changes, the Council believes this is a very necessary and important piece of legislation that impacts the criminal justice system in numerous ways." Number 067 REP. NORDLUND tendered his strong support for HB 422, saying, "I think it's very good. I'm glad it's finally come down the pike. I've got a letter here from University of Alaska from John Angle. He would like a representative from the University of Alaska on this board -- is it a board? -- advisory to the Department of Public Safety. I was wondering if you had an opinion about that?" Number 088 MR. COTTON replied, "No, I don't, off the top of my head. I hadn't heard -- I hadn't seen that proposal before. The University has worked on the statistical side of things. I think that there's a trade off between getting more information and not having a board of an unwieldy size. I don't think I have any opinion. The Department of Public Safety might be in a better position to comment." Number 100 REP. NORDLUND said, "For the information of the committee, I am going to put this amendment forward to have the director of the University of Alaska Justice Center Statistical Analysis Unit added to this group. I have a letter here of back-up that's written to my staff that I'll distribute." Number 109 MR. COTTON noted, "The reason that the Judicial Council asked that it be represented at this group is not so much because we have done statistical working reports in the past, but because of the work with the Citizen Commission and this recent computer coordination project. That was really the focus of the request by the Judicial Council." Number 116 REP. KOTT said, "You prefaced your remarks on the bill with an opening statement that has me somewhat puzzled. You said, `The Council has taken a rather unusual position.' What is so unusual about [indiscernible - positioning yourself]?" MR. COTTON replied, "It's not an unusual position. I think it's unusual for the Judicial Council itself to vote to urge the legislature to adopt or not adopt legislation that's really -- that doesn't have a direct impact on the Judicial Council. And the only reason the Council is doing it in this case is because it does have a direct impact on that project which you folks assigned us. So, it's not an unusual position; only that the Council doesn't usually endorse legislation." Number 139 DEAN GUANELI, Department of Law, and KEN BISCHOFF, Department of Public Safety, were recognized to testify further in support of HB 442. MR. GUANELI stated, "As you can say, this bill has fairly broad support. The House Judicial Council, the Criminal Justice Working Group, which includes members of the defense bar, the Ombudsman's Office, certainly the Departments of Law and Public Safety, and other agencies [loud and sustained paper shuffling, words inaudible]. As the other speakers have indicated, it is an important piece of legislation. Let me just give you one example that MR. FOWLER touched on. Right now there is no provision in Alaska law [inaud. - requiring?] fingerprinting, but there is also no provision in Alaska law that specifically makes criminal justice information like this confidential by law. There is [no?] a criminal statute that makes misuse of confidential information -- so when we get someone who has misused this information we're stuck. If we can't do anything else to them, there is no criminal law that we are able to prosecute. Under this legislation it clearly states that this information is confidential by law, and therefore the [inaud.] that are on the books are useable. [Paper shuffling continues to partially obscure words.] In the past what has happened is that officials [have] disciplined them [usually] by firing them. But when we run into situations where it is not an employee, it's somebody else who's gotten some information, it makes it difficult to take any action. "This bill does an awful lot of things for the system... The idea that a criminal justice information system be available to all the agency supports and that it be accurate [inaud.] is being used more and more frequently. I think that legislation like the sex offender registration bill, which basically says we want to know when sex offenders are in our community, I think that kind of legislation is furthered by this bill. "One thing that this bill does, and I want to clearly point it out, that's a major change from the way we do things currently, is that it makes a wide variety of information more accessible to the public than it is right now. Under this bill, anybody in the public can go in to the Department of Public Safety and say, `I want to find out information. I understand that my next door neighbor just got released from prison. I want to find out what his conditions for probation are.' That's something that would be very difficult to find out right now. This bill will allow that to happen. I think it's something that is in the public interest. If someone has just been released from prison, the public has a right to know, `Should that person be drinking? Should that person be dealing with children? What conditions are restricting that person's activities?' I think it's in everybody's interest that we be able to do that. There's a limit, there's a time limit on that information. If ten years have passed since the person was released from state supervision, then you can't get access to that information. So at least there's some bottom line. "I know a lot of people are frustrated when they try to find information about someone's past criminal record and they're told, `Well, this is a Fairbanks case, so go to Fairbanks court and try to find it. It's only recently that the courts have started to get automated. Some of their old records are on microfilm, microfiche... and it's very difficult. This is really the only practical source for them. I think we need a good statutory framework to allow the kinds of things that Bill Cotton was talking about to occur. That is, to allow all the systems to interact together, to make the systems efficient and effective so that the Department of Law, for example, is not entering in information about one person and the Department of Corrections is entering separate information, and the Department of Public Safety and the court system... it would be nice if at one central location the information could be coming and there could be a central spot for those records that we could be assured have some high level of accuracy. This bill sets the framework for doing all that. "It doesn't mean it's going to get done immediately. Public Safety is working diligently to upgrade and improve their criminal justice information systems and I think even has some federal money to allow it to do that. The FBI sets the standards for improving criminal justice information systems and these statutory requirements go along with those federal guidelines." Number 280 KEN BISCHOFF, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety, sketched in the scope of the criminal justice information issue in Alaska, saying, "In Alaska, we have approximately 330,000 conviction records, felony convictions, and approximately 135,000 record subjects. Nationally, there are over 50,000,000 felony records. In order to do a national search -- I might add that between 20 to 30 percent of all offenders have a record in more than one state -- in order to do a national search, you need the fingerprints in order to conduct that search. If Alaska is unable to do that search, or have the fingerprints to conduct a local search, we cannot do it with positive identification. We can only do it on a name-check basis, and we have occurrences of up to 24 aliases on certain records. People tend to use different names. They tend to get different pieces of ID. Unless we have the fingerprints we don't know who they are. So, I'm kind of the mechanic behind the scenes. Dean's done an excellent job of putting a bill together that will give me and my staff the ability to proceed and do a better job of maintaining a criminal history database." Number 293 CHAIRMAN PORTER brought forward a motion to move Amendment 1 and REP. NORDLUND moved the amendment. REP. NORDLUND remarked, "I think that it's important, given the fact that a lot of this is an academic exercise involving analysis of statistics and information, that we have a representative from the University of Alaska on this advisory board. I, just philosophically, believe that we need to do a better job of utilizing the resources available at the University of Alaska to help the legislature and the executive [branch?]. Other portions of the executive branch do their functions -- MR. ANGLE lays out here in the letter written to my staff person the reasons he thinks that he should be included on this advisory board. I would note that there are eight members already. Sometimes it's a good idea to have an odd number of people on a board anyway, in case there happens to be a tie vote. I hope members of the committee will support this amendment." Number 328 REP. JAMES affirmed REP. NORDLUND'S expressed belief concerning the inclusion of a University representative. She said, "I, too, I think that we are leaving a real deficit in our ability to function in this state by not including the ability of the people at the University of Alaska to be involved. One question I have, though -- What would that do if anything to the fiscal note?" Number 339 REP. NORDLUND replied, "I imagine that we would need to get a fiscal note from the University of Alaska on this. Although, given the fact that MR. ANGLE has taken the initiative upon himself to try and get on this board, I would assume that they would try to keep their fiscal costs down, if anything. I noticed that most of the other departments that are on this board have turned in zero fiscal notes, and they're just doing it with existing resources, I imagine, except for Corrections." REP. JAMES reminded the committee that this did not include travel expenses. REP. NORDLUND continued, "That's a good point. I'd be glad to ask the University to have the fiscal note available to the Finance Committee." Number 351 CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I understand DR. ANGLE'S request to add a representative from his program. I have some sympathies for the University of Alaska. At the same time, I have some sympathies for trying to make a very difficult program like this one function. And this is now an eight member advisory board. There are certain requirements within the bill that this advisory board must meet and every person that is added subjects the board to more potential for not being able to accomplish their tasks. "I'll speak at the same time to Bill's suggestion that the Judicial Council wants to be a member. For the same reasons I would not support them. The Judiciary has a slot on the Commission already, and certainly could appoint Judicial counsel if they so choose. But, in all fairness, the University has a particular bent for interest within this piece of legislation -- statistical analysis. That's their job. If there is a perceived need for that, the University certainly is a resource that has been and can continue to be tapped for specific identified projects." CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated, however, that he felt an eight- person board was sufficient. He noted that the board would be meeting in public and that other entities could participate "as may be relevant to their particular interests," whilst perhaps those interests might not be "relevant on an on-going basis." Number 392 REP. JAMES, while acknowledging the virtues of a smaller board, enjoined the committee to be mindful of many past opportunities that had not been seized to engage the resources of the University. She remarked, "Through my evaluation of what this group is going to do, I believe that what they are going to do is implement this system of statistical information... I believe that someone with statistical information skills should certainly be a part of this group." She further marked the need to cease sending chronically negative messages to the University which demonstrate an absence of faith in the University's work and research. Number 417 MR. BISCHOFF responded that statistics, while important, are "not anywhere close to the primary purpose of the criminal history record database. The criminal history database exists to base criminal justice decisions. Police use it to investigate crimes, identify individuals. Examples include taking latent fingerprints off a phone in a phone booth from an offense in Anchorage; running that latent print through our system and making an identification. Having the person's criminal history record available so that we can make the identification; find out what kind of a person that is and is it a possible subject, a probable subject and make an arrest. To have a complete criminal history database, we need the fingerprint, we need the police to cooperate to make the arrest entry in APSIN, we need Corrections to take the fingerprints and submit quality fingerprints to Public Safety for verification of that person's ID, and if that person has criminal information under another name, then we also need to contribute to that police officer and for the prosecutors in the court to consider upon that case. We need the courts to submit judgments which are the results of whether the person is guilty or not guilty. We need the prosecutors to [advise] us whether a decline to prosecute is a budgetary issue or whether it is not a good case... so we have a complete criminal history. "Statistics are important for public policy decisions, but that is five percent of this issue. I am reading from Dave's commentary which was provided in the packet to the committee: In order to keep the board to a manageable size, the board's membership is limited to commissioners from five state departments most directly involved in criminal justice matters. The Chief Justice, the Municipal Police Chief, as well as a public member appointed by the Governor." MR. BISCHOFF itemized cooperative ventures between the University and the Department of Public Safety, including, among others, preliminary efforts to prepare for the Brady bill. He affirmed the vitality of past and present cooperation. He cautioned, however, that "to the extent we put additional non-line agencies on this board, it's going to take away from the direct functional purpose, in my opinion." Number 471 REP. KOTT stated, "I am going to speak out against this amendment. For the most part, for very similar reasons as you spoke against it. I think that a membership of eight is certainly a justifiable number. I really don't think we need to have an odd number. If you look at the function of the board, it's an advisory board only. For that reason, I don't think we need to have an odd number. Certainly there a number of other entities that could be included in this board. I think it's a policy question as to how big a board we want. I think we have a good number right now, and I'd be open to striking out one or two of these entities that we've already identified and replacing one or two of those with perhaps some of the ideas being circulated at the present time. But I think the present number, the entities we've identified, are certainly supportive of the board membership that we've addressed here." Number 489 REP. JAMES said, "I tend to agree that too many is too many, and I'd like a smaller number, too. But, just in response to the information that I understand this is all about, it is gathering information and making it readily available when you need it. To me, that is the same as statistical information, and maybe it's because I'm using the word `statistics' as a general term -- but being able to put that information in and get it out in a timely manner certainly does take some expertise in that area. I believe there could be some assistance from someone in that area. I am willing to concede that nine is too many. I don't think we need that many people to make decisions and to be on an advisory board, but I believe that I do understand exactly what it is that we're planning to put together here, and to be able to retrieve." Number 503 CHAIRMAN PORTER sated, "I guess, one of the two members of the Criminal Justice Working Group that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Chair of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, who are also members of that group that has supported this bill. From that position in my previous life, I know that this bill and other renditions of it have been under discussion, and this particular bill has been under development, for four years... and discussion for a lot longer than that. There is an awful lot of requirement for interagency within the state and intergovernmental intrastate cooperation to make this thing work -- and an awful lot of that negotiation process, if you will, has gone into the bill that's in front of us. With that in mind, I would suggest that we should have overwhelming need to alter that, as its effects we may not know." Number 524 MR. GUANELI commented that of the eight proposed board members, one of whom was a member of the public, seven were the heads of agencies with "the most direct involvement in getting the system to work on a day-to-day, on-going basis where operation of the system is really, if you will, necessary to their functions. [These agencies] all have on- going criminal justice information systems and they're trying to make them all work right now." MR. GUANELI delineated the key functions and significance of each proposed board member and the agency he or she represents in developing an optimally designed criminal justice information system. He noted the existence of a trans- agency "technical users group" focusing on the technical issues involved in computer systems and the effective generation of statistics. Number 564 REP. JAMES said, "I want to let you know that I certainly support technical information and getting on the technical track. One of the things that has distressed me about the state is all the fragmented amounts of material that we have, and no one can get [to them]. So I am very supportive of this bill for that reason, because it is going to make those things come together in a single source where information can be gotten back. I think we need that very desperately." Number 574 REP. NORDLUND commented, "Not to belabor this amendment any more... my intent [in suggesting] this person be on the advisory board was to assist, not to be cumbersome, to the board. If it is the best judgment of this committee that it may be more cumbersome, then so be it. But I hope the board will certainly employ the resources of the University as you go through this effort, as well as the Judicial Council. I think we've probably had enough discussion about this." Number 597 MR. GUANELI said, "MR. CHAIRMAN, I'd be more than willing to discuss some of the other amendments if that is the Chairman's wish." He continued at the request of CHAIRMAN PORTER. "There was a suggestion by MR. COTTON that the time frame for submitting fingerprint information from local police departments to the Department of Public Safety be changed from five days to one day. The five day provision... came from consultants that the Department of Public Safety had contracted with, members of an organization called `Search Incorporated,' a nationally known consulting firm that works with police agencies all across the country. Probably the most common time frame for submitting fingerprints to a central agency is three days, across the country. It ranges from a minimum of about 24 hours to a maximum, I think, seven to ten days. It was the feeling that five days is appropriate for Alaska. This is not New York City where at the press of a button you can have something delivered across town, or with a courier. I think that some flexibility is needed, particularly for small police departments that may want to just gather up a number of fingerprint cards, send them in once a week to the Department of Public Safety, or because they are such a small police department they simply don't have the staff available to do things on a daily basis. So there was a feeling that five days is something that is workable for Alaska. Now, if other consultants had come in and said that 24 hours is workable for Alaska, that's fine, but I think, the Department of Public Safety thinks, that five days is appropriate. I would hope that the committee might confer with somebody from a small police department and find out how it's going to affect their operations. I think that paperwork tends to drown small police departments, and I think that this is another example of that. I think we would feel more comfortable that the records would be submitted on a regular basis... 24 hours may not be manageable." Number 632 REP. KOTT said, "Since you have the expertise here, it would stand to reason, I think, that most departments would supply this information as readily as possible within their means. I certainly am not willing to make it mandatory to provide the information within 24 hours if it's going to impair their operations. I am sure that they are going to give this their utmost attention and not sit on it, understanding the importance of fingerprinting." Number 645 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "The agencies that will be dealing with the vast majority of these records will be submitting them within a day. The problem of making it mandatory on everybody is that the Department of -- I always say Iggigik, I am sure there is not a Department in Iggigik, and I've never been to Iggigik, so no offense to Iggigik, but that's my typical village -- that's a one-person operation. And if there is an arrest there, there might be something that person has to do right after that, and it doesn't involve sitting down at a typewriter and typing up the necessary forms to submit... that person is going to get at it just as soon as he or she can, but a one day turnaround or something like that is just not reasonable." Number 658 MR. GUANELI said, "And I think the other practical consideration is that a lot of the people who are arrested are intoxicated. It may not be practical to take fingerprints right away. They may be struggling with you, they may be fighting. If you get them at all they're going to be smudged and you'll have to do it again. It may be better to wait 24 hours or 36 hours or until the person's been to court -- there are just a lot of practical considerations [involved]." Number 664 CHAIRMAN PORTER, assessing committee member sentiments on Amendment 1, formally objected to the motion and called for a role call vote unless there was further discussion. Number 689 REP. NORDLUND said, "I'm not sure just what all the dialogue was, but if we were going to interject a member from the University of Alaska, I would think that we should remove someone else. And since that's already there, I think probably I would be opposed to this." REP. NORDLUND withdrew Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the withdrawal of Amendment 1. Number 695 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked MR. GUANELI if he had the opportunity to consider MR. THOMA's suggestions. MR. GUANELI responded, "I did. He made these same suggestions at the Senate Judiciary Committee. To a large extent, we didn't have a problem with them. The Senate Judiciary Committee made a slight wording change to one of them. So, if you want to go over them, I can state our position on these. I think it's fair to say that we would not have an objection to the amendments made in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think counsel for your committee has a copy of those amendments." He referred to page 3, line 8, and the suggestion by MR. THOMA that the word "shall" be changed to the word "may" and discussed its possible implications, concluding that substitution of the word "may" would not hinder or impede interagency communications or consultations. He said, "I think that having an advisory group that includes all the affected agencies means that as a matter of course [relevant matters] will be discussed with them. So, that was the basis on which we did not have any objection in the Senate Judiciary committee on the changing of `shall' to `may'." Number 720 COMMISSIONER BURTON tendered the opinion that "shall" was preferable to "may" and that the word "shall" was not binding. CHAIRMAN PORTER added that communicating would not in any case be a cumbersome duty given that all involved would be present on the same computer network. Number 745 CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "In front of us is Amendment 2 which that incorporates two of the things that were incorporated in the Senate version." REP. JAMES moved Amendment 2. There being no further discussion, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 765 CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I believe we have dealt with all of the concerns. We have then in front of us HB 442 as amended." REP. JAMES moved that HB 442 be sent out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as attached. There being no objection, HB 442 was moved out of committee. The meeting of the House Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.