SB 14 - INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING MARY VOLENDORF, Administrative Assistant to Senator Leman, sponsor of CSSB 14(JUD), described the bill. This bill was introduced because of a recent increase in auto theft, especially in urban areas, and the lack of convictions. Under the current law, this type of joyriding is a class A misdemeanor, and for a second offense, it is a class C felony. Joyriding is commonly associated with juveniles, and SB 14 targets that group. Juveniles account for many of the joyriding offenses. Without SB 14, there is no means to prosecute juveniles for this crime. Instead, they are brought into the juvenile system and no real penalty is inflicted. Although locking juveniles away for this offense is not necessarily the answer, this is a good start in making them responsible for their actions. The juvenile would be prosecuted, charged and sentenced the same as an adult would. More importantly, the juvenile will also be responsible for paying restitution to the victim. This bill will help decrease the number of vehicles stolen and the tremendous dollar losses by insurance companies and the victims of theft. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the age of majority in Alaska was 21 for felonies. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered it is 18. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not understand the purpose of this. CHAIRMAN PORTER said their was someone from the Department of Law who could answer questions. Number 425 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came forward to testify on the substantive issues of this bill. She said the Department of Law supports SB 14. In Anchorage there has been an explosion of car theft offenses. The number of incidents has doubled in a two year time period. There are now 2,000 to 3,000 car thefts per year. Anything related to those thefts is going to cost the state money. This bill started out simply raising the offense of joyriding to a felony for even a first offense. The Department of Law was concerned about taking that approach for several reasons. One is that it costs substantially more to prosecute felonies, and the second is that we have finally realized that approximately one half of the offenders here are juveniles, and to increase an offense to a felony level does not address the juvenile problem at all. What it does is put a burden on Health and Social Services to have petitions to have adjudications filed for a property offense. This is fairly low on the spectrum of offenses that juvenile delinquency proceedings have resources to deal with, so our proposal was to try to realistically deal with the juvenile offenders by reducing the age of majority for this offense. MS. KNUTH stated this is meant to be a deterrent bill rather than a punitive bill. Our purpose is to try to catch the attention of juveniles who are committing these offenses with an emphasis on restitution and revocation of driving privileges. Currently, until you reach 18 years of age, you are being handled through Health and Social Services in juvenile matters, and very little is happening because of the tremendous resource difficulties they have. This would allow kids to be cited by officers, or complaints could be filled out by district attorneys that would bring them into district court, were they will be brought before a judge who, we hope, will impress them with the seriousness of the offense. We do not expect jail time to be imposed for this age group. We do not feel that is appropriate. It is an option. MS. KNUTH said the legislature has been addressing joyriding progressively for several years, and one of the first things that was done, is that second offenses became felonies. Another thing that was done is there was a mandatory jail sentence, even for first offenders, and as the problem has been growing, so have the efforts to address it. For juveniles, we have taken out the mandatory jail sentence, which is three days. That is in Section 3 of SB 14. A mandatory minimum three days sentence will apply only for juveniles who are 18 years of age or older. A judge could order a juvenile to incarceration time which would be served in a detention facility, but not in a jail with other adults. It is an option, but it would not be appropriate if this is a first offense for the juvenile. It is a property offense. The emphasis should be on deterrence and rehabilitation instead. What we would expect is Suspended Imposition of Sentences (SIS) to be granted to these juveniles with an order of restitution. With an SIS hanging over a kid's head, that will provide a motivation for making restitution that has probably been lacking in the juvenile proceedings simply because of the work load that they have and the limited resources. We have also taken out for the juvenile offenders that a second offense is an automatic felony, and instead, as long as the juvenile is under the age of 18, these offenses are misdemeanors. When they do turn 18, any joyriding offense they have will count as the first offense, and for the very next offense they commit over the age of 18, they will be subject to the felony provisions. If we have an unusual case in which the kid has a long record of problems like this, (most joyriding offenses do involve some damage to the vehicle or loss of use), there is a criminal mischief provision that says if more than $500 damage is done or economic loss is sustained, then that is a separate form of criminal mischief, and that is being left open as an offense that is being pursued against the juvenile that could go into the felony disposition. That would go through Health and Social Services' juvenile delinquency proceedings. MS. KNUTH mentioned that also you could charge it as just theft of property valued at over $500; and that could also be on that felony track, if an unusual case where it seemed to be appropriate. In the majority of circumstances, it is a crime of opportunity. A great many of these offenses have been committed when keys have been left in the car, or it has been otherwise easy to do, and it was not a premeditated thing. We do not have a lot of juvenile car rings, who are dedicated to an economic crime. We believe that by revocation of driving privileges, by emphasizing restitution, we are creating the potential that this will result in a conviction on the record if an SIS is not completed satisfactorily. We hope to finally start deterring more of these offenses and we hope to see a reduction in the number of joyriding offenses. Anchorage has one half of all the offenses that are occurring statewide. As a misdemeanor offense, the state will still be prosecuting unless the municipality of Anchorage amends its ordinance so that they can prosecute somebody under the age of 18. She expected their ordinance to be limited to adult offenders at this point. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if there was any requirement for a cost to receive the drivers license back again in this bill. MS. KNUTH answered that the revocation would be the same as it is now, so the reinstatement of the license would fall under existing law, which does have that requirement. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said SB 14 will be almost impossible to pass with this high of a fiscal note, but the state desperately needs this law. She suggested taking away their permanent fund dividend (PFD). MS. KNUTH said there is that option, but she was not sure the assumption could be made that the person would be eligible for the PFD. Her first choice for use of the PFD would be for restitution, and that would not be reflected in the fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN mentioned that the movement of money would not flow in only one direction. It would not only flow from the state to the program, but from the juveniles paying restitution back out into the community. We do not weigh that factor into the fiscal notes. Sometimes when we pass these bills, the fiscal notes do not always make it into the budget. He feared that may happen in this case. He felt the fiscal note was high, but inappropriate. If we want to enforce the law, it is going to cost a little bit of money. Many people in his district feels this is a priority. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his constituents are clearly irritated that car theft is "joyriding." Car theft is a pretty serious crime. Kids are renting stolen cars from each other. He felt it should be grand theft auto, and he would be willing to pay the fiscal note on that. This bill is only a slap on the hand. The problem of using the PFD, is that if the perpetrator decides not to apply for his PFD, the victim gets nothing. MS. KNUTH said for the under 18 age group, the license revocation is going to be meaningful. One half of joyriding offense are committed by juveniles under age 18. It may be too little too late, but it also may not be. The state is very wary of treating those under 18 as adults for criminal offenses, and she did not feel this would represent a new direction or trend. The Department of Law as a whole, believes that our criminal justice system is set up appropriately. The age of responsibility is 18. You will not see us coming in and taking this approach for other types of offenses, but for this particular offense, it seems worth exploring. CHAIRMAN PORTER said the bill also provides the ability to charge the kids who are in the car with the person behind the wheel, so there is additional incentive to stay away from those kinds of activities. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Knuth if she saw this bill working together with the bill passed previously which would hold parents of the juvenile responsible for up to $10,000 damage. MS. KNUTH said yes, she does. If you can motivate parents through this economic sanction to exercise more control, that would be a good thing. At least we will get restitution for the victims in these cases. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if a juvenile can be charged with a felony. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that a juvenile can be charged with any criminal offense, depending on which court jurisdiction they are into. We are excluding them from being charged with a felony under this bill, but there are options. Number 825 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Knuth if juveniles are tried in adult court if they violate this law under current statute. MS. KNUTH answered yes, under this bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought she had said the purpose of this bill was so that they would not be charged as adults. MS. KNUTH apologized for the confusion. It is so that they would be, because right now they are only being handled by the Division of Family and Youth Services. The purpose of this bill is to instead send them to district court as an adult charged with a misdemeanor. Section 6 of the bill refers to AS 47.10.010 and that is the juvenile jurisdiction statute. What Section 6 says is that if you are a minor accused of violating this now, we are adding to it, criminal mischief, joyriding. That is what the two new provisions are here. Then the procedures of juvenile delinquency of AS 47.10.010, may not be followed, except that a parent, guardian, or legal custodian shall be present at all proceedings. The minor accused of the offense specified in the subsection shall be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced in the district court in the same manner as an adult. That is the section of the bill making that change that says, "You, who were treated as a juvenile, will now be treated as an adult for joyriding." One of them is simply joyriding, and the other is for the passengers in the car. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if he was correct in saying we are making the change here to bring a juvenile misdemeanor into adult court. MS. KNUTH answered that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that means we are taking persons under age 18 out of the category of a felony. MS. KNUTH said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is where he is lost. MS. KNUTH clarified this. The reason is essentially philosophical. We do not think it is appropriate to treat, as an adult, somebody who is 14, 15, or 16 years old on a felony offense, for a property offense, not a crime of violence, and to have all of the consequences of a felony conviction happening to somebody who is under the age of responsibility in most circumstances. It is such a big step away from what our current practice is, to be facing adult consequences on a misdemeanor offense where the emphasis is on deterrence, license revocation, and restitution. It is a big step. TAPE 95-41, SIDE B Number 000 MS. KNUTH continued to say that the only offense we have automatic waivers for are only for 16 years and older, and they are for murder or class A felony offenses against a person. We have a very small category of automatic waivers into adult court. CHAIRMAN PORTER said it seems like we are taking away an option, because we are being told that now this would mean an automatic waiver situation, and he did not see that, frankly. In the section for a second offense of joyriding becoming a felony, as the law exists now, a juvenile offender who was charged for the second offense of joyriding, could be adjudicated as a felon through the juvenile court system. MS. KNUTH said that was correct. CHAIRMAN PORTER said we are now removing the ability to do that. MS. KNUTH said the Department of Law does not have any opposition to the concept he was putting forward, but the Legal Services drafted it that way. CHAIRMAN PORTER said we were told that we have to do that because otherwise the wording we have added someplace else would make this become an automatic waiver into adult court for juveniles in this circumstance. He did not feel that would be right at all. MS. KNUTH said her one thought on that is that if it were a second offense, and we did want to prosecute them in district court. CHAIRMAN PORTER said first of all we could not do that because it is a felony, and that would be heard in superior court. MS. KNUTH answered that he was exactly right. She would hate for district court to be the most effective place to have these kids, and to lose the ability to send them there because now they have to go to the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) on a felony that DFYS cannot do very much about, because with their limited resources. They have to be dealing with guns on school grounds and serious assaults. That may have been the consideration for Legal Services. They may have wanted a way by which we could keep going back to district court, because at that point, district court can impose jail. They have a broader panoply of sanctions available to them than DFYS does. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if the committee removed Section 1 from the bill and it passed, would a minor who was apprehended in his/her second joyriding offense be charged with a felony, as an adult? MS. KNUTH thought not. She thought they could under charge and say that we were treating them as if it were their first offense. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that is the same as it currently is. Under existing law, if a juvenile was apprehended on their second joyriding offense, they could be charged with a felony through the juvenile system. If we took this section out, they still could. MS. KNUTH said the questions would be, "Could we under charge them, as a first offender, and make them go to district court, as an adult?" She believed the answer is yes, so we would have two options available. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wished to hear from the bill sponsor's representative as to why this was initially included in the bill. He wondered what the rationale was. MS. VOLENDORF understood that they would have the language in there for the person 18 years of age and older, just so that an adult would be charged with a class A felony, and it would give discretion to the prosecution to charge a juvenile with either a felony in the juvenile delinquency court, or with a class A misdemeanor again, in district court. In taking that out, she guessed that a juvenile could be charged with a class A felony. Number 150 MS. KNUTH said if you look at Section 6, the offense is 11.46.484 (a),(2), which is the joyriding offense. She and the first bill drafter, Jerry Luckhaupt, agreed that Section 6 is waiving you as an adult for (a),(2), which is the joyriding offense. Paragraph (c) is just a sentencing provision, and it is not a different crime, it just states what you do given the same crime, as to whether the sentence will be a misdemeanor or a felony. It would automatically waive a juvenile if it were a second 484 (a),(2) offense. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the last three lines shed light on the subject. "The minor accused of the offense specified in this subsection shall be charged and prosecuted as an adult." CHAIRMAN PORTER said, no, that only applies to this subsection. Number 180 MS. KNUTH said we initially had a new crime called "juvenile joyriding" which was parallel, and Legal Services merged it with the existing statute. To answer your question, there is a way to create the option of a juvenile delinquency for a second offense as a felony, but it would not be simply by removing Section 1. They would have to do some other drafting to take care of that problem. CHAIRMAN PORTER did not think the bill sponsor intended what Ms. Knuth was describing for Section 1 to do. He asked Ms. Volendorf if that was correct. MS. VOLENDORF answered that it was fine with Senator Leman to have them charged with a class A misdemeanor each time, even on a repetitive offense until they turn 18. MS. KNUTH said it was upon the Department of Law's assurance that we could charge them with a felony and go that route by using one of the other options. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there are two other elements of a felony that a juvenile could be charged with, but what we are doing is allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for a misdemeanor crime, whereas, currently, what they are getting is what can amount to a letter of reprimand three to six months later from DFYS, which is not accomplishing a thing. Also keep in mind that joyriding is joyriding, whether it is a juvenile or an adult, and a 25-year old who is caught joyriding is still just joyriding, unless these other elements come into effect - economic damage over $500, it is still just a misdemeanor crime. MS. KNUTH said this is an incremental approach, and if treating joyriding as a misdemeanor turns out not to be the answer, she has no doubt that the legislature will be motivated to revisit the issue. We may decide later that more measures are appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSB 14(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as attached. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.