HB 67 - BAIL HEARING FOR SEX OFFENDERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next item of business would be House Bill No. 67, "An Act relating to release of certain persons alleged to have committed certain sexual offenses." He noted that it had been heard by the committee previously. Number 1327 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, sponsor, referred to a new proposed committee substitute, Version I [l-LS0197\I, Luckhaupt, 3/12/99], which was subsequently distributed. Number 1379 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain the changes. Instead of the plan envisioned in the original bill, Version I is similar to a judge's release in domestic violence cases. It adds a new section to cover all sexual assaults, not just those against children. It also permits the judge to impose additional conditions on a person charged or convicted of these crimes, concerning having no contact with the alleged victim, residing in a place where there is no likelihood of coming in contact with the victim, and taking medication as prescribed. MS. SEITZ explained that the victim is currently notified of the bail hearing, but there is no inquiry by the judicial officer to see whether the victim actually got the notice; this was where the system had broken down in Representative Rokeberg's constituent's case. Under this bill, before a person who is charged or convicted of one of these crimes is released, the judicial officer is required to ask the victim, or the victim's representative, about the notice. The judicial officer is also to inquire whether the victim or the victim's representative is in court and wishes to testify; testifying is not mandatory, however. Ms. Seitz noted that they had worked with Anne Carpeneti of the Department of Law and Doug Wooliver of the Alaska Court System, both of whom had suggested changes that are in Version I. Number 1502 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, noted that one previous concern was that a judge might be precluded from releasing a defendant on bail if the Department of Law was unable to notify the victim, for whatever reason. This requires the judge to make the inquiry. However, if reasonable efforts have been made, but to no avail, the process can continue. That had been their main concern, Mr. Wooliver said, and has been addressed in this version. Number 1542 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the changes in Version I are procedural, then, rather than addressing changes in the penalties. MR. WOOLIVER affirmed that. Number 1573 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Version I as the working draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG complimented his staff on working closely with the department and the court system to overcome problems without creating a burden on the court system and to result in a zero fiscal note. He pointed out that Mr. Wooliver has contacted a number of sitting judges to see how this would work as a practical matter. Upon Mr. Wooliver's counsel, they have elevated the rights of the victims to make sure that if there are unique circumstances, judges can take up 24-hour supervision, if appropriate. However, they have removed the penalty provisions, to give the judges discretion. Number 1691 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Version I [l-LS0197\I, Luckhaupt, 3/12/99], out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 67(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.