HB 13 - PROPERTY CRIMES 1:11:55 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to property crimes." CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the committee has received letters from the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR), the Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA), and the Public Safety Employees Association, Inc. (PSEA), and all were critical of the concept of [raising the threshold amounts for felony and misdemeanor] property crimes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that local law enforcement agencies had opposed past iterations of this bill. He too referenced the letter by the OVR dated 2/27/09, and offered his understanding that it is meant to stand in place of any spoken testimony by the OVR. CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that HB 13 raises some interesting policy questions, and that a felony conviction can change the trajectory of a person's life. 1:18:23 PM GARDNER COBB, Captain, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), said that the APD does not support HB 13 on the grounds that it won't serve the community well. Regardless that the bill is meant to adjust for inflation and address the concern that young people might be being treated too harshly by having a felony conviction on their record, he said his 30-some years' of law enforcement experience indicates that prosecutors are pretty reasonable when considering young people who are first time offenders, and take into account several factors such as the circumstances, the nature of the crime, and the person's record, and this often results in a consolidation or reduction of charges or in a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) or in a dismissal of charges on condition that restitution is paid. CAPTAIN COBB said he is more concerned about career criminals continuing to wreck havoc on the community, and shared his and the APD's opinion that there is already too much slack in the justice system for such people, and that the bill will not address that problem but in fact goes in the opposite direction. 1:21:08 PM ROB COX, President, Public Safety Employee Association (PSEA), after relaying that he is in agreement with Captain Cobb, and that he made similar points in his written testimony, opined that HB 13 won't do anything to make law enforcement more efficient or provide better protection for communities but will instead just benefit criminals. Mr. Cox noted that in addition to raising the threshold amount distinguishing misdemeanor property crimes from felony property crimes [threefold], HB 13 also proposes to raise the threshold amount distinguishing class B misdemeanor property crimes from class A misdemeanor property crimes fivefold. He shared his fear that passage of HB 13 will transform petty thefts and shoplifting crimes into financially crippling losses for the victims, with little or no consequence. MR. COX concurred with the comment that there is already too much leniency within the system as is, and pointed out that often class B misdemeanors - the threshold of which the bill is proposing to increase to $250 - aren't even prosecuted, though not because the courts or prosecutors don't care, but instead because of their overwhelming caseload. Furthermore, plea agreements occur with regard to felony-level charges. On the issue of youthful offenders, he asked the committee to remember that felony charges don't carry a label - only felony convictions do - and in light of plea agreements and [prosecutorial discretion], he said he thinks that the concern about youthful offenders being labeled as felons is greatly reduced. In conclusion, he said the only other rationale he's heard for the bill is to inflation-proof property crimes, adding that he considers that to be bad motivation for changing statute. MR. COX, in response to a question, remarked that $500 is still a significant amount of money, and that at some point threshold amounts distinguishing different levels of crime do need to be set, and opined that with today's economy - even with the effects of inflation - the current threshold amounts are justifiable. In response to comments and a question, he offered his understanding that Canada has sentencing laws specifically pertaining to youthful offenders. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said AS 11.46.130 appears to already address repeat offenders, providing that two or more prior property crime convictions could result in a felony charge even if the original convictions were for misdemeanor property crimes. MR. COX concurred. In response to a question, he offered his understanding that although job applications generally ask whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony, a minor's felony conviction "goes away" and he/she gets a "fresh start" when he/she turns 18. 1:28:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that it is not his intent to inflation-proof property crimes; rather his intent is to differentiate between "real" felons and misdemeanants. He questioned whether the current felony threshold amount of $500 is simply being used as an additional tool to initially obtain custody of people, and whether misdemeanant perpetrators of property crimes are ever actually pursued. He said he would be amenable, however, to having HB 13 held over in order to conduct further research. The policy question to be addressed, he opined, shouldn't be "How can we bargain justice?" but rather, "What is real justice?" CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that homeowners and business owners across the state are often dissatisfied with how little attention is paid by law enforcement officers to property crimes. The current level of response by law enforcement is not adequate, he surmised, and warrants further consideration. He then relayed that HB 13 would be held over.