HB 175 - COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS 2:43:21 PM CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act relating to an appearance before a judicial officer after arrest; relating to penalties for operating a vehicle without possessing proof of motor vehicle liability insurance or a driver's license; relating to penalties for certain arson offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective date." 2:43:38 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained that [Sections 1, 2, and 6 of HB 175 - pertaining respectively to AS 12.25.150, rights of prisoner after arrest, AS 12.70.130, arrest without warrant of a person charged with a crime in another state, and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, proceedings before the judge or magistrate - would conform those provisions of law to reflect changes made last year via House Bill 324. Specifically, that bill last year increased the timeframe - from 24 hours to 48 hours - in which a person must be brought before a judicial officer after being arrested;] unfortunately, that bill, although it changed the court rule to reflect the new deadline, neglected to also make conforming changes to AS 12.25.150 and AS 12.70.130. In response to questions, she indicated that a person might have his/her charges dismissed, depending on the circumstances, if he/she isn't brought before a judicial officer within the required timeframe; and relayed that law enforcement agencies and the Department of Corrections (DOC) are still following the statute's requirement of 24 hours rather than the court rule's requirement of 48 hours. 2:45:41 PM MS. CARPENETI explained that [Section 3 - pertaining to AS 28.15.131, license to be carried and exhibited on demand - would conform that statute to current court rules - Alaska Rules of Administration - which provide that not having one's valid driver's license in one's possession while driving is merely a correctable infraction, with bail set at $50, rather than a class B misdemeanor. Section 4 - pertaining to AS 28.22.019, proof of insurance to be carried and exhibited on demand [and] penalty - would similarly conform that statute to current court rules - Alaska Rules of Administration - which provide that not having proof of insurance in one's possession while driving is merely a correctable infraction, with a mandatory fine of $500, rather than a class B misdemeanor with a discretionary minimum fine of $500]. MS. CARPENETI explained that [Section 5 - pertaining to AS 41.23.220, penalty for committing violations in the Knik River Public Use Area - would conform that statute to AS 11.46.420, pertaining to the crime arson in the third degree. Enacted in 2006, AS 41.23.220 and associated regulations provided that burning a vehicle in the Knik River Public Use Area would be a violation, with a bail amount of $50; in contrast, when enacted in 2008, AS 11.46.420 provided that burning a vehicle on state or municipal land would be a class C felony property crime. Under Section 5, all burning of vehicles in public areas would be a class C felony, and this is in keeping with the latest expression of legislative intent as evidenced by the enactment of AS 11.46.420]. In response to questions, she indicated that AS 11.46.420 doesn't apply in situations involving private land. 2:53:33 PM QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to questions, acknowledging that the bill is only providing for conforming changes to those made last year, shared his concern that the [existing] 48-hour timeframe in which a person must be brought before a judicial officer after being arrested could result in the person having to remain in jail longer than necessary, particularly in situations involving lower-level offenses and particularly if waiting the entire 48 hours becomes the standard operating procedure for law enforcement. He expressed his hope that in the majority of cases, a person would be brought before a judicial officer within 24 hours and a delay to 48 hours would only occur in the few cases where it's truly necessary. MS. CARPENETI noted that the existing language of AS 12.25.150(a) - found in Section 1 of the bill - says in part, "A person arrested shall be taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay", and relayed that most entities involved in the criminal justice system are already geared up to meet a 24-hour deadline, but there are a few situations in which that doesn't provide enough time for all parties involved in the case, including the victim. Again, the law would still require that no unnecessary delay occur between the person's arrest and his/her initial judicial hearing. CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, expressed a preference for not delaying the bill, given that it's only addressing conforming changes. 3:04:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 1, labeled 27-ls0579\A.1, Gardner, 3/14/11, which read: Page 3, following line 18: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: SEVERABILITY. Under AS 01.10.030, if any provision of this Act, or the application of it to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application to other persons or circumstances is not affected." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that Amendment 1 would preclude any potential problems pertaining to severability from arising. MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, indicated her belief that Alaska's general severability clause would already apply if the issue were raised, but acknowledged that the adoption of Amendment 1 wouldn't hurt. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected, and expressed a concern that adopting Amendment 1 could unnecessarily "red flag" the issue of severability. He then removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just wants to be sure that the court understands [it could simply sever those provisions of the bill it finds to be unconstitutional and leave the other provisions intact]. CHAIR GATTO, upon ascertaining that there were no further objections, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:07:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 175, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 175(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.