HB 105 - PROPERTY CRIMES  2:02:52 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to theft and property offenses; and providing for an effective date." 2:03:24 PM JANE W. PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Thompson, explained that the purpose of HB 105 is to raise the monetary-threshold amount that distinguishes certain felony- level offenses against property from like misdemeanor-level offenses. A handout included in members' packets from the National Conference of State Legislatures' (NCSL's) report titled, "Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy" says in part: Review and revision of mandatory minimum sentences for some offenders and update of felony theft thresholds are among the significant ways state legislatures are modernizing criminal codes to reflect current circumstances and needs MS. PIERSON offered her understanding that to date, 22 other states have adjusted their monetary-threshold amounts [for the crime of theft], and that Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts for the crimes of theft - outlined in AS 11.46 - were adopted back in 1978 and have not since been adjusted [for inflation]. Making such adjustments for property crimes is common throughout the country, and a handout included in members' packets outlining the monetary-threshold amounts for all 50 states [and the District of Columbia] illustrates that 29 other [jurisdictions] now have a monetary-threshold amount higher than Alaska's; that 14 other [jurisdictions] have a monetary-threshold amount the same as Alaska's current amount; and that [7 other jurisdictions] have a monetary-threshold amount lower than Alaska's. MS. PIERSON explained that currently under AS 11.46.130(a), a person who steals something with a value of $500 or more could be charged with the crime of theft in the second degree - a class C felony - and, if convicted, then suffer the consequences of being a felon for the rest of his/her life. Raising the monetary-threshold amount for the crimes of theft is a policy call for the legislature to make. She then referred to two charts - titled in part, "Criminal Theft Charges" and "Criminal Theft Charge Dispositions" - prepared by the Alaska Court System (ACS) and included in members' packets, and relayed that the ACS was available to address the statistics included therein, which include statistics regarding the crime of theft in the second degree for calendar year 2012. MS. PEIRSON assured the committee that in raising Alaska's monetary-threshold amount distinguishing felony-level theft crimes from misdemeanor-level theft crimes, the sponsor is not indicating a belief that thieves should go free or not be charged. Nobody likes a thief, and nobody wants to see a thief go unpunished. Property crime victimizes everyone; whether a victim is left feeling violated for having his/her possessions stolen, or whether consumers are left with the financial burden of making up for retail theft - everyone experiences the problems caused by theft. Under HB 105, guilty persons will still face justice, and the court could still require that restitution and fines be paid, and could still be aggressive in sentencing perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. The sponsor, she relayed, requests that the committee consider HB 105 and its passage. 2:07:26 PM MS. PEIRSON went on to explain that Section 1 of HB 105 would amend AS 11.46.130(a) - again, addressing the class C felony crime of theft in the second degree - by raising the monetary- threshold amount from $500 to $1,500; conviction of a class C felony could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to five years and a maximum fine of up to $50,000. Section 2 of HB 105 would amend AS 11.46.140(a) - addressing the class A misdemeanor crime of theft in the third degree - by raising the monetary- threshold amount from a range of between $50 and $500, to a range of between $250 and $1,500; conviction of a class A misdemeanor could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to one year and a maximum fine of up to $10,000. Section 3 of HB 105 would amend AS 11.46.150(a) - addressing the class B misdemeanor crime of theft in the fourth degree - by raising the monetary-threshold amount from less than $50 to less than $250; conviction of a class B misdemeanor could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to 90 days and a maximum fine of up to $2,000. MS. PIERSON explained that with regard to the proposed new monetary-threshold amounts, Section 4 of HB 105 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.220(c), addressing the crimes of concealment of merchandize. Section 5 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.260(b), addressing the crimes of removal of identification marks. Section 6 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.270(b), addressing the crimes of unlawful possession. Section 7 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.280(d), addressing the crimes of issuing a bad check. Section 8 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.285(b), addressing the crimes of fraudulent use of an access device. Section 9 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.360(a)(2), addressing [one manifestation of] the class C felony crime of vehicle theft in the first degree. Sections 10, 11, and 12, respectively, would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.482(a), to AS 11.46.484(a), and to AS 11.46.486(a) - addressing, respectively, the class C felony crime of criminal mischief in the third degree, the class A misdemeanor crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and the class B misdemeanor crime of criminal mischief in the fifth degree. MS. PIERSON relayed that Section 13 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.530(b), addressing the crimes of criminal simulation. Section 14 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.620(d), addressing the crimes of misapplication of property. Section 15 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.730(c), addressing the crimes of defrauding creditors. Section 16 would add an applicability provision to Alaska's uncodified law, stipulating that the statutes changed by the provisions of HB 105 would apply to offenses committed on or after the effective date of the Act, that being July 1, 2013, as stipulated via Section 17 of the bill. 2:13:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, pointing out that $500 is a lot of money, questioned the rationale behind telling criminals, via the adoption of HB 105, that they may now steal up to [$1,499] worth of merchandize before being charged with a felony. MS. PIERSON - acknowledging that theft is a terrible crime that hurts people in a variety of ways - ventured that with the passage of so much time since Alaska's current monetary- threshold amounts were originally established, it is now appropriate for the legislature to review them, particularly given that they're in the low range compared to what most other [jurisdictions in the country] now provide for. Furthermore, a good percentage of theft crimes are not currently being resolved at the felony level, and thus the changes proposed by the bill could result in Alaska's law being more reflective of current practice. She also acknowledged, though, that a lot of people, particularly retailers, don't view HB 105 favorably. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that HB 105 would be sending a message that stealing is okay if the amount is low enough. "A seasoned thief," she ventured, knows the statutory thresholds, and so isn't going to steal something with a value that exceeds a particular threshold. MS. PIERSON offered her belief that most thieves are not that intelligent and therefore don't weigh the consequences associated with the value of what they are stealing. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT disagreed, opining that thieves are indeed aware of the value of what they are stealing. He then referred to Section 4 - addressing the crimes of concealment of merchandise - and questioned why HB 105 is not also proposing a monetary-threshold for concealing merchandise that is a firearm. 2:19:37 PM MS. PIERSON explained that there was never a monetary threshold outlined in statute for merchandise that is a firearm to begin with. CHAIR KELLER mentioned that his son has had property stolen from him, and indicated that his concern with HB 105's proposed changes revolves around the fact that the bill would indeed be sending a message to Alaskans, many of whom have also been the victim of theft and/or know others who have been. Enforcement and investigatory resources for theft crimes are limited, leaving only Alaska's stiff penalties for the crime of theft to act as a deterrent, and yet the bill is proposing to raise Alaska's monetary-threshold amounts for the crimes of theft. MS. PIERSON again acknowledged that whether to raise Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts is a policy call for the legislature to make. In response to questions, she relayed that the bill's proposed changes would apply regardless of whether that which was stolen was personal property or retail merchandise, and indicated that the bill is intended to raise the question of whether Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts for the crime of theft are still appropriate and in line with those provided for elsewhere in the country. The value of $500 is a lot different today than it was back in 1978, when Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts were originally established, she asserted. In response to comments, she added that members' packets now contain statistics regarding the average sentence lengths associated with certain offenses against property. 2:25:59 PM THOMAS W. STENSON, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska) Foundation, in response to a question, indicated that the changes proposed by HB 105 don't raise any constitutional issues, and mentioned that prosecuting a felony offense is more expensive than prosecuting a misdemeanor offense. He too acknowledged that whether to raise Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts for theft crimes is a policy call for [the legislature] to make. 2:27:14 PM DOUGLAS MOODY, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Division, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), indicated a belief that reviewing Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts for theft crimes is appropriate. He ventured that under HB 105's proposed changes, perhaps more victims of theft crimes would eventually be compensated for their losses if their perpetrators are not convicted of a felony. Referring to [the bill's proposed changes to] the statutes pertaining to the crimes of criminal mischief in the third through fifth degrees, he also pointed out that because costs for transporting goods have risen, the destruction of almost any item in a rural area of the state could nowadays constitute a felony-level crime under Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts. Pointing out that existing law already addresses repeat offenders, he also ventured that HB 105's proposed changes would be of benefit to first-time offenders because they would be able to [steal something worth up to $1,499 before being charged with a felony, and thereby] avoid all the problems associated with a felony conviction. MR. MOODY, in response to a question regarding how often a felony theft charge gets [pled down] to a misdemeanor theft charge, offered his understanding that it differs in different areas of the state depending on the individual prosecutor. Misdemeanor-level cases tend to get resolved more quickly and cost less, he also noted. 2:36:38 PM CHRIS NETTLES (ph), Business Owner; National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), after mentioning that he owns a business that's been stolen from numerous times without anything ever being resolved, testified in opposition to HB 105's proposed increases to Alaska's monetary-threshold amounts, offering his belief that the bill would increase theft crime in his area. 2:38:43 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), first relayed that the ACS takes no position on HB 105. Referring to the aforementioned charts provided by the ACS, she mentioned that although they illustrate facts related to theft charges filed and the disposition of theft cases, the charts do not outline how many charges were filed for cases in which the property stolen was valued at between $500 and $1,500; such cases would be the only type impacted by HB 105's proposed changes. According to the chart titled in part, "Criminal Theft Charges", during calendar year 2012, about half of the 3611 total theft crimes charged were felony-level thefts, and the crime of theft in the second degree and the crime of theft in the third degree were charged about equally often. According to the chart titled in part, "Criminal Theft Charge Dispositions", during calendar year 2012, there were [513] felony convictions, and [1,208] misdemeanor convictions. MS. MEADE indicated that one could extrapolate from the statistics in those two charts that approximately one-third of the felony charges resulted in a conviction, and three-fourths of the misdemeanor charges resulted in a conviction. She noted that some felony charges get pled down to misdemeanor charges; according to the charts, for example, the misdemeanor crime of theft in the third degree was charged only 1146 times in 2012, but there were 1447 dispositions involving that crime, and 952 [cases involving the felony crime] of theft in the second degree were dismissed by the prosecution for a variety of reasons. In conclusion, she also noted that felony cases are addressed by the Alaska Superior Court, whereas misdemeanor cases are addressed by Alaska's district courts, which generally dispose of cases more quickly and less expensively than the Alaska Superior Court. MS. MEADE, in response to questions and comments, indicated that the initial criminal charges filed determine which court shall address a particular case; that under Rule 11 of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors have discretion to enter into plea agreements, which must be reasonable and provide for supervisory oversight; and that there can be good reasons for entering into a particular plea agreement. In conclusion, she too noted that conviction of a [class A misdemeanor] could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to one year and a maximum fine of up to $10,000. CHAIR KELLER relayed that HB 105 would be held over.