HB 369-IMMUNITY FOR DRUG RELATED OFFENSE  2:41:00 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the last order of business would be HB 369, "An Act relating to limited immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who seeks medical assistance for a person experiencing a drug overdose." 2:41:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, speaking as prime sponsor, stated that HB 369 is a form of limited criminal immunity for a person seeking medical assistance for an individual experiencing a drug overdose. Fourteen states have implemented a form of limited immunity. Legislative Legal and Research Services has offered an analysis that was performed in Washington that indicates what could come about from HB 369. He opined that this legislation focuses on public health rather than whether an individual suffering from an overdose should go jail. As an example, he related a situation in Washington in which two friends drove around with another friend in the backseat who had overdosed on an opiate. The two friends, who were fearful of legal repercussions, were hoping their friend who overdosed would just come out of it, but the friend ended up dying while in a very close proximity to a hospital. Representative Pruitt noted that in Washington during an overdose scenario police officers are unlikely to actually arrest the individual or his/her friends. However, he contended, most people in that situation are concerned about the legal aspects of such a situation. The intent of HB 369 is to create a situation in which an individual does not have to decide between whether or not he/she will go to jail by helping someone who is overdosing, but rather allows the individual to make a good faith effort to assist the individual wo his overdosing. To be clear, he said, HB 369 does not mean a drug dealer/trafficker receives a "get out of jail free" card as that will not happen. Also, the legislation does not allow an individual to use this immunity multiple times as the goal is to help people get their lives back on track without being worried they have to make the choice between their friend dying or going to jail. 2:46:53 PM MORGAN HOPSON, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State Legislature, clarified the sponsor's intent with CSHB 369, Version 28-LS1515\N, Strausbaugh, 3/14/14, is not to grant immunity to persons who have the intention to distribute or manufacture. The committee substitute specifically lists immunity against certain possession charges. She highlighted that prior to the State of Washington's law going into effect, drug users were polled and approximately 50 percent said they would call in regardless of their fear of legal ramifications. After the law was passed, 88 percent of drug users said they would call in. In the State of Washington, the idea was to create assurances to drug users that they could call in. The main focuses of HB 366 are saving the life of the individual overdosing, treating the individual at the hospital, and referring them for treatment. She explained that the sponsor would like a good consensus on the appropriate threshold as far as using HB 369 for immunity for persons who have possession, but are not distributing or manufacturing. 2:49:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled that during police ride alongs she observed individuals who were left alone after a drug overdose by other individuals were also using or had possession of a small quantity of drugs and did not want a legal problem from helping the individual overdosing. Drawing from conversations with users, she surmised that an overdose that is rock bottom and they turn their lives around as it is not something that is pleasant to go through. She characterized HB 369 as a safety net for people addicted to drugs as it may keep them from dying. She noted her appreciation for HB 369, particularly since the bill as the drug culture in Alaska is changing to a young person's game and the legislation may save lives. 2:52:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that he has no patience with drug abuse in all varieties and would prefer to see stronger [drug] laws rather than weaker. Having said that, he related that he is pro-life and the state cannot allow someone to not be admitted for treatment for fear of being prosecuted. He related his understanding that HB 369 is a one-time "get out of jail free" card before an individual goes to jail. He then emphasized that first it is important to save their lives and HB 369 is a step in the right direction. 2:53:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, in response to Chair Keller, confirmed that the committee substitute is a work in progress in order to ascertain that HB 369 is tight enough that individuals cannot take advantage of it. Version N is the version Kathleen Strasbaugh, Legislative Legal and Research Services, and Anne Carpeneti, Department of Law (DOL), agreed upon, he related. 2:54:29 PM KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, deferred to the sponsor as to whether the draft achieves the sponsor's objectives. She noted that she worked with the Department of Law and does not know if other issues need to be discussed. 2:54:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that Section 2 of most legislation involving criminal laws is regarding applicability as it applies to offenses occurring before, on, or after the effective date of the act. He requested clarification on the matter. MS. STRASBAUGH responded there is language in HB 369 specifying an immunity rather than a defense. Section 2 is a general formulation that Legislative Legal Services placed in the bill itself to show how it applies, she explained. 2:56:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that rather than having a "general" paragraph in most of the criminal laws, there should be language in Title 12 that specifies unless a bill reads otherwise, the change occurs on or after the effective date of the act. He pondered whether the committee should explore including that language in a general section in the Code of Criminal Procedure as it appears regularly in most of these criminal [bills]. 2:57:35 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:57 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 3:01:09 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), responding to Representative Gruenberg's suggestion, stated that it is currently contained in Title 1. She explained that generally, unless there is an effective date and a clear indication of legislative intent to have a law be retrospective, that new bills are already perspective. She offered to locate the statute and provide it to the committee. 3:01:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that it appears to be the current practice, and if that is answered by the general retrospective statute then the committee should be striking Section 2 and not including Section 2 in the bills at all. MS. CARPENETI responded that it could be the Department of Law's legislative section that is looking to include Section 2 in bills, especially in criminal law to clarify the legislature's intent regarding whether or not something should be prospective or retrospective. 3:03:34 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that HB 369 would be set aside.