HB 28-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS  1:03:57 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act restricting the release of certain records of convictions; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 28. 1:04:11 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 1:04:41 PM CHELSEA FOSTER, Board Member, Alaska Marijuana Industry Association, stated her support for HB 28. As a result of restricting access to conviction records, she listed the following benefits: employment opportunities; higher wages; access to housing; removing barriers to full engagement in family life; and putting an end to the social stigma and anxiety associated with a criminal record. She shared key research findings. She urged the committee to support HB 28, describing the bill as equitable and fiscally responsible for Alaska. 1:06:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether she was advocating for an expungement of [marijuana conviction records]. MS. FOSTER clarified that she was advocating for the sealing of records on Court View. 1:07:18 PM LACY WILCOX, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Marijuana Industry Association, offered a prepared statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The Alaska Marijuana Industry Association would like to offer our support for HB 28. We believe that this piece of legislation is an incremental but important step in the right direction towards destigmatizing cannabis consumption. While it is hard for us to identify specific individuals whom this legislation would impact due to confidentiality, we do know anecdotally that public records impact an individual's ability to secure fair housing, fruitful employment, and education opportunity. It is common knowledge that employers, schools, and landlords use CourtView to perform background checks on applicants. In CourtView a simple marijuana possession charge appears similar to this, "MisconductControlled Substance 6A". Very few understand the drug schedule, and most people performing background checks are unlikely to do the next step of discovery to see that VIA is only marijuana. They will simply put the application aside. Therefore, anything that removes even a small barrier to positive life outcomes, we will support. We want to thank the sponsor and prior session sponsors of similar legislation and urge its support and passage by both bodies. 1:08:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether an employer had the right to know whether an applicant had a marijuana conviction on record. MS. WILCOX shared her understanding that nothing in HB 28 would prohibit employers from asking applicants about their criminal history. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether dishonesty about one's criminal history was a fireable offense. MS. WILCOX suspected that consequences could ensue if a lie was told. She indicated that it was up to employers to use their discretion on such matters. 1:11:17 PM CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 28. She invited the bill sponsor to brief the committee on the merits of the proposed legislation. 1:11:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of HB 28, conveyed that the bill would provide an opportunity to right a wrong. He acknowledged the severity of breaking the law; however, he pointed out that the recreational use and possession of marijuana was legalized in Alaska. He opined that every person was deserving of hope and the ability to move forward. He concluded by humbly asking the committee to hear his words and take them to heart. 1:13:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how the bill would impact background checks. 1:14:43 PM ALLAN RIORDAN-RANDALL, Staff, Representative Stanley Wright, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that state or federal background checks would not be impacted. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that employers could be deceived by potential employees. REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT said he was not encouraging applicants to lie. He reiterated that his intent was to right a wrong and to encourage conversations between employers and employees. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with the sentiment that the bill would "right a wrong," as any person with a marijuana conviction had committed a crime. CHAIR VANCE requested a sectional analysis of the bill. 1:17:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT presented the sectional analysis for HB 28 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: SECTION I: It is the intention of the legislation to reduce barriers to employment and other basic daily functions for individuals who under past statute were convicted of low level marijuana related crimes. SECTION II: Describes when, why and to what agencies or organizations information protected in this bill may be released. SECTION III: Persons aged 21 years or older shall in the provisions of this bill have records of low level marijuana convictions as detailed in this section, which by todays statutes made to be inaccessible other than as listed in section II. SECTION IV: Records relating to the individuals and occurrences in this bill shall not be publicly published by the Alaska Court System. Information shall be made available on how to obtain information removed from public view. SECTION V: Records currently posted by the Alaska Court System shall be removed from public view. SECTION VI: An effective date for this act shall be; 1st of January 2024. CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Purinton to describe how Section 2 would impact the Department of Public Safety (DPS). 1:19:04 PM LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification Bureau, Department of Public Safety, stated that Section 2 sought to modify AS 12.62.160 [Release and use of criminal justice information; fees]. She explained that the bill would limit low-level marijuana convictions, as outlined in HB 28, from being displayed on "any person" reports, which were background checks often conducted by landlord/tenants or generated by non-state/non-federal required record checks. CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Purinton to define "expunged" versus "sealed." 1:21:36 PM MS. PURINTON explained that an expunged record would no longer exist in the system, whereas a sealed record was only accessible in a limited capacity. She defined sealing as "limited dissemination." CHAIR VANCE asked whether HB 28 sought to seal or expunge [the marijuana conviction records]. MS. PURINTON said the bill would seal the record of conviction, as the marijuana conviction would still exist on record for specific authorized purposes, such as federal and state authorized background checks. CHAIR VANCE invited questions from members of the committee. 1:23:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether an employer could receive access to a person's full criminal history should the bill pass. MS. PURUNTON said it would depend on whether the employer was authorized by state or federal law. She shared, for example, that the Anchorage School District (ASD) was authorized by state law to perform background checks as a condition of employment; therefore, ASD could obtain access to an applicant's full criminal history report. She continued to explain that if the bill were to pass, "any person" reports requested by employers would exclude low-level marijuana convictions. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a disclaimer would be included with the background check. MS. PURINTON confirmed that there was a "quasi" disclaimer notice highlighting the limited scope of the "any person" report in accordance with AS 12.62.160(b)(8). She explained that non- conviction records were not displayed in addition to records that had not been adjudicated. 1:25:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked who could access sealed conviction records. MS. PURINTON stated that the records would be available in the state repository to all entities listed under AS 12.62.160. CHAIR VANCE inquired about the DPS fiscal note. 1:27:20 PM MS. PURINTON informed the committee that year one costs would be higher to provide for a contract programmer at the estimated cost of $56,000 to modify the main frame system to limit the dissemination of the marijuana conviction records. The additional cost, she explained, was to fund a temporary position to research all record sealing requests and update the criminal history repository accordingly. CHAIR VANCE highlighted the language "upon request of the defendant" and inquired about the impact of removing that language from the fiscal note. MS. PURINTON suspected that the temporary [criminal justice technician] position would be needed for a longer period. She estimated that 8,000 records could potentially qualify for restricted access under the proposed legislation. CHAIR VANCE indicated she was trying to understand the anticipated workload. 1:31:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to confirm that individuals who were eligible for this policy could not have committed any other crime. MS. PURINTON shared her understanding that [marijuana possession] must be the sole conviction in the case; further, the offender must have been under the age of 21 when the offense was committed. MS. PURINTON, in response to a follow-up question from Representative Allard, clarified that the bill pertained specifically to crimes involving under one ounce of marijuana. 1:32:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked where the $56,000 [to fund the contract programmer] was included on the fiscal note. MS. PURINTON said the total cost in year one should include $56,000 for the programming cost. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY restated his question, referencing the "Year 1" and "Year 2" breakdown of costs on page 2. He asked where the $56,000 was included in that. MS. PURINTON, referring to page 1 of the fiscal note, indicated that $56,000 was included in the $72,000 cost of services. 1:34:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the process for people under the age of 21 at the time of conviction. MS. PURINTON shared her understanding that records of individuals under the age of 21 would still be displayed and available. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the criminal records of minors were handled differently. MS. PURINTON said the state repository had limited criminal history records for individuals under the age of 18. 1:36:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she would consider supporting the bill if the individuals paid for the sealing of their records. She asked whether the sponsor would consider implementing this change into the bill. REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT said he would have to think about it. Initially, however, he said he would not be supportive because these individuals were already struggling financially. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that the burden should not be placed on taxpayers. 1:37:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the bill didn't seek to expunge low-level marijuana conviction records. REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT shared his belief that sealing the records, as opposed to expunging them, was more palatable. He suggested that a conversation about expungement could be had in the future. 1:38:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 3 of the bill. He asked whether HB 28 would extend to charges that did not result in a conviction. REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT reiterated that the bill only applied to people that were charged solely with [a low-level marijuana] conviction. 1:40:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the price per person if all 8,000 records were to be sealed. MS. PURINTON offered to follow up with the requested information. 1:40:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 3, line 19, of HB 28 and inquired about the notice that would be provided on how to obtain a criminal history record. 1:41:36 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, pointed out that a disclaimer and a notice on how to search criminal records was already provided on Court View. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed confusion. He remarked, "If we're saying in Section 2 of the bill that DPS can't release this information to just anybody, why are we saying in Section 4 of the bill that just anyone can go to DPS and get this information." MS. MEADE interpreted Section 4 of the bill to suggest that a general notice would be posted on the website directing people to DPS for criminal history record checks. Nonetheless, she acknowledged that if HB 28 were to pass, [marijuana conviction records] would not be accessible via DPS. She added that the only way to obtain the records in question would be at the courthouse. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether people would have access to the sealed information at the courthouse. MS. MEADE noted that from the perspective of the courts, these records would not be considered "sealed," as the term meant something different to the court system. She clarified that, per Sections 3-4 of the bill, the marijuana convictions would simply be removed from Court View. In response to Representative Eastman, she answered yes, the kiosk at the courthouse would provide access to an individual's full criminal history. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 3 and asked whether the court fell within the statutory definition of "agency." MS. MEADE answered no. 1:46:34 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 28 was held over.