HB 31-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS  3:06:24 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act requiring the Department of Public Safety to develop a tracking system and collection and processing protocol for sexual assault examination kits; requiring law enforcement agencies to send sexual assault examination kits for testing within 18 months after collection; requiring an inventory and reports on untested sexual assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date." 3:07:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if rape kits from victims who choose not to prosecute remain in the backlog and who owns the kits. He added that his question relates to the issue of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence being tracked and made available for use in the prosecution of a serial criminal. 3:08:43 PM CELESTE NOVAK, Staff, Representative Tarr, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tarr, prime sponsor of HB 31, said that the rape kits, once received by the crime lab, remain there in perpetuity. She stated that even if the victim chooses not to pursue the case, the DNA evidence is kept on hand should it needed in that case or in a serial assault case. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if one of the reasons for a backlog of unprocessed rape kits is that there is no immediately pressing prosecution. MS. NOVAK responded that is correct. She said the Department of Public Safety (DPS) reported that the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory ("the crime lab") is currently able to keep up with rape kit processing requests. She added that the fiscal note reflects DPS's anticipation of an increase in kits submitted should HB 31 become law. 3:10:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked about the current procedures for handling rape kits. He asked if they are stored in the DPS crime lab until they are ready to be processed; shipped out of state to be processed and stored; or shipped out of state to be processed then shipped back to the crime lab. MS. NOVAK offered her understanding that the DPS crime lab is processing the backlog of kits, and the kits are not going out of state. She offered to provide the committee additional information for clarification. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned the two different processes described in the previous House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting of 01/31/17: one, using U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) grant money to clear out the backlog; and the other, ensuring a backlog doesn't accumulate in the future. MS. NOVAK stated that outsourcing kits to out-of-state locations is due to the type of processing required. Kits that are processed at the crime lab in Alaska are kept at the lab in perpetuity. 3:12:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the backlog of unprocessed kits was due to other reasons and "not just because they can't get to them." MS. NOVAK offered her understanding that there is no backlog, because DPS caught up with the processing of all kits, after receiving grant funds from DOJ. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to a February 1 article from the Alaska Public Media, which says that at the end of 2016, there were 59 more rape kits to process. She asked for the make-up of those kits. MS. NOVAK responded that the crime lab has 102 kits on hand, with 35 currently being processed. Of the 102 kits yet unprocessed, 2 are from October, 25 from November, 34 from December, and 41 from January [2017]. She added that DPS has indicated it is able to maintain progress with those kits. 3:14:52 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:15 p.m. to 3:22 p.m. 3:21:31 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 31 will be set aside. [HB 31 was brought before the committee again following the hearing on HB 7.] HB 31-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS  4:14:04 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that as the final order of business, the committee would once again consider HB 31, "An Act requiring the Department of Public Safety to develop a tracking system and collection and processing protocol for sexual assault examination kits; requiring law enforcement agencies to send sexual assault examination kits for testing within 18 months after collection; requiring an inventory and reports on untested sexual assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how DNA, as evidence, is stored, if there is no related prosecution. REPRESENTATIVE TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 31, expressed her understanding that collected evidence is the property of law enforcement until such time a crime is resolved. She mentioned that property that is confiscated during an arrest would be returned if the case was resolved favorably for the arrested individual. She recommended consulting with the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) to ensure her information is accurate. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern for privacy. She offered her understanding that once evidence is collected, it is under the control of the law enforcement agency that is investigating the incident, and sexual assault kits are treated as evidence and are in the physical custody of the law enforcement agency. She described a hypothetical situation in which [a rape] happens and a rape kit is collected, but either the charges are dropped or no one is charged. In that scenario, she said, evidence has been collected, but "no crime's been committed." She observed that the fiscal note reflects the cost of storing the DNA evidence and tracking it. Representative Johnson stated that while she supports catching criminals and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law, she has concern for the those whose DNA is being kept when they have never been charged with a crime. 4:18:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR related two different scenarios. One involves an individual who is sexually assaulted, a rape kit is collected, but because it was a known perpetrator, the kit was not processed. She asserted that even if the perpetrator was known to that victim, law enforcement has learned that sometimes the perpetrator has been involved in other crimes, and the sexual assault incident should not be thought of as an isolated case. She added that from law enforcement's perspective, that evidence is very valuable. She cited that this scenario demonstrates the challenge of balancing needs, and law enforcement has chosen the public safety need over the privacy need of the perpetrator. She asserted that in this scenario, charges would be pressed, but the kit would not be essential for the prosecution to make a case. REPRESENTATIVE TARR related a circumstance where the victim chooses not to press charges against the perpetrator and that, she conjectured, was the basis of Representative Johnson's concern. She queried, "Does a person have a right for that evidence to not be used in a way that would incriminate them in another crime if they weren't pressing charges for this crime?" She stated her understanding that this question has been resolved in favor of the public safety need being the first priority. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated her concern for a fiscal note solely for the purpose of tracking rape kits, and not for catching up with a rape kit backlog or for bringing justice to victims. She stated, "We have to be aware that ... this isn't something that's going to make it more likely that someone is going to have justice; in this case, ... personal information's going to be tracked." REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that because there is currently no tracking, it is impossible to know where a kit is in the process and who is in possession of the kit. She opined that the greatest value of the tracking system is ensuring a kit is not lost in the process. She cited the challenges of rural communities in collecting and handling evidence: a community may not have a Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO); a trooper must come from out of town; and there are time limits on the viability of biological evidence. She conceded that these circumstances are somewhat unique to Alaska because of geography and limited access between communities, but she asserted that the tracking system would facilitate identifying these problems. She stated she shared the concerns that people have regarding personal information in a database and the potential for it to be used to harm an individual. 4:25:14 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 31 will be held over. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH paraphrased information provided to the committee by Representative Tarr and said, "Internal review indicates that there are kits that were never submitted to the lab and go back as far as the mid-'80s." He asked how many kits are in the backlog. REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the audit revealed a backlog of 3,600 unprocessed rape kits. She added that these kits are the ones that have not been sent to the crime lab. She said that the other numbers [102 kits yet unprocessed, 2 from October, 25 from November, 34 from December, and 41 from January 2017] reflect the kits that have been sent to the crime lab and the status of those kits. She pointed out that the discrepancies between the numbers demonstrate the need for tracking both the chain of [custody] and the life cycle of each kit. She said currently the only information known about a kit is when it was received and "where it's at in processing." She mentioned that the 3,600 unprocessed rape kits are of most concern to the public - where they are and why they have been languishing. She reiterated the importance of processing rape kits in order to discover perpetrators in other crimes; she referred to the article on Clifford Lee [in the committee packet], which demonstrates the importance of the DNA evidence that linked him to prior assaults. 4:28:50 PM KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), brought up the possibility of a victim submitting to a forensic examination without giving consent to open an investigation. She said the report, in that instance, is called a non-investigative report. In Anchorage it is referred to as an anonymous victim report. She said that these victims are not giving consent for the rape kits to be tested but may choose to do so at any time. She asserted that this practice provides more options for someone who is nervous about reporting. She attested that this mechanism of reporting is a requirement of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) [of 1994]. She stated STAR is very concerned about these anonymous kits being tested without the victim's consent. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out that in a comment made earlier, once the sample is taken, it is in law enforcement control and can be used "down the road." He stated, "It is an open question for me." MS. OLSON responded that Representative Tarr has expressed she is open to drafting policy to ensure that anonymous kits, for which there is no consent for investigation, are isolated. 4:32:07 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 31. [HB 31 was held over.]