SENATE BILL NO. 14 "An Act relating to criminal mischief." Mary Vollendorf, Legislative Aide to Senator Leman presented testimony on SB 14. (Testimony attached to minutes.) Margot Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified the problem has been in the increase in joyriding in Anchorage which has doubled in the last two years. Half of those offenses have been committed by juveniles. The question is, what can be done to impose meaningful sanction? The most important feature of this bill is that it makes joyriding an offense for which driving privileges can be revoked. This is expected to have a deterrent effect for juveniles in particular. It is possible to waive a multi- offending juvenile to adult court for felony purposes if, there was a desire to go through the petition for waiver proceeding. She noted that in 47.10.010, which allows minors to be prosecuted as an adult in district court, there is an exception for felonies. The law states that with a felony waiver provision there would be no basis for excluding the juveniles. End Tape #12, Side 2 (575-end) Begin Tape #14, Side 1 (000-575) Senator Donley asked for further explanation. Ms. Knuth responded that the criminal mischief statute which, if the defendant has caused more than $500 damage, is a felony. In a juvenile, prosecution would go through Family Youth Services. Or, file the petition for waiver to adult court under the separate offense of criminal mischief, which is taking the vehicle and causing more than $500 worth of damage. That is separate from joyriding which doesn't involve any damage to the vehicle. That is one way to get to adult court with the juvenile, the other is through theft rather than joyriding. Senator Donley asked how the court system will allow this since a specific statute says, "if they steal a car and they are under 18, it is not a felony." Ms. Knuth responded that the state does not have a strong desire to be prosecuting these cases as felons. It is expensive. The case needs to go to the grand jury and in those cases they are going to be litigated more vigorously. The state prefers that in dealing with juveniles, it is made a misdemeanor in district court, which would be handled in a more routine way. She stated that for over 99% of the joyriding cases with juveniles, the state does not want them as felons, but rather in district court. Senator Rieger wanted to understand how the bill was drafted and drew attention to section 1 and 3. Ms. Knuth stated that those under 18 years of age would not appear in district court as an adult. She stated that in section 3, it specifies that 18 or older for this offense before the mandatory 3 day jail sentence would apply. If under the age of 18, sentencing could be applied to a period of incarceration, but would not be in jail with adults. There is no mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders. She went on to say that there are two processes available when there is a juvenile. One, is going through the juvenile process system, and the other is being waived to adult court. If a juvenile had been waived to adult court for a joyriding offense and it was the second offense, they would be treated as a felon. But, there would be a special arduous petition for a waiver process where this state has the burden of proving that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment, etc. Most of the joyriding offenders under the age of 18 have been going through the juvenile process. They do not go into district court, but rather superior court. The proceedings are closed and does not result in a criminal conviction on their record. The only way to get a criminal conviction is if there was a petition for waiver. She stated that it is unlikely that a juvenile would be waived to adult court on a single joyriding offense. Co-chair Frank joined the committee. Senator Zharoff asked the definition of joyriding. Ms. Knuth responded that joyriding is referred to as criminal mischief. Statute 11.46.484(a)(2) states, "the person drives, tows away, or takes the propelled vehicle of another". This is distinguished from theft because it is not required to prove an intent of permanently depriving the owner of the vehicle. Senator Donley questioned the fiscal impact on juveniles since there is no room within the jail facilities at this time. Ms. Knuth responded that there is no anticipation to give the juveniles time to serve for the joyriding offense. Hence, it's a property offense, it is likely to be a first offense and the sentence would probably be a suspended term with an order of restitution, and revocation of driving privileges. She clarified "restitution" by stating that, 12.55.045(e) specifies,"If a defendant is convicted of criminal mischief in the third degree in violation of AS 11.46.484(a)(2), and the victim of the offense incurs damage or loss as a result of the offense, the court shall order the defendant to pay restitution." She added, that it applies to juveniles as well as adults. Senator Donley wanted to know if there was a fiscal note from the Department of Corrections? He said, there is a statement that says the court system expects 450 cases. If this bill is to send a message to the juveniles that joyriding is no longer going to be tolerated, then incarceration for repeat offenders when not imposed, makes the bill pointless. He then stressed that if the intent is not to incarcerate, even though there has been a conviction of a misdemeanor, what is the impact on the juvenile system? Ms. Knuth responded that Senator Donley's question presupposes that the system is not working. She stressed there are not many repeat offenders or those that abuse the probation system. In order to get to the point of incarceration, the offender is a repeater, or has failed to comply with the conditions of probation. Most joyriding incidences are a single event. Joyriding is not the starting offense that leads people down the path of criminal acts. Co-chair Halford stated simply that he disagreed with everything Ms. Knuth just stated. Senator Donley says that the information that he has received from his constituents is that these are repeat offenders and they are not being treated seriously. Senator Rieger asked for an explanation of restitution with or without the bill. Ms. Knuth responded that if the matter is handled as a juvenile proceeding, none of the criminal code applies. Restitution does not apply, revocation of driving privileges does not apply, and appearing in front of a judge does not apply. These offenders will receive an adult conviction, they will go before the judge with possible consequences of: pay restitution, suspended jail sentence, loose their driving privileges, permanent funds dividends can be attached for the payment of the restitution. These are not consequences experienced in the past. There are too many juveniles to go through superior court petitions. The problem is the exploding population. District court is uniquely set up to process cases in an efficient manner. Co-chair Frank asked if there are statistics regarding repeat offenders? Donna Schultz, Juvenile Probation Officer youth had been charged with criminal mischief. Those with prior offenses totalled 12. Statewide joyriders totalled 2400, 1200 of those are juvenile offenders and 600 are from the Anchorage. Joyriding is a crime of opportunity. She stated that joyriding has doubled in two years. Co-chair Halford inquired how the municipality of Anchorage is handling joyriders now. Ms. Knuth responded that as a misdemeanor offense Anchorage has a similar statute to our criminal mischief for adult joyriding offenses. Anchorage cases number 600 a year. Co-chair asked how the decision is made to prosecute under municipal ordinance versus state? Ms. Knuth said that if the municipality has a statute regarding the crime and prosecutors to handle the case, they will take it on. This is not true for all municipalities. Co-chair Halford directed attention to page 1, section 1, line 5. What would the effect be on changing the word of "or" to "and"? Ms. Knuth responded that it would take the second offender juvenile and made it a felony. She stated that if this bill does not have an effect on joyriding, then something else needs to be tried. However, this bill is a big step forward. Ms. Knuth reported that the "Use It/Loose It" was a legislative measure passed last year targeting juveniles drinking. This has proven to be effective. Juveniles are going to the same parties in Juneau, and now they are drinking root beer instead of beer because they do not want to loose their driving licenses. There have been similar reports from around the state. The threat of jail has never been a deterrent, probably because like other criminals they think they are not going to be caught. With "Use It/Loose It", we have a much higher catch rate. Senator Donley stated that he supports the bill. However, he does not want others to get the wrong message. There is no fiscal note from the Department of Corrections because they assume no juveniles will be incarcerated. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because if they don't add any facilities to deal with this, the judges have no place to send the juveniles, so they in turn are not going to incarcerate them. Restitution is a good step forward, but the public should not think this is going to mean that juveniles are going to serve hard time for this because they are not going to have any place to send them. Senator Donley made a motion to MOVE CSSB14(JUD) with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. No objection having been raised, CSSB14(JUD) was REPORTED OUT of committee with the following fiscal notes: Dept. of Public Safety/Dept. Motor Vehicles, $96.4; Dept. Public Safety/Troopers, zero; Dept. of Corrections, zero; Department of Law, $81.7; Court System, $55.0. Co-chairs Halford and Frank along with Senators Rieger and Sharp signed with a "do pass". Senators Zharoff and Phillips signed with "no recommendation".