SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 32(JUD) "An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES read the sponsor statement into the record as follows. As the use of computers and the Internet expands so too do crimes involving the use of these technologies. One area of particular concern is sex crimes against children. Adults prone to abusing children will use the Internet to solicit a minor for sex or to set up a meeting with a child in order to rape or abuse the child. Further, Many people, who are inclined to distribute or view child pornography, are now using their computers to do so. These are new technologies and the state still has relatively few tools for dealing with criminals using these technologies. HB 32 provides us with another tool to use in combating sexual predators. Across the country and at the federal level there are forfeiture laws in place. Several other states already have laws on the books specifically relating to the forfeiture of computers used in sex crimes. The use of computers in sex crimes is a national problem. As more and more states pass forfeiture legislation it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is a useful and valuable tool in the fight against computer crimes. HB 32 would make it possible for the police to stay on top of this rapidly changing industry without spending more state dollars. Advances in computer technologies seem to happen on a daily basis. New technology can often "outwit" last year's model, leaving the police at a large disadvantage in their attempt to curb crimes committed with the aid of the newest technology. In order for the police to combat computer and Internet crimes effectively it is imperative that they be constantly provided with new hardware. Under AS 12.55.015(c) the court may award forfeited property or a percentage of it to any municipal law enforcement agency involved in the arrest or conviction of the defendant. This would allow the courts to pass on seized property to the police so that the police can stay up to date with available technology in a cost-effective manner. HB 32 is designed to help protect our children in a twofold manner: 1) forfeiture is a proven tool in the fight against crime, and 2) the forfeited property can be given to our local law enforcement agencies in order to help make sure that they have the necessary tools to protect our children. I ask for your support in passing this legislation. Representative Hayes pointed out changes to the intent language made in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which cite case law to "make it absolutely positively airtight" that the only equipment that could be seized was that owned by the perpetrator and not by a third party. He showed that Section 3 of the committee substitute specifies that property owned by an employer could not be seized. Representative Hayes referenced information provided showing some cases that this new law would apply. He also referred to letters of support and one letter in opposition to the bill from a nudist organization [not provided] regarding their concerns with vehicle forfeiture. He assured their concerns were addressed in the Senate Judiciary committee substitute with language that specifies computers as the only equipment that could be taken. Representative Hayes then directed the Committee's attention to other information regarding how forfeitures work as well as statutes from other states. [Copies on file.] He noted this legislation is "the most progressive" language on the West Coast of the United States addressing these types of crimes. Senator Ward asked if this legislation includes e-mail of pornography materials. Representative Hayes answered that it does not. He told of law enforcement organizations that infiltrate Internet chat rooms and other areas to locate suspected pedophiles and perpetrators of sex crimes. He noted that if a person receives a pornographic e-mail message, but deletes it and does not pass it along to another user, that person would not be subject to the provisions of this law. Senator Leman asked if the person who sent a pornographic e-mail could be prosecuted and under this legislation, forfeits their computer equipment. Representative Hayes did not think so unless the intent is distribution rather than a joke. He assured that this question has been addressed in other committees. Senator Leman hoped the forfeiture provision would apply saying that it does happen occasionally. Senator Green asked if the penalties proposed in the bill are in addition to other punishment. She asserted, "this is a lot of work to take someone's computer if they're not being punished." Representative Hayes replied that only upon conviction as a sexual predator could computer equipment could be seized. Senator Ward asked about equipment belonging to the State of Alaska. Representative Hayes reiterated that the intent language inserted by the Senate Judiciary Committee specifies legislative intent that only equipment owned by the perpetrator could be seized. He stated that equipment owned by an employer, parent, spouse, etc., of the offender could not be confiscated. Co-Chair Donley drew attention to the committee substitute provision setting the procedure for the utilization of any confiscated equipment. Co-Chair Donley asked why there is no fiscal note from the Department of Law. Representative Hayes explained there would be no additional expense to the Department of Law because conviction on child pornography charges would automatically provide for equipment seizure without the need for additional specific prosecution. Senator Ward shared that Department of Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Del Smith relayed to him that it is not against the law to send an e-mail using another person's e-mail address. Senator Ward suggested this legislation could be used to make such a practice illegal. Representative Hayes was unsure how this could be done since this legislation is specifically directed to child pornography and sex crimes. He again detailed the process of investigators entering chat rooms using an alias as a child to attract child abusers. Senator Ward ascertained this legislation is "pretty broad and covers a lot of territory." He stated that having no law making it illegal to send pornography using another person's e-mail address "could be a problem." He gave a scenario of someone distributing pornography from the governor's address. Senator Hoffman suggested Senator Ward introduce new legislation to address this matter. Senator Ward wanted to hold the bill in Committee so he could draft an amendment to make such a practice illegal. He also stated that impersonating a public servant is shown to be against the law, but is actually not, according to the Department of Public Safety. Co-Chair Donley understood the concerns but did not think this issue complied with the title of the bill. Senator Ward asserted that he was certain, "the sponsor would want to do whatever is necessary in order to protect the public from these sexual predators." Co-Chair Donley noted the bill has the support of the Committee and requested the sponsor work with Senator Ward on addressing this matter. He stated the bill would be reconsidered at the next meeting. Co-Chair Donley ordered the bill HELD in committee.