CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(JUD) "An Act relating to protective orders for crimes involving sexual assault or stalking, to notifications to victims of sexual assault, and to mandatory arrest for crimes involving violation of protective orders and violation of conditions of release; and amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Dyson, the bill's sponsor, moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-LS0132\U as the working document. Co-Chair Green objected for explanation. JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Dyson, informed the Committee that Alaska "consistently ranks as one of the worst states for the rate of sexual assault". A recent Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) report documented the State's sexual assault statistics at three times the national average. This bill would allow victims of sexual assault to request protective orders in cases "outside of domestic violence". While the traditional belief is that most sexual assaults occur in situations of domestic relationships, relatives or acquaintances, the fact is that it does occur with strangers. This bill would allow these victims to request protective orders identical to those granted in cases of stalking. Mr. Hooley informed the Committee that three types of protective orders are available: six-month orders, emergency orders for 72- hours, and ex parte orders for 20 days. Co-Chair Green asked whether the ex parte order was similar to protective orders issued in cases of domestic violence. Mr. Hooley affirmed that it was. 5:47:34 PM Senator Dyson stated that this legislation is the result of a situation in which a police officer who deals with sexual assault situations, went to a Judge to request a restraining order against a perpetrator. The Judge was unable to issue such an order as Alaska law only allowed such an order to be issued in the case of stalking or domestic violence. This legislation would simply add another category through which Judges could issue a restraining order were one warranted. Co-Chair Green asked regarding the nature of the discussion that occurred in the Senate Judiciary Committee in regards to ex parte orders; specifically that the definition of an ex parte order be provided. 5:48:44 PM Mr. Hooley referred to language in Sec. 7(a) page three lines 18 through 26 that read as follows. (a) A person who reasonably believes that the person is a victim of stalking or sexual assault that is not a crime involving domestic violence many file a petition under AS 18.65.850 and request an ex parte protective order. If the court finds that the petition establishes probable cause that the crime of stalking or sexual assault has occurred, that its is necessary to protect the petitioner from further stalking or sexual assault, that the petitioner has certified to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to provide notice to the respondent, the court shall ex parte and without notice to the respondent issue a protective order. Co-Chair Green asked for clarification as to whether the person being accused must be notified of the Court proceedings. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law stated that an attempt of notification must be made, but that would be all that would be required. This language would mirror that applicable to domestic violence and stalking protective orders. Co-Chair Green recalled this being an issue during the domestic violence legislation discussions. This provision is "very troublesome". She asked regarding the experience in this regard, as she has received calls from individuals to whom "fairly severe restrictions had been placed on their coming and goings" by the Court without their knowledge. Her comments should not be misconstrued that she favored anyone mistreating anyone, as she was simply concerned that "the capacity" of having a court hearing without the person being there might be expanded. Ms. Carpeneti replied that some distinction should be made between this type of ex parte order and the one issued for domestic violence. A Judge has more authority to grant remedies in regards to a domestic violence restraining order. Co-Chair Green asked that a situation specific to this legislation be provided. 5:51:44 PM Ms. Carpeneti responded that the protective order request pertinent to this legislation would allow an individual to inform the Court that they had been sexually assaulted. If the Judge determined there to be "probable cause to believe that that was correct", and the person requesting the restraining order stated that they had tried to serve the person who sexually assaulted them but had been unable to do so, the Court could "go ahead and grant remedies" in this civil matter, including "to crease sexually assaulting that person", to stay away from the victim's home, to stop contacting the person, and to stay away from that person's home or place of work unless the respondent lived and worked in the same place. In the latter case, the Court might not grant a restraining order unless the person had been actually served. 5:52:56 PM Ms. Carpeneti communicated that this bill would add two new remedies: the respondent must pay for counseling of the victim or the requester, and whatever relief the Court deemed necessary to protect the person requesting the restraining order. "Once an ex parte order is granted, the person to whom it is ordered has the right" to request modifications to the order "at any time". [NOTE: Ms. Carpeneti incorrectly informed the Committee that one of the new remedies included in the bill was that the respondent must pay for counseling of the victim or the requester. While that language was a component of the Senate Judiciary committee substitute, Version 24-LS0132\R, it was removed from the Version "U" committee substitute under consideration. Co-Chair Green clarified this issue in the discussion that occurred between time stamp 5:53:26 PM and time stamp 5:56:41 PM.] 5:53:26 PM Co-Chair Green read the remedies depicted in the bill in Sec. 5(c)(1) through (4) on page two line 28 through page three, line ten. Sec. 5. AS 18.65.850(c) is amended to read: (c) A protective order issued under this section may (1) prohibit the respondent from threatening to commit or committing stalking or sexual assault; (2) prohibit the respondent from telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating directly or indirectly with the petitioner or a designated household member of the petitioner specifically named by the court; (3) direct the respondent to stay away from the residence, school, or place of employment of the petitioner, or any specified place frequented by the petitioner; however, the court may order the respondent to stay away from the respondent's own residence, school, or place of employment only if the respondent has been provided actual notice of the opportunity to appear and be heard on the petition;  (4) order other relief the court determines to be necessary to protect the petitioner or the designated household member. New Text Underlined Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the language depicted in Sec. 5(c) (1) through (3) existed in current domestic violence language. Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the language is applicable to current stalking protective orders. Co-Chair Green acknowledged. Senator Dyson clarified for the Committee that the first version of the bill had "erroneously replicated" the domestic violence protective order provisions. The bill had been revised to replicate stalking provisions. Co-Chair Green asked for specific examples of the meaning of the term "or other relief" as reflected in Sec. 5(c)(4) on page three, lines nine and ten of Version "U". Ms. Carpeneti responded that the term is a common "catch all relief provision" that is included in a variety of cases including domestic violence cases. The language is deemed appropriate, as it would be impossible for Legislators to anticipate and specify "every possible situation"; therefore, this language would provide the Court the ability "to order whatever relief is deemed necessary in a particular case". Co-Chair Green clarified that the Version "U" committee substitute under consideration, eliminated language specified as Sec. 5(c)(4) in the Senate Judicial committee substitute, Version 24-LS0132\R. The language that was eliminated reads as follows. (4) for a protective order for sexual assault, require the respondent to reimburse the petitioner or other person for expenses incurred as a result of the sexual assault, including medical and counseling expenses; Ms. Carpeneti apologized to the Committee for inadvertently specifying that that remedy was included in the Version "U" committee substitute. She affirmed that it had been removed from Version "U". Co-Chair Green asked regarding new language specified as Sec. 7(b)(4) on page four lines 15 and 16 in Version "U" that reads as follows. (4) enter the protective order in the central registry of protective orders as required under AS 18.65.540. 5:56:41 PM Ms. Carpeneti informed the Committee that, "the Department of Public Safety maintains a registry of protective orders for domestic violence". When the legislation pertaining to stalking protective orders was adopted, "it didn't provide that protective orders for stranger stalking should be entered into the registry. This bill in this form now provides that … protective orders for stranger stalking and stranger sexual assault may be entered into" the Department's central registry. This action would enable police officers to access information relating to these cases when they "stop or contact a person". 5:57:26 PM Co-Chair Green clarified that the information "shall" be entered in the registry. Ms. Carpeneti affirmed. Co-Chair Green asked whether the entry in the registry would remain there indefinitely. Ms. Carpeneti replied that procedures to remove the information are available. Removal would not be automatic. 5:57:36 PM Co-Chair Green asked whether the registry was public information and whether inclusion on the registry might have other consequences. Ms. Carpeneti stressed that the registry provides important information to police officers responding to a domestic violence call, specifically when "there are accusations on both sides, of violence", as it would provide a history of any orders that were issued in the past. This information would assist the officer in making a decision in regards to the situation. She was unsure as to whether the information would be used "for any other purpose". Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee. AT EASE 5:59:10 PM / 6:01:59 PM