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 third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, the bill's sponsor, explained that committee substitute, Version 24-LS0132\B would change two provisions. The first being the addition of the words "and sexual abuse" in the bill's title on page 1 line 2. The second change, which was requested by the Department of Public Safety, was the addition of language pertaining to the entry of protective orders into the State's central registry as specified in Sec. 3 page 2 lines 19 through 24. Mr. Hooley noted that, rather than imposing new procedures in regards to the central registry, the language in Sec. 3 would simply require protective orders to be entered into the central registry. In response to a request from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Hooley communicated that the rational for the inclusion of Sec. 3 is included in the analysis section of the Department of Public Safety's February 16, 2005 fiscal note #4. Co-Chair Green understood the language to relate to peace officers. Mr. Hooley clarified that the previous committee substitute, Version 24-LS0132\N, had included a new provision that required protective order information to be entered into the registry. The Department of Public Safety suggested that instead of adding a new provision, the language be inserted into an existing Statute to which regulations and procedures regarding such things as domestic violence orders already exist. 9:06:12 AM Co-Chair Green communicated that the changes included in Version "B" were recommended by the bill's drafter rather than by the Committee. Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute, Version "B" as the working document. There being no objection, the Version "B" committee substitute was ADOPTED. In order to correct recent criticism regarding his position on protective orders, Senator Stedman stated that current protective orders statutes "don't have enough teeth" in them. This is substantiated by the fact that in one recent case, a woman was found dead hours after "a particular person" was released from incarceration. Furthermore, two women with protective orders have died in his Senate district in the past three years. This issue must be addressed. He has worked with both Senator Dyson and Senator Gretchen Guess on this issue. 9:07:45 AM Senator Stedman stated that he takes "personal offense" to being mischaracterized as someone who "feels that the State's restrictive restraining orders are too restrictive. It is actually just the opposite." He would appreciate his position on this issue to be clarified with the public. 9:09:01 AM Senator Dyson stressed that it would be "naïve" for someone to assume that a protective order would insure the safety of the person. "It does not unfortunately." While a protective order would provide another legal tool for arrest in the case of contempt of the order, it would not prevent "the perpetrator from showing up at their door or confronting them in a parking lot." A victim should not interpret a protective order as meaning that they would be safe. However, a victim should have the right to be notified, "in real time, before the conditions of restraint of the alleged perpetrator are changed." While this notification has been statutorily required, sometimes that notification "breaks down in execution." Senator Dyson stated that Senator Stedman has raised a valid point. While a protective order is a tool that would allow law enforcement to act, "the order in and of itself does nothing in real world, real time to protect the victim from physical violence and/or harassment." Co-Chair Green observed that several zero fiscal notes accompany the bill. An updated sponsor statement had also been provided. Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CS SB 54(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee with six new fiscal notes: a Department of Corrections zero fiscal note dated January 17, 2006; a zero fiscal note dated January 18, 2006 from the Office of Public Advocacy, Department of Administration; a zero fiscal note dated January 17, 2006 from the Public Defenders Agency, Department of Administration; a $4,200 fiscal note dated January 24, 2006 from the Criminal Records and ID Division, Department of Public Safety, a $10,000 fiscal note dated January 24, 2006 from the Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety; and a zero fiscal note dated January 25, 2006 from the Department of Law Senator Dyson thanked the Committee, his staff, and the Department of Public Safety for their efforts in developing this bill. 9:11:59 AM