HB 32-SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES  REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, sponsor of HB 32, said if a person was convicted of a sex crime for distributing child pornography through the Internet or if they were convicted for knowingly enticing minors thorough Internet chat rooms their computers and equipment would be seized and used by law enforcement. Representative Hayes said he had letters of support from law enforcement organizations and he had also received one letter of opposition from a naturalist group in Wisconsin and their concerns had been addressed. At one point HB 32 was too broad and there was a concern that real property could be taken, but the definition had been refined making the wording more specific to computers and computer related items. SENATOR COWDERY asked if cell phones and hand held radios could be taken. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said the definition of property was on page 2, lines 5 through 10, and cell phones and hand held radios were not listed. SENATOR ELLIS asked for a definition of child pornography. He said people send pictures of their children to relatives through the Internet, and sometimes the children are "naked on a bear skin rug, and it's just a baby." He wondered if there was a clear definition and a way to discriminate between naked baby pictures and what would be considered child pornography. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said the definition was referred to in the bill through statutes AS 11.61.123 - 11.61.127. SENATOR ELLIS said that police now seize computer equipment from crime scenes and he asked if HB 32 allowed law enforcement to retain the seized equipment or was it to be auctioned for law enforcement resources. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES noted that law enforcement does not have adequate resources for the latest computer technology and HB 32 would allow for the seizure of property and, after a conviction, use the property. The equipment would not be sold. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if law enforcement could sell the equipment. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said there was nothing from prohibiting law enforcement from selling the equipment but the intent of the legislation was to allow law enforcement to use it. SENATOR THERRIAULT said that there was sometimes criticism of law enforcement for seizures so, "they can get their hands on assets or cash." He asked if the property was sold, would law enforcement automatically have access to the cash or would the cash accrue to the state treasury where it would sit until the legislature appropriated the money back. REPRESENTATIVE HAYS explained that selling the equipment had never been discussed, the intent of HB 32 was to give law enforcement the use of newer, more modern equipment. The seized computers would have the perpetrators web addresses and connections, which could be used for the apprehension of other criminals. SENATOR THERRIALUT said the intent section of HB 32 asks the courts for protection of innocent third parties who may have an ownership interest in the equipment so that their equipment would not be seized. Number 570 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that was correct. The intent wording was added to give reassurance that an innocent third party would not have his or her computer taken. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a sexual offender with a prior conviction was staying in someone's home and using their computer, would the homeowner need to lock up his or her computer equipment to keep it from being seized. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said the intent language stated that third person property could not be seized, so even if a sexual offender were to use a homeowner's computer that computer could not be seized. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the "firewall" protection was specifically directed to child pornography. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he was not sure of the answer. SENATOR COWDERY asked where the money goes after the sale of seized property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said there were people on teleconference who could probably answer that question but there were other questions to be addressed at that point. SENATOR THERRIAULT said he also had a concern with the definition of child pornography and wondered if the statute had a good definition. SENATOR ELLIS responded there was a good definition in the statute. Number 808 SENATOR ELLIS said people receive a lot of unsolicited information through email. He asked if someone viewed unsolicited child pornography and then deleted it, would they have to download the offensive material or would just looking at it cause a person to be caught up in a criminal investigation. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said a person would not be convicted of a crime for looking at an unsolicited pornographic email. SENATOR ELLIS said the intent appears aimed at the person producing the material and distributing it through the Internet, presumably for money. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said money does not have to be involved for this to be a crime. SARGEANT CHUCK KOPP, Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA), speaking via teleconference from Kenai, thanked Representative Hayes for introducing HB 32. He said the intent for the seized equipment was for law enforcement use. When seized equipment is sold the money goes into a municipal general fund and it is not immediately appropriated back to the department but this rarely occurs because seized equipment is usually put to immediate use for law enforcement purposes. He said evidence had to be downloaded to the hard drive and stored before the state could collect it. This was to protect people who receive unsolicited email or people who might want to view pornography. Viewing is different from possessing something on a hard drive. Sergeant Kopp said APOA supported HB 32. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted for the record that: The purpose of this law, as I discern it, is to remove this equipment from its criminal use. That it is sold or destroyed or utilized by enforcement is really irrelevant. And I would hope that this record is not becoming one of 'the department needs these tools so therefore we'll pass a law to confiscate and forfeit equipment.' That's really kind of a bad public policy to be discussing, I think, sets the wrong tone. I'm reviewing this legislation because I believe this equipment needs to be removed from the criminal element. If sold, the general fund or the department or if it's a municipality might have some additional resources. We confiscate, utilize, and even sell aircraft, boats, and automobiles. They don't always end up being utilized merely by the department and I don't want to give anybody in the listening audience or anybody considering this legislation, the thought that it is being passed solely for the purpose of going out and confiscating a few hot computers so we can take - that we wouldn't provide for the department through their budget. In fact, I happen to know an area of the department's budget where they could have a million dollars today if they'd just tell one prima donna to quit flying around on an airplane. Nobody seems to want to do that but needless to say it would buy an awful lot of good computers. Number 1265 LIEUTENANT DUNNIGAN, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testifying via teleconference, said the department supported HB 32. He said that if the court determined the equipment should be forfeited it would be turned over to the Department of Administration and sold. The money would then go into the general fund unless the court specifically assigned it for a law enforcement need or purpose. MR. MARC POESCHEL, Coordinator for the Interior Alaska Forces Task Force, testifying via teleconference, said the task force has all the agencies in the Fairbanks area working together to combat computer crime. HB 32 would remove equipment from offenders, forcing them to buy new equipment if their intent was to offend again. He said HB 32 sends the message that Alaska will not put up with that type of crime. He said the task force supports HB 32. Number 1481 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the sentence structure on page 1, line 9 may be incorrect and could be clearer. The sentence reads: INTENT. The legislature recognizes these forfeitures as in personam and, as a matter of consistency and fairness, instructs the courts to continue to provide, as they consider reasonable, remission to innocent parties who have an ownership interest in the equipment forfeited. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said in personam refers to title, ownership, and use, whereas, in rem refers to the forfeiture of an object. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that language was presented the day HB 32 was heard on the House Floor and the body approved it. He said he was amenable to any clarification of the language. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would like legal services to redraft the bill for a clearer definition. SENATOR ELLIS asked how soon the chairman expected the changes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded he expected the changes by Monday. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if HB 32 was to be held for final action or should there be a conceptual amendment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would like to see the new bill before moving it out of committee. SENATOR THERRIAULT said his preference would be to have the new language in "plain English." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced HB 32 would be held until Monday.