HB 32-SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES  REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, sponsor of HB 32, said he had new intent language for HB 32, which had the actual case law without the Latin word. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought the language in the amendment was much clearer. SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt amendment 1, Luckhaupt 4/20/01, which reads as follows. Page l, lines7- 12: Delete all material and insert: Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: INTENT. The forfeitures contemplated by this Act are intended to be forfeitures imposed in connection with conviction for a crime. The legislature intends for the courts to continue to provide hearings to interested persons who have an ownership interest in equipment subject to forfeiture under this Act and to allow for remission to innocent nonnegligent third parties as applied in State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981), Fehir v. State, 755 P.2d 1107 (Alaska 1988), and Baum v. State, P.2d (Alaska App. 2001). CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the amendment was a rewrite of the intent language in the first Section of HB 32. He asked if committee members had any questions of the sponsor. SENATOR THERRIAULT said he had talked with Representative Hayes earlier in the week about the new language being wordier than what was envisioned but he liked the fact that specific cases were referred to in the bill and he also liked the new intent language. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Representative Hayes for adding this amendment because he felt the original language was confusing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any objections to amendment 1. There being no objection, amendment 1 was adopted. SENATOR COWDERY moved SCS CSHB 32(JUD) from committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, SCS CSHB 32(JUD) moved from committee.