SB 336-CORRECTIONS: FEES/SURCHARGE  CHAIR SEEKINS announced that SB 336 was before the committee. SENATOR OGAN questioned why the charge is only $100 for violating probation. He felt that amount will not provide enough incentive. MS. PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC), told members that SB 336 requests a correctional facility surcharge for offenders who have been convicted of felony and misdemeanor charges. DOC researched other states' fees, and found they charge a variety of booking fees, administrative surcharges and other fees. Those fees range from $20 to $250, depending on the state and whether the fee is issued by an intake facility, jail, or long-term facility. Because the State of Alaska has a unified [corrections] system, the state operates all jails and prisons. Other states have county and city facilities. Most of the fees in other states were challenged and upheld in different jurisdictions if the fees were uniform and treated people equally. She noted that DOC believes that charging a fee for a conviction as part of the court judgment would be the safest and easiest way to avoid challenge, rather than charging a booking or intake fee, which is problematic when charges are dropped or the offender is not convicted. DOC decided on the $100 amount based on what it believes can be collected from this population. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER explained the second part of SB 336 pertains to a $100 application fee for an interstate transfer for those on probation or parole. Most states have such a transfer fee. The applicant will also have to file cash or a bond because DOC often has to go out-of-state to return the offender to Alaska if the offender commits a crime. SENATOR OGAN noted that SB 336 does not address indigent people who cannot pay and he suspects a number of offenders will fall in that category. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to the Department of Law for an explanation of the collections process but pointed out that permanent fund dividends can be garnished, as well as any wages earned while incarcerated. SENATOR OGAN questioned whether felons are eligible for permanent fund dividends. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to the Department of Law for an answer. SENATOR OGAN said he would be willing to propose an amendment to increase the $100 fee for parolee release to provide a disincentive to violating parole. CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the $100 would be collected when a prisoner is released on parole or whether it would be collected if the person ends up back in jail. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER said the $100 surcharge on probation and parole is suspended so it does not have to be paid unless an offender violates the conditions of probation or parole. She explained that a felon who is incarcerated would have to pay the $100 correctional facility fee and then an additional $100 fee if that felon is released on parole or probation and violates the conditions. She further explained that a small number of offenders who want an interstate transfer will also have to post cash or a bond and that is only paid if DOC has to pick the person up out-of-state for a violation. MR. MARC ANTRIM, Commissioner of DOC, clarified that SB 336 does not address parole. Probation is a function of the court; parole is the function of an independent board. There is no interaction between the court system and the parole board so SB 336 does not have a fee collection process attached to it. CHAIR SEEKINS indicated that SB 336 is basically a revenue bill that attempts to recover some of DOC's costs. COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said that is correct. CHAIR SEEKINS asked how much DOC expects to recover at 100 percent. COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said about 30,000 bookings are made each year but not all of those folks are convicted. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER added that the DOL's fiscal note is based on what DOL believes it can collect, not on 100 percent collection. MS. KATHRYN DAUGHHETEE, Director of the Administrative Services Division, DOL, answered the amount would be $1.3 million if 100 percent was collected. CHAIR SEEKINS said he watches the judicial system on a routine basis and often questions, when he sees a DUI reported in the newspaper, how a $1,000 mandatory fine can be reduced to $300. He believes the court's rationalization is that it is better to collect some amount from people who cannot pay the full amount. He questioned whether the courts will further reduce the fines if offenders must pay these other fines. COMMISSIONER ANTRIM believed the court's intent is to suspend, not reduce, the fine to exercise a hammer on a subsequent offense. He noted that in a typical DUI case, an offender might be fined $1000 with $250 suspended and the jail time would be 10 days with 7 suspended. However, if that person gets a second DUI, the $250 fine and 7 days in jail would be added to the next sentence. CHAIR SEEKINS said he has no problem with trying to collect the fines when possible because incarceration is expensive. SENATOR OGAN jested that the state could probably contract with the Hilton Hotel to house prisoners for a lesser amount than prison cells. CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony. MS. BARBARA BRINK, public defender for the State of Alaska, told members that she fears that as the state continues to add surcharges and fees, it might be imposing burdens on people that are impossible to meet. Those people who are getting released from custody have families to support and bills to pay. In criminal cases, their most pressing obligation is to pay restitution. In addition, most of these people are disqualified from receiving a permanent fund dividend. She pointed out that according to a recent Alaska Judicial Council study, public attorneys handle 80 percent of all criminal cases. Collecting fees from 80 percent of that population will be very difficult. Many of these people have already been fined: the mandatory minimum fine for DUI penalties ranges from $1500 to $10,000. Essentially, the state already charges a conviction surcharge of $100 for a felony, $50 for a misdemeanor, and $75 for a DUI. Those fees are used for public safety training. Defendants who need treatment are referred to the Alcohol and Safety Action Program, and those defendants pay a $100 fee, half in cash, before they are even accepted to the program. And people serving sentences for DUIs must pay their cost of imprisonment. Those costs range from $236 to $2,000. On top of that, the state imposes Rule 39 costs, which requires offenders to pay $250 to $5000 for their [court-appointed] lawyer. MS. BRINK cautioned that because of the way this fine is imposed, when an offender is brought to jail, whether booked or not, it provides a lot of opportunity for unfair application. The fine will be based solely on whether the police officer or district attorney chooses to issue a summons or to arrest someone. She feels it is particularly onerous to impose a fee of $100 and a bond requirement for those who would like to get an interstate transfer. It seems the state would want to encourage people to be with families and support networks in other states while on probation rather than to stay in Alaska because they cannot pay the fee. SENATOR OGAN asked Ms. Brink if the statistic she cited about 80 percent of criminal defendants being represented by public defenders includes people who are on public assistance. MS. BRINK said it does. A person on public assistance is presumed to be indigent and is entitled to public counsel. Of the 80 percent, 63 percent are appointed a public defender and 17 percent are appointed to the Office of Public Assistance. SENATOR OGAN said his knee-jerk reaction is that public assistance should be cut off for repeat felons. CHAIR SEEKINS asked if a booking facility is a correctional facility. COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said it is. CHAIR SEEKINS asked if any person who is convicted would pay for the booking, even if that person does not spend a day in jail. COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said that is correct. He then agreed with Ms. Brink that a lot of fees already exist but some people keep re-offending and find money to buy drugs and alcohol and pay impound fees for their cars. He does not believe an additional $100 will slow them down. He noted the bond for the Interstate Compact is designed to recoup some of DOC's costs. DOC must fly a state trooper to another state and usually house that person for a night so DOC must buy three plane tickets and pay per diem plus the personnel costs. CHAIR SEEKINS informed members that an amendment proposed by DOC had been distributed. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER told members that DOC worked with the court system and DOL on the amendment, which makes some technical changes to improve the collection procedure, particularly as it relates to the probation fee. SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt the proposed amendment [Amendment 1], which reads as follows. A M E N D M E N T 1  OFFERED IN THE SENATE TO SB 336: Page 2, lines 5 and 6: Delete: ", as a condition of probation," Page 2, line 14: Between "under" and "this" insert: "(a) of" Page 2, line 15: After "conviction." Insert: "The court shall include the imposition of a surcharge under (c) of this section in the order revoking probation." Page 2, line 20: After "28.30.032(o)." insert, "The state may enforce payment of a surcharge under this section under AS 09.38 as if it were a civil judgment enforceable by execution. This subsection does not limit the authority of the court to enforce fines." SENATOR OGAN objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked if the intent of the amendment is to allow a person who cannot pay to be put on probation. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER said if a person is on probation and their provision is revoked, that person will have to pay the $100 fee. That language was rewritten so that the fee is not listed as a condition of probation because there was no way to make that work. The fee would be imposed once revocation occurs. SENATOR OGAN asked for a description of the second change the amendment will make. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARKER deferred to DOL. TAPE 04-16, SIDE A MS. ANNE CARPENETI, representing the Criminal Division of DOL, told members that the amendment was suggested by a judge who reviewed the bill and was concerned about the possibility of collecting the surcharge for revocation of probation. DOL agreed with the judge's assessment and made minor amendments to make the collection of that surcharge similar to the process used to collect the facilities fee. SENATOR OGAN referred to the language on page 20 and asked what "a civil judgment enforceable by execution" means. MS. DIANE WENDTLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, explained it means that DOL can garnish permanent fund dividends, wages, or bank accounts. In general, DOL would not do that for amounts as small as $100. DOL handles a large volume so it is not economically feasible to do more than attach the permanent fund dividend. Without the amendment, DOL would be unable to get a writ of execution, meaning it could not do any involuntary collection. DOL could only accept voluntary payments, which would be fairly low. SENATOR OGAN referred to the fiscal note and asked if the state will collect more money than the collection costs. CHAIR SEEKINS said that depends on how much can be collected. SENATOR OGAN removed his objection to adopting Amendment 1, therefore it was adopted. CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony. SENATOR OGAN moved CSSB 336(JUD) from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, the motion carried. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.