HB 307-SEXUAL ASSAULT PROTECTIVE ORDERS  CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 307. 1:41:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 307, asked her staff to introduce the bill. BILL EDWARDS, Staff to Representative Holmes, said HB 307 repairs the statutes pertaining to protective orders in cases of sexual assault. Prior to 2001 protective orders existed only in cases of domestic violence. In 2001 they were extended to cases of stalking outside a domestic relationship and in 2006 they were further extended to cases of sexual assault outside a domestic relationship. However, in an oversight in the 2006 law magistrates and district court judges were not given jurisdiction to issue the protective orders. As a result a number of magistrates and district court judges are declining to issue protective orders, specifically in cases of sexual assault. They point out that the current statute gives jurisdiction to do so only in cases of domestic violence and stalking. HB 307 would amend AS 22.15.100 to give magistrates and district court judges jurisdiction to issue protective orders in cases of sexual assault in addition to stalking. This has been particularly problematic in rural communities. He noted that the sponsor of the 2006 legislation indicated that his intention had been to include magistrate jurisdiction for cases of sexual assault. The Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Alaska Peace Officers Association support the legislation. 1:43:58 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked to which statute sexual assault was added in the 2006 legislation. MR. EDWARDS replied the sexual assault statute, AS 18.65.850 through .870, was created in 2001 for stalking. The 2006 Act extended the stalking statute to cases of sexual assault. CHAIR FRENCH summarized that in 2006 sexual assault was added to the list of domestic violence protective orders, but the legislation didn't give a judge the authority to issue the protective order. MR. EDWARDS agreed. A literal reading of the statutes shows that to be correct; they don't have jurisdiction. 1:44:54 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the meeting. CHAIR FRENCH observed that a victim of a sexual assault can now get a no-contact order from the judge handling the criminal case, but not every case goes to criminal court. MR. EDWARDS said that's right. The remedy for victims in cases of sexual assault without an accompanying criminal case is to get a protective order for sexual assault. That was the reason for creating the 2006 statute. CHAIR FRENCH said he wonders what the system response should be in cases where a victim asks for a sex assault protective order when there has been no criminal charge filed. Finding no further questions and no testimony, Chair French closed public testimony. 1:48:02 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if the sponsor reviewed the statutes to be reasonable sure that sexual assault is the only category that should be added to protective orders. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES replied there are other areas that the court may want to give magistrates jurisdiction, but they are not related to protective orders. SENATOR MCGUIRE said at the time she didn't understand why the stalking statute didn't include strangers. Now she wonders if magistrates should be allowed to issue protective orders in other cases. MR. EDWARDS replied it may be the case that in other circumstances judges should be empowered to issue protective orders and not wait until there's been victimization. SENATOR MCGUIRE said it would be interesting to talk with magistrates to find out if there are other circumstances where they would like to have that tool. 1:51:29 PM CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that there is some legitimate pushback to protective orders. Most of the time they are used appropriately, but every now and again they're used otherwise. CHAIR FRENCH held HB 307 in committee.