SB 55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS  2:19:18 PM CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SB 55. He noted that this is the second hearing and there is a proposed committee substitute (CS). 2:19:50 PM SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt the work draft CS for SB 55, version 30-LS0119\N, as the working document. 2:20:01 PM CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation of the changes. 2:20:18 PM JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, explained that since the last hearing several agencies offered technical changes to SB 55. He clarified that the amendments are intended to smooth out some of the implementation issues and drafting errors; they are not recommendations from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission"). MR. SHILLING directed attention to Section 4, which amends the misdemeanor drug possession statute. He explained that Senate Bill 91 reduced simple possession of a controlled substance to a class A misdemeanor, but it failed to make all forms of possession a misdemeanor. For example, it did not repeal the statute that makes it a felony to recklessly possess drugs around schools or on a school bus or near a youth center. This corrects the oversight and references the two additional forms of felony possession. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the penalty is for possession of hashish. MR. SHILLING replied hashish is a schedule IIIA controlled substance and possession would be a class A misdemeanor. The distribution and manufacture are both felonies. He deferred to the Department of Law any discussion about whether the agency is pursuing prosecutions since that conflicts with the voter initiative and the language in Title 17. MR. SHILLING directed attention to Section 7, which aligns the restitution requirements for suspended entry of judgment (SEJ) and suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). He explained that current statute says that the order to pay restitution in a SIS is not discharged once the requirements of the SIS are completed. It was an oversight that the suspended entry of judgment statute that was created in Senate Bill 91 did not make a similar stipulation. Section 7 corrects the oversight and clarifies that the order for restitution is not discharged once the SEJ proceeding is dismissed. [Section 8 Clarifies that imprisonment may not be imposed in a Suspended Entry of Judgement.] Section 9 clarifies that a person who has successfully completed probation and the requirements of a Suspended Entry of Judgment is not convicted of a crime. Again, the SEJ is supposed to largely mirror the SIS, with a few differences. One of the major differences between the two is that SEJ was not intended to appear in CourtView. The notion was to allow an individual to legally, factually say on an employee application that they have not been convicted. He said there's been some question about that and this CS clarifies that an individual whose proceeding has been discharged under an SEJ has not been convicted of a crime. MR. SHILLING said Sections 12 and 13 are statutes that require certain information to be given to the respondent of a protective order. This includes the potential penalties for violating the protective order. That is a class A misdemeanor and the penalty is up to a year in prison and the maximum fine is $25,000. It is an oversight that the form the respondent is given still says the maximum fine is $10,000. Senate Bill 91 was amended on the House floor increasing the maximum penalty for a class A misdemeanor from $10,000 to $25,000. He opined that the implications of that floor amendment on other parts of the statute weren't analyzed at the time. This important cleanup item allows the respondent to know that they could be fined up to $25,000 if they violate the protective order. MR. SHILLING advised that Section 16 adds to the list in statute the persons under age 21 who may be referred to and accepted in the Department of Health and Social Services Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). These two Title 4 references should have been listed in the statute after Senate Bill 65 passed last year. They were overlooked - probably because the two bills passed at the same time, and this corrects the omission. MR. SHILLING explained that Section 17 deletes a statute that was inadvertently repealed in the last CS. This corrects that error. 2:28:51 PM CHAIR COGHILL listed the individuals available to answer questions and asked if the committee was comfortable moving the bill. SENATOR MEYER asked about the fiscal impact of these changes and noted that he didn't have a copy of the fiscal note. MR. SHILLING said the fiscal note isn't in members' packets, but the general understanding is that the changes will not increase the fiscal impact on the Department of Corrections (DOC). CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Meyer if he wanted to wait on a fiscal note before moving the bill. SENATOR MEYER answered no. MR. SHILLING advised that the next committee of referral is the Finance Committee. 2:30:20 PM SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report the CS for SB 55, version 30- LS0119\N, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 2:30:35 PM CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection to adopting the CS and announced that CSSB 55(JUD) is reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.