HB 12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS   6:00:02 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to assault in the first degree; relating to sex offenses; and relating to credit toward a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program or under electronic monitoring." [CSHB 12(JUD), Version E was before the committee.] CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks on the committee hearing. 6:01:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, said that one of the habits he retains from his law enforcement days is that he reads Alaska Supreme Court opinions and rulings. He paraphrased from his sponsor statement, which read: House Bill 12 An Act Relating to Protective Orders Sponsor Statement Version E Last summer, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Whalen v Whalen that victims of domestic violence are unable to get an extension or renewal for an existing protective order based on the same incident of violence of the original order. This is regardless of whether they are still in fear of their perpetrators or whether their perpetrators continue to pose a risk to their safety. The Court's holding turned on the interpretation of the protective order statutes which fail to expressly allow for extensions, renewals, or subsequent protective orders. The Court ruled the statutes are unclear and thus, do not allow for the extensions. The bill also extends this clarification to the statute that covers protective orders for sexual assault and stalking. HB 12 clarifies that a court is not barred from ordering relief to victims based on an incident for which relief has previously been issued or considered, thus preventing a situation in which survivors must be a victim again before receiving judicial assistance. 6:02:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he reviewed two protective order statutes that pertain to domestic violence and to sexual assault and stalking. He said that the bill will provide clarifying language that a protective order may be renewed or extended 30 days prior to the end of the order or within 60 days after it expires without a person having to become a victim a second time. The court would not need to determine if something else happened to the victim to justify the renewal or extension. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related a scenario that illustrates how this routinely arises. A person may be arrested for domestic violence assault and go to jail but the last thing the offender tells the victim is that upon release the matter will be settled. Six months later the offender is released, and the victim expresses to the court fear that the offender will be coming after the person again and requests an extension or renewal of the protective order. The Alaska Supreme Court indicates that the statutes are not clear that it is authorized unless another domestic violence incident occurs. That seemed wrong and inconsistent with how the courts had been responding to those situations. 6:04:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that HB 12 does not introduce any new public policy but clarifies the statutes to expressly allow an extension or renewal of domestic violence orders. The Alaska Supreme Court has requested this change, so in that spirit, he brings forth HB 12. 6:05:05 PM KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, said the sponsor would like the record to reflect the problems the Alaska Supreme Court identified and how this bill corrects them. He referred to Section 1. Section 1 AS 18.65.850(e) This section makes clear that the court may not deny a petition for a protective order for a victim of stalking or sexual assault solely because there is a lapse between the assault and the petition, if the sexual assault was the basis of a previous order, or if a court previously found that the incident was sexual assault or stalking, but declined to issue relief. MR. TRUITT referred to page 1, lines 4-6 of Version E, which is the existing language. He said that the language on line 5 is conforming language. He said that currently, AS 18.65.850(e) only applies to sexual assault. He referred to language on line 7, the language "the stalking or" was not in the original bill. 6:06:28 MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the operative fix for the issues raised in Whalen v. Whalen. Section 2 AS 18.65.850 This section allows a petitioner to request an extension of a protective order 30 days before, or within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension was granted through the provisions of Section 1 of this bill. The court shall give the respondent at least 10 days' notice of the hearing and the right to appear and be heard, either in person or though legal counsel. The court may extend the provision of the order it necessary to protect the petitioner from stalking or sexual assault, regardless of whether the respondent appears at the hearing. The protective order extension will be for six months or earlier if dissolved by court order. 6:07:47 PM MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 1, line 14, to the language "or extended under this section. He said that two provisions provide clarity to the courts. He directed attention to lines 9-11 of HB 12, Version E, which highlights the situation Representative Kopp referenced. The perpetrator of the domestic violence might be in jail or have moved out of state, so due to the proximity of the perpetrator and the victim, a protective order is not necessary. He explained that prior to Whalen, the judge would advise the victim to come back if the situation changes. 6:08:40 PM MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the due process provisions of how a court would administer an extension, and he reviewed the summary of Section 2. He said that nothing touches on the existing burden of proof that applies to protective orders. He referenced page 1, lines 10-11, noting the language "if the petition alleges a change in circumstances since the court's previous finding." He stated that this language was added by the House Judiciary Standing committee at the request of the Alaska Court System. He said that the change in circumstance would be the perpetrator being released from jail or moving back to the locale where the victim resides. 6:10:08 PM MR. TRUITT turned to Sections 3 and 4, which cover the actual domestic violence order. He stated these sections have the same intent as Sections 1-2 but are not identical since the domestic violence protective order statute is not identical to the sexual assault and stalking protective order statute. Section 3 AS 18.66.100(e) This section clarifies that the court may not deny a petition for a protective order for a victim of domestic violence solely because there is a lapse between the assault and the petition, if the domestic violence was the basis of a previous order, or if a court previously found that the incident was domestic violence, but declined to issue relief. MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 2, lines 19-20 of Section 4, Version E. Section 4 AS 18.66.100 This section allows a petitioner to request an extension of a protective order 30 days before, or within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension was granted through the provisions of Section 3 of this bill. The court shall give the respondent at least 10 days' notice of the hearing and the right to appear and be heard, either in person or though legal counsel. The court may extend the provision of the order it necessary to protect the petitioner from stalking or sexual assault, regardless of whether the respondent appears at the hearing. The protective order extension will be for one year or earlier if dissolved by court order. MR. TRUITT explained that this language only applies to protective orders issued under [AS 18.66.100(b)(2)] of the domestic violence protective order statute. There are two types of protective orders in that statute. AS 18.66.100(b)(1) contains what is known as the long-term protective order statute, one without an end date, unless dissolved by the court. He said that AS 18.66.100(b)(2) contains 16 different provisions of relief the court can issue by way of the protective order. This bill applies to those provisions and not long-term protective orders, he said. 6:11:47 PM MR. TRUITT reviewed Section 5. Section 5 Applicability Section 5 adds applicability language to the uncodified law of the State of Alaska to protective orders issued before, on or after the effective date of Sections 1 through 4 of this Act. He said that if HB 12 is enacted into law, Sections 1-4 of the bill will apply to every protective order in existence, any issued on the day the bill is enacted, and any future protective orders. 6:12:16 PM SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out that the bill does not contain an effective date. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP acknowledged that making the bill effective as soon as possible could help a lot of people. 6:13:13 PM CHAIR HUGHES said that it is not right that a victim must be victimized a second time in order to have the protective order extended. She thanked Representative Kopp for introducing HB 12. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he worked with the Alaska Legal Services Corporation and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in drafting the bill. It is supported by those agencies, as well as the Alaska Peace Officers Association, he said. 6:14:19 PM SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute (SCS) for CSHB 12(JUD), work draft 31-LS0103\G, as the working document. CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. 6:14:43 PM REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, said that Version G contains three changes: Section 1 would amend AS 18.65.850(b) related to protective orders issued for stalking or sexual assault. It would change the effective period from six months to one year, which is in line with current protective order timeframes for domestic violence. Section 3 is also conforming language that would amend AS 18.65.850(f) to provide that protective orders for stalking or sexual assault have a maximum extension period of one year. This section also clarifies that when an extension to a current protective order is granted the start date of that extension is the day the current protective order would have expired. Section 5 would add a new subsection to amend AS 18.66.100(f) to provide that extensions granted for domestic violence protective orders start on the date the current protective order would have expired. 6:16:30 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether it only allows for a one-year extension. MS. LARGENT said it provides the timeframes of when it expires. CHAIR HUGHES said that long-term protective orders can be issued. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there is no limit to the number of renewals for protective orders. SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification that the protective order can be issued for one year, and an extension is for one year unless dissolved by the court. He added that those extensions can be renewed. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes. 6:18:17 PM CHAIR HUGHES asked whether he was supportive of the proposed committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes. He said that increasing the duration for sexual assault and stalking from six months to a year would bring it in line with domestic violence and sexual assault. He said that in reviewing the legislative history, that it appears the reason was that the domestic violence involves someone the victim knows. However, the victim does not always know the perpetrator in stalking and sexual assault. He said that in terms of continuity, many good reasons exist to have the duration at one year. He stated that the Domestic Violence Support Network supports making protective orders be one year in duration. He fully supported the recommendation. MS. LARGENT pointed out that when a victim files, there would be an evidentiary hearing, so it is not automatic. The judge would need to make findings on the record and find by a preponderance of the evidence grounds to continue. The defendant would have an opportunity to present evidence so an extension potentially would not be granted. She added that the defendant or the victim can file to have a protective order extinguished. 6:20:31 PM CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further objections the Senate committee substitute (CS) for CSHB 12(JUD), Version G was before the committee. 6:20:44 PM CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on HB 12. 6:21:04 PM CHRISTINE PATE, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Sitka, stated that she runs a statewide legal services program for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She also provides training and technical assistance to the advocates for the statewide domestic violence and sexual assault programs that go into court daily with survivors on civil protective orders. She appreciated Representative Kopp introducing this bill and the work the committee did to make the bill even stronger. The ANDVSA strongly supports Version G to increase the length of the stalking and assault protection orders from six to 12 months since it provides uniformity in the law. It also provides protection to survivors who are not in an intimate relationship with the opposing party and often need a longer timeframe than the six-month period. She said that she has worked for 25 years in this field and has found that civil legal protective orders provide a critical tool to help end domestic violence in the state. She said that making sure they are strong and flexible is critical to keeping survivors safe. This is because the survivors can control the process and have a voice in obtaining the remedies that they need to keep themselves and their families safe, she said. As a civil legal provider for survivors, she has seen the devastating effect of the Whalen decision. She has heard from numerous survivors who have needed protection after histories of terrible abuse but are unable to get it. She echoed what Representative Kopp said that prior to Whalen many courts in the state allowed for an extension or for victims to get a new protective order based on previously found domestic violence. MS. PATE stated that now courts are unable to do this. This bill would give discretion back to the courts to protect survivors who need it most. She said that survivors who have endured terrible histories of domestic violence are currently being forced to make impossible strategic decisions about when to apply for a protective order to maximize their safety. These victims know they will only have six or 12 months of safety. If a criminal case exists, they must calculate if they should wait until the defendant is out of jail. She said that provisions for no contact orders may not specifically allow victims to obtain a civil protection order. She did not think survivors should need to make those types of decisions and protective orders must respond to the cyclical nature of crimes of intimate partner violence. She urged members to approve HB 12 to allow the courts to go back to having discretion to protect victims after 12 months if safety demands it. 6:24:41 PM PATTY MASTERS, Coordinator, Direct Services, Advocates for Victims of Violence (AVV Valdez), Valdez, said that she advocates for victims of violence. The AVV Valdez also provides a shelter for victims. She said she works with survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault on a daily basis. She testified in support of HB 12 to help keep victims safe. She said Ms. Pate made excellent points. She said that survivors need a protective order for longer than one year. She said it is difficult for women and men to come into programs and ask for help. The process can be daunting, and these victims suffer endless trauma in getting out of a violent household or lifestyle. This bill would fix the Whalen decision by allowing the courts to grant protective orders on already litigated domestic violence sexual assault and stalking by extending the protective order past one year. She said she recently worked with several victims who have been terrified because their perpetrators have been incarcerated and are being released this month. They have been terrified that they may not be able to get a long-term protective order. 6:27:02 PM CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 12. [HB 12 was held in committee.]