SB 53-FIVE-YEAR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS  1:31:08 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 53 "An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments." Speaking as the sponsor, he noted that this was the bill's third hearing in the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee and that there was a committee substitute (CS) for the committee to consider. He asked Emma Potter to present the CS. 1:31:30 PM EMMA POTTER, Staff, Senator Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the CS for SB 53. She pointed to the first two changes found in Section 3(a) and Section 5(a). The previous version of the bill stated that the court may release a defendant on bail. Recent conversations with the court system revealed that the court does not release defendants. Consequently, the bill amends Section 3 and Section 5 to use accurate language regarding the court. The language states that the court may order a defendant to be examined. She continued with the third and final change in Section 9(d). The change removes reference to five year in the language related to successive commitments. CHAIR CLAMAN asked committee members for questions or comments related to the CS. 1:32:39 PM CHAIR CLAMAN solicited a motion to adopt the committee substitute as the working document. 1:32:44 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SB 53, work order 33-LS0172\P, as the working document. 1:32:59 PM CHAIR CLAMAN found no objection and version P was adopted. SENATOR KIEHL asked how the court determines a potential commitment under this new standard of "up to five years. He wondered what standards a judge might utilize to determine the proposed period. CHAIR CLAMAN deferred the question to Nancy Meade. 1:34:08 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, replied that she was unsure about the exact standards the court would employ. She stated that the judge reviews a clinical report from the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) at each hearing apprising the court of the status of the individual. She added that the API reports include a recommendation. In these types of cases, the court will hear any pertinent arguments from the public defender, the prosecutor, and API to arrive at a sound conclusion. SENATOR KIEHL responded that he was interested in the standards applied. He asked if the medical judgment was weighed most heavily when considering the potential commitment. MS. MEADE responded that the evidence (API report) holds a great deal of weight in the proceeding because the clinician has the most expertise in the area. She revealed her experience with this type of hearing where vigorous debate is frequently absent. She added that the defense and the counsel often agree on an appropriate time limit. She opined that disagreement would proceed appropriately and the clinician's opinion would likely receive an abundance of consideration. She found it unlikely that the judge would opt for a longer commitment than the clinical recommendation of API staff. 1:37:11 PM CHAIR CLAMAN pointed to evidentiary standards and wondered if the debate would focus on the preponderance of evidence standard or by clear and convincing evidence. 1:37:28 PM MS. POTTER replied that Section 9(b) states the court will find clear and convincing evidence. SENATOR KIEHL attempted to understand the debate related to commitment time when a person has not been found guilty. He found it difficult to use medical judgment as the standard for setting a commitment length when medical judgment is not used to end the commitment period. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Meade for additional background related to different evidentiary standards: the preponderance standard, the clear and convincing standard, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. He wondered how the judge reviews the evidentiary standards. 1:39:13 PM MS. MEADE replied that preponderance of the evidence is the lowest standard in civil cases. She stated that criminal cases require a jury to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She added that clear and convincing evidence involves a position between the two standards displaying more evidence than the preponderance of evidence standard. She pointed out that this bill has specific findings necessary, including proof that the respondent is mentally ill and likely to cause serious harm to self or others, which is an opinion best offered by the clinician. She stated that the clinician would have expertise on mental illness and the respondent's condition. She added that the respondent's criminal history related to incompetence would be based on clear evidence from their record. Another issue addresses whether a person is found incompetent again. The final matter relates to public protection by issuing a longer-term commitment. She stated that the attorneys may debate the issue of public protection. She relayed that the judge commonly makes these decisions. 1:42:35 PM SENATOR KIEHL appreciated the framework Ms. Meade provided. He surmised that the bill introduces a new situation related to civil commitments based on the standards described. Currently, when a medical professional determines that a person is not seriously mentally ill, they are deemed innocent and released from commitment. He discerned that SB 53 alters the process when a commitment exceeds 180 days. He surmised that the person constrained must show by clear and convincing evidence that they are eligible for release, which is a new standard. He valued the aspects of the bill that protect victims, but he compared the proposed action to medical incarceration. 1:44:20 PM CHAIR CLAMAN disagreed that the bill flips the burden of clear and convincing evidence. He stated that a person committed for five years could shorten the time by displaying changed circumstances. He explained that the initial burden for involuntary commitment rests upon the state. SENATOR KIEHL proposed a hypothetical case in which a committed person or medical professional advocated for a shorter commitment period and the prosecutor disagreed. CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that a person is released if API providers recommend the discharge. The bill requires a hearing for court agreement before release. He added that the civil division attorney would not be able to prevent the hearing if the medical professional advises release. 1:46:00 PM SENATOR TOBIN stated her concerns. She agreed that the testimony provided by the woman stabbed at the Loussac Library was tragic. She agreed that facets of the proposed legislation help close a fundamental gap in the civil commitment process. She shared her concerns related to the violation of an individual's due process rights. She interpreted that a person's freedom might be withheld based on the subjective opinion of a prosecutor overriding a medical professional's expertise or recommendation. She expressed concern about reversing the burden of proof. She encouraged a holistic view rather than the focus on one single tragic incident. She expressed concern about the bill affecting a particular population with historical injustice and trauma. She hoped that the legislative process would encourage further dialog, but she invited the committee to carefully consider the statutory changes. 1:48:14 PM At ease 1:48:30 PM CHAIR CLAMAN reconvened the meeting. He found no further comments or questions and solicited a motion. 1:48:36 PM SENATOR KIEHL commented on his concerns with the bill and then moved to report the CS for SB 53, work order 33-LS0172\P, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 1:49:03 PM CHAIR CLAMAN found no objection and CSSB 53(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.