SB 54-PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT    3:55:36 PM CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 54 to be up for consideration. He noted the proposed committee substitute (CS). 3:56:38 PM SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor, said the intent is to add sexual assault to the list of crimes on which a judge may issue a protective order. He noted that the original drafting copied the domestic violence statute and the proposed CS, version \S, copies the stalking laws. This is more appropriate because most sexual assault doesn't take place in the context of a domestic relationship. JASON HOOLEY, staff to Senator Dyson, added the bill concerns restraining orders for victims of sexual assault that aren't already covered under domestic violence. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked for a motion to adopt the \S version CS. SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER motioned to adopt the \S version CS as the working document. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 3:59:19 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the drafter presented a technical amendment. SENATOR DYSON said he'd like the Department of Law to speak to the amendment. 4:01:06 PM ANNIE CARPENETI, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained that when the domestic violence protective orders bill passed, the intention was to make it a crime to violate a protective order only if the violation was made in a most serious manner. The reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to make all kinds of protective order violations criminal. Thus, the department suggested that for SB 54, violations of AS 18.66.105(c)(4) shouldn't be a crime. Those are possible orders for repayment to the victim and the catchall "other remedies". She suggested the proposed language on page 2, lines 24-25 might not be clear enough. 4:03:32 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the proposed change on page 1, line 10 references "18.66.105(c)(1)-(3)" and she spoke to (c)(4), which isn't included. MS. CARPENETI replied she assumes most stalking protective orders have one of the provisions in (c)(1)-(3) and what it would say is, "...containing a provision in (c)(1)-(3) attempts to commit an act in violation of the order so it might be the act that's in violation of (c)(4), which we want to make clear would not be a criminal act." CHAIR THERRIAULT said he still didn't understand how you would get to (c)(4) if the limitation is (c)(1)-(3). MS. CARPENETI acknowledged it's a minor drafting point. SENATOR DYSON said 105(c)(4) allows the judge to order the perpetrator to reimburse the victim for assault bills. If that is deleted, he questioned the leverage a judge might have to force payment from the perpetrator. MS. CARPENETI replied that remedy wouldn't be deleted; it just provides that it wouldn't be a crime if the perpetrator didn't pay the expenses the judge ordered to be paid. Other remedies exist and could be imposed because if a person violates a court order, the judge may hold the person in contempt. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Senator Dyson whether he had any comment on the modification of the amendment. SENATOR DYSON replied he did not. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Carpeneti to restate the modification. MS. CARPENETI explained it may be conceptual but the idea should be, "issued under AS 18.65.850, 18.65.855 or 18.65.860 and containing a provision listed in 18.65.850(c)(1)-(3) and knowingly commits an act in violation of the order issued under 18.65.850(c)(1)-(3)." CHAIR THERRIAULT asked the members if they understood the impact of the suggestion. SENATOR WAGONER stated his preference was for the amendment to be written out. 4:07:55 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT set SB 54 aside. SB 54-PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT    CHAIR THERRIAULT announced the committee would return to SB 54. The \S version CS was before the committee and Ms. Carpeneti was working on a proposed amendment. He questioned whether she had consulted with the drafters. MS. CARPENETI said she hadn't, but Mr. Hooley and the legislative lawyers addressed her concerns. She explained the proposed amendment. On page 1, line 10 delete "18.66.105(c)(1)- (5)" and insert "18.66.105(c)(1)-(3) and on page 1, line 14 delete "in violation of the order" and insert "that violates or would violate a provision listed in AS 18.65.850(c)(1)-(3). CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked his comfort level always goes up when the legislative attorneys weigh in. With that he motioned to adopt the new handwritten language as Amendment 1. He asked Ms. Carpeneti to state her concern and how the amendment addresses it. MS. CARPENETI explained her concern was that it hasn't been and it "shouldn't be a crime for a person to commit an act in violation of a protective order where the judge has adopted a provision in the protective order that's in a catchall provision that's not stated by the Legislature." She clarified that the amendment only deals with stalking protective orders. CHAIR THERRIAULT recapped it would not be an additional crime for violation of something that the committee couldn't fully contemplate what the judge might choose. MS. CARPENETI agreed. What the judge comes up with might be perfectly appropriate, but the violation of it shouldn't be a crime. 5:21:01 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that without objection, Amendment 1 passed. He asked Ms. Robinson to come forward. CAREN ROBINSON, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence, said the network continues to contend that it fits best under the stalking provisions rather than the domestic violence provisions, but they want the bill to move and are willing to work with the sponsor and clear that point up in the Judiciary Committee. CHAIR THERRIAULT said he was aware of the debate regarding which section of statute the bill should be under, but he wasn't clear on the arguments. SENATOR ELTON said he understood the CS moved it into the stalking provisions. SENATOR DYSON said he too was confused. The CS adopted the stalking language but it isn't under the stalking provision as Ms. Robinson suggests. He acknowledged that others share her opinion. CHAIR THERRIAULT noted three zero fiscal notes and one for $7,500 from statewide support in Public Safety and asked for a motion. SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 54(STA), \S version as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.