SB 30-RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY    10:01:15 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced consideration of SB 30. SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor of SB 30, said the bill is about restorative justice. Last year an identical bill, SB 297, made it through the Judiciary Committee but no further. He said SB 30 is designed to further enhance the process of returning property to victims whose property has been seized as a result of a crime. In AS 12.36.020, the legislature added a separate paragraph stating that if commercial fishing nets have been stolen, those need to be returned right away. He knows of a custom boat builder who was building a $300,000 boat, and one night $40,000 worth of electronics disappeared. The builder got about two-thirds back through visiting pawnshops and Craigslist, but the police took it as evidence and he had to repurchase $40,000 worth of gear. To avoid this situation, he said, some people don't report the theft of equipment; instead, they repossess it themselves. 10:05:19 AM CHUCK KOPP, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, said SB 30 gives property owners the right to request a hearing for the return of their property from police custody, and also requires that the hearing request be submitted to the court. The court may order return of the property upon satisfactory proof of ownership. As the law changes, the agency could be in a position to show the court that they can or cannot have the property returned. He further explained that SB 30 provides the court may impose reasonable conditions on an owner reclaiming property. Police are often cast in the role of advocates for business owners, and would like to return property to the owner as soon as possible, but the defense may resist for various reasons. The court may say you can use the property, but not lease or sell it. This right of hearing for property owners is not currently provided in law, which imposes a heavy burden on victims. Mr. Kopp added that SB 30 is supported by the Alaska Peace Officers Association and the Office of Victims Rights, and that the intent is not to jeopardize prosecutions, but to make sure that evidence is only held as long as absolutely necessary. 10:10:28 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI brought up the case in the Mat-Su Valley where dogs were seized and are currently in custody, and asked if the owner in that case could request return of the dogs. MR. KOPP responded that under SB 30, the owner could request return of the dogs, but he did not believe a judge would allow them to be returned. In that case, the judge would probably calendar a hearing after the trial date. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what would be the standard for a judge analyzing cases. MR. KOPP replied that the court often makes determinations by talking to both counsel and looking at the weight of evidence; nothing in SB 30 prevents the court from making individual determinations. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted that currently a person can file a civil lawsuit requesting return of property, and asked what SB 30 changes. MR. KOPP said an owner may request return of his property without filing a lawsuit, and the court may impose reasonable conditions on an order claiming property under this section. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what agency would be involved. MR. KOPP answered any agency which is responsible for the enforcement or the prosecution of the law, such as state troopers or municipal police, and the Department of Law. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DOL would be required to go to court. MR. KOPP explained that the DOL would be required to file the request for a hearing, and court could calendar the hearing at its discretion. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked why SB 30 has an undetermined fiscal note. 10:15:48 AM MR. KOPP replied that the fiscal note is undetermined at present, because the Department of Law doesn't know how many people will request hearings; however, they do not expect a rush of hearing requests. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI opened public testimony. VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director, Office of Victims Rights (OVR), testified in support of SB 30. The OVR believes SB 30 provides an important mechanism for property owners, because often property crime victims have to wait months if not years for return of their property. SB 30 would allow a victim to request a hearing before a judge, and work with others to determine the best interests of justice. Mr. Kester noted that the OVR believes in the principle of restorative justice, and said that SB 30 appropriately balances the interests of those involved. 10:19:15 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if anyone was present from the Alaska State Troopers or the Court System. RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said the DPS is officially neutral on SB 30, and that the standard practice is to return property as quickly as possible. Sometimes ownership is contested, so in that case a court hearing would be good thing. He has supervised evidence facilities and can't think of a case where someone has needed property back immediately and did not receive it; they always try to find means to make that happen, such as photographing property. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many cases involve taking possession of evidence. LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that most cases result in evidence being taken in some manner; maybe 10,000 cases per year, statewide, result in property being seized and put into facilities. The goal is always to get the property returned as soon as possible. In some cases, the property is forfeited to the state, or destroyed because it is contraband. He further stated that he has supervised evidence facilities in Southeast Alaska for six years, and can't remember a case where he was not able to quickly get critical equipment or property returned to an owner. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI stated one concern is that, if you have 10,000 cases where evidence is seized, and if even ten percent of people ask for hearings, there is potential for thousands of cases going to court. LIEUTENANT DIAL said the request would probably go through him, as a facilities manager, and he would probably call the district attorney to resolve the problem; if SB 30 passed, he would do the same thing, and the DA's office would have to determine if it wanted to request a hearing or return the evidence. He would not expect the request for a court hearing to be made in most cases. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what kind of evidence is typically seized. LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the vast majority is physical evidence, such as recordings and photos. In a property crime they would seize stolen property that they recover. If it is stolen property, they would prefer to retain the item for trial, and most people agree. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he was aware of cases where people were forced to file a civil suit. LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that in 20 years he has not seen that. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was a problem in other jurisdictions. LIEUTENANT DIAL said he has been stationed at every geographic location in the state and has not seen a problem, because the policy is always to return evidence as soon as possible. 10:27:44 AM SENATOR GIESSEL asked him to define "as soon as possible." LIEUTENANT DIAL said the idea is to return the property immediately. There are cases where it's possible to photograph the property on scene and return it right away; in more complex cases, such as felony cases, it can be a matter of days. 10:28:46 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced he would hold SB 30 for further consideration.