House Judiciary - On Crime Evidence and Campaign Expenditure

(H)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Apr 07 Wednesday 1:00 PM		CAPITOL 120
+	SB 284	CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES	TELECONFERENCED
+	SB 110	PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

THIS IS MY VERY ROUGH NOTES.  DON'T RELY ON THIS.  I'LL POST THE AUDIO WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE.  

1:35pm Senator French is walking the committee through SB110 on Perservation of Evidence/DNA ID System.  The meeting opened with Chair Ramras warmly welcoming Sen. French and praising him and his office for being so easy to work with.

There are a number of people on the list to testify, but Rep. Ramras also wants as much time as possible for SB 284.  This is not a bill I've prepared for.

Online testimony:
Mr. Oberly, Executive Director of the Innocence Project:  The task force reviewing this will be helpful and police will hold up decisions until the task force does its study.

Jeffry Mittman, ACLU Alaska:  We support this bill as well.

Gruenberg:  Concern about length of time evidence is kept.  His concerns were with who decides the crime is solved.
French:  The concern that someone would peremptorily declaring crime solved, is covered.
Ramras:  We know of Rep. Gruenberg's propensity for belts and suspenders.
French:  These issues will be looked at by the task force.
Gruenberg:  It looks like you are right relating to biological evidence.  We're talking about non-biological evidence.  The house bill had this on p. 3 beginning of line 7.  The two bills seem to treat the non-biological evidence seperately.
Ramras:  As I recall there was a focus on biological evidence.
Gruenberg:  The bills themselves deal with both biological and non-biological evidence.  Will we have any fall out between now and when the task force makes its report.
French:  In the six years I was with the Prosecutors I am unaware of anyone disposing of evidence and I would be stunned if it happened in the next year.
Ramras:  Chair is satisfied with the discussion.
Gruenberg:  Is there anyone else concerned?  I don't see it among other committee members.

Gatto:  An agency ... may destroy biological evidence if ....   - that's not a complete activity - mailing a notice - makes no requirement of the recipient ever receiving the letter.
French:  I think the certified delivery implies that it was received.  If you continue reading - no person notifies after 120 days after receiving the notice...
Gatto:  Line 27 page 3.  Key word is mailed.  Doesn't matter they got the wrong address, or person can't read English.  If you wanted to have a certainty the letter was received and failed to act is not something the agency can control.

Heron:  We did amend that in other hearings and require a receipt.
French:  Would a proof of receipt help?   That seems reasonable.
For completeness.  I appreciate your desire to move this down track.

Language requiring applicants to pay costs of evidence retrieval have been romoved.  We've gotten approval/acceptance from department of law.
Timeliness provisions also changed.  p. 15 - were three years.  Not from this day forward, but looking back.  People now in prison have ten years after we pass the bill.  Otherwise people have unlimited amount of time.
Gruenberg: I'm still troubled by same issue.  If they got the perpetrator and say the crime is solved and destroy the evidence.  Now prosecution could say we are permitted to do this under this law.

French:  I don't share your concern.
Ramras:  Would you care to do a member swap from now to April 18? 
French:  [Something about the person not admitting guilt.  I'm not sure what this is about.]
Deleting attorney affidavit.  ????
Requiring evidence ???? deleted.
Page 8 lines 22-27 - right out of the federal bill.  We leaned on the Fed bill which is called the Gold Standard.  It was passed by Republican Congress and signed by Pres. GWB.

Gatto:  Subsection C.  Applicant did not admit or concede guilt under oath.  Admission of guilt is not not acceptable as a plea for this bill?
French:  What you'll hear from public defenders is that some people plead guilty with regularity.  They take a fall for someone else, doesn't understand English, lots of reasons to plead guilty falsely.

Ramras:  Two conceptual amendments = #1 page. 14.  Anyone else who wants to testify?
Public testimony closed.
Conceptual Amendment #1  - add to duties of task force -
Gruenberg:  think that should go in subsection D, lines 2?
Ramras:  Withdraw #1
#2 standards for return of property added to duties of task force [changed where to add it]
#3 page 7 line 31-p. 8 line 3 - subparagraph D3 page 7 lines 10-14  should conform (I have no idea what this is about).  Withdraw.
Holmes: CA #4 p. 7 line 31 delete 31-p. 8 line three and replace with applicant did not admit or guilt in ...except for the court in the interest of justice... nolo contendr plea is not an admission ... that is currently on p. 7 lines 14.
Passes.
Gatto:  CA #5 - p. 3 line 27 - return receipt requested  passes

Passes.  Concurrent resolution adopted.  At ease.

That's it for CSSB 110.  At ease and then I'll be back for SB 284.

Here's the audio. You can get the exact words used. CSSB 110 is the first 42 minutes.