Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/10/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
Moved CSHB 15(FIN) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 15                                                                                                             
     "An Act relating to credits toward a sentence of                                                                           
     imprisonment and to good time deductions."                                                                                 
1:53:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler MOVED  to ADOPT  the proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for  HB  15,  Work  Draft  29-LS0102\S  (Martin,                                                                    
4/8/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                           
Representative Wilson  explained the changes in  the CS. She                                                                    
detailed that  the word "substantial" had  been deleted from                                                                    
the  following  sentence  on  page  1,  line  12:  "...under                                                                    
electronic  monitoring  and  the court  imposes  substantial                                                                    
restrictions  on   the  person's  freedom   of  movement..."                                                                    
Additionally,  on  page 2,  Section  3,  the CS  required  a                                                                    
defendant to request  to claim credit [toward  a sentence of                                                                    
imprisonment for time spent in  a treatment program] 10 days                                                                    
prior to a disposition hearing.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson noted that  staff from various departments                                                                    
were available to answer questions.                                                                                             
Representative  Guttenberg  believed  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
was  only available  in  Fairbanks,  Juneau, Anchorage,  and                                                                    
possibly on the Kenai  Peninsula. He stated that individuals                                                                    
in  communities  without   electronic  monitoring  were  not                                                                    
eligible for the  program. He spoke to  concerns about equal                                                                    
justice throughout the state.                                                                                                   
Representative  Wilson   replied  that  the   Department  of                                                                    
Corrections  (DOC)  had  the  ability  to  offer  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  into other  areas; however,  the private  sector                                                                    
was  not present  in  the  areas. She  deferred  to DOC  for                                                                    
further detail.                                                                                                                 
REMOND   HENDERSON,  DEPUTY   COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT   OF                                                                    
CORRECTIONS,  confirmed   that  Representative   Wilson  was                                                                    
correct;  the  department  did  have  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
available  in  other  communities (outside  of  metropolitan                                                                    
areas). He  elaborated that  department staff  was available                                                                    
to   provide  a   list  of   the  communities   if  desired.                                                                    
Additionally,  the  department   was  looking  at  expanding                                                                    
electronic  monitoring in  other areas  in order  to free-up                                                                    
prison beds.                                                                                                                    
Representative    Guttenberg   surmised    that   electronic                                                                    
monitoring was  not currently available in  some communities                                                                    
and may  or may not  be available  in the future.  He stated                                                                    
that individuals  currently using the  electronic monitoring                                                                    
service were  paying a  significant portion  of the  fee. He                                                                    
wondered  what  the  cost  of   the  service  would  be  for                                                                    
individuals in smaller communities such as Tanana.                                                                              
Mr. Henderson  answered that the bill  dealt with electronic                                                                    
monitoring on pre-trial cases (the  individuals did not fall                                                                    
under  the  department's  jurisdiction). There  was  a  zero                                                                    
fiscal note,  because there was  no cost to  the department.                                                                    
He  reiterated  that staff  was  available  to list  current                                                                    
communities with electronic monitoring capability.                                                                              
1:59:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg   was  interested   in  pre-trial                                                                    
information  related  to  the   legislation.  He  asked  the                                                                    
department to follow up with the information.                                                                                   
Representative  Gara  was satisfied  with  that  the CS  met                                                                    
intent the  committee had discussed  at a prior  meeting. He                                                                    
asked  about   the  cost   of  electronic   monitoring.  Mr.                                                                    
Henderson answered  that there was alcoholic  monitoring and                                                                    
GPS  monitoring; the  alcoholic  monitor  was slightly  more                                                                    
expensive.  He believed  less expensive  monitoring was  $14                                                                    
per day plus a weekly $10 urinalysis fee ($108 per week).                                                                       
Representative Gara  stated that  there was an  equal access                                                                    
to justice issue.  He wondered why a condition  could not be                                                                    
made to  serve all  of the state's  court houses  to provide                                                                    
rural residents with access.                                                                                                    
Mr.  Henderson deferred  the question  to  the Alaska  Court                                                                    
2:01:59 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE, GENERAL  COUNSEL, ALASKA  COURT SYSTEM,  asked                                                                    
Representative Gara  to repeat his  question. Representative                                                                    
Gara reiterated his question.                                                                                                   
Ms.  Meade  shared   that  pre-trial  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
currently  existed  in  Anchorage,  Fairbanks,  Palmer,  and                                                                    
Kenai.  The state  did not  have  contracts with  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  vendors. She  detailed that  the defendant,  who                                                                    
has  a  third-party custodian  as  a  bail condition,  could                                                                    
decide  to  hire  the  vendor  to  act  as  the  third-party                                                                    
custodian. She  explained that  the vendor  was paid  for by                                                                    
the  defendant;  the defendant  brought  the  vendor to  the                                                                    
judge  for  approval  as   the  third-party  custodian.  She                                                                    
believed the  cost could be  in the neighborhood of  $300 to                                                                    
$500 depending  on how much  monitoring a  person contracted                                                                    
with a vendor.                                                                                                                  
Representative Gara  stated that  judges were  approving the                                                                    
usage under  their standards for  safety and  monitoring. He                                                                    
wondered why  the court  system could  not specify  that the                                                                    
monitoring  had  to be  provided  in  a multitude  of  other                                                                    
communities if it was provided in several.                                                                                      
Ms. Meade replied  that it had never been  considered by the                                                                    
court  in   the  past.   She  stated   that  there   was  no                                                                    
relationship between  the court and the  vendor. The court's                                                                    
only role was to approve or  disapprove of the vendor as the                                                                    
third-party  custodian. She  noted that  the courts  had not                                                                    
declined  third-party vendors  as custodians  for having  an                                                                    
office in one location but not another.                                                                                         
Representative  Gara  believed  the court  system  did  good                                                                    
work; however, he  hoped the court would  consider the issue                                                                    
because it  was unequal access  to justice issue.  He stated                                                                    
that  the court  had done  a substantial  amount on  unequal                                                                    
justice  over  the years.  He  asked  for verification  that                                                                    
electronic monitoring  was limited to people  in third-party                                                                    
custody.  He discussed  that the  electronic monitoring  was                                                                    
going to  individuals who would otherwise  get a third-party                                                                    
custodian. He  detailed that a third-party  custodian had to                                                                    
be  with  the individual  24-hours  per  day; the  custodian                                                                    
could  go to  jail  if  they did  not  trail the  individual                                                                    
constantly during the required time period.                                                                                     
Ms. Meade replied in the  affirmative. She added that people                                                                    
who were  released on  their own  recognizance with  no bail                                                                    
conditions would  not need to  hire a  third-party custodian                                                                    
and were not covered under the legislation.                                                                                     
Representative Gara  discussed that third-party  custody was                                                                    
provided as an  option to individuals who were  not the most                                                                    
reliable in the  eyes of the court in order  to free up jail                                                                    
2:06:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gattis wondered if  the bill was necessary to                                                                    
free  up  jail beds  and  expand  monitoring statewide.  Mr.                                                                    
Henderson  answered that  currently the  department was  not                                                                    
granting  time   for  electronic  monitoring   in  pretrial;                                                                    
however,  he believed  the department  had  the ability.  He                                                                    
stated that  the bill was  not essential for  the department                                                                    
to  exercise the  ability for  individuals  in its  custody.                                                                    
However, the bill  was aimed at applying  to individuals who                                                                    
were not yet in custody.                                                                                                        
Representative Wilson  stated that  the bill  represented an                                                                    
incentive and  another tool in  the court  system's toolbox.                                                                    
She  hoped the  bill  would incentivize  people  to get  the                                                                    
needed  treatment during  the pretrial  period versus  while                                                                    
sitting  in  jail.  She  explained   that  it  was  also  an                                                                    
incentive to  get the time [served]  credit. She anticipated                                                                    
that vendors  would begin to operate  in smaller communities                                                                    
if  they saw  that the  service was  needed. She  had worked                                                                    
closely  with  DOC,  which was  doing  significant  work  to                                                                    
ensure people were getting the help they needed.                                                                                
Co-Chair Thompson asked  how long a person  was typically in                                                                    
pretrial  status.  Mr.  Henderson replied  that  the  number                                                                    
varied greatly; it could be several days to several months.                                                                     
Representative Guttenberg wondered if  the bill presented an                                                                    
equal  access to  justice issue.  For example,  a person  in                                                                    
Bethel  wanting   access  to   the  service  in   their  own                                                                    
community.  He  wondered  if   there  was  a  constitutional                                                                    
question.  Ms. Meade  saw his  point, but  hesitated to  say                                                                    
whether  it  was a  constitutional  issue.  She stated  that                                                                    
currently   people  did   have  the   option  available   in                                                                    
communities with  vendors. The incentive to  use the service                                                                    
was  that a  person  could  be out  of  jail  with an  ankle                                                                    
bracelet instead  of in jail  pretrial. She stated  that the                                                                    
fact that  no vendor had found  it economical to go  to some                                                                    
smaller communities had not caused  the court to deny people                                                                    
from using the service in  communities where it existed. She                                                                    
deferred  the question  to  Legislative  Legal Services  for                                                                    
further detail.                                                                                                                 
2:10:37 PM                                                                                                                    
DOUG  GARDNER,  DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE LEGAL  SERVICES  (via                                                                    
teleconference),  replied  that Legislative  Legal  Services                                                                    
had not  considered the question, probably  because they did                                                                    
not know  where the service  was available and where  it was                                                                    
not.  He  did   not  know  whether  the  issue   rose  to  a                                                                    
constitutional  level  and did  not  want  to speculate.  He                                                                    
surmised that there were probably  other bail conditions the                                                                    
court could order  in urban areas that may  not be available                                                                    
in rural  areas. He explained  that based on  his experience                                                                    
as a  prosecutor in trial  courts throughout  Alaska, courts                                                                    
tried  to adjust  bail conditions  to the  realities of  the                                                                    
communities in which  a person was held.  He believed judges                                                                    
did a  good job and  had significant opportunity  to balance                                                                    
out bail conditions.                                                                                                            
Representative  Guttenberg observed  that  all things  could                                                                    
not  be equal  throughout the  state from  one community  to                                                                    
another.  He wondered  about tools  that were  available for                                                                    
judges to provide a comparable option in a community.                                                                           
Ms.  Meade  replied  that  there   were  a  number  of  bail                                                                    
conditions   (around  18)   listed  in   the  general   bail                                                                    
conditions  statute   and  other  statutes   that  contained                                                                    
special   bail  conditions   for  different   offences.  For                                                                    
example, domestic  violence, alcohol, and drug  offences had                                                                    
a  few additional  bail conditions.  She stated  that judges                                                                    
had  many  choices when  setting  bail.  The last  condition                                                                    
applied could be anything a  judge believed would adequately                                                                    
protect the community and the rights of the defendant.                                                                          
2:13:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara discussed  that  it  was beneficial  to                                                                    
provide  the electronic  monitoring service  to give  people                                                                    
the ability to  work and in order to free  up jail space. He                                                                    
addressed   that  there   were  people   who  could   afford                                                                    
electronic  monitoring; however,  the people  who could  not                                                                    
afford  the service  or  lived in  a  community without  the                                                                    
service  could  not  get  the benefit  of  time  served.  He                                                                    
asserted that  people without access  to the service  had to                                                                    
be  in  third-party  custody, which  was  more  onerous.  He                                                                    
stated  that   the  third-party  custody   limitations  were                                                                    
greater  than those  on  electronic  monitoring because  the                                                                    
person had to be tailed around  the clock. He shared that he                                                                    
had  just  learned  that   the  individuals  in  third-party                                                                    
custody did not get the  credit for time served. He stressed                                                                    
that  the  bill would  create  two  classes of  people:  the                                                                    
people who could afford  electronic monitoring would receive                                                                    
credit for time served,  whereas the other individuals would                                                                    
not  receive credit  for  time served.  He  reasoned that  a                                                                    
simple  conceptual   amendment  could   include  third-party                                                                    
custody as  another way to  receive credit for  time served.                                                                    
He explained  that the amendment would  save additional jail                                                                    
space for two equal groups of people.                                                                                           
Representative  Wilson  replied that  there  were  a lot  of                                                                    
classifications.  She emphasized  that the  bill represented                                                                    
another  tool  in  the toolbox.  She  highlighted  that  the                                                                    
service was not  brought forward by a judge;  it was brought                                                                    
forward by  the person  charged. She reminded  the committee                                                                    
that  the individuals  under discussion  had not  been found                                                                    
guilty of any crime. She  asserted that people who could not                                                                    
make   bail   may   sit   in   jail,   which   was   another                                                                    
classification.  She  reasoned  that  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
made it  easy for  a person  to prove to  a judge  that they                                                                    
abided by any conditions specified  by the court. She stated                                                                    
that it was more  difficult under third-party custody, which                                                                    
required a person  to testify that the person  they had been                                                                    
tasked  with watching  had met  all of  the conditions.  She                                                                    
hoped that  the incentive  would mean  electronic monitoring                                                                    
would become  available in  additional areas  statewide. She                                                                    
believed it  was not more  readily available  throughout the                                                                    
state because  currently people did  not receive  credit for                                                                    
time-served  under  electronic  monitoring.  She  emphasized                                                                    
that  currently   very  few   options  were   available  for                                                                    
treatment  purposes during  pretrial.  She  stated that  the                                                                    
bill could not fix everything.  She was willing to work with                                                                    
Representative Gara  on the  other issues,  but she  did not                                                                    
believe the bill was the  appropriate place. She stated that                                                                    
developing  the  bill  had been  a  cooperative  process  to                                                                    
ensure  that  everyone  could live  with  its  changes.  She                                                                    
wanted the opportunity to see  how the changes would work in                                                                    
the coming  year and to  make revisions  at a later  time if                                                                    
Co-Chair  Thompson noted  that  Representative Kawasaki  had                                                                    
joined the  meeting. He added that  Representative Munoz was                                                                    
2:18:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Edgmon asked if  there was any scenario where                                                                    
offenders with  third-party custodians could be  included in                                                                    
the  future.   Ms.  Meade  replied   that  the   idea  could                                                                    
potentially  be taken  up  in the  future.  She stated  that                                                                    
until  the  option was  in  statute,  the courts  would  not                                                                    
provide  credit for  the time.  She stated  that the  option                                                                    
would be  a policy call  by the legislature, which  would be                                                                    
applied by the court.                                                                                                           
Representative Edgmon  hoped that in the  future there would                                                                    
be  much more  electronic monitoring  utilized. He  wondered                                                                    
what the department  envisioned for the future in  an era of                                                                    
downsized  budgets.  He  believed  the  option  would  be  a                                                                    
greater tool for everyone to utilize.                                                                                           
Mr.  Henderson replied  that the  DOC commissioner  was very                                                                    
interested in  expanding electronic  monitoring responsibly.                                                                    
He  furthered   that  the   commissioner  did   not  believe                                                                    
electronic monitoring  had been  used effectively.  He noted                                                                    
that  a person  would not  automatically receive  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  if they  committed a  minor  offence. He  stated                                                                    
that  electronic   monitoring  needed  to  be   done  on  an                                                                    
individual  basis and  responsibly. He  relayed that  it was                                                                    
one  of the  vehicles  the department  saw  that would  help                                                                    
eliminate  the  need for  a  new  prison. Additionally,  the                                                                    
department had  been looking  at the  option of  moving more                                                                    
people into community residential centers.                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Thompson   asked  about  the  current   number  of                                                                    
incarcerated  individuals awaiting  pretrial. Mr.  Henderson                                                                    
replied that as of April 3,  2015 there were 1,875 people in                                                                    
Representative Edgmon  remarked that he was  also interested                                                                    
to hear  from the  department on  the current  limitation of                                                                    
vendors and electronic connectivity  that was perhaps out of                                                                    
the state's  control. Mr. Henderson agreed  and deferred the                                                                    
question to his colleague for additional detail.                                                                                
CARRIE  BELDEN, DIRECTOR,  PROBATION AND  PAROLE, DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF   CORRECTIONS   (via    teleconference),   replied   that                                                                    
electronic  monitoring  could  be   done  anywhere  GCI  had                                                                    
coverage  throughout the  state. She  relayed that  services                                                                    
private companies  could provide  depended on  their service                                                                    
provider. She addressed the issue  of fairness between urban                                                                    
versus rural  locations. She explained that  the service was                                                                    
limited by  technology; DOC  would like  to have  the option                                                                    
available  statewide, but  it was  not  in the  department's                                                                    
2:22:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Edgmon  asked whose  hands the issue  was in.                                                                    
Ms. Belden replied  that the department was at  the mercy of                                                                    
the  technology  in  some  of   the  rural  locations;  some                                                                    
locations did  not have the cellular  service tower coverage                                                                    
or a reliable signal. Another  concern was that when someone                                                                    
violated a bail  condition there had to be some  sort of law                                                                    
enforcement  presence  in  the   community  to  rectify  the                                                                    
violation; the issue would have  to be taken into account by                                                                    
the court when it decided where to place a person.                                                                              
Representative Edgmon conveyed his  support for the bill. He                                                                    
wondered if there was a  scenario that electronic monitoring                                                                    
would be  routinely used throughout  the state in  the state                                                                    
(pre   and   post-trial).   Ms.  Belden   replied   in   the                                                                    
affirmative.  There  was  new technology  that  was  rapidly                                                                    
developing that  she hoped would  be available in  Alaska in                                                                    
the  next couple  of  years  that would  help  the state  to                                                                    
expand and provide a better service.                                                                                            
Representative  Edgmon  asked   for  verification  that  the                                                                    
availability of  private vendors was not  a limiting factor.                                                                    
Ms. Belden  believed the limitation was  related to cellular                                                                    
Representative Wilson  noted that  the bill had  removed the                                                                    
word "private"  preceding the word  "residence" in  order to                                                                    
prevent limiting  electronic monitoring to a  person's home.                                                                    
She  noted that  a residence  could  be a  halfway house  or                                                                    
other, which  was another way  the bill aimed  at addressing                                                                    
more rural areas.                                                                                                               
2:25:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler  asked  for verification  that  the  GPS                                                                    
element of an  ankle monitor was only  for location purposes                                                                    
and   the  communication   between  the   monitor  and   the                                                                    
authorities was via cellular  telephones. Ms. Belden replied                                                                    
in the affirmative.                                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Saddler asked  whether counting  time served  on                                                                    
electronic   monitoring  as   equal   to   time  served   in                                                                    
incarceration was  too generous. Ms. Meade  replied that the                                                                    
issue was a policy call  for the legislature. She elaborated                                                                    
that one-day to  one-day was the ratio  currently in statute                                                                    
(AS  12.55.027)  for  time spent  pretrial  in  a  treatment                                                                    
program. She  detailed that  currently the  only way  to get                                                                    
credit  for  time  served was  in  a  residential  treatment                                                                    
program with characteristics that resembled incarceration.                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Saddler  summarized  his  understanding  of  Ms.                                                                    
Meade's response to his prior question. Ms. Meade agreed.                                                                       
Mr. Henderson concurred with Ms. Meade's statements.                                                                            
Representative Wilson  clarified that the  treatment program                                                                    
had to be state-approved. When  a person was confined to the                                                                    
program,  they currently  received the  one-day for  one-day                                                                    
pretrial. She  added that it  was currently the only  way to                                                                    
receive the credit for time served.                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Saddler  likened  the  current  statute  to  the                                                                    
bill's requirement  that a  person on  electronic monitoring                                                                    
would be  confined to their  place of residence  unless they                                                                    
were working or in a treatment center.                                                                                          
Representative Wilson  stressed that  in order for  a person                                                                    
to qualify  for time served  they were not allowed  to leave                                                                    
the treatment center.                                                                                                           
Vice-Chair Saddler  clarified his  point that  currently the                                                                    
one-to-one  ratio  applied  only  to  a  confined  treatment                                                                    
center  and that  the  bill  would require  a  person to  be                                                                    
confined to home  with an exemption for  going to treatment.                                                                    
Representative Wilson agreed.                                                                                                   
2:27:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.                                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Saddler asked  how the  bill would  reduce costs                                                                    
for the  state. Ms.  Meade replied that  the bill  would not                                                                    
reduce  any costs  within the  court system.  She elaborated                                                                    
that it  was routine for  courts to issue bail  orders; some                                                                    
modifications may  be made  to court  form orders,  but that                                                                    
was inconsequential and something  the court did anyway. She                                                                    
detailed that  it was  also routine for  the courts  to have                                                                    
"Nygren  hearings  or  027  hearings"  at  sentencing  where                                                                    
people  asked for  credit.  She thought  there  may be  some                                                                    
longer  hearings  at  the  outset  if  the  legislation  was                                                                    
implemented,  but the  courts would  have no  fiscal impact.                                                                    
She  stated that  changes would  be fairly  routine for  the                                                                    
courts to apply.                                                                                                                
Mr.  Henderson   replied  that  the  savings   to  DOC  were                                                                    
indeterminate. The  department anticipated that  there could                                                                    
be  potential savings.  He  stated that  it  was more  cost-                                                                    
effective to  be on  electronic monitoring  than in  a "hard                                                                    
bed." He  stated that the  cost of  $22 per day  versus $150                                                                    
per day meant there was potentially room for some savings.                                                                      
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1:                                                                                       
     BY REPRESENTATIVE GARA                                                                                                     
     Delete "and the  court imposes substantial restrictions                                                                    
     on the person's freedom  of movement and behavior while                                                                    
     under  the  electronic  monitoring  program,  including                                                                    
     requiring  the person  to be  confined  to a  residence                                                                    
     except  for a  (1) court  appearance; (2)  meeting with                                                                    
     counsel; or (3) period during  which the person is at a                                                                    
     location  ordered  by the  court  for  the purposes  of                                                                    
     employment,  attending  an  educational  or  vocational                                                                    
     training,  performing  community   volunteer  work,  or                                                                    
     attending   a   rehabilitative  activity   or   medical                                                                    
Representative Gara  MOVED to  ADOPT a  conceptual amendment                                                                    
that would apply  the same rules related to  credit for time                                                                    
served for  people in third-party  custody as for  people on                                                                    
electronic monitoring.                                                                                                          
Representative Gattis OBJECTED.                                                                                                 
Representative Gara  spoke to his amendment.  He stated that                                                                    
the  people  who  would  be  put  on  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
largely  had some  threat of  escape or  danger to  society.                                                                    
Additionally, there  was the problem of  overcrowded prisons                                                                    
in Alaska  and the looming  possibility of needing  to build                                                                    
another prison.  He believed that  the state needed  to find                                                                    
rational  ways  to minimize  the  number  of days  spent  in                                                                    
prison,  while maintaining  public  safety.  He believed  it                                                                    
made sense  to use  electronic monitoring, which  would free                                                                    
up prison  space and  would potentially  be more  humane. He                                                                    
believed the  same should  be done  for people  under third-                                                                    
party  custody because  they had  the same  restrictions and                                                                    
had a  person tailing  them 24-hours  per day.  He continued                                                                    
that  the   same  purposes  were  served   under  electronic                                                                    
monitoring and  third-party custody;  a person  was required                                                                    
to act  under the court's  conditions in both  scenarios. He                                                                    
furthered  that a  person would  not receive  the credit  if                                                                    
they violated their bail condition  under both scenarios. He                                                                    
noted that  the two classes  of people were  essentially the                                                                    
same: one class could  afford electronic monitoring or lived                                                                    
in  a location  where it  was available,  whereas the  other                                                                    
class that did not have the  service available had to find a                                                                    
24-hour  third-party custodian  to tail  them. He  added the                                                                    
third-party  custodian  had to  sign  under  oath that  they                                                                    
would be with the individual  around the clock or they would                                                                    
risk  going  to jail.  He  did  not  believe there  was  any                                                                    
difference  between   the  two  categories  of   people.  He                                                                    
believed the  introduction of a bill  related to third-party                                                                    
custodians  in the  future was  unlikely.  He stressed  that                                                                    
currently  the  bill would  only  benefit  people who  could                                                                    
afford the  service and  who lived in  a community  where it                                                                    
was available. He opposed  discriminating against people who                                                                    
did not have the service available.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony                                                                                       
Representative  Wilson  spoke  against  the  amendment.  She                                                                    
stated that  a lobbyist  had not  brought the  bill forward.                                                                    
She  emphasized  her  commitment  towards  making  something                                                                    
work.  She did  not  believe the  situations highlighted  by                                                                    
Representative  Gara were  the  same  because a  third-party                                                                    
custodian was  not awake 24  hours per day. She  stated that                                                                    
it was not possible to verify  the movement of the person in                                                                    
custody  24-7. She  stated  that it  was  different with  an                                                                    
electronic device because  it tracked where a  person was at                                                                    
all times. She  furthered that people who know  how to break                                                                    
the law  often knew how to  break it again. She  stated that                                                                    
the court  did not have  to provide  the credit if  it could                                                                    
not  be proven  that  a  person only  went  where the  court                                                                    
designated was allowable. She did  not believe the amendment                                                                    
matched the intent of the bill.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson asked the Public  Defender Agency to weigh                                                                    
in on the conceptual amendment.                                                                                                 
QUINLAN   STEINER,   DIRECTOR,   PUBLIC   DEFENDER   AGENCY,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF ADMINISTRATION,  addressed  whether the  bill                                                                    
would create  a disparity or  inequity around the  state. He                                                                    
stated that an inequity currently  existed to a huge degree.                                                                    
For  example, people  with money  could afford  to make  the                                                                    
cash bail  much more  easily than  people without  money. He                                                                    
believed  access to  electronic monitoring  actually reduced                                                                    
the  inequity; it  was often  easier to  afford the  cost of                                                                    
electronic monitoring  than a large bail.  He furthered that                                                                    
general  inequities existed  around the  state depending  on                                                                    
what programs,  treatment, or options  may be  available. He                                                                    
believed implementing  the concept in statute  would provide                                                                    
incentive  for  the  expansion   of  the  program  to  other                                                                    
communities.  He noted  that  technology  was becoming  more                                                                    
sophisticated.  He  referred  to discussion  that  the  bill                                                                    
could  cause   DOC  to  potentially  expand   into  pretrial                                                                    
release. He saw  the bill as promoting  release and reducing                                                                    
inequity  and  recidivism  because  it could  be  linked  to                                                                    
treatment.  He  believed  including  third-party  custodians                                                                    
would  further reduce  inequities. He  detailed that  third-                                                                    
party  custodians  served  a   similar,  but  not  identical                                                                    
function.  He  added  that   the  inclusion  of  third-party                                                                    
custodians  would  be  a  policy  call.  He  concluded  that                                                                    
granting  credit   for  third-party   would  be   a  further                                                                    
extension  of  the general  policy,  but  there were  subtle                                                                    
differences between the two.                                                                                                    
2:37:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gattis  communicated that  she had  signed on                                                                    
as  a   co-sponsor  of   the  bill.   She  had   heard  from                                                                    
constituents  who  had  kids   with  infractions  that  were                                                                    
sitting in  jail instead  of working  or going  to treatment                                                                    
centers. She  stressed if  they were  found not  guilty they                                                                    
had lost their job and  sometimes their families. She stated                                                                    
that if  the individuals were  found guilty, at  least there                                                                    
was  an opportunity  to inspire  them to  get off  the wrong                                                                    
track and move  forward. She stressed that not  only did the                                                                    
bill  save the  state  money, it  would  save families.  She                                                                    
stated  that  the  bill  would  provide  an  opportunity  to                                                                    
individuals should they choose  to utilize it. She supported                                                                    
the bill  and thought that the  third-party custodian aspect                                                                    
would "bungle" the  legislation. She did not  believe it was                                                                    
onerous for  the client using  a third-party  custodian, but                                                                    
it  was  onerous  to  be   the  third-party  custodian.  She                                                                    
stressed that the third-party custodian  had to give up many                                                                    
of  their  liberties  to  follow  someone  around.  She  was                                                                    
reluctant to make  the change. She liked  DOC's attitude and                                                                    
believed it was the department's goal to move forward.                                                                          
Representative   Guttenberg  asked   for  a   definition  of                                                                    
electronic monitoring. He stated  that there were electronic                                                                    
monitoring  apps  on  smart  phones.   He  wondered  if  the                                                                    
definition only pertained to an ankle bracelet.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson  noted that  the committee  was addressing                                                                    
the conceptual amendment.                                                                                                       
Representative   Guttenberg   thought  the   definition   of                                                                    
electronic monitoring was relevant.  He wondered if it could                                                                    
be expanded to anyone with a smart phone.                                                                                       
Representative  Wilson  replied  that the  bill  focused  on                                                                    
ankle  monitoring.  She deferred  to  the  court system  for                                                                    
further detail on what it had allowed.                                                                                          
Ms. Meade  replied that judges  had approved  companies that                                                                    
used  ankle   monitors  with  GPS  active   monitoring.  She                                                                    
detailed  that a  judge  could  designate certain  exclusion                                                                    
zones. For  example, the monitoring company  would receive a                                                                    
beep  if the  person went  to  certain areas  they were  not                                                                    
supposed  to  go  (e.g.  the victim's  home,  a  school,  or                                                                    
other).  She   noted  that  electronic   monitors  measuring                                                                    
alcohol existed, but were not used as much.                                                                                     
Representative   Guttenberg   asked   if  a   GPS   pretrial                                                                    
monitoring program  qualified. Ms.  Meade confirmed  that it                                                                    
was all pretrial that was covered.                                                                                              
Representative  Guttenberg  stated   that  "theoretically  a                                                                    
judge could order this device  instead of an ankle bracelet"                                                                    
for  someone in  Bethel. Ms.  Meade believed  the court  had                                                                    
only  approved  ankle  bracelets   with  GPS  as  electronic                                                                    
monitors. She had  not seen a situation where  the court had                                                                    
released  a  person  with   electronic  monitoring  via  the                                                                    
individual's cell phone.                                                                                                        
2:43:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Edgmon  requested  to hear  from  the  court                                                                    
system on  whether the  amendment would  bog down  the bill,                                                                    
knowing that  electronic monitoring was more  at a formative                                                                    
stage.  Ms. Meade  asked  for clarification.  Representative                                                                    
Edgmon clarified.                                                                                                               
Ms. Meade  replied that adding a  third-party custodian into                                                                    
the  bill  would be  a  policy  call.  She agreed  with  Mr.                                                                    
Steiner and others who had  said that there were differences                                                                    
between being under a  third-party custodian arrangement and                                                                    
being  on an  electronic  monitor with  one  of the  vendors                                                                    
known to the court.                                                                                                             
Representative Edgmon asked if  the amendment gave the court                                                                    
another tool to  apply. Ms. Meade did not  see the amendment                                                                    
as  providing the  court with  another  tool. Currently  the                                                                    
court  could order  third-party  custodians; therefore,  she                                                                    
did  not   believe  the  amendment  would   give  the  court                                                                    
something else it could offer to people out on bail.                                                                            
Representative  Gattis  commented  that   a  person  with  a                                                                    
monitoring  app  on their  phone  could  give the  phone  to                                                                    
anyone. She  reasoned that  the cellphone  would have  to be                                                                    
attached to  a person's ankle.  She believed the  concept of                                                                    
using  cellphones as  monitors was  taking the  conversation                                                                    
too far into the weeds.                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Saddler  asked whether  third-party custodianship                                                                    
provided  less reliable  information  about compliance  than                                                                    
electronic monitoring. Ms. Meade  replied that an electronic                                                                    
monitor  provided more  reliable information  about where  a                                                                    
person  had  been  pretrial than  a  third-party  custodian;                                                                    
however,  it  could  vary  with   the  truthfulness  of  the                                                                    
custodian and other factors.                                                                                                    
Mr. Henderson deferred the question  to Ms. Belden. He added                                                                    
that he agreed with Ms. Meade's statements.                                                                                     
2:46:36 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gattis  MAINTAINED   her  OBJECTION  to  the                                                                    
conceptual amendment.                                                                                                           
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara                                                                                    
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson                                                                              
Co-Chair Neuman  and Representative  Munoz were  absent from                                                                    
the vote.                                                                                                                       
The MOTION FAILED (4/5).                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Saddler  spoke in support of  the legislation. He                                                                    
remarked on  the significant cost  of recidivism.  He stated                                                                    
that  the  bill  would  provide one  tool  to  work  towards                                                                    
addressing  the  issue. He  discussed  that  the bill  "hits                                                                    
people when  they are recently  incarcerated, when  they are                                                                    
most  amenable to  having behavior  modified" and  reduced a                                                                    
person's  exposure to  the  potential  hardening aspects  of                                                                    
incarceration. He remarked that  the service was optional on                                                                    
both  the part  of  the person  incarcerated  and the  court                                                                    
system. He believed the service was a decent tool.                                                                              
2:48:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  MOVED to  REPORT CSHB 15(FIN)  out of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal notes. There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
CSHB 15(FIN) was REPORTED out  of committee with a "do pass"                                                                    
recommendation  and  with  four  previously  published  zero                                                                    
fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2 (ADM), FN3 (COR), FN4 (LAW).                                                                       
2:48:42 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:51:57 PM                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
Workdraft CSHB15 4-8-2015.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 15
HB 137 CS WORKDRAFT FIN G Version.PDF HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 137
HB 176 CS WORKDRAFT E version.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 176
HB 176 Legal Opinion.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 176
HB 176 Letters.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 176
HB 176 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 176
HB 137 Support letter.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 137
HB 15 Amendment #1.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 15
HB 137 Additional Info Sommerville.pdf HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 137