Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

04/07/2010 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Meeting Postponed to 1:15 pm Today --
+ SB 284 CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 110 PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 110(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
       SB 110 - PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion  of some  of the provisions  of HB  316, and                                                               
mention that  aspects of HB 316  have been added to  Version M of                                                               
SB 110.]                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:25:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
CS  FOR  SENATE  BILL  NO.  110(FIN), "An  Act  relating  to  the                                                               
preservation of evidence and to the DNA identification system."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:28:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON   moved  to   adopt  the   proposed  House                                                               
committee  substitute  (HCS)  for   CSSB  110(FIN),  Version  26-                                                               
LS0560|M, Luckhaupt, 4/7/10, as the work draft.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for  the purpose of discussion.                                                               
He then removed his objection.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS,  after ascertaining  that  there  were no  further                                                               
objections, announced that Version M was before the committee.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:29:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOLLIS  FRENCH, Alaska State  Legislature, as  sponsor of                                                               
SB 110, explained  that a vast majority of the  provisions in the                                                               
bill are  also in HB 316,  which is sponsored by  the House Rules                                                               
Standing  Committee  by request  of  the  governor and  addresses                                                               
evidence preservation  and post conviction  deoxyribonucleic acid                                                               
(DNA)  procedures.   He  said  SB 110  was  filed  last year  and                                                               
received   the   support   of   interested   parties,   including                                                               
Representative Stoltze, the Department  of Law, the Department of                                                               
Public Safety, the [Alaska] Association  of Chiefs of Police, the                                                               
[Alaska] Innocence Project, and  the Alaska Civil Liberties Union                                                               
(ACLU).   He  relayed  that  SB 110  was  originally an  evidence                                                               
preservation bill,  but has had  added to it the  post conviction                                                               
DNA aspects of HB 316.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH, regarding  the preservation  of evidence,  noted                                                               
that  while SB  110 requires  evidence to  be preserved  "for the                                                               
period of time that the  crime remains unsolved", Version M adds,                                                               
"or 50 years  whichever ends first".  He related  that that is on                                                               
page 2, line 30.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   expressed  concern  that  if   a  law                                                               
enforcement officer or prosecutor did  not want to save evidence,                                                               
under the  proposed legislation,  he/she could declare  the crime                                                               
solved  and  dispose of  that  evidence.    He said  the  related                                                               
language in  CSHB 316(JUD), Version26-GH2812\R,  on page  2, line                                                               
25, through page 3, line 13,  is more specific, and that language                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
               Sec. 12.36.200. Preservation of evidence.                                                                      
     (a) Except  as otherwise  provided in this  section and                                                                    
     notwithstanding  AS 12.36.010  -  12.36.090, an  agency                                                                    
     shall preserve                                                                                                             
                    (1) evidence that is obtained in                                                                            
     relation  to  an  investigation  and  relevant  to  the                                                                    
     prosecution of a crime under  AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.130,                                                                    
     11.41.410, or 11.41.434 for the following periods:                                                                         
                         (A) 18 months after the entry of a                                                                     
     judgment of conviction of the crime;                                                                                       
                         (B) if the conviction for the                                                                          
     crime is appealed, one year  after the judgment becomes                                                                    
     final by the conclusion of direct review; or                                                                               
                         (C) if a timely application for                                                                        
     post-conviction  relief  is  filed within  the  periods                                                                    
     stated in (A) and (B)  of this paragraph, the date that                                                                    
     a judgment  dismissing or  denying the  application for                                                                    
     post-conviction review becomes final;                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                    (2) biological material, contained in                                                                       
     or found on evidence,  relevant to an investigation and                                                                    
     prosecution of a person convicted  of a felony under AS                                                                    
     11.41, until  the person is  unconditionally discharged                                                                    
     for the crime, until the  person is not longer required                                                                    
     to register as a sex  offender, or until the periods of                                                                    
     time provided  in (1) of this  subsection have expired,                                                                    
     whichever  is  longest;  biological  material  must  be                                                                    
     preserved in an amount an  manner that is sufficient to                                                                    
     develop  a DNA  profile under  technology available  at                                                                    
     the time that the biological material is preserved.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  he  likes the  50-year aspect  of                                                               
Version M,  but reiterated his  concern that someone  could throw                                                               
out the  evidence and declare  the investigation over.   He asked                                                               
Senator French if  he would consider adding the  language from HB
316.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH indicated  that he  would prefer  not to  include                                                               
that language,  noting that language  on page 3,  subsection (d),                                                               
beginning   on   line   22,   contains   the   protections   that                                                               
Representative Gruenberg is seeking.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:36:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH noted  that while both bills set up  a task force,                                                               
as shown  on page  14, line  12, Version M  would add  the Alaska                                                               
Native Justice Center to that task  force.  He told the committee                                                               
that his  intent was  to add return  of property  provisions that                                                               
Senator Dyson  and others  have been working  on over  the years;                                                               
however, that language did not make it into Version M.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired of his staff  whether that is an issue that                                                               
is included in an upcoming amendment.  [No answer is audible.]                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:40:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM  OBERLY, Executive  Director,  Alaska Innocence  Project,                                                               
testified that  SB 110 is  the product of  the hard work  of many                                                               
interested parties,  but with compromise  made by everybody.   He                                                               
expressed  his  hope  that  evidence   from  old  cases  that  is                                                               
currently in the  possession of law enforcement  agencies will be                                                               
retained until  after the task  force makes its  report regarding                                                               
the most appropriate processes for evidence retention.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:41:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEFFERY MITTMAN,  Alaska Civil Liberties Union  (ACLU) of Alaska,                                                               
stated, "We  join in  the comments of  the Innocence  Project and                                                               
also support this bill."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:42:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated  his previous concern regarding                                                               
preserving evidence.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   FRENCH,  in   response  to   Representative  Gruenberg,                                                               
explained that  under Version  M, no  biological evidence  may be                                                               
destroyed  until the  individual  convicted  with that  evidence,                                                               
his/her attorney,  the public defender  agency, and  the district                                                               
attorney are notified.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS noted  that that language appears  in subsection (d)                                                               
on page 3, line 22, through page 4, line 10.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH said he  thinks Representative Gruenberg's concern                                                               
that someone  would throw out  evidence would be alleviated  to a                                                               
large degree by the provisions of  subsection (d).  He added that                                                               
the  task  force, which  would  be  created  by the  bill,  would                                                               
address  many of  these concerns  and  "bring to  these issues  a                                                               
collective wisdom of a broad  array of criminal justice experts."                                                               
He stated his assumption that  that task force would then present                                                               
any concerns found in the bill to the legislature.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG concurred  with  respect to  biological                                                               
evidence.  However,  he observed that the  language in [paragraph                                                               
(1)],  on  page 2,  lines  28-30,  of  Version M,  involves  non-                                                               
biological evidence.   He then offered his  understanding that in                                                               
HB 316,  language regarding non-biological  evidence is  found on                                                               
page  2,  line 25,  through  page  3,  line [6],  while  language                                                               
regarding  biological evidence  is found  on page  3, lines  7-13                                                               
[text provided previously].                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  offered his  understanding that  the main  focus of                                                               
the bill is on domestic violence and sexual assault.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG pointed  out, however,  that the  bills                                                               
address both  biological and non-biological  evidence.   He asked                                                               
if there  would be any  "fall-out" between present time  and when                                                               
the task force issues its report.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:47:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  related  that  during his  six  years  as  state                                                               
prosecutor,  he  was unaware  of  anyone  summarily disposing  of                                                               
evidence for any reason, and he  said he would be stunned if that                                                               
were to occur between now and  the time the task force comes back                                                               
with its report.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:47:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed satisfaction  with the discussion that has                                                               
transpired between  the Office of  the Attorney  General, Senator                                                               
French's office and his own office.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG inquired  whether  anyone  else on  the                                                               
committee  would  like  the  issue  pursued  further.    [No  one                                                               
commented.]                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:48:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  referred to the language  beginning on page                                                               
3,  line 22,  which says  that  "An agency  required to  preserve                                                               
biological  evidence  under  (a)  of  this  section  may  destroy                                                               
biological evidence before  the expiration of the  time period in                                                               
(a)(2) of this section" if  the agency mails a certified delivery                                                               
of  notice  to  certain  people,  [as  previously  referenced  by                                                               
Senator French].   He  indicated that mailing  a notice  does not                                                               
guarantee that the notice is received.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:49:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   FRENCH  offered   his  understanding   that  the   term                                                               
"certified  delivery  notice"  would  mean that  the  person  who                                                               
receives  the  notice  would  [sign for  it].    Furthermore,  he                                                               
highlighted the  language on  page 4, lines  6-10, which  read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
            (3) no person who is notified under (2)                                                                             
      of this subsection, within 120 days after receiving                                                                       
     the notice,                                                                                                                
               (A) files a motion for testing of                                                                                
     the evidence; or                                                                                                           
               (B) submits a written request for                                                                                
     continued preservation of the evidence.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:49:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  pointed out, though,  that the key  word is                                                               
"mails".  He opined that it  does not matter if the address turns                                                               
out to be  wrong or the person  is not able to  read English, for                                                               
example.   He stated his belief  that that does not  constitute a                                                               
significant  notification.   He  surmised  that  the goal  is  to                                                               
ensure that the notification has been received by a recipient.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:50:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  recalled that this issue  has been visited                                                               
in  previous hearings,  during which  a conceptual  amendment had                                                               
been adopted  to require acknowledgment  of receipt, so  that the                                                               
sender knows  that the intended  recipient actually  received the                                                               
missive.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  asked if  [Representative  Gatto]  would like  a                                                               
requirement for "return proof of delivery."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  said  he  would  like  a  requirement  for                                                               
"return receipt requested".                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  asked Senator French  if he finds  that suggestions                                                               
acceptable.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH responded, "That's seems reasonable to me."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:51:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH covered  changes that were made to HB  316 [in the                                                               
second part of  SB 110], with the acquiescence  of the Department                                                               
of  Law.   He noted  that  language requiring  applicants to  pay                                                               
costs  of  evidence  retrievable  has  been  deleted.    He  said                                                               
timeliness provisions, which  are in two parts of  the bill, have                                                               
been changed.  The most significant  change, he noted, is on page                                                               
15, lines  4-6.  He said  the issue is regarding  which prisoners                                                               
now in  prison can  ask for new  testing of DNA.   Under  SB 110,                                                               
prisoners would  have 10 years from  the day the bill  would pass                                                               
to  bring forth  a  challenge.   The  federal  law provides  that                                                               
people currently in prison have  an unlimited amount of time, and                                                               
SB 110 would be more stringent.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:53:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said  he is still troubled  by the issue                                                               
he  raised  previously  - that  someone  could  destroy  evidence                                                               
prematurely.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH said that the  intentional destruction of evidence                                                               
would "put someone in the crosshairs of a prosecution."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   pointed   out,  though,   that   the                                                               
prosecution  could say,  "We're  permitted to  do  it under  this                                                               
law."                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH stated that he does not share that concern.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:55:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  directed attention to  language on page  7, lines                                                               
10-14,  which  he  said  addresses  the level  of  guilt  that  a                                                               
defendant can have  admitted to and still get a  DNA test done in                                                               
the future, and which read as follows:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (C) the applicant did not  admit or concede guilt under                                                                    
     oath  in an  official proceeding  for the  offense that                                                                    
     was the  basis of the  conviction or a  lesser included                                                                    
     offense  except  that  the court  in  the  interest  of                                                                    
     justice may waive this requirement.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH   offered  his   understanding  that   the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing  Committee agreed that  the entry of  a guilty                                                               
or a  nolo contendere  plea is  not an admission  of guilt.   The                                                               
Department  of  Law  agrees  to  that,  he  noted.    He  said  a                                                               
conceptual amendment  is needed so  that the language on  page 7,                                                               
beginning on  line 31, parallels  the aforementioned  language on                                                               
lines  10-14.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH said  the next  provision  is a  deletion of  the                                                               
requirement  for  an  attorney  affidavit.    He  indicated  that                                                               
locating the  attorney who worked  on a particular case  could be                                                               
difficult.   He  mentioned  another provision  that was  deleted,                                                               
which  he indicated  had  to  do with  a  requirement related  to                                                               
evidence  sought to  be  tested as  part  of the  investigational                                                               
prosecution.  Senator French directed  attention to page 8, lines                                                               
22-27, which read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
              (9) the proposed DNA testing of the                                                                               
      specific evidence may produce new material evidence                                                                       
     that would                                                                                                                 
               (A) support the theory of defense                                                                                
     described in (7) of this section; and                                                                                      
               (B) raise a reasonable probability                                                                               
     that the applicant did not commit the offense;                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  said the federal  DNA testing bill was  leaned on                                                               
heavily as the gold standard when  drafting SB 110.  He said when                                                               
he found that  the federal bill was passed by  a Republican House                                                               
and Senate  and signed by President  George W. Bush, it  gave him                                                               
confidence that  the bill was not  "leaning too far in  the wrong                                                               
direction."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:58:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  referred back  to language  in subparagraph                                                               
(C),  on page  7,  lines 10-14  [text  previously provided],  and                                                               
asked the bill  sponsor to explain how a person  could say he/she                                                               
is guilty, without that being an acceptable guilty plea.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH,  regarding  "the  entry  of  a  guilty  or  nolo                                                               
contendere  plea", said  innocent people  plead guilty  with some                                                               
regularity  - for  example,  to  take the  fall  for a  relative,                                                               
because  he/she  does  not  understand  the  system,  or  doesn't                                                               
understand  English -  and  this language  is  trying to  prevent                                                               
that.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:59:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on SB 110.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:00:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  moved to  adopt Conceptual  Amendment 1,  such that                                                               
"standards  for return  of property"  is added  to duties  of the                                                               
task force on page 14, line 1.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that language  should instead                                                               
be added to subsection (d), on page 14, lines 23-27.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:01 p.m.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:02:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  withdrew his motion  to adopt  Conceptual Amendment                                                               
1.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS moved  to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,  on page 14,                                                               
line  27, following  paragraph (2),  to insert  a paragraph  (3),                                                               
such that "standards  for return of property" is  added to duties                                                               
of  the  task  force.    There  being  no  objection,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:03:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  moved to adopt  Conceptual Amendment 3,  to conform                                                               
the language  on page 7,  line 31, through  page 8, line  3, with                                                               
the language on page 7, lines 10-14.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:04:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:05:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:05:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, as                                                                 
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 31, through page 8, line 3:                                                                                   
          Delete all material                                                                                                   
          Insert "(3) the applicant did not admit or                                                                            
     concede guilt under oath in  an official proceeding for                                                                    
     the offense that  was the basis of the  conviction or a                                                                    
     lesser included  offense, except that the  court in the                                                                    
     interest  of justice  may waive  this requirement;  for                                                                    
     the  purposes  of this  subparagraph,  the  entry of  a                                                                    
     guilty or nolo  contendere plea is not  an admission or                                                                    
     concession of guilt;"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if there was any objection to Conceptual                                                                     
Amendment 4.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:06:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  moved to adopt  Conceptual Amendment  5, on                                                               
page 3, line  27, such that the words  "return receipt requested"                                                               
would be added  where the bill drafter thinks it  belongs.  There                                                               
being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:06:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report the proposed House                                                                        
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 110(FIN), Version 26-                                                                       
LS0560\M, Luckhaupt,  4/7/10, as  amended, out of  committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There being  no objection,  HCS CSSB  110(JUD) was  reported from                                                               
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:07:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  moved  to  adopt  the  proposed  House  Concurrent                                                               
Resolution,  Version 26-LS1644\A,  Luckhaupt, 4/6/10,  as a  work                                                               
draft.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS [moved  to report]  the  proposed House  Concurrent                                                               
Resolution,  Version  26-LS1644\A,   Luckhaupt,  4/6/10,  out  of                                                               
committee  with  individual  recommendations.    There  being  no                                                               
objection, the  House Concurrent  Resolution [which  later became                                                               
HCR  25]   was  reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
01 SB110 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
02 SB110 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
03 CSSB 110(FIN) Version C.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
04 SB0110-4-1-031510-FIN-N.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
05 SB0110-5-1-031510-DPS-N.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
06 SB0110-6-2-031510-LAW-Y.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
07 SB110 Bill v. A.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
08 SB110 Articles.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 110
01 SB284 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
02 SB284 Sectional 4.2.10.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
03 SB 284 Bill version P.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
04 SB284 DOA Fiscal Note.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
05 SB284 OOG Fiscal Note.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
06 SB284 AG analysis 2.19.10.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
07 SB284 Bullard memo 3.17.10.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
08 SB284 Relevant Statutes.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
09 SB284 Support.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
10 SB284 Articles.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 284
Proposed HJUD CS version M.pdf HJUD 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM