Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/16/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

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
*+ HB 387 AG SCHEDULE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 75 GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
              HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:58:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 75, "An  Act relating to gun  violence protective                                                               
orders; relating  to the crime  of violating a  protective order;                                                               
relating to  a central registry  for protective  orders; relating                                                               
to  the  powers of  district  judges  and magistrates;  requiring                                                               
physicians,   psychologists,  psychological   associates,  social                                                               
workers,   marital   and    family   therapists,   and   licensed                                                               
professional  counselors  to  report   annually  threats  of  gun                                                               
violence;  and amending  Rules 4  and 65,  Alaska Rules  of Civil                                                               
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  that this is the fifth hearing  of HB 75 in                                                               
the House Judiciary  Standing Committee.  In  recap, Chair Claman                                                               
offered  that   on  Wednesday  the   committee  heard   from  the                                                               
Department  of  Law  (DOL)  and the  Alaska  Court  System  (ACS)                                                               
regarding constitutional issues, how  the gun violence protective                                                               
order structure compares to  domestic violence protective orders,                                                               
the  structure in  existing statutes,  and how  the gun  violence                                                               
protective  order  compares to  civil  commitment  motions.   The                                                               
committee learned the following: individuals  do not have a right                                                               
to  counsel in  a domestic  violence protective  order proceeding                                                               
because it is  a civil proceeding and not  a criminal proceeding;                                                               
there may not be a right  to counsel on a gun violence protective                                                               
order proceeding  because it is  also a civil proceeding  and the                                                               
committee will  learn more  about a right  to counsel  today; the                                                               
difference between a  civil commitment under Title 47  based on a                                                               
civil court finding  that a person suffers from  a mental disease                                                               
or  defect and  a  procedure to  address  a criminal  defendant's                                                               
competency  to  stand trial  in  a  criminal case;  the  criminal                                                               
competency  proceeding  addresses whether  a  person  is able  to                                                               
understand the proceeding against them  or to assist in their own                                                               
defense under AS  12.47.100 and there are  no competency hearings                                                               
if there are no criminal charges.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   noted  that  during   the  last   hearing,  Dario                                                               
Borghesan,  Department of  Law, indicated  that he  would perform                                                               
research on the right to counsel  in civil matters, the status of                                                               
the  State  of  Indiana  law  and that  court's  review  of  that                                                               
particular gun violence protective order.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:00:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DARIO BORGHESAN,  Assistant Attorney General,  Opinions, Appeals,                                                               
& Ethics Section, Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department of Law,                                                               
responded that  on the issue of  whether HB 75 would  trigger the                                                               
right  to a  court-appointed counsel,  the short  answer is  that                                                               
possibly in  a relatively rare  case and  if they had  a publicly                                                               
funded  attorney, there  might be  an obligation  to provide  the                                                               
respondent with  a court-appointed  attorney.  He  explained that                                                               
the  right  to  court-appointed  counsel  typically  attaches  in                                                               
criminal prosecutions, and HB 75  is a civil proceeding that does                                                               
not entail any threat of  jailtime.  Typically, civil proceedings                                                               
do  not  require  court-appointed counsel;  however,  the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court ruled  that in child protection  proceedings and in                                                               
private child custody  proceedings, if one parent  has a publicly                                                               
funded attorney  through the  Alaska Legal  Services Corporation,                                                               
the  parent on  the  other side  is  entitled to  court-appointed                                                               
counsel under the Flores v.  Flores, 598 P.2d 893 (1979) decision                                                             
and the Alaska  Supreme Court reaffirmed that  principle in 2011.                                                               
As to HB 75,  there is the right to parent  your children and the                                                               
right  to   bear  arms.    Although   both  are  constitutionally                                                               
protected rights,  it does  not mean that  a person  receives the                                                               
same constitutional protections against  a temporary seizure of a                                                               
person's firearms,  then a  person would receive  if there  was a                                                               
risk of  a person's  children being  removed from  their custody.                                                               
He  pointed out  that those  are different  constitutional rights                                                               
and  the   parties  might  be  entitled   to  different  judicial                                                               
protections.  It  is important to advise, he offered,  that it is                                                               
"pretty  rare"  that  the  party   seeking  a  domestic  violence                                                               
protective  order  does   so  with  the  help   of  an  attorney.                                                               
Therefore, in  the case of  the gun violence protective  order it                                                               
would  also be  fairly rare  that someone  would seek  that order                                                               
with the help of an attorney.   He remarked that only if a person                                                               
was seeking  a gun violence protective  order with the help  of a                                                               
publicly funded attorney, there might  be some obligation to have                                                               
court-appointed counsel on the other side.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:03:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Mr.  Borghesan to  respond  to the  question                                                               
about  the  State of  Indiana  case  addressing the  Indiana  gun                                                               
violence protective order.   He commented that  the committee had                                                               
received  a copy  of the  Indiana  Court of  Appeals opinion  via                                                               
email.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BORGHESAN answered that under  Redington v. State of Indiana,                                                             
997  N.E.2d  356  (2013) decision  a  particular  individual  was                                                               
observed  by   law  enforcement   to  be  acting   strangely  and                                                               
potentially dangerously.   The State  of Indiana  law enforcement                                                               
obtained a warrant  to remove Mr. Redington's  firearms and then,                                                               
ultimately received  a court order  removing all of  his firearms                                                               
from  his possession.    In turn,  Mr.  Redington challenged  the                                                               
Indiana  statute  on  constitutional   grounds  arguing  that  it                                                               
violated the constitutional provision  of the Constitution of the                                                               
State of Indiana guaranteeing the right  to bear arms.  The State                                                               
of  Indiana Court  of  Appeals ruled  that  "No," the  protective                                                               
order  statute was  constitutional  and it  did  not violate  the                                                               
Constitution of the State of Indiana's right to bear arm.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:05:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  asked   Stacie  Kraly,   DOL,  to   describe  the                                                               
consequences of a civil commitment  pursuant to Title 47, and the                                                               
full range  of rights and privileges  a person loses as  a result                                                               
of a civil commitment.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:05:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STACIE  KRALY,   Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor,  Human   Services  Section,  Civil  Division                                                               
(Juneau), Department  of Law (DOL),  answered that when  a person                                                               
is civilly  committed, the most  obvious consequence is  the loss                                                               
of their  liberty interest because  they are being held  by court                                                               
order  in a  psychiatric hospital  for treatment  and evaluation.                                                               
She  reiterated  her  previous testimony  and  advised  that  the                                                               
initial period  of commitment  is up to  30-days and  the 30-days                                                               
can be  extended to 90-days,  and to  180-days, but at  any point                                                               
during  that time  period when  the  person no  longer meets  the                                                               
commitment criteria,  they must  be released.   She  related that                                                               
there  are also  collateral  consequences to  a civil  commitment                                                               
which  include: under  federal law  the loss  of gun  rights; the                                                               
social stigma of  a civil commitment, and  on different occasions                                                               
the person may  have to identify that civil commitment  as a part                                                               
of an  application for  employment or  healthcare, or  applied in                                                               
future legal proceedings to identify  that the person does have a                                                               
mental illness, which is a  predicate to being civilly committed;                                                               
it  could also  be used  in  other proceedings  such as  judicial                                                               
notice; and  there is  a potential consequence  of having  to pay                                                               
for the  services they received  at [the institution].   The cost                                                               
of the  person's period of  commitment is  borne by the  State of                                                               
Alaska, but  there is  a mechanism  by which  the state  can seek                                                               
recovery of some or all of  that cost if the person has insurance                                                               
or a  third-party recovery.   Those collateral consequences  of a                                                               
civil commitment  were discussed under  In re Joan K.  v. Alaska,                                                             
273 P.3d 594 (2012), she advised.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   asked  Ms.   Kraly  to   describe  the                                                               
difference between the  civil confinement of 2-3  days versus the                                                               
30-days, 90-days, and 180-days.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY reiterated  that under  the  civil commitment  statute                                                               
there is  a preliminary evaluation period  which, in nomenclature                                                               
common parlance,  is called ex parte.   An ex parte  allows for a                                                               
person  to  be taken  into  custody  and evaluated  to  determine                                                               
whether a  civil commitment should  be granted and that  ex parte                                                               
order  expires  after  72-hours.     The  civil  commitment,  she                                                               
explained,  is when  it was  determined that  the person  had not                                                               
stabilized and  truly did  need additional  commitment, or  to be                                                               
committed in order  to get better.  The facility  has the ability                                                               
to petition the  court for an initial period  of civil commitment                                                               
of   30-days.     In  that   circumstance,   two  mental   health                                                               
professionals  and a  psychiatrist  identify that  the person  is                                                               
suffering from a  mental illness, is a threat to  self or others,                                                               
or is  gravely disabled,  she explained.   There  is then  a full                                                               
evidentiary  hearing in  front of  a  superior court  judge or  a                                                               
magistrate,  the person  is  given  court-appointed counsel,  and                                                               
other individuals could also be  appointed to assist the judge in                                                               
determining whether the person met the above criteria.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:10:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the  success rate, for example, the                                                               
state had  [committed] 100 people,  how many of those  people get                                                               
better,  what  are  the  treatment programs,  and  what  are  the                                                               
outcomes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  clarified that the collateral  consequences only apply                                                               
after the 30-day civil commitment,  they do not attach during the                                                               
72-hour hold.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  surmised that the gun  cannot be removed                                                               
during the first 72-hour hold.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that typically  the guns would not go with                                                               
a person  [to a psychiatric hospital]  so the guns would  be left                                                               
behind.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated  that that is her  point, that the                                                               
person loses their liberties.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  responded  that  there   are  consequences,  but  the                                                               
collateral   consequences  to   which   the  chairman   requested                                                               
information  only  attach after  the  civil  commitment, and  the                                                               
federal  law  that a  person  cannot  possess  or own  a  firearm                                                               
becomes effective upon  the civil commitment.   When applying for                                                               
a  job, the  application  may  ask whether  the  person has  been                                                               
civilly  committed,  and the  answer  does  not require  a  "yes"                                                               
unless the person  had gone through a  30-day commitment hearing.                                                               
The answer does  not require a "yes" if the  person had only gone                                                               
through a 72-hour hold.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:12:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether  Ms. Kraly was referring to                                                               
18 USC 922(g)(1-9).                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY answered in the affirmative.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:12:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  commented  that it  is  appropriate  to                                                               
discuss that code because Ms. Kraly mentioned the cite.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  interjected that the  point of hearing  about civil                                                               
commitments is because  people have asked a lot  of questions and                                                               
Ms. Kraly  can answer to some  extent, but Ms. Kraly  is not here                                                               
as an  expert in  criminal law,  she is here  from the  DOL civil                                                               
division.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:13:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said that she  is not an expert  but she                                                               
can certainly read the law.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  advised that  she did not  have a copy  of the  law in                                                               
front of her and was unable to recite the sub-sections.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said that  she has the  law in  front of                                                               
her.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  the relevance  because  Ms. Kraly  testified                                                               
that there are federal laws  requiring that a person committed to                                                               
a psychiatric  hospital have  their guns rights  taken away.   He                                                               
further  asked whether  there was  anything ambiguous  about that                                                               
statement.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  noted that  it is important  that people                                                               
understand  how  the federal  law  works  with this  because  the                                                               
discussion is about civil confinement,  a federal rule comes into                                                               
play ...                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  Representative to read the  statute and the                                                               
committee would then move on.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:14:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to 18  USC 922(g)(1-9),  which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     18 USC 922(g)(1-9) prohibits  the following from possessing,                                                               
shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
         (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a                                                                          
     crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding                                                                      
     one year;                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          (2) who is a fugitive from justice;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
       (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any                                                                        
     controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the                                                                     
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (4)  who   has  been   adjudicated  as   a  mental                                                                    
     defective  or  who  has  been  committed  to  a  mental                                                                    
     institution;                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          (5) who, being an alien                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
               (A) is illegally or  unlawfully in the United                                                                    
     States; or                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
               (B) except as  provided in subsection (y)(2),                                                                    
     has  been  admitted  to  the   United  States  under  a                                                                    
     nonimmigrant visa  (as that term is  defined in section                                                                    
     101(a)(26) of  the Immigration  and Nationality  Act (8                                                                    
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (6) who has been  discharged from the Armed Forces                                                                    
     under dishonorable conditions;                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (7)  who,  having been  a  citizen  of the  United                                                                    
     States, has renounced his citizenship;                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (8) who is subject to a court order that                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
               (A) was issued after  a hearing of which such                                                                    
     person  received  actual  notice,  and  at  which  such                                                                    
     person had an opportunity to participate;                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
               (B)  restrains  such person  from  harassing,                                                                    
     stalking, or  threatening an  intimate partner  of such                                                                    
     person or child of such  intimate partner or person, or                                                                    
     engaging in other conduct that  would place an intimate                                                                    
     partner  in reasonable  fear of  bodily  injury to  the                                                                    
     partner or child; and                                                                                                      
               (C)                                                                                                              
                    (i) includes a  finding that such person                                                                    
     represents a credible threat to  the physical safety of                                                                    
     such intimate partner or child; or                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                    (ii) by  its terms  explicitly prohibits                                                                    
     the use,  attempted use, or threatened  use of physical                                                                    
     force  against  such  intimate partner  or  child  that                                                                    
     would reasonably  be expected  to cause  bodily injury;                                                                    
     or                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          (9)  who has  been  convicted in  any  court of  a                                                                    
     misdemeanor  crime of  domestic  violence,  to ship  or                                                                    
     transport  in   interstate  or  foreign   commerce,  or                                                                    
     possess  in  or  affecting  commerce,  any  firearm  or                                                                    
     ammunition;  or to  receive any  firearm or  ammunition                                                                    
     which has been shipped  or transported in interstate or                                                                    
     foreign commerce.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:15:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked  Ms. Kraly whether it  is true that                                                               
civil confinement interacts  with this code and  whether they are                                                               
related to one another.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed  out that her questions have  been asked and                                                               
answered, and her  reading of the United States  Code makes clear                                                               
that Ms.  Kraly had referred  to paragraph  (4) and she  does not                                                               
need  to answer  that  question  because Representative  Reinbold                                                               
answered it for herself.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:16:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to the  collateral consequences                                                               
Ms.  Kraly  had offered  and  asked  whether there  were  further                                                               
collateral consequences.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  answered that  "that a pretty  exhaustive list  of the                                                               
collateral  consequences" was  identified by  the Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court in the In re Joan K. matter.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN    surmised   that    these   collateral                                                               
consequences would not attach to an ex parte 72-hour hearing.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY answered that Representative Eastman was correct.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:17:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he  was finding it difficult to                                                               
understand  whether  Ms. Kraly  was  saying  that the  collateral                                                               
consequences  would  not  interact   with  an  ex  parte  72-hour                                                               
hearing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY explained  that she had been  discussing the collateral                                                               
consequences for  employment and  reiterated that a  person would                                                               
not have  to disclose that they  were subject to an  ex parte 72-                                                               
hour hold  petition on an  employment application.  There  is the                                                               
social stigma  and potentially the financial  consequences of the                                                               
72-hour hold,  and those two  collateral consequences  may attach                                                               
to a 72-hour  hold or an ex  parte proceeding.  A  person must be                                                               
civilly  committed   in  order   for  the   remaining  collateral                                                               
consequences  to attach  and a  civil commitment  does not  occur                                                               
until a 30-day petition is filed, she reiterated.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:18:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  Ms. Kraly  to help  him understand                                                               
how  that would  work  where  someone took  away  a person's  gun                                                               
rights  and their  prospective employer  asked  whether they  had                                                               
ever been (audio difficulties).   He further asked why the person                                                               
does not have to disclose  that information, and whether there is                                                               
some legal  protection that no one  can come after the  person if                                                               
they lie and say they had not been involved in such a hearing.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  said she  was  unsure  she understood  Representative                                                               
Eastman's question.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario that  if a  person is                                                               
party to an  ex parte hearing and, for example,  the person was a                                                               
recipient  of   protective  order  request,  they   attended  the                                                               
hearing, and the judge decided  that was a frivolous request, but                                                               
at a future date a  prospective employer asked whether the person                                                               
had ever been party  to that type of hearing.   He noted that Ms.                                                               
Kraly had  testified that the  person would not have  to disclose                                                               
that situation  because it is  an ex  parte 72-hour hearing.   He                                                               
asked whether the law is giving  the person an opportunity to lie                                                               
to  their prospective  employer or  whether there  is some  other                                                               
protection so that the disclosure does not become affected.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  pointed out  to  Representative  Eastman that  his                                                               
question  has   the  whole  process  completely   convoluted  and                                                               
confused.  He presented an  example wherein someone had requested                                                               
an  ex  parte  request  to institutionalize  a  person  regarding                                                               
concerns  about the  person's mental  state, and  by being  an ex                                                               
parte hearing, the  person is not present.  In  the event someone                                                               
had  related  their concern  that  there  was  a problem  with  a                                                               
person,  the court  would issue  an  ex parte  order without  the                                                               
person  present, which  is what  ex parte  means in  Latin.   The                                                               
contested  hearing is  for  the 30-day  commitment  in which  the                                                               
person would have  a right to be present and  a right to counsel.                                                               
He  explained that  the 30-day  hearing is  where the  collateral                                                               
consequences would attach, and if  the person was committed based                                                               
upon the judge's  findings, the person would have  to report that                                                               
situation to a  prospective employer.  By the  simple nature that                                                               
the  person is  not party  to an  ex parte  proceeding, there  is                                                               
nothing for the person to report, he pointed out.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY responded that Chair Claman was correct.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:21:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR CLAMAN  and Representative  Eastman discussed  the rulings                                                               
of the chair.]                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:21:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that during  the last  hearing the                                                               
committee  did  not  receive  a   definitive  answer  as  to  the                                                               
situation of two  people appearing at the courthouse  at the same                                                               
time  with (audio  difficulties) maybe  a marriage  dispute, that                                                               
the judge  could not  choose to  hear "both  of those,  you know,                                                               
parties  together individually  in  those respective  petitions."                                                               
Therefore,  if the  committee  was  not able  to  receive a  firm                                                               
answer that ex parte  means that there is no way  for a person to                                                               
be  involved, he  would like  to  go under  the possibility  that                                                               
someone could appear at a 72-hour proceeding.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that  Representative Eastman had changed                                                               
his topic from  a civil commitment under Title 47,  which is what                                                               
Ms. Kraly was discussing.   Representative Eastman's questions to                                                               
Ms. Meade  during the last  hearing were with regard  to domestic                                                               
violence protective orders.  He  further pointed out that that is                                                               
not an area in which Ms.  Kraly had provided testimony.  He asked                                                               
Representative  Eastman to  limit  his questions  to Ms.  Kraly's                                                               
expertise as to Title 47, civil commitments.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:22:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN offered  a scenario  wherein a  person is                                                               
the  recipient  of  an  ex  parte 72-hour  hold  request,  and  a                                                               
prospective employer  asks whether  they were  involved in  a 72-                                                               
hour hold and  asked how it is  that the person does  not have to                                                               
disclose  that 72-hour  hold and  he asked  whether the  law read                                                               
that he is  permitted to lie to his prospective  employer and the                                                               
person could not be legally affected.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added "With respect to Title 47."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  pointed out that she  is not an employment  lawyer and                                                               
is  not   able  to   answer  Representative   Eastman's  specific                                                               
questions as  to the consequences  of not disclosing.   Although,                                                               
she pointed  out, as Chair  Claman previously explained,  when an                                                               
ex parte 72-hour  hold is granted, it is exactly  as Chair Claman                                                               
identified,  the proceeding  is ex  parte and  the person  is not                                                               
involved.   She reiterated that  a mental health  professional, a                                                               
friend of  the family, a  doctor, or a psychiatrist  contacts the                                                               
judicial  officer,  explains  the   circumstances  and  why  they                                                               
believe that the  person is mentally ill, is a  threat to self or                                                               
others,  or  is  gravely  disabled.   Under  that  scenario,  she                                                               
offered,  the  judge  can  determine,  based  upon  the  evidence                                                               
offered ex  parte, that there  is enough evidence for  the person                                                               
to be held for 72-hours to  determine whether the person is truly                                                               
mentally  ill, truly  a threat  to self  or others,  or is  truly                                                               
gravely  disabled.   Under those  circumstances, she  reiterated,                                                               
the person would not have the  due process that would normally be                                                               
afforded  to  a   person  to  rebut  or   protect  their  liberty                                                               
interests.    Therefore, she  further  reiterated,  that sort  of                                                               
information  should not  generally  be required  to be  disclosed                                                               
because the person did not have  a chance to defend themselves in                                                               
those proceedings.   It is  the 30-day commitment that  becomes a                                                               
collateral consequence  because the  person had the  entire array                                                               
of due  process wherein the person  was in front of  a judge with                                                               
their appointed counsel, the  person's counsel can cross-examine,                                                               
present  their own  witnesses, and  defend  against the  petition                                                               
alleging that  the person is  mentally ill,  a threat to  self or                                                               
others, or is gravely disabled, she explained.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:25:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether Ms.  Kraly is aware  of any                                                               
provision of  law that  would limit  a prospective  employer from                                                               
being able  to ask these  types of  questions dealing with  an ex                                                               
parte hearing setting.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added, "Within the Title 47 context."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY said that she was not able to answer that question.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:25:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  referred  to  gun  violence  protective                                                               
orders and  surmised that questions  could be asked  "because she                                                               
said something about  ex parte and I think  it's really important                                                               
to get clarification there."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reiterated that Ms.  Kraly is available  to discuss                                                               
Title  47   civil  commitments  with   an  ex   parte  component.                                                               
Representative Reinbold  could ask  questions regarding  ex parte                                                               
hearings in the  civil commitment context, Ms. Kraly  is not here                                                               
to testify  about either domestic  violence protective  orders or                                                               
the  proposed   gun  violence  protective  orders,   which  is  a                                                               
different subject in the area of Ms. Kraly's expertise.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:26:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   commented  that  with  the   ex  parte                                                               
proceeding,  the person  receives  no  representation and  cannot                                                               
defend themselves,  "it went to  the immediate family  member who                                                               
can petition and  then it's reporting the evidence and  then it -                                                               
it says on this chart, 'expires 20-days unless ..."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that  Representative Reinbold was asking                                                               
questions about the  gun violence protective order,  which is the                                                               
proposal of this  statute.  He further reiterated  that Ms. Kraly                                                               
is available  to discuss  civil commitments  under Title  47, and                                                               
this   particular  proposal   has  nothing   to  do   with  civil                                                               
commitments.   Ms. Kraly was asked  to testify in order  that the                                                               
committee could  understand the differences  and she is  not here                                                               
to answer questions about the bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:27:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said, "Basically, you were  talking very                                                               
specifically about ex parte" and  mentally ill.  She related that                                                               
she was  not sure whether Ms.  Kraly had used the  words "and" or                                                               
"or" when describing the commitment criteria.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  that Ms. Kraly could answer  in the context                                                               
of Title  47, as she  had answered  the question three  times and                                                               
this is the last time she would answer that question.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY reiterated  that  in order  to  be civilly  committed,                                                               
under  AS 47.30,  the judge  must  find by  clear and  convincing                                                               
evidence that a  person is mentally ill, and is  a threat to self                                                               
or others, or is gravely disabled.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:28:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Kaci Schroeder,  Department of Law, that the                                                               
bill contains language on page  4, referring to "less restrictive                                                               
alternatives."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:28:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KACI  SCHROEDER,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section, Criminal  Division, Department of Law,  noted that "less                                                               
restrictive alternatives"  is an  area in  which Ms.  Kraly could                                                               
respond.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted  that  in  this  particular  bill  there  is                                                               
reference   on   page  4,   line   13   that  "less   restrictive                                                               
alternatives" have  been tried  and were  ineffective.   He asked                                                               
whether that is a question for Ms. Kraly to answer.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY responded  that  she performed  research  as to  "less                                                               
restrictive alternatives"  and the term is  used in approximately                                                               
15-16  different places  in state  law.   There  is no  statutory                                                               
definition  of "less  restrictive  alternatives" and  in the  big                                                               
scheme of  things it is  a fact  specific question that  would be                                                               
evaluated  by  the  agency,  but  in  most  cases,  it  would  be                                                               
evaluated by  the judicial officer.   For example, this  comes up                                                               
in  civil  commitment hearings,  and  before  the person  can  be                                                               
committed  for up  to  30-days, the  criteria  and predicate  for                                                               
commitment  must  be   established.    There  must   also  be  an                                                               
evaluation that  there are "no less  restrictive alternative than                                                               
placement in  a secure psychiatric  hospital."  In doing  so, she                                                               
explained, it  must be established  on an evidentiary  basis with                                                               
the  judge as  to  whether  there is  a  means  to provide  care,                                                               
custody, keep the  person safe, the community safe,  or keep them                                                               
from harming  themselves by not  putting them into  the hospital.                                                               
In that regard,  could the person go to, for  example, the Juneau                                                               
Alliance for Mental  Health (JAMHI) Health &  Wellness housing in                                                               
Juneau, whether  there is  enough support  at JAMHI  housing that                                                               
the person did  not need to be civilly committed,  can the person                                                               
remain  in their  own home,  can  they remain  in their  parent's                                                               
home, can  they go to  a non-locked secure facility  for possible                                                               
substance abuse treatment, and so  forth.  It must be established                                                               
with the judge that an array  of services had been considered and                                                               
were discounted  for purposes of maintaining  health, safety, and                                                               
welfare,  she explained.   When  reviewing how  "less restrictive                                                               
alternatives"  is used  in  other provisions  in  state law,  she                                                               
offered that  the same sort  of concept  comes up, as  to whether                                                               
all  of  the  other  circumstances  had  been  qualitatively  and                                                               
quantitatively  evaluated in  order  for the  judge to  determine                                                               
what  has to  happen in  this circumstance  because there  are no                                                               
less  restrictive  alternatives.   In  the  context of  a  mental                                                               
commitment,  it would  mean something  that  is less  restrictive                                                               
than being placed in a psychiatric hospital, she explained.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:31:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked, in  the context  of HB  75, that  would mean                                                               
some  less  restrictive  alternative  than  removing  a  person's                                                               
firearms.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY answered  that Chair  Claman was  exactly correct,  it                                                               
would be  a fact  specific analysis  to present  to the  court to                                                               
advise that all of these  other alternatives, such as locking the                                                               
guns, removing the  guns, and putting them in  another place, had                                                               
been considered.   There  could be an  array of  less restrictive                                                               
alternatives potentially presented to the  court for the court to                                                               
ultimately determine  whether those  were sufficient  to maintain                                                               
the safety of the situation, she related.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:32:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  surmised that the less  restrictive alternatives in                                                               
HB  75,  page  4,  would  be specific  to  the  less  restrictive                                                               
alternatives  for the  guns  at issue  rather  than removing  the                                                               
guns.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY noted that that is how she read the bill.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:32:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that  the fact specific analysis                                                               
(audio difficulties) more restrictive has  to work.  For example,                                                               
it may be  less of a burden  to the state if the  neighbor with a                                                               
locked  safe,  locks  up  the  person's  guns,  rather  than  law                                                               
enforcement confiscating  the guns.   She commented that  she was                                                               
trying  to think  of effective  and less  burdensome alternatives                                                               
for  the state  and possibly  more comfortable  alternatives "for                                                               
the accused."  (Audio difficulties throughout this testimony."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY answered  that that  is exactly  the type  of evidence                                                               
that would  be presented to  a judge.   The judge  would evaluate                                                               
whether they  believed locking  a person's  guns in  a neighbor's                                                               
locked safe  was an  appropriate disposition,  such that  the gun                                                               
violence  protective order  was  not necessary  because the  guns                                                               
were safe.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   advised  Representative  Reinbold  that   in  the                                                               
evidentiary context, what would more likely arise would be that                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
"the person came  to the court and said, 'I  asked this person in                                                               
my house  'Can I put  your guns  in the next-door  neighbor's gun                                                               
safe  because I  think you  are a  risk to  yourself?'   And, the                                                               
person said, 'You  can't -- no, I  won't let you put  the guns in                                                               
the neighbor's gun safe.'  So,  the likelihood is that you're not                                                               
going  to  get  someone  in  court saying,  'the  guns  from  the                                                               
neighbor's gun safe'  you are going to get the  person saying, 'I                                                               
tried to  get them in the  neighbor's gun safe and  they wouldn't                                                               
agree.'"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:34:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  whether  an  amendment should  be                                                               
proposed that would  make certain this was an  option, or whether                                                               
the  court would  automatically determine  whether there  are any                                                               
effective  options other  than law  enforcement seizing  the guns                                                               
and the state having to manage the guns.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that she  is not in  any position to  make a                                                               
recommendation on  amendments.  She  offered her belief  that the                                                               
manner in which  the statute is crafted, such  as the requirement                                                               
that  the  judge engage,  identify,  and  make  a finding  as  to                                                               
whether there  are no less restrictive  alternatives, meets those                                                               
needs because the judge would have  to make a specific finding as                                                               
to that evidence, she explained.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:35:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD surmised  that  the judge  automatically                                                               
must see the least restrictive options.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY related that that is how she reads the bill.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added that that is what the bill clearly requires.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:36:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred  to HB 75, [Sec. 6.   Sec. 18.65.845], page                                                               
8, lines 4-5, which read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
         In AS 18.65.815 - 18.65.840, "immediate family                                                                         
      member" means a spouse, child, stepchild, parent, or                                                                      
     stepparent.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Kaci Schroeder,  Department of  Law, whether                                                               
there  was   a  particular  reason   it  was  limited   to  those                                                               
individuals and  why there would  be limits on more  people being                                                               
identified, such as grandparents  or domestic unmarried partners.                                                               
He asked whether it was simply a choice made by the drafter.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:36:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KACI  SCHROEDER,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section,  Criminal Division,  Department of  Law, responded  that                                                               
the reason it  is defined in this manner would  be a question for                                                               
the drafter  or the sponsor.   The Department of Law  (DOL) views                                                               
this  as solely  in the  hands of  the legislature  as to  how it                                                               
wants to define that provision.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:37:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether there  are other statutes  that allow                                                               
these  types  of  requests,  other  than  those  listed  in  this                                                               
particular statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER answered  that the  department had  not looked  at                                                               
that  issue, there  are other  statutes  in the  state code  that                                                               
define household  member, and those definitions  are broader, but                                                               
it is not the same terminology of "immediate family member."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:37:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  whether the  domestic  violence  protective                                                               
orders use a  definition of household member or  does it actually                                                               
list the individuals.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER responded that it is household member.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked who  is determined to  be a  household member                                                               
under the domestic violence protective  order statute in contrast                                                               
to this statute.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER  referred  to  AS   18.66.990(5),  which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (5) "household member" includes                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
         (A) adults or minors who are current or former                                                                         
     spouses;                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
       (B) adults or minors who live together or who have                                                                       
     lived together;                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     (C) adults or minors who are dating or who have dated;                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      (D) adults or minors who are engaged in or who have                                                                       
     engaged in a sexual relationship;                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (E) adults or  minors who are related to  each other up                                                                    
     to the  fourth degree of consanguinity,  whether of the                                                                    
     whole or half blood or  by adoption, computed under the                                                                    
     rules of civil law;                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
        (F) adults or minors who are related or formerly                                                                        
     related by marriage;                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     (G) persons who have a child of the relationship; and                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     (H) minor children of a person in a relationship that                                                                      
     is described in (A) - (G) of this paragraph;                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:39:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  Ms.  Schroeder  to describe  what                                                               
this bill does that is not already in federal or state statutes.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER replied that she  cannot speak to that question and                                                               
she could only speak to the state criminal aspects of HB 75.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:40:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Ms.  Schroeder what she could speak                                                               
to on this bill.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER answered that this  bill establishes a gun violence                                                               
protective  order  that is  a  civil  proceeding  and it  is  not                                                               
something within  which the criminal division  would be involved.                                                               
However, she  said, under this  bill, the violation of  the order                                                               
would become  a crime which  is when the criminal  division would                                                               
get involved and  potentially prosecute for the  violation of the                                                               
protective order.   She added  that that  would be the  extent of                                                               
the criminal division's involvement.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:40:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   asked  why  this  would   be  a  civil                                                               
proceeding and not a criminal proceeding.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER  answered that protective  orders, in  general, are                                                               
civil proceedings  because the state  is not involved, it  is one                                                               
party  against another  party.   The  violation  of those  orders                                                               
generally, whether it be a  domestic violence, sexual assault, or                                                               
stalking  protective  order, is  a  crime  wherein the  state  is                                                               
involved so it is a criminal matter.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:41:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  asked when the United  States Code, that                                                               
she previously read, is invoked in this whole process.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER advised  that that question is outside  of her area                                                               
of expertise as she practices solely in state criminal law.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:41:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  whether  the  United States  Code                                                               
previously referenced,  is applicable  in the department  and for                                                               
Alaskans.   Representative Reinbold  commented that "I  would say                                                               
yes."                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN pointed  out to  Representative  Reinbold that  Ms.                                                               
Schroeder  does not  need  to answer  that  question because  the                                                               
federal  law applies  to everyone.   The  authority to  prosecute                                                               
federal law is  given solely to the federal  government and state                                                               
prosecutors do  not have authority  to prosecute  federal crimes,                                                               
which has been the law of the land for centuries.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:42:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  there is currently a "big                                                               
movement"  wherein the  Anchorage  Police  Department is  working                                                               
with  the Alaska  State Troopers  and  is also  working with  the                                                               
federal  government on  all  of  the crime  taking  place in  the                                                               
state.   It appears that,  at some point,  the USC cite  would be                                                               
invoked and she asked, at  what point would the criminal division                                                               
invoke this USC cite if collaborating.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN ruled that he would  not ask Ms. Schroeder to answer                                                               
that  question,  if  the  FBI, APD,  the  Alaska  State  Troopers                                                               
cooperate,  they  make  decisions   about  where  folks  will  be                                                               
charged.   There  will be  crimes charged  in federal  court that                                                               
have  multi-agency obligations  and  they are  charged only  with                                                               
federal  crimes in  federal court.   The  same is  true with  the                                                               
cooperation between the  state and the FBI in  what becomes state                                                               
prosecutions wherein the  person is charged with  state crimes in                                                               
state courts because the particular  codes are jurisdictional, he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
[HB 75 was held over.]                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB387 ver A 3.16.18.PDF HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Sponsor Statement 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Sectional Analysis ver A 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Additional Document-CHPA Testimony 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Fiscal Note DHSS-PHAS 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Fiscal Note DPS-COMM 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB387 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 387
HB075 ver D 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Sectional Analysis 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Five States Allow Gun Seizures 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Missouri Case 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-The Trace Article - ERPOs Reduce Suicides 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letter 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letters (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fact Sheet 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DHSS-EPI 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-NYT Opinion - Mental Health System Can't Stop Mass Shooters 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 3) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letters (Part 2) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 2) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Additional Document-Redington v. State 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Connecticut, Indiana, & Alaska Comparison Table 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75