Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/06/2018 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
-- Recessed to 15 Minutes Following Session --
+ HB 351 JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ HJR 38 AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 75 GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
             HB  75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:47:22 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."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[Before the  committee was the proposed  committee substitute for                                                               
HB 75,  labeled 30-LS0304\R, Martin,  3/26/18, and Version  R was                                                               
adopted as the working document on 3/26/18.]                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
7:48:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-                                                                   
LS0304\R.1, Martin, 3/27/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, lines 16 - 18:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 9. AS 22.35.030 is amended to read:                                                                         
          Sec. 22.35.030. Publication of Records [RECORDS                                                                 
     CONCERNING  CRIMINAL CASES  RESULTING  IN ACQUITTAL  OR                                                                  
     DISMISSAL]. The  Alaska Court System may  not publish a                                                                  
     court record of a                                                                                                          
               (1)  criminal case on a publicly available                                                                   
     website  if  60 days  have  elapsed  from the  date  of                                                                    
     acquittal or dismissal and                                                                                                 
               (A) [(1)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     all charges filed in the case;                                                                                             
               (B) [(2)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
     defendant in the case have  been dismissed and were not                                                                    
     dismissed  as  part  of a  plea  agreement  in  another                                                                    
     criminal case  under Rule 11, Alaska  Rules of Criminal                                                                    
     Procedure;                                                                                                                 
               (C) [(3)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     some  of  the criminal  charges  in  the case  and  the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed; or                                                                                       
               (D) [(4)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
     defendant  in  the case  have  been  dismissed after  a                                                                    
     suspended entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078; or                                                                     
               (2)  gun violence protective order under                                                                     
     AS 18.65.815 or  18.65.820, unless  the court  grants a                                                                
     petition  under AS 18.65.815;  if  a  court grants  the                                                                
     petition,  the Alaska  Court System  shall publish  the                                                                
     court  record of  the proceeding  within 10  days after                                                                
     the date the protective order is issued."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:48:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD declared a point of order.  She said                                                                    
that she wants her amendments to be timely and asked when                                                                       
amendments 1-7 were submitted.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS ruled that Representative Reinbold                                                                    
could speak with Chair Claman after the meeting.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
7:48:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN explained  that  Amendment  1 is  a  response to  a                                                               
clarification brought  forward by  the Alaska Court  System (ACS)                                                               
to be certain  the language read that a  publication on CourtView                                                               
would only  occur if there  was a "contested order,"  which meant                                                               
that the individual had a right to  be heard.  In the event an ex                                                               
parte  order hearing  took place  and a  gun violence  protective                                                               
order was  issued, it would  not be listed on  CourtView [because                                                               
the respondent was  not present at that hearing.]   The only time                                                               
a CourtView record  of this proceeding would occur  would be when                                                               
the individual had a chance to be  heard and the court had made a                                                               
ruling.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:49:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what language is deleted.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked  that  Nancy Meade  come  forward  to                                                               
respond to committee questions.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:50:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative Director, Alaska  Court System, advised that a                                                               
Version R  sentence read that  the Alaska court System  (ACS) may                                                               
not publish  a court record of  a protective order on  a publicly                                                               
available website.   She related that she was  seeking clarity in                                                               
order for the ACS to  perform exactly what the committee desired.                                                               
Therefore,  Amendment  1 clarifies  that  what  the ACS  will  do                                                               
(indisc.) only  if (indisc.) when the  long-term protective order                                                               
is issued.   In the  event there is  a petition for  a short-term                                                               
order,  ACS  would handle  the  case  in  the normal  course  but                                                               
nothing would be  posted to CourtView because  the proceeding was                                                               
ex parte.   She pointed out that until and  if, a long-term order                                                               
was  issued, which  only occurs  after the  respondent has  had a                                                               
chance  to  appear  in  court   and  receive  full  due  process.                                                               
Amendment  1 clarifies  that that  is the  process the  ACS would                                                               
perform, which  she believed was  the intent of the  "less clear"                                                               
wording in the original version of the bill.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
7:51:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Amendment  1, page 1, line 22,                                                               
which  read:   "proceeding  within  10 days  after  the date  the                                                           
protective order is issued."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how  the 10-day language compares or                                                               
contrasts to "other things" posted on CourtView.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered  that  this  language  is  a  bit  different                                                               
because,  typically,  (indisc.)  CourtView with  few  exceptions.                                                               
The  exceptions,  she  explained,  are located  in  the  existing                                                               
language of  AS 22.35.030,  above the  newly inserted  wording at                                                               
the bottom  of page 1 of  the amendment.  She  explained that ACS                                                               
does  remove  criminal  cases,  but  the  default  is  always  to                                                               
(indisc.) if they are public  records, 60 days after an acquittal                                                               
or dismissal of  all charges if that is what  occurs.  Typically,                                                               
she said, protective orders are  posted on CourtView, even the ex                                                               
parte, and  it was the  intent of  the sponsor and  the committee                                                               
that these  could implicate  some sensitive matters.   At  the ex                                                               
parte stage,  in particular, it  may not be fully  appropriate to                                                               
publicize that  this was occurring  without full due  process for                                                               
the respondent.   After  the full due  process, she  pointed out,                                                               
the ACS  would post  it on  the website,  and the  10-days simply                                                               
gives ACS a chance to get the record together to post.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:52:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  that  when the  ACS  deals with  a                                                               
domestic violence  protective order, whether the  deadline is 10-                                                               
days or whether it carries a different deadline.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that the  ACS posts everything about domestic                                                               
violence protective orders the minute  they are filed.  Amendment                                                               
1 reflects  what she  believed was the  committee's intent  to be                                                               
more  protective in  these protective  order proceedings  because                                                               
they  do implicate  a  bit  more of  a  privacy  interest of  the                                                               
respondent.   Therefore, the  ACS would  delay and  perhaps never                                                               
post these  proceedings unless and  until that whole  due process                                                               
hearing had taken place.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:53:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked the  standard the  court uses  to make                                                               
the finding on the 6-month protective order.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that that is  what she had been  referring to                                                               
as  the longer-term  order, covered  under HB  75, Section  7, AS                                                               
18.65.815(a).   The long-term protective order  proceeding is not                                                               
ex parte;  the respondent has  notice of  the hearing and  can be                                                               
present.   She then referred  to page 4, lines  13-15, subsection                                                               
(b) which read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence                                                                        
     that the respondent is a dangerous individual,                                                                             
     regardless of whether the respondent appears at the                                                                        
     hearing, the court may order relief available under                                                                        
     (c) of this section.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:54:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that with  this amendment it is only                                                               
after  the long-term  protective  order is  issued,  and at  that                                                               
point the protective order would be available for publication.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered that  10-days  after  the issuance  of  that                                                               
protective order, it would be posted within those 10-days.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:54:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES withdrew her objection to Amendment 1.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the adoption of Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:55:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that this  still allows this to go                                                               
up on CourtView, there is not a (indisc.).                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE reiterated that, if  and when, the six-month protective                                                               
order  is granted  by  the  court, it  would  then  be posted  on                                                               
CourtView.   She explained that  up until that time,  Amendment 1                                                               
would advise  the court to  not post the protective  order, which                                                               
is  an  exception  to  the   normal  rule  of  generally  posting                                                               
everything.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that it would  be appropriate to                                                               
post a long-term protective order  on CourtView if the protective                                                               
order is  because Person A  stated they  would blow up  Person B.                                                               
Except, possibly Person  A is severely depressed  and is thinking                                                               
about killing  themselves.  That  posting process strikes  her as                                                               
wrong and  she said she did  not know whether there  was a manner                                                               
in which to "separate things."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE responded  that there  is truly  no way  of separating                                                               
them from the case; however,  the information posted on CourtView                                                               
is  not the  content of  the order  or the  petition listing  the                                                               
allegations, or  any facts about  the case.   CourtView is  not a                                                               
screen shot of  anything filed in the case, she  explained, it is                                                               
a docket  sheet and  contains the  date of  the petition  for the                                                               
long-term  gun  violence protective  order,  and  the date  order                                                               
issued.    It would  not  disclose  any  of  the facts  in  which                                                               
Representative LeDoux was concerned, she explained.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:57:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed,  and she argued that  anyone who is                                                               
curious enough  to look  on CourtView might  find someone  with a                                                               
gun  violence  protective  order  and  lead  the  person  to  the                                                               
courthouse  [to review  the court  file].   Whereas, she  pointed                                                               
out, if it  was not posted on CourtView, the  person may not have                                                               
been led to the courthouse.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE replied  that  that would  be a  policy  call for  the                                                               
legislature to advise  the court of the process it  desired.  The                                                               
default for the  Alaska Court System (ACS) is  that everything is                                                               
published  unless  there  is  a specific  guidance  not  to  post                                                               
something.   For  example, divorce  cases can  oftentimes contain                                                               
"interesting  or  even  salacious"  information  and  people  can                                                               
always come  to the courthouse  and review  the record.   The ACS                                                               
views the  records as  public records,  which is  the price  of a                                                               
democracy wherein people  are allowed to review  records and hold                                                               
the court  accountable by looking,  and so  forth.  She  said she                                                               
recognizes there is another side to this issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:58:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  acknowledged   Ms.  Meade's  explanation,                                                               
except the concern is that  the committee is currently struggling                                                               
with whether  to allow the  gun violence protective order  in the                                                               
first place.   She stated that  she wants to make  certain that a                                                               
person  who is  thinking  of causing  harm to  self,  and not  to                                                               
others, is not posted, and she asked how to reach that goal.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded  that that would be  "extremely difficult and                                                               
problematic for the court," as  it has no precedence for deciding                                                               
what to post  or not post depending upon the  actual facts of the                                                               
case.    The  problem,  she   explained,  is  there  could  be  a                                                               
discrepancy depending  upon someone's view  of the case,  and the                                                               
court system does not prefer  the possible direction that, "if it                                                               
would be  X, then posted  it, and if  it wouldn't be,  don't post                                                               
it."  In  other words, she offered, the court  system can perform                                                               
the black and white line of  full acquittal cases being taken off                                                               
CourtView.    Except,  if the  posting  requires  discretion  and                                                               
analyzing the facts of the case, that becomes a problem.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:00:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that the legislature  could also                                                               
remove suicides from CourtView as a policy call.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that the  legislature could make  that policy                                                               
call.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:00:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he  had been considering the number                                                               
of tragic  suicides he has  worked, and  how difficult it  is for                                                               
families to accept "suicide" on  the Death Certificate.  Suicide,                                                               
he described,  is an awful  scourge in  Alaska.  He  offered that                                                               
when considering the  merits of this discussion, if  the risk, as                                                               
Representative LeDoux  pointed out,  is strictly  toward oneself,                                                               
and a  loved one wants to  remove a temptation and  possibly bide                                                               
more time to  find help for the individual, it  all comes down to                                                               
the  definition   of  "dangerous   individual"  and   under  what                                                               
circumstance a  case would be  posted on CourtView.   He referred                                                               
to Amendment 1, page 1,  lines 20-22, and suggested inserting "in                                                               
cases  of  immediate risk  of  injury  to others,"  between  "the                                                           
petition"  and  "the Alaska  Court  System",  thereby "making  it                                                       
clear that  if the only  sense of harm,  and it can  be immediate                                                               
where the court  would issue it, but in those  cases for possible                                                               
mental  health  reasons."    He opined  that  the  mental  health                                                               
professional treatment community would  probably be supportive of                                                               
not having  those cases  posted because it  might help  people to                                                               
not be singled  out for what may be a  temporary traumatic event.                                                               
He  commented that  he is  empathic with  Representative LeDoux's                                                               
position on this issue.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:03:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  Ms.  Meade  whether  Title  47  involuntary                                                               
commitments are posted on CourtView currently.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that they are not posted.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:03:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario of an  individual who                                                               
was known  to be depressed and  suicidal at certain times  of the                                                               
year due to  losing a loved one  at that time.  He  asked that if                                                               
it is known  that someone will be  "in a bad way"  for a specific                                                               
period  of time,  how would  the court  respond to  that type  of                                                               
situation.   He  asked whether  that scenario  would be  under AS                                                               
18.65.815 or 18.65.820,  and if it is under AS  18.65.820 and the                                                               
person is known to be dangerous  "but not yet," whether the court                                                               
would entertain  an AS 18.65.820.820  in that type  of situation,                                                               
or would it determine that it must go the AS 18.65.815 route.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE pointed  out that the person  files whatever protective                                                               
order they desire, they can check a  box and ask for an ex parte,                                                               
they  can  solely  ask for  the  six-month  long-term  protective                                                               
order,  or ask  for  both protective  orders.   At  least in  the                                                               
domestic violence protective order  situation, it is not uncommon                                                               
for the  court to advise that  they would not grant  the ex parte                                                               
because  "I don't  think you  need it  within the  next 20  days;                                                               
however, I'll hold  it over for the hearing on  the long-term and                                                               
in two weeks, or 19 days.   We'll have the long-term hearing; the                                                               
respondent  will be  there  and it  will be  a  full due  process                                                               
hearing and we can work out whether  you need it for the next six                                                               
months."  She reiterated her  previous testimony wherein ex parte                                                               
hearings are  looked at  with the knowledge  that being  ex parte                                                               
and one party is not present,  the judicial officer must think of                                                               
all  of   the  consequences  and  ramifications   of  granting  a                                                               
protective order  in the absence of  one of the parties.   In the                                                               
event  someone  comes in  in  October  requesting the  short-term                                                               
protective  order  because  the  person may  have  a  problem  in                                                               
December,  she imagined  the court  would determine  that the  ex                                                               
parte  proceeding was  not necessary  and would  set a  long-term                                                               
proceeding, she reiterated.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:06:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  offered  another scenario  regarding  AS                                                               
18.65.815 where  it was known  that during the week  of Christmas                                                               
it would be  "very bad" and possibly this  individual crosses the                                                               
threshold  and becomes  a  dangerous individual.    He asked  the                                                               
discretion the court holds in  that type of situation, under this                                                               
bill, if the  court wants to make it only  for a particular week,                                                               
and whether the  court has the discretion to set  solely for that                                                               
period of time.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that  this bill  reads  that the  protective                                                               
order  expires six  months after  its  issuance unless  dismissed                                                               
earlier by the  court at the request of the  peace officer or the                                                               
respondent via  a hearing.  In  that sort of situation,  she said                                                               
that she  feels certain  a judicial officer  would say  that they                                                               
have concerns  about this week, and  to look at this  order again                                                               
on January  6th to  determine whether it  was necessary  that the                                                               
protective order stay in effect.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:07:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that if  the court decided at the                                                               
end  of  Christmas  week  that  there was  not  a  need  for  any                                                               
additional time, but that person  did receive an AS 18.65.815 and                                                               
it lasted  7 days.  He  said he assumed from  this amendment that                                                               
that person's name would be posted on CourtView.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE agreed, and she pointed  out that Amendment 1 tells the                                                               
court system to  post it once the order is  issued, that would be                                                               
a long-term order and it would be posted.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:07:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:08:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   offered  that  she  was   considering  a                                                               
conceptual amendment  to Amendment  1 in  line with  the language                                                               
suggested by Representative Kopp.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  Amendment 1,  page 1,  line 21,                                                               
and recommended  adding one  more situation  where the  court may                                                               
not publish a court record,"  Sec. 22.35.030(2), which would read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The Alaska Court System may  not publish a court record                                                                    
     of a  gun violence protective order  under AS 18.65.815                                                                    
     or 18.65.820  unless the court grants  a petition under                                                                    
     AS 18.65.815  or a respondent  who is determined  to be                                                                    
     dangerous to  others; if a  court grants  the petition,                                                                    
     the Alaska Court System shall  publish the court record                                                                    
     of the  proceeding within  10 days  after the  date the                                                                    
     protective order is issue.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that in  the above manner, it could                                                               
not be  misread that the  language is  not talking about  harm to                                                               
self.  The  reason for the language "dangerous to  others" is due                                                               
to the definition for "dangerous  individual," and he paraphrased                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          An  individual  is  considered  dangerous  if  the                                                                    
     individual  represents an  immediate  risk of  personal                                                                    
     injury to self or others.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP opined  that  in those  few  words it  would                                                               
direct the  court that if  the gun violence protective  order was                                                               
issued  due to  a self-harm  threat, it  would not  be posted  on                                                               
CourtView.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:09:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS  asked   Chair  Claman   whether  he                                                               
preferred to  continue down the  conceptual amendment path  or to                                                               
hold Amendment 1 in order to redraft the amendment.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Ms. Meade  whether an  amendment such  as is                                                               
being proposed  is  even  manageable for the Alaska  Court System                                                               
(ACS) because  it sounded like  ACS is not accustomed  to digging                                                               
into the details  of any particular order prior  to deciding what                                                               
is and is not posted on CourtView.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that Chair  Claman was  correct because  the                                                               
decision of posting on CourtView  is determined by an IS clerical                                                               
person who  simply looks at  a case number  and knows that  it is                                                               
posted 10  days later.   The proposed conceptual  amendment would                                                               
cause someone to have to open  the file and that is not something                                                               
the court system could do, and  she did not know whether it would                                                               
take money,  and how many of  these cases there would  be, but it                                                               
is not something  the court system has  ever performed previously                                                               
and it would cause a bit of a problem.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:10:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  surmised  that  the  proposed  conceptual                                                               
amendment would  require someone  reading almost every  case, and                                                               
it could bring on a huge fiscal note.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that she was  afraid that may be the case and                                                               
she  would  have   to  seriously  consider  how   that  might  be                                                               
accomplished.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:11:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  surmised  that basically  the  cases  are                                                               
posted through Anchorage  and the clerks have no  way of telling,                                                               
by the information they receive, how to perform the posting.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered that Representative  Stutes was correct, there                                                               
could be  some type  of solution  such as  indicating that  an AS                                                               
18.65.815 protective order  was for suicide.  To  possibly add "a                                                               
new thing" so  the administrative clerks know that only  if it is                                                               
an AS  18.65.815 is it  posted.   She suggested that  the suicide                                                               
cases  are separate  --  a whole  separate  proceeding from  "the                                                               
danger to  other ones."   In  the event it  was depicted  in that                                                               
manner, she  said that  she could  see the  administrative clerks                                                               
having  just  the  check  box for  which  protective  orders  are                                                               
posted, i.e.,  AS 18.65.815 protective  orders are posted  and AS                                                               
18.65.17 are never  posted, or something along that  manner.  She                                                               
stressed that  she has  only given thought  to this  issue during                                                               
these last few minutes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:12:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   agreed,  and  she   suggested  depicting                                                               
directly on  the form "danger to  self is not posted,  and danger                                                               
to others is posted."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  expressed that  that is indeed  on the  form; however,                                                               
there is not a picture or anything on Court View.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  expressed that she understands  that fact,                                                               
but when  the administrative  clerk is deciding  what to  post on                                                               
CourtView, what is  so difficult about looking at  this form that                                                               
could be  created that  read "danger  to self  is not  posted" in                                                               
large bold letters, and "danger to others is posted."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  related that she  did not want  to sound like  she was                                                               
putting  up roadblocks  because she  truly was  not, the  risk of                                                               
problems  with that  suggestion is  that there  are 42  different                                                               
court locations  and hundreds of people  inputting information on                                                               
CourtView.   The  court system  wants  to keep  it mechanized  to                                                               
minimize the  potential for errors  as the court system  does not                                                               
have  an audit  function in  CourtView  and if  something can  be                                                               
written into a  computer script and make it work,  then the court                                                               
system has confidence in what is  being posted.  In the event the                                                               
Barrow  administrative  clerk,  for  instance,  must  go  in  and                                                               
determine which box to check  and somehow get that factual matter                                                               
as opposed  to just a  statute directed  to the IS  department in                                                               
Anchorage who takes  information off of CourtView,  and so forth,                                                               
there could be problems.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:14:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  referred  to domestic  violence  protective                                                               
orders and offered the following:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     You know how it's just a  check the box for the judges,                                                                    
     and  they make  their findings,  and there's  only like                                                                    
     one little paragraph where there  is extra stuff they -                                                                    
     - they write in there as far as, you'll also take this                                                                     
     and this or help the victim with that.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE acknowledged that she is familiar with that form.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  noted  that  there  are  domestic  violence                                                               
protective orders  forms, and suggested  making a form for  a gun                                                               
violence protective order and the  findings would be "first check                                                               
boxes, immediate risk  of serious injury to  self, immediate risk                                                               
of serious  injury to  others."   It would  be user  friendly and                                                               
readily ascertainable  for a  court to know  whether or  not that                                                               
should be posted on CourtView, he offered.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that the  court system absolutely  intends to                                                               
make such a form should this  bill pass, and it will create forms                                                               
that are  similar and  on the  same simple  reading level  as the                                                               
domestic  violence  protective  orders because  those  pieces  of                                                               
paper are taken by law  enforcement and served on the respondent.                                                               
The  issue,  she  explained,  is  how that  fact  is  input  into                                                               
CourtView because  it does not  have fields for typing  facts, it                                                               
would  require a  modification  to CourtView  because  it is  not                                                               
similar  to an  Excel  spreadsheet  where a  person  can type  in                                                               
different factors  or different  considerations.   CourtView does                                                               
have a field for a statute and  the court system would be able to                                                               
make AS  18.65.820 orders issued.   Again, she offered,  if there                                                               
was  an  AS 18.65.817  protective  order  that was  different,  a                                                               
danger to self  order or a suicide danger order  then it could be                                                               
done.   However, she related,  it would  take a rewriting  of the                                                               
bill,  because with  one order  covering  two different  possible                                                               
scenarios, the CourtView database  cannot distinguish between the                                                               
two scenarios.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:16:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  referred  to  CSHB  75, Version  R,  [Sec.  9,  AS                                                               
22.35.030(b)] page 10, lines 16-18, which read as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (b) The Alaska Court System may not publish a                                                                         
     court record of a protective order issued under AS                                                                         
     18.65.820 on a publicly available website.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that this  amendment came about due to the                                                               
section  which read  that  the  court may  not  publish under  AS                                                               
18.65.820 ex  parte order.   The court system approached  him and                                                               
raised  questions because  it believed  this particular  language                                                               
was  ambiguous and  required clarity.    Therefore, the  question                                                               
this amendment raises  is not the grand issues of  CourtView.  He                                                               
reminded  the  committee  that   the  issues  of  CourtView  have                                                               
periodically  been  debated  in   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee and  each time the  committee travels down  that rabbit                                                               
hole,  it discovers  that CourtView  is complicated,  many people                                                               
are unhappy  with some of  the information posted,  and CourtView                                                               
does  not  provide the  depth  that  some  people would  like  to                                                               
believe.   The more the committee  tries to direct the  clerks in                                                               
how  to post  in CourtView,  the committee  is actually  inviting                                                               
errors and  inviting people to  be incredibly unhappy  because an                                                               
administrative clerk in the courthouse  made a mistake.  The only                                                               
question  before  the  committee,  he stressed,  is  whether  the                                                               
committee  prefers  Sec.  9, AS  22.35.030(b)  giving  the  court                                                               
direction,  or  would the  committee  rather  have the  increased                                                               
clarity that comes with Amendment 1.   In the event the committee                                                               
wants to spend  more time on the CourtView  issue, this amendment                                                               
should be not  be finished, but if the committee  wants to decide                                                               
which of the two wordings to use,  it should vote now and move on                                                               
to the next amendment.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:18:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  pointed out  that this issue  is important                                                               
and she is  not willing to pass  a bill that will  post the names                                                               
of people with a "suicide" protective order.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that there  probably are not                                                               
the votes to pursue Amendment 1  as written, and he set Amendment                                                               
1 aside.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  commented that if there  are not the votes  to then                                                               
vote Amendment 1 down.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS ruled  that Amendment  1 would  be set                                                               
aside and the committee would proceed to Amendment 2.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:19:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  2, labeled 30-LS304\R.15,                                                               
Martin, 3/28/18, which read as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 19, following "(a)":                                                                                          
          Insert "When a court issues an ex parte gun                                                                           
     violence  protective order  under AS 18.65.820,  if the                                                                    
     respondent's firearms  have not already been  seized, a                                                                    
     peace   officer  may   seize   any   firearms  in   the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
       the peace officer delivers the ex parte protective                                                                       
     order to the respondent.                                                                                                   
          (b)"                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "AS 18.65.815 - 18.65.825"                                                                                     
          Insert "AS 18.65.815 or 18.65.825"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 24 - 27:                                                                                                     
          Delete "If the respondent's firearms have not                                                                         
     already  been seized,  a peace  officer  may seize  any                                                                    
     firearms in the possession,  custody, or control of the                                                                    
     respondent when the peace officer  delivers an ex parte                                                                    
     protective  order  issued  under  AS 18.65.820  to  the                                                                    
     respondent."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained  that  Amendment 2  is  in  response  to                                                               
concerns  raised  by  the Alaska  Department  of  Public  Safety,                                                               
Alaska  State Troopers,  and the  distinction between  an officer                                                               
serving  an ex  parte order  to  seize a  weapon, the  respondent                                                               
refusing to turn over their  firearms, and the 48 hours language.                                                               
The Alaska  State Troopers were  concerned that the  language may                                                               
actually lead  to peace  officers thinking they  had to  wait 48-                                                               
hours after serving notice that  the firearm would be seized, and                                                               
then  they had  to return  at a  later time.   The  Department of                                                               
Public   Safety  advised   that   this   language  would   create                                                               
significant increased  risk to peace  officers and it  asked that                                                               
the language  be made clear  that if  peace officers serve  an ex                                                               
parte  order  and  the  respondent refuses  to  turn  over  their                                                               
firearms,  that their  response would  be in  the same  manner as                                                               
when serving a domestic violence  protective order.  In the event                                                               
the  respondent  refused  to  leave  the  house,  they  could  be                                                               
arrested for  failure to follow the  domestic violence protective                                                               
order.   In the same  sense here,  he offered, if  the respondent                                                               
refused  to turn  over their  firearms, that  refusal would  be a                                                               
basis for arresting  that respondent.  Amendment 2  is focused on                                                               
law enforcement's  safety and  it does not  change the  intent of                                                               
the bill language,  rather it makes it abundantly  clear that the                                                               
officer has authority to take  the firearm and for the respondent                                                               
to comply with the provisions of the ex parte order.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:21:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  that when  the ex  parte protective                                                               
order is issued, whether the  court would set forth exactly which                                                               
guns are  to be  seized, or  would the  peace officer  search the                                                               
house  for guns.   Otherwise,  she further  asked, how  would law                                                               
enforcement know  if someone had  five guns and only  turned over                                                               
four guns.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that  Amendment 2 deals solely with                                                               
the long-term protective order wherein  the person has been given                                                               
a 10-day  notice of  the hearing,  to come  to court  and present                                                               
their  case, and  the  judge  makes a  ruling  on  the clear  and                                                               
convincing evidence  standard, which  is when the  48-hours comes                                                               
into  play.   Obviously,  he  noted, there  was  not the  extreme                                                               
urgency in  these cases because  no one was arrested  and brought                                                               
to court.   The reality  is that most of  these cases will  be ex                                                               
parte orders and the case will  not start with a six-month order.                                                               
He explained  that the court  starts with an ex  parte proceeding                                                               
and it makes  a finding based on probable cause  that a person is                                                               
dangerous  to  self or  others  by  possessing  a firearm.    The                                                               
Department of Public Safety's concern  is that, in those ex parte                                                               
circumstances, the peace  officers do not want to  have to return                                                               
48-hours later  because if the  situation is truly  an emergency,                                                               
they may  return to a very  high-risk situation in order  to make                                                               
certain  the firearms  were sold,  given to  an authorized  third                                                               
party,  or whatever  provisions were  listed  in the  order.   It                                                               
becomes  riskier for  the  public and  law  enforcement when  law                                                               
enforcement must  return a  second time when  the person  had not                                                               
complied  with the  order and  is waiting  for law  enforcement's                                                               
return, he  pointed out.   The Department of Public  Safety, when                                                               
serving an  ex parte order, prefers  to take the firearms  at the                                                               
time of service to prevent a  second trip, and during the service                                                               
of the order to give notice  to the respondent that their hearing                                                               
is in 10  days and the judge will decide  whether law enforcement                                                               
is to return the guns right back to the respondent.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
8:24:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to  Representative LeDoux's question as                                                               
to what guns must be  surrendered, referred to Version R, Section                                                               
7, Sec. 18.65.830(a), page 4, lines 2-5, which read as follows:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The  petition shall  describe  the  number, types,  and                                                                    
     locations  of  any  firearms or  ammunition  the  peace                                                                    
     officer  believes   are  owned  or  possessed   by  the                                                                    
     respondent and the basis for the petition.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  then  referred  to  Version  R,  Section  7,  Sec.                                                               
18.65.815(a)] page 6, lines 19-24, which read as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     the court  shall order the  respondent to  surrender to                                                                    
     the appropriate  law enforcement  agency, to sell  to a                                                                    
     firearms  dealer, or  to  deliver  to a  court-approved                                                                    
     third  party  all  firearms  and  ammunition  that  the                                                                    
     respondent possesses                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that the order would  require a surrender                                                               
of all  firearms, and that  the above  language is not  the issue                                                               
Amendment 2 addresses.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:25:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  requested   confirmation  that  ex  parte                                                               
orders can only be obtained by a peace officer.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  responded that both  ex parte orders  and contested                                                               
orders  can   only  be  obtained  by   law  enforcement,  private                                                               
individuals cannot apply.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:25:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  offered  a scenario  of  someone  posting                                                               
threatening  comments  and "nutsy  things"  on  Facebook and  the                                                               
person appears  dangerous.   Unless the  person has  itemized his                                                               
firearm  inventory on  Facebook, how  would law  enforcement know                                                               
which firearms are in the respondent's possession, she asked.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  answered that to  some extent, law  enforcement may                                                               
not  know and  it  may  be that  law  enforcement  uses its  best                                                               
efforts while serving  an ex parte order.  They  may not actually                                                               
collect every  firearm in the  person's possession, as it  is not                                                               
possible  to legislate  people  to  be honest.    Amendment 2  is                                                               
specifically  making  it clear  under  Sec.  18.65.830, that  the                                                               
procedures that  would occur  when law  enforcement serves  an ex                                                               
parte order and  what happens if the person does  not comply with                                                               
the officer's instructions.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:27:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  explained  that  as  to  the  gun  violence                                                               
protective orders  if the firearms  had not already  been seized,                                                               
based  on this  ex parte  finding, law  enforcement would  have a                                                               
search  warrant.   He referred  to [CSHB  75, Sec.  18.65.820(b)]                                                               
page 5, lines 18-23, which read as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  If  the peace  officers  has  not seized  the                                                                    
     firearms of  the respondent before  filing an  ex parte                                                                    
     gun violence  protective order under this  section, the                                                                    
     peace officer  shall also request  a search  warrant to                                                                    
     search for and seize any  firearms in the possession of                                                                    
     the respondent.  The court  shall grant the request for                                                                    
     a  search warrant  if the  judicial officer  determines                                                                    
     that  there  is  probable  cause to  believe  that  the                                                                    
     respondent is a dangerous  individual and in possession                                                                    
     of a firearm.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP pointed  out that  law enforcement  does not                                                               
want to  go into a  house without a  search warrant, and  it must                                                               
convince the court  that it actually believes  there are firearms                                                               
in the house  and a search warrant is necessary.   Also, he said,                                                               
prior  to  receiving the  search  warrant,  law enforcement  must                                                               
convince the  court that less  restrictive alternatives  had been                                                               
tried and were ineffective, on page 5, lines 4-5.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:29:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that it  is the  responsibility of                                                               
law enforcement  to confiscate firearms,  "the court  shall grant                                                               
the request  for a  search warrant" and  asked whether  there are                                                               
any  sidebars  on  that  language.     He  offered  that  if  law                                                               
enforcement obtains  this protective order and  requests a search                                                               
warrant,  normally it  would  be  up to  the  judge to  determine                                                               
whether the  request was  too vague and  that the  person's 1,000                                                               
acres could not be search, for  example.  Yet, this language read                                                               
that whatever the peace officer  writes down, basically the court                                                               
is supposed to approve the search warrant.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN disagreed  that  the court  is  simply supposed  to                                                               
approve the search warrant request,  he reiterated that the court                                                               
must  make specific  findings  that there  is  probable cause  to                                                               
believe the  person is  a dangerous  individual and  they possess                                                               
firearms.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to  Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins that these                                                               
functions are  far beyond  the scope of  Amendment 2  because the                                                               
amendment is limited to creating  clarity about what happens when                                                               
an officer serves a protective  order.  He reminded the committee                                                               
that the substance  of the orders had  been extensively discussed                                                               
in  prior  hearings  and  these   questions  do  not  pertain  to                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled that  Chair Claman's  point was                                                               
well taken.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:31:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN surmised  that  if the  firearms had  not                                                               
already  been confiscated,  they  could be  seized.   Except,  he                                                               
said,  that   appears  to  be  different   than  law  enforcement                                                               
proactively seizing  firearms when  someone is wearing  a firearm                                                               
on their  hip, for  instance.   In the event  the firearm  is not                                                               
visible, and law  enforcement serves the protective  order on the                                                               
respondent,  who  advises law  enforcement  that  he cannot  even                                                               
remember owning any firearms and  does not surrender any weapons,                                                               
what  is the  responsibility  of law  enforcement  at that  point                                                               
under Amendment 2.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  directed that  Representative Eastman  "is actually                                                               
pretty far afield  from the topic of  this particular amendment."                                                               
He  referred to  Sec. 18.65.830(a),  page 6,  lines 24-26,  which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     If  the respondent's  firearms  have  not already  been                                                                    
     seized, a peace  officer may seize any  firearms in the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace  officer  delivers an  ex  parte  protective                                                                    
     order issued under AS 18.65.820 to the respondent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reiterated that subsection (b)  talks about "within                                                               
48  hours"  and  the  law   enforcement  agencies  believed  this                                                               
language  was confusing  and requested  clarity.   Therefore,  in                                                               
Amendment  2, the  first five  lines are  basically creating  new                                                               
subsection  (a) which  is  based  on the  language  in that  last                                                               
sentence  of  the  existing  subsection  (a) in  the  bill.    It                                                               
clarifies  that if  the firearms  have not  yet been  seized, law                                                               
enforcement may  seize any firearms  in the  possession, custody,                                                               
or control of  the respondent when the ex  parte protective order                                                               
is served.   He  pointed out  that it gives  the peace  officer a                                                               
basis within  which to advise  the respondent to turn  over their                                                               
firearms, and  if the respondent  refuses, that would be  a basis                                                               
upon which to arrest the respondent.   The remainder of "what was                                                               
now  subsection   (a),  and  the   first  sentence   will  become                                                               
subsection  (b), and  that becomes  the circumstance  under which                                                               
they serve the order after a  contested hearing, there is not the                                                               
situation of  officer safety involved,"  he explained.   He added                                                               
that  this is  a  specific  situation where  a  peace officer  is                                                               
serving  an  order  consistent   with  what  Representative  Kopp                                                               
described  on subsection  (b), page  5, lines  18-23, [previously                                                               
typed], peace  officers will have  a search warrant to  seize any                                                               
firearms  in  the  possession  of   the  respondent.    This,  he                                                               
reiterated, is  to clarify that  the failure to comply  with that                                                               
order  gives the  peace officer  a basis  within which  to arrest                                                               
someone  for  non-compliance,  and  if  it is  not  an  ex  parte                                                               
situation then more time is allowed to surrender the firearms.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:35:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred  to Amendment 2, page  1, lines 3-5,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     a  peace   officer  may  seize  any   firearms  in  the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace officer  delivers  the  ex parte  protective                                                                    
     order to the respondent.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  pointed out  that  "may  seize" is  in  the                                                               
permissive  form rather  than "shall  seize,"  and the  provision                                                               
makes clear that there is  legal authority, should the context of                                                               
that  service indicate  that "seizure  of firearms  should occur"                                                               
based upon the service of an ex parte protective order.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:36:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to [CSHB 75,  Sec. 18.65.830(a),                                                               
page  6,] line  24, and  commented that  the 48-hour  language is                                                               
moot  because when  a peace  officer serves  notice on  a person,                                                               
they have 48  hours "to do what  they're going to do.   But we're                                                               
going  to bring  a search  warrant and  if they  don't turn  over                                                               
their guns, we're going to arrest that person."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to Amendment  2, page 1, lines  10-12, and                                                               
pointed out  that the section  applying to  48 hours is  under AS                                                               
18.65.815  the   contested  protective   orders,  and   under  AS                                                               
18.65.825 are modification  of the order.  He  explained that the                                                               
section with the 48 hours does  not apply to the ex parte orders,                                                               
which   as  amended,   would  only   apply  to   subsection  (a).                                                               
Subsection (a)  of this section  would relate to ex  parte orders                                                               
and subsection (b)  would relate to the contested  orders and the                                                               
modification  of the  orders  in  the 48  hours,  and what  would                                                               
become  subsection (c)  would only  relate to  the orders  issued                                                               
under the contested situation or modifications thereof.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  withdrew  his  objection  to  the                                                               
motion to adopt Amendment 2.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   objected  to   the  motion   to  adopt                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:38:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  referred to Amendment 2,  [page 1, lines                                                               
2-5], and she paraphrased as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          When  a  court  issues  an  ex  parte,  so  that's                                                                    
     without  due  process  for the  people  listening,  gun                                                                    
     violence  protective order  under AS  18.65.820 if  the                                                                    
     respondent's firearms  have not  already been  seized a                                                                    
     peace officer may seize any  firearm in the possession,                                                                    
     custody, or  control of the  respondent when  the peace                                                                    
     officer delivers  the ex parte protective  order to the                                                                    
     respondent.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  paraphrased the language "if  it has not                                                               
already" and  asked when the  opportunity to  confiscate happened                                                               
in the  first place  because it  sounds as  though there  are two                                                               
different opportunities to confiscate.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  commented  that   he  thought  the  committee  was                                                               
debating Amendment 2,  and referred to [CSHB 75, Sec.  3] page 2,                                                               
lines 17-21,  which provides  that when a  peace officer  faces a                                                               
dangerous individual  and believes  there is an  immediate danger                                                               
that requires  immediate action,  they have authority  both under                                                               
this statute and under existing  common law, to seize the weapons                                                               
and prevent a  dangerous situation from becoming  a problem where                                                               
someone is  severely injured  or killed.   He explained  that the                                                               
bill  provides  that  when  an  officer  performs  a  warrantless                                                               
seizure  such as  this, then  the officer  has a  duty within  72                                                               
hours to actually  file the paperwork to explain  the reasons for                                                               
the warrantless seizure, which is a  way of providing more for an                                                               
individual  who has  their firearms  than they  would have  today                                                               
under  existing  authority  to  seize weapons  in  a  variety  of                                                               
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:40:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  argued that  it read "seize  any firearm                                                               
in  the possession,  custody, or  control" and  asked whether  it                                                               
could mean  a parent's house,  at work, a  cabin, a house  in the                                                               
Lower-48.   She described the  language as broad because  if they                                                               
are  already seizing  firearms without  due process  under an  ex                                                               
parte  order, she  paraphrased  "now it  says  anything in  their                                                               
possession,  custody,  or  control"  whether it  allows  a  peace                                                               
officer to go anyplace this person owns.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reiterated to Vice Chair  Kreiss-Tomkins that these                                                               
questions are well  beyond the scope of Amendment 2.   (Indisc. -                                                               
Representative Reinbold speaking over  Chair Claman) referring to                                                               
subsection  (b) on  page 5,  [lines 18-23]  regarding the  search                                                               
warrant the peace officer would  offer for the search and seizure                                                               
of  any  firearms  in  the  possession of  the  respondent.    He                                                               
reiterated that it  is well established under  search and seizure                                                               
law that  the warrant  would have  to identify  the places  to be                                                               
searched and  the items to be  seized, and it would  not give any                                                               
peace officer broad authority to  wander the streets and look for                                                               
anything  anywhere  because  they  would  actually  have  a  very                                                               
specific place.   A  warrant that didn't  provide that  degree of                                                               
specification would  be subject to a  significant court challenge                                                               
and he  could not imagine  any judge in  this state or  any other                                                               
state  that would  issue  such  a warrant.    As to  out-of-state                                                               
properties, the jurisdiction of this  state court does not extend                                                               
to other states, he further explained.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:41:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   surmised  that  if  the   peace  officer                                                               
recognizes  that  there is  a  dangerous  individual, that  peace                                                               
officer can,  without the  judge giving the  peace officer  to do                                                               
so, seize the firearm.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that Representative LeDoux was  correct as it                                                               
has previously  been discussed,  and that  action can  take place                                                               
under a variety of circumstances.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX surmised  that the  peace officer  goes to                                                               
the court after seizing the firearm.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that the peace officer goes  to the court                                                               
afterwards,  but in  terms of  Amendment 2,  it is  regarding the                                                               
situation when the firearms have  not already been seized.  There                                                               
is  a gun  violence protective  order  and this  gives the  peace                                                               
officer  the authority  to seize  the  firearms if  they had  not                                                               
already been seized.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:43:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how  Amendment 2 changes the language                                                               
that is "on page 6 already?"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that the  difference between  Amendment 2                                                               
and the language  on page 6 is not changing  the substance, it is                                                               
clarifying the  language.  He  reiterated that the  Department of                                                               
Public Safety (DPS) was concerned that  the way it was drafted on                                                               
page 6,  and the placement  of the second sentence  of subsection                                                               
(a) on page  6 in the same  paragraph "as the portions  in sub --                                                               
the first para -- sentence of subsection (a)."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred Representative LeDoux  to page 6 [lines 24-                                                               
27], and the second sentence, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     If  the respondent's  firearms  have  not already  been                                                                    
     seized, a peace  officer may seize any  firearms in the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace  officer  delivers an  ex  parte  protective                                                                    
     order issued under AS 18.65.820 to the respondent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that this is the ex  parte provision, and                                                               
when comparing that  language to what will  become subsection (a)                                                               
on Amendment 2,  that becomes subsection (a) and  that relates to                                                               
what happens  when peace officers serve  an ex parte order.   The                                                               
DPS indicated that by combining  the first sentence of subsection                                                               
(a) on page 6, which  merged in together AS 18.65.815, 18.65.820,                                                               
and 18.65.825 in one sentence,  DPS believed that the combination                                                               
was confusing and  raised issues as to whether or  not they could                                                               
immediately  seize  the  firearms.     At  the  request  of  DPS,                                                               
Amendment 2  is simply intended  to clarify the language  that is                                                               
already in CSHB  75, page 6, so law enforcement  is not confused,                                                               
and  the person  reading the  statute  after it  is amended  will                                                               
understand  the sequence,  he reiterated,  and  this is  changing                                                               
nothing of the substance of the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:44:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  suggested  that law  enforcement  is  not                                                               
confused, but she is confused.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:45:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  summarized   that  for  purposes  of                                                               
clarity, Amendment 2 takes the  second sentence [CSHB 75, page 6,                                                               
lines 24-27]  of the current  section AS 18.65.830(a)  and breaks                                                               
it off as its own subsection.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:45:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  clarified that  this is a  complicated legal                                                               
process  for  lay  legislators  who do  not  normally  deal  with                                                               
domestic violence protective orders and  how they are tiered, and                                                               
questions  should be  expected.   In  response to  Representative                                                               
Reinbold's  question about  warrantless seizure  of firearms,  he                                                               
offered a classic example as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     You  get a  call 11:00,  12:00  at night,  1:00 in  the                                                                    
     morning from  a concerned family member  that says, 'My                                                                    
     adult son  is very  depressed, hasn't  come out  of his                                                                    
     room,  he's talking  about killing  himself.   Can  you                                                                    
     come  help  talk  to him?'    This  happens  regularly,                                                                    
     situations like  this.   So, you show  up at  the house                                                                    
     and you knock on the door  and, you know, 'Police.  I'm                                                                    
     here cause your  mom called or your dad  called.'  And,                                                                    
     they may not answer the  door so you're talking through                                                                    
     a closed  door hoping  they are  not armed,  and hoping                                                                    
     they are  not mad that  you're there.   And, you  get a                                                                    
     dialogue  going,  'Are  you going  to  hurt  yourself?'                                                                    
     'Well,  I'm  think about  it.'  'Do  you have  a  gun?'                                                                    
     'Yes.' And,  after a  dialogue, you --  the goal  is to                                                                    
     talk them not into hurting  themselves or you, and that                                                                    
     you  talk him  into  turning over  the  gun that  night                                                                    
     until they feel  better the next day.   And, that would                                                                    
     be  a  warrantless  seizure.   And,  that's  a  classic                                                                    
     example of how  law enforcement goes home.   Right now,                                                                    
     there  is no  process for  that person  to get  the gun                                                                    
     back  unless  -- the  officer  is  required to  make  a                                                                    
     report of  it right away  because he is dealing  with a                                                                    
     mental  health  situation and  that  would  have to  be                                                                    
     logged  into evidence  and all  that.   But, right  now                                                                    
     there is  no process other  than maybe the D.A.  or the                                                                    
     police chief saying the person  is probably fine to get                                                                    
     their gun back.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:47:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP described that  this bill actually reads that                                                               
within  72  hours the  peace  officer  must have  prepared  their                                                               
affidavit to the court, and the  court has to rule on whether the                                                               
peace officer  was correct to  remove the  firearm or to  give it                                                               
back.  Currently, while it  does happen that law enforcement will                                                               
take  guns  for  safekeeping,  under  those  circumstances  where                                                               
people are  at risk  to harm  themselves, there  really is  not a                                                               
process in  the law  for helping the  gun owner  actually receive                                                               
their firearm  back again,  and for  judicial oversight  in those                                                               
situations.    He explained  that  that  is  in response  to  the                                                               
warrantless situation.   As to the ex parte  protective order, he                                                               
offered a  scenario of a  peace officer  receiving a call  that a                                                               
someone's son  is going  to "shoot up  the neighbor's  house" and                                                               
they are concerned.  For  various reasons, the peace officer goes                                                               
to the courthouse  and advises the judge that  they just received                                                               
this call and they provide  a statement from the mother, requests                                                               
an  ex parte  protective order  and a  search warrant  to try  to                                                               
prevent this  person from shooting  up the neighbor's  house, the                                                               
mother advised  that her son owns  a .22 long rifle,  he has made                                                               
these threats before,  and she believes he is  serious this time.                                                               
The  judge  agrees and  issues  the  ex  parte order  and  search                                                               
warrant, the  peace officer serves  the documents on the  son and                                                               
advises the son that  in 10 days he would have  a hearing on this                                                               
issue, and the judge will  determine whether the firearm would be                                                               
returned.  That  standard is clear and convincing  evidence as to                                                               
whether  it should  be  retained,  if the  judge  decides at  the                                                               
hearing that  the son is  still a danger, the  case will go  to a                                                               
six-month protective order  or the court can  terminate the order                                                               
earlier  if it  so  chooses on  petition of  the  officer or  the                                                               
respondent and the request for hearing is filed, he explained.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:50:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS determined  that because Amendment 2 is                                                               
simply re-ordering sentences in the  bill and its scope is fairly                                                               
limited, he moved to committee discussion.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:51:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  the substance of Amendment                                                               
2 is  on page 1,  lines 11-12, "we're  making a switch,  which is                                                               
page 6, line 20 of the bill, and  we are pulling out the ex parte                                                               
from  that, and  that is  a  substantive change.   It  not a  re-                                                               
ordering or  rephrasing.  We're  making it clear for  purposes of                                                               
the bill that the ex parte  protective order is not going to fall                                                               
under this same provision here on line 20."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:52:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  before she makes her wrap                                                               
up  comments,   she  would  talk  about   the  Second  Amendment,                                                               
regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  advised Representative  Reinbold that                                                               
he had not  yet recognized her, and the committee  members have a                                                               
two-minute timeline for Amendment 2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:52:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  and Representative Reinbold discussed                                                               
the scope of Amendment 2.]                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that  "it read that  the right                                                               
of the people  to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed, and                                                               
legislators swore to  uphold and defend the  constitution, as you                                                               
did."  (Indisc.) so when  reviewing the other amendments, "you're                                                               
not allowed  to do  this."   She remarked  that the  committee is                                                               
rushing something  that is in  complete violation, "if  you swore                                                               
to uphold  and defend the constitution."   She said that  she did                                                               
not know  what it says,  it says to  seize any (indisc.)  know if                                                               
that  means  "your  office,  I  don't know  if  that  means  your                                                               
mother's house,  I don't know what  it means when you  can search                                                               
and seize  warrantlessly as  long as it  is in  their possession,                                                               
custody, or  control."  She  described "this" as  extremely broad                                                               
and it is wrong to rush  something that is critical to what holds                                                               
this nation together.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP noted  that  he  agrees with  Representative                                                               
Reinbold's words  of caution in protecting  the Second Amendment,                                                               
but this is  not about warrantless searches.   This discussion is                                                               
about warrantless  seizures and  those can  only take  place when                                                               
the  nature of  the  circumstance demands  an immediate  response                                                               
based on the danger the  peace officer immediately observes, such                                                               
as  the  circumstance of  someone  saying  they are  thinking  of                                                               
killing themselves and  are holding a gun, and  the peace officer                                                               
is able  to talk them  out of  killing themselves and  allows the                                                               
peace officer  to seize the  gun.  He  stressed that this  is not                                                               
about a  warrantless search, a  search always requires  a warrant                                                               
and if  making a search  without a  warrant, the courts  frown on                                                               
that action.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:56:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    LEDOUX    related    that    she    understands                                                               
Representative  Reinbold's point  of  view and  concurs with  her                                                               
comments regarding the Second Amendment.   Except, she expressed,                                                               
even if  the committee does  not adopt  Amendment 2, the  bill in                                                               
itself uses the phrase "possession,  custody, or control" and she                                                               
will probably vote  in favor of the amendment, but  she still has                                                               
some concerns  about the bill with  or without Amendment 2.   She                                                               
offered understanding as to the concerns of the DPS officers.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD maintained her objection.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS and Representative  Eastman discussed                                                               
the fact that he had previously offered his comments.]                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:57:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  declared a  point of  order.   She said,                                                               
there are two  points of order, "it says, when  you rush there is                                                               
often unfairness, and two, you  have to have equality for members                                                               
and he's being denied.   He had a point of  clarity which is much                                                               
different than discussion."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled  that he  opened the  committee                                                               
discussion by  offering each member  two minutes of  comments and                                                               
Representative  Eastman was  recognized first,  before any  other                                                               
member.  In the spirit  of equality, he will offer Representative                                                               
Claman  two minutes  to speak  to any  questions raised  by other                                                               
members.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:58:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN declared  a point of order.   He said that                                                               
his hand  had been raised for  quite some time and  he was passed                                                               
over several  times before  Vice Chair  Kreiss-Tomkins determined                                                               
that his next  statement would be his two-minute  wrap-up, and he                                                               
thought that was inappropriate.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS ruled, "Noted."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:58:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN,  in response  to Representative  Eastman's comments                                                               
and questions about clarity,  advised that Representative Eastman                                                               
was actually  mistaken when reading  the amendment and  the bill.                                                               
The bill does  not remove the ex parte  provisions, the amendment                                                               
on lines 10-12 simply removes the  second sentence of the bill in                                                               
subsection (a)  and makes it  a separate subsection.   Therefore,                                                               
the  ex parte  provisions  are  retained and  put  in a  separate                                                               
subsection, and  then subsection  (b) addresses the  non-ex parte                                                               
situation.   The whole purpose  of Amendment  2 is not  to debate                                                               
the merits  of ex parte orders,  but rather to make  the language                                                               
of  the bill  clear and  more easily  understood so  there is  no                                                               
confusion.  He stressed that it  does not change the substance of                                                               
the language at all, and  he commented that Representative LeDoux                                                               
was "right  on target,"  the question for  this amendment  is not                                                               
whether a member  supports the bill, the question  one should ask                                                               
is whether  this amendment, by  changing the language on  page 6,                                                               
beginning line 19, offers a  clarity for peace officers and court                                                               
officers.  Chair Claman opined that  it does.  For those reasons,                                                               
he urged the committee to vote in favor of Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN, in  response to  Representative Reinbold,  advised                                                               
that he agrees  with her comments about being  very careful about                                                               
protecting Second Amendment rights, but  he never heard her ask a                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:00:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD declared a point  of order.  She referred                                                               
to "Section  85 says that we  have the fundamental right  to know                                                               
the intended  and unintended consequences  before we vote."   She                                                               
asked whether the intention is  that peace officers do not search                                                               
lodges, businesses,  homes, and so  forth, that it is  only where                                                               
that person resides at that time.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled  that Chair  Claman made  clear                                                               
what he  sees as  the intended consequences  of Amendment  2, and                                                               
the committee would proceed to a vote.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:00:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken.   Representatives  Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
Kopp, Stutes, LeDoux,  and Claman voted in favor  of the adoption                                                               
of  Amendment  2.   Representatives  Reinbold  and Eastman  voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by  a vote of 5-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:01:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[HB 75 was held over.]                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB351 ver N 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Sponsor Statement 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Explanation of Changes 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Sectional Analysis 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Supporting Document-Letter from DJJ 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Additional Document-DJJ Responses to HSS Committee Questions 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HJR38 ver J 4.6.18.PDF HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Sponsor Statement 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Reference Documents with Index 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Supporting Document-Letters & Public Comment 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Supporting Document-Alaska Snowmobile Club Letter 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-Letters 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-Petro Star Inc. Letter 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-ARRC Memo - Re ROW Ownership and Exclusivity 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 PowerPoint Presentation 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HB075 Amendments #1-7 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75