ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-ninth Legislature – First Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 -- 9:00 a.m.
Chairman Driggs called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mrs. Barto |
Mr. Montenegro |
Mr. Ash, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Konopnicki |
Ms. Sinema |
Mr. Driggs, Chairman |
|
Mr. Miranda B |
Mrs. Tovar |
|
|
None |
|
|
HB2063 – DPA S/E (8-0-0-0) HB2331 – DPA (4-3-0-1)
HB2066 – DP (8-0-0-0) HB2449 – DPA S/E (8-0-0-0)
HB2148 – DPA (8-0-0-0) HB2474 – DP (6-2-0-0)
HB2172 – DPA (6-1-0-1) HB2532 – DPA (8-0-0-0)
HB2212 – HELD HB2533 – DP (4-3-0-1)
HB2245 – DPA S/E (7-0-0-1) HB2567 – DP (6-2-0-0)
HB2313 – DPA S/E (8-0-0-0) HB2582 - HELD
HB2318 – DPA S/E (7-0-0-1) HB2603 - HELD
HB2320 – DPA S/E (8-0-0-0) HB2612 – DP (7-0-0-1)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS:
HB2582 – franchise agreements; right to renew – HELD
HB2212 – residency restrictions; criminal convictions – HELD
HB2603 – clean elections; amendments - HELD
Chairman Driggs announced that HB2582, HB2212 and HB2603 will be held.
HB2245 – school bond elections; canvass – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2245 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved the Driggs three-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
James Baumann, Majority Leadership Intern, explained that the strike-everything amendment (Attachment 1) transfers the authority to appoint members of the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission (AHAC) from the Director of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records (ASLAPR) to the Board of ASLAPR (Attachment 2). The bill increases the number of members on the Commission and instructs the Board to appoint a chairman and determine the chairman’s compensation.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs three-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2245 as amended do pass.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2245 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
John Driggs, Commissioner, representing self
Mr. Miranda said he thinks it would be wise to put a specific figure on the Director’s compensation. Chairman Driggs concurred. He invited Mr. Miranda to work with him on setting the compensation.
Question was called on the motion that HB2245 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-1 (Attachment 3).
HB2318 - capital cases; aggravating factors – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2318 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs five-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 4) be adopted.
Stacy Weltsch, Majority Research Analyst for the Banking and Insurance Committee, explained the provisions of the strike-everything amendment (Attachment 5):
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs five-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 4) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2318 as amended do pass.
Mark Harris, representing self, in support of the strike-everything amendment, testified that his current license with the state is a banking license; however, he is currently operating as a broker. This proposal will give the Superintendent the discretion to convert mortgage bankers to mortgage broker status and will allow him to downgrade his license from a banker to a broker.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2318 but did not speak:
Greg Stanton, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, Arizona Attorney General
John Thomas, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2318 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2318 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Spencer Kamps, Deputy Director, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Ms. Sinema queried why the Department is neutral on the bill and asked whether DFI has any concerns with this legislation.
Kenneth Scruggs, Deputy Superintendent, Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, advised that the Department is neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2318 because it just became aware of the bill recently and has not had an opportunity to look at it. He related that it is more difficult to be a mortgage banker than it is to be a mortgage broker and with the current economic situation, it makes more sense to be a mortgage broker. He pointed out that the Department is currently under a rules moratorium and it would be wise to decide what rules are being put in the bill before this gets through the entire process.
Ms. Sinema asked whether the Department sees any major concerns or problems with the legislation. Mr. Scruggs replied that he does not see any problems so far.
Chairman Driggs noted that the conversion of the license would be at the discretion of the Superintendent.
Question was called on the motion that HB2318 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-1 (Attachment 6).
HB2066 - incest; classification – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2066 do pass.
Robert Stout, Majority Intern, stated that HB2066 establishes additional criminal penalties for incest offenses involving minors (Attachment 7). Under current statute, the crime of incest applies only to persons 18 years of age or older.
Representative David Lujan, sponsor, advised that he has been working with the Arizona Attorney General (AG) to address the polygamous situation in Colorado City. This bill takes the approach of not prosecuting the act of polygamy itself but going after the abuses that occur within those polygamous communities, whether it be child abuse or fraud. Current law only applies when incest occurs between two adults; it does not apply if the victim is under the age of 18. This bill attempts to correct that situation if the incest victim is under 18 years of age.
Mrs. Barto noted that there are other laws that do apply, and she asked whether this legislation will enhance the opportunity to convict. Representative Lujan responded that while there are other laws that could apply in these situations, it is desirable to have a statute that deals specifically with incest because of the unique nature of this type of crime. He contended that it will help prosecutors have an additional tool to go after the abusers in these situations.
Vice-Chairman Ash queried whether it is the policy of the Attorney General not to prosecute polygamy charges in that community. Representative Lujan deferred to the AG’s Office to answer that. He commented that Attorney General Terry Goddard has been a leader in the country dealing with abuses that have occurred in the polygamous communities and has had a lot of success with gaining the trust of abused victims to come forward.
Greg Stanton, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, spoke in support of HB2066. He advised that it is the policy of the AG’s Office to aggressively enforce the laws of the State of Arizona. He advised that the law on incest, as currently drafted, is difficult to prosecute. Having an incest law that deals only with adults puts the AG’s Office at a prosecutorial disadvantage. For that reason, the AG’s Office strongly supports this legislation.
Tim Linnins, Attorney General’s Office, in support of HB2066, advised that current statute only applies to adults; however, there is a gap in law for dealing with incest victims who are older than 14 but younger than 18 years of age. In reply to Mrs. Barto’s question, he related there is an existing law that addresses sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor between the ages of 15 to 17 years of age; but the problem is that would be a charge of sexual conduct with a minor and the perpetrator is only guilty of a Class 6 felony.
A handout was distributed on HB2066 (Attachment 8).
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2066 but did not speak:
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
John Thomas, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Matthew Smith, Mohave County Attorney, Mohave County Attorney's Office
Paul Ahler, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Stephanie Mayer, Systems Advocate, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Question was called on the motion that HB2066 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 9).
HB2148 - human trafficking; violation – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2148 do pass.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, stated that HB2148 criminalizes the trafficking of an adult with the knowledge that the trafficked adult will engage in any commercial sex act or sexually-explicit performance by coercion, deception or force (Attachment 10). It also criminalizes the knowledge of trafficking of a minor if the minor engages in any commercial sex act or sexually-explicit performance.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs 12-line amendment dated 3/4/09 (Attachment 11) be adopted.
Ms. Stoddard explained that the 12-line amendment (Attachment 11) places back into statute the word “prostitution” rather than “commercial sex act”. It also defines “sexually-explicit performance” and removes the requirement that the minor be trafficked by coercion, deception or force.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs 12-line amendment dated 3/4/09 (Attachment 11) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2148 as amended do pass.
Ms. Sinema, sponsor, advised that the trade of sex trafficking and human trafficking has been increasing exponentially over the past several years. This legislation gives law enforcement more tools to crack down on individuals who profit from the trade. It expands sex trafficking to include women who are forced to engage in sexually-explicit performances and expands the definitions of sex trafficking, coercion and forced labor.
Greg Stanton, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, expressed support of HB2148. He related that girls, particularly young girls, often start out with exotic dancing, become desensitized to taking their clothes off in public and end up in prostitution.
Kate Royal, representing self, in support of HB2148, testified that exotic dancing is oftentimes a gateway to prostitution.
A handout was distributed on HB2148 (Attachment 12).
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2148 but did not speak:
Rob Dalager, City of Phoenix Police Department
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
John Thomas, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Paul Ahler, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Stephanie Mayer, Systems Advocate, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2148 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, Volunteer, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2148 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 13).
HB2313 - process servers; criminal liability – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2313 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs eight-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 14) be adopted.
Robert Stout, Majority Intern, explained that the strike-everything amendment adds private process servers performing official duties to the list of persons against whom assault is classified as aggravated assault (Attachment 15). Additionally, it specifies that private process servers are subject to the same rights and privileges afforded to sheriffs and constables while in the execution of duties pertaining to the service of process.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs eight-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 14) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2313 as amended do pass.
John Moody, Attorney, Arizona Process Servers Association, testified in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2313. He said that private process servers are authorized under statute to serve all court papers and other documents required and permitted to be served by a sheriff and constable. He advised that the purpose of this legislation is to clarify and codify that private process servers have the same privileges and protections as sheriffs and constables for performing identical duties. The bill is not intended to expand those duties or authority. Some concerns had been raised about the underlying bill and the strike-everything amendment attempts to alleviate those concerns. He said he feels confident that concerns can be worked out before this legislation goes to the Floor.
Chairman Driggs expressed agreement that changes can be made to address those concerns.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2313 but did not speak:
Vince Roberts, Arizona Constables Association
Bob Cox, Pima County Constables
Frank Fontes, Constable, representing self
Jim Driscoll, Constable, representing self
David Lester, Constable, representing self
Mary Dorgan, Constable, representing self
Phil Hazlett, Constable, Arizona Constables Association
Jeff Evert, Arizona Process Servers Association
Rich Robertson, Private Investigator, Arizona Association of Licensed Private Investigators
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2313 but did not speak:
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc.
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Lyle Mann, Deputy Director, Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2313 but did not speak:
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc.
Question was called on the motion that HB2313 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 16).
HB2320 - competency; duration of order – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2320 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs 29-line strike-everything amendment dated 2/27/09 (Attachment 17) be adopted.
James Baumnn, Majority Leadership Intern, stated that the strike-everything amendment adds the funding of studies, reports, tests, analyses or other fact-finding investigations to the list of administrative functions for which public entities are not liable (Attachment 18). The bill includes the delaying of public action for the results of studies, reports, tests, analyses and other fact-finding investigations to the list of fundamental governmental policy decisions.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs 29-line strike-everything amendment dated 2/27/09 (Attachment 17) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2320 as amended do pass.
Dale Wiebusch, Legislative Associate, League of Arizona Cities and Towns, expressed support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2320. He advised that this proposal came from the League’s municipal risk management attorneys, arising from a situation that occurred in Lake Havasu. He introduced Rebecca Lumley, an attorney from the firm that handles these issues.
Rebecca Lumley, Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool, in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2320, advised that in 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals handed down an opinion which limited the concept of judicial immunity. In order to be protected by governmental immunity, a governing body would have to affirmatively act or affirmatively decide not to act. She said it is important to allow government the opportunity to conduct fact-finding studies prior to acting without losing governmental immunity in order to determine the best way to act to protect their constituents.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2320 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2320 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 19).
HB2449 - mandatory fingerprinting; central state repository – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2449 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs 20-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 20) be adopted.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of the strike-everything amendment (Attachment 21):
· Prohibits a person arrested for a felony, domestic violence, sexual or Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offense from being released until that person provides a right index fingerprint to the arresting agency.
· Requires that the arresting agency provide to the arrested person a mandatory fingerprint compliance form that includes instructions on reporting for ten-print fingerprinting.
· Requires the arresting authority or booking agency to obtain a process control number and provide to the person fingerprinted a document that indicates proof of the fingerprinting and informs the person that the document must be presented to the court.
· Contains a delayed enactment date of January 1, 2010.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs 20-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 20) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2449 as amended do pass.
Mary Marshall, Public Information Officer/Legislative Liaison, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC), in support of HB2449, testified that ACJC has been working on criminal history record improvements for almost 20 years. This legislation attempts to fill a gap in criminal histories being generated. A criminal history record begins with fingerprinting; however, when a defendant is cited and released there is no mechanism in place to require the defendant to report for fingerprinting in many jurisdictions. In DUI and domestic violence cases, multiple offenses affect charging and sentencing. If prosecutors and the courts do not have access to prior offenses because there is no criminal history for previous arrests and convictions, it can affect how the defendant is charged, prosecuted and sentenced. She noted the importance of the criminal history records which are used for fingerprint clearance cards for teachers, school bus drivers, caregivers of the elderly, and other vulnerable populations.
A handout was distributed on HB2449 (Attachment 22).
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2449 but did not speak:
John Thomas, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Paul Ahler, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Rebecca Baker, Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Jen Sweeney, Government Affairs Director, Arizona Sheriffs Association
Tina Lawson, Lieutenant, Coconino County Sheriff
John Neeley, Identification Superintendent, Tucson Police Department
Rick Hovden, Police Lieutenant, Tucson Police Dept
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2449 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, Volunteer, representing self
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2449 but did not speak:
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts
Question was called on the motion that HB2449 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 23).
HB2474 - firearms; storage; motor vehicles – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2474 do pass.
Dan Plumoff, Majority Assistant Research Analyst for the Appropriations Committee, advised that HB2474 prevents property owners, tenants, employers and businesses from prohibiting the storage or transport of lawfully possessed firearms in locked and privately-owned vehicles parked in a parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area (Attachment 24). Additionally, the bill exempts property owners, tenants, public or private employers, business entities and their employees or agents from civil liability for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a legally-owned firearm that is transported or stored within a locked and privately-owned vehicle.
Representative John Kavanagh, sponsor, related that this bill is being promoted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) across the country. He said it strikes a balance between the rights of property owners to restrict weapons in their place of employment and the rights of citizens to possess weapons and keep them locked in their cars. There is also a provision in the bill that stipulates that the owner of the parking lot can request that the weapon be hidden. He said this allows the employees to exercise their Second Amendment right to posses a weapon and their natural right to self-defense when they drive from their home to their place of employment. It strikes a balance between Second Amendment rights and private property rights, as well as relieving the parking lot owner of any civil liability that might occur from the weapon being in the lot. He added that this law was challenged and was thrown out by the 10th Circuit Court at the federal level in terms of it violating Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the rights of employees, so he stated that it is a legal reasonable law at the circuit court level.
Todd Rathner, Legislative Consultant, National Rifle Association (NRA), expressed support of HB2474. He advised that similar legislation has been passed in a number of states around the country. The issue is that numerous employers around the country have policies restricting firearms on their property under any circumstances, including privately-owned vehicles of individuals. That restriction affects thousands of gun owners around the state by depriving them of their right to carry a weapon. He stated that it is not the employer’s business if a firearm is locked in the employee’s vehicle. He distributed a handout on e-mails received by the NRA (Attachment 25).
Gary Christensen, Arizona State Rifle & Pistol Association, testified in support of HB2474. He related a story of a friend who did not carry a weapon in his car although he did have a carry concealed weapon (CCW) permit because his employer had banned weapons from being on the employer’s property. He opined that restricting weapons from being on property has an overreaching and detrimental effect on the success of the CCW program by discouraging people or making them feel like they are participating in criminal behavior. He urged Members to vote for this legislation.
Chadwick Jones, representing self, spoke in support of HB2474. He advised that he is a CCW holder but cannot carry his firearm to work. He works at night but if needed, cannot defend himself because he does not have his weapon with him on the drive home. He said he supports this bill and asked Members for their support.
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Manufacturers Council, testified in opposition to HB2474. He said the Council believes the balance should be on private property rights. Property owners should have the right to keep their property in the manner they see fit. They have an obligation to their employees to keep them safe. Property owners are held liable when employees are injured in the workplace so they have a vested interest in that balance. He noted that in this economic downturn with record layoffs, there are real concerns about employee violence, so it makes sense to have the ability to ban weapons on the property to protect employees and to keep the workplace safe. He pointed out several issues that need to be addressed: the bill does not contain a notice provision, a uniform policy across the state is costly in these economic times and technical issues need to be looked at. He answered questions that were raised about the liability issue, guard gates checking vehicles and why private property rights should trump Second Amendment rights.
Ms. Sinema brought up the new
ruling in the 9th Circuit Court that addresses this issue.
Mr. Osborn replied that is unsettled law.
Mr. Montenegro referred to the statement made about an unsafe environment by locking a weapon in a vehicle. He said he does not see the validity of the argument.
Mr. Miranda asked whether the sponsor has been made aware of the concerns that were raised. Mr. Osborn replied in the negative, and said he would appreciate the opportunity to do so.
In reply to Mr. Miranda’s question about the liability issue, Mr. Osborn noted that experts will be needed to work out that issue. As currently drafted, the language is problematic.
Mr. Miranda asked whether employers have taken an official position against this legislation. Mr. Osborn advised that trade association members have expressed opposition.
Mr. Miranda expressed concern about denying CCW holders the right to carry a weapon to work and to lock the weapon in their vehicle. Mr. Osborn contended that employers should have the right to control the workplace because it is their property.
Vice-Chairman Ash queried the number of clients that inspect vehicles as they come in the parking lot. Mr. Osborn stated that defense contractors aggressively follow security measures to protect their facility; however, he does not have numbers. Vice-Chairman Ash commented that it seems to him that unless they are actually checking the vehicles, it is a hollow argument.
Representative Kavanagh advised that he is willing to work with the stakeholders on the liability issue. He again stated that this bill is a reasonable compromise.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2474 but did not speak:
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc.
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc.
Joseph Husband, Past President, Arizona Airports Association, representing self
Ronald Myers, Constable, Peoria Justice Precinct, representing self
Vince Roberts, representing self
David Lester, Constable, representing self
Jim Driscoll, Constable, representing self
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2474 but did not speak:
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Janice Goldstein, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
Stephanie Mayer, Systems Advocate, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Charles Bassett, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
Tom Dorn, Lobbyist, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Michael Preston Green, Attorney, The Boeing Company
Janna Day, Lobbyist, BNSF Railway Company
Rob Dalager, City of Phoenix Police Department
Question was called on the motion that HB2474 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-2-0-0 (Attachment 26).
HB2532 - prohibited possessors; persistently, acutely disabled – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2532 do pass.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2532 extends certain restrictions which apply to persons that are a danger to self or others to additionally apply to persons that are persistently or acutely disabled, and establishes a process by which such persons may request to have their right to possess a firearm restored (Attachment 27).
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Ash six-line amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 28) be adopted.
Ms. Stoddard stated that the six-line amendment (Attachment 28) clarifies that a finding that a person no longer suffers from the mental disorder only restores the person’s right to possess a firearm and does not apply to and has no effect on any of the other rights or benefits the person receives.
Question was called on the motion that the Ash six-line amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 28) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2532 as amended do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash, sponsor, advised that he sponsored this legislation at the request of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office, in favor of HB2532, advised that the bill addresses an extensive gap in the prohibited possessor law in relation to individuals who have been committed for mental health treatment. It is currently unlawful for an individual who has been found to be a danger to others or self to have a firearm, and that provision is good only as long as the person remains in court-ordered treatment, usually for one year. After that year, gun rights are restored. This legislation is directed towards those individuals who have been found to be persistently or acutely disabled and adds them to the list of prohibited possessors. The bill does not seek to take away a person’s right to possess a firearm, so the bill provides that the court could restore the right to have a weapon if the individual is found to not be a danger to self or others.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2532 but did not speak:
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
John Thomas, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Paul Ahler, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
Mary Marshall, Public Information Officer/Legislative Liaison, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2532 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2532 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 29).
HB2567 - felony convictions; mandatory fine – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2567 do pass.
Robert Stout, Majority Intern, stated that HB2567 specifies that any person convicted of a felony must be sentenced to pay a fine of at least $500 in addition to any other penalty provided by law (Attachment 30).
Chairman Driggs, sponsor, related that not all felonies have mandatory fines. He said it takes a lot of effort and resources to get criminal convictions. This legislation imposes a mandatory fine for criminal convictions.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2567 but did not speak:
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2567 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, Volunteer, representing self
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2567 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-2-0-0 (Attachment 31).
HB2063 - recoverable jury costs – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2063 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Konopnicki two-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 32) be adopted.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, stated that the strike-everything amendment requires registered level three sex offenders be placed on global position system (GPS) or electronic monitoring if serving a term of probation and stipulates that any other persons serving a term of probation are not precluded from being subject to GPS or electronic monitoring (Attachment 33).
Question was called on the motion that the Konopnicki two-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/3/09 (Attachment 32) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2063 as amended do pass.
Mr. Konopnicki, sponsor, advised that the bill is self-explanatory. He said he is available to answer any questions.
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2063, related that the bill originated from the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. The requirement for mandatory GPS monitoring of all probationers convicted of a dangerous crime against children was enacted in 2006 and targeted sex offenders; however, it also covered those convicted of dangerous crimes against children who are not sex offenders. He stated that GPS is a valuable tool; however, it is not inexpensive. The money comes from the fees collected and placed in the Probation Fund. He said that the probation experts need to retain the GPS requirement as well as the best mechanisms to manage sex offenders in order to deal with public safety.
Kathy Waters, Division Director, Adult Probation Services, Administrative Office of the Courts, spoke in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2063. She advised that the 2006 law made it mandatory for all persons convicted of dangerous crimes against children to be on GPS monitoring for the duration of their probation. The majority of these probationers are on lifetime probation. The Probation Department uses a lot of different tools and strategies, and GPS and internet monitoring are additional tools that probation officers can use in their supervision strategy. She advised that part of the downside of the equipment is the number of alerts (about 1,300) each month that are false alerts because of the technology; 55 percent have to do with equipment issues and they must all be addressed. She advised that the Department is in support of HB2063 because it is a good use of tools and resources, and there is a significant cost savings by targeting level three offenders.
Therese Wagner, Division Director, Maricopa County Adult Probation, testified in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2063. She related that she has a staff of 85 that manages 1,900 sex offenders, the majority of which are on lifetime probation. She said she and her staff are very committed to public safety and the protection of children. Polygraph testing is a very effective tool that is used in managing sex offenders. GPS is a very good tool for higher risk offenders; however, it is not very effective with lower risk offenders, and has no impact on recidivism. Internet monitoring can be a huge benefit to monitoring sex offenders. Although federal law provides that internet usage cannot be denied to probationers, there is monitoring software that has allowed the Probation Department to monitor what crosses through the hard drive. Two offenders were arrested who were heading toward new offenses. She expressed support of the strike-everything amendment which allows for flexibility, targets high risk offenders and helps keep the community safe.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2063 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Diane Sikokis, Government Relations Director, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Question was called on the motion that HB2063 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-0 (Attachment 34).
HB2172 - charity game ticket games. – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2172 do pass.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, stated that HB2172 creates an additional classification of license for charity game tickets (Attachment 35).
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs 27-line amendment dated 3/4/09 (Attachment 36) be adopted.
Ms. Stoddard explained that the 27-line amendment (Attachment 36) removes the Class D charity game license and clarifies that a charity game ticket is a pick-a-card game that is played without the use of any mechanical, electronic or video display. It also clarifies that charity game tickets are played in conjunction with the game of bingo, and also specifies that a charity game ticket cannot be sold unless the format of the ticket has been approved by the Department of Gaming which oversees tribal gaming.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs 27-line amendment dated 3/4/09 (Attachment 36) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2172 as amended do pass.
Representative Frank Antenori, sponsor, advised that HB2172 allows groups to find additional sources of revenue to fund their organizations. Several large veterans groups in Southern Arizona are looking for options to fund some of the charities they are involved with, particularly with regard to returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other organizations that provide charity for needy groups. He asked Members for their support of this legislation.
Jim Ellis, Legislative Chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Arizona, in support of HB2172, related that the VFW is a nonprofit veteran organization whose mission goal is to honor the dead by helping the living. He stated that the VFW Arizona has 82 posts throughout Arizona and 25,000 members who work to provide programs and services to people who are in need. The sale of charity game tickets is one proven method to generate revenue for nonprofit organizations and to help those who need assistance. He strongly urged support of this bill.
Sean Laux, Legislative Liaison, Department of Revenue (DOR), stated that the Department is neutral on HB2172. He advised that this legislation will place administrative burdens on the Department. He expressed DOR’s concern about the lack of guidelines for the establishment of a fee for charity game distributors, as well as concern that the amendment restricts Class C bingo licenses to only charitable organizations. In response to Vice-Chairman Ash, Mr. Laux advised that the fee issue has been discussed with the sponsor; however, the amendment language is new.
Ms. Sinema asked whether there have been discussions with tribal communities. Mr. Laux answered in the affirmative. He stated that after extensive discussions, they are now neutral because of the amendment and he said he does not anticipate any problems.
Representative Antenori advised that he will continue to work with DOR and, if necessary, offer an amendment on the Floor.
Jason Issak, Charity First For Arizona, testified in support of HB2172. He clarified that to avoid a Proposition 108, the fees are left to the discretion of the Department instead of designating an amount. He stated that he will be happy to continue to work with the Department.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2172 but did not speak:
Sam Whitlock, Charity First For Arizona
Donald Taylor, VFW Legislative Team, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
John Aldecoa, State Adjutant, The American Legion of Arizona
Don Isaacson, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2172 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2172 but did not speak:
Kristen Boilini, Lobbyist, Arizona Indian Gaming Association
Question was called on the motion that HB2172 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-1-0-1 (Attachment 37).
HB2331 - federal immigration law; enforcement – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2331 do pass.
Robert Stout, Majority Intern, said that HB2331 prohibits cities, towns and county boards of supervisors from enacting ordinances or resolutions or adopting policies which limit or prohibit the lawful enforcement of United States immigration laws (Attachment 38).
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that the Driggs seven-line amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 39) be adopted.
Mr. Stout stated that the proposed amendment (Attachment 39) expands the bill to apply to policies of law enforcement agencies and changes the bill’s standard from in any way limits or prohibits to is intended to limit or prohibit.
Question was called on the motion that the Driggs seven-line amendment dated 3/2/09 (Attachment 39) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2331 as amended do pass.
Representative Tom Boone, sponsor, testified that this legislation deals with the issue of “sanctuary policies” of cities, towns or counties. The intent of this bill with the amendment is to prohibit any city, town, county or law enforcement agency from enacting any ordinance or resolution or adopt a policy that is intended to limit or prohibit the lawful enforcement of United States immigration laws.
Vice-Chairman Ash noted that concerns have been raised by the chiefs of police relating to local control and the possibility of facing lawsuits. He asked whether the sponsor will work with them. Representative Boone assured Members that he will commit to working with them.
Mr. Miranda queried whether the bill would allow any police officer to interpret immigration laws. Representative Boone answered that he does not know how to interpret their intent. He expressed hope that law enforcement officers will work within their agency’s guidelines. He said the intent of this legislation is public safety.
Mr. Miranda wondered whether the individual police officer will be allowed to inquire about a person’s legal status when the individual is stopped. Representative Boone again stated that it is up to law enforcement on how they interpret the policies of their agency.
Mr. Miranda contended that there has to be consistency in the law on how cities, towns and counties will address immigration laws and said this addresses sanctuary cities. He repeated that this bill would not prohibit any police officer from inquiring about a person’s legal status on a traffic stop. Representative Boone reiterated that this bill stipulates that an ordinance cannot be enacted that prohibits or limits enforcement of immigration laws. Mr. Miranda opined that the language is broad and will have wide interpretation by each jurisdiction.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2331 but did not speak:
Rebecca Baker, Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2331 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
John Thomas, Arizona Association Chiefs of Police
Rob Dalager, City of Phoenix Police Department
Mr. Mortenegro said he sees this bill differently from what the sponsor is attempting to do. He opined that it will not fix the immigration problem. He concurred with Mr. Miranda’s comments relating to how officers will interpret this law. He said he believes that the intent of the bill will cause confusion.
Mr. Miranda reiterated that the bill is too broad and will allow a police officer to take it upon himself to interpret immigration laws.
Chairman Driggs commented that this legislation is an attempt to simplify and improve upon past legislation that dealt with this issue. He said he appreciates that the sponsor is willing to work with those who have expressed concerns with certain issues.
Question was called on the motion that HB2331 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-3-0-1 (Attachment 40).
HB2533 - unlawful roadside solicitation of employment – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2533 do pass.
Dan Plumoff, Majority Assistant Research Analyst for the Appropriations Committee, advised that HB2533 specifies a Class 1 misdemeanor for standing in or along a street, roadway or highway and impeding traffic while attempting to solicit employment from an occupant of a motor vehicle (Attachment 41). The bill provides an exemption for persons who perform the solicited work within 500 feet of the place at which they were standing.
Representative John Kanvanagh, sponsor, stated that this proposal applies to everyone who solicits labor on the street and obstructs traffic. The bill is designed to address day laborers who congregate on the street to solicit work as well as the individual in the vehicle who pulls up and solicits the person to work, since both are causing the unsafe condition which, he said, is the disruption of traffic. He advised that if there is no traffic impediment, there is no violation of the law. Standing on the street soliciting labor would not be illegal, and it would be unconstitutional to ban that action. When impediment of traffic is added, then it becomes a legal constitutional law. He advised Members that issue was based on the Phoenix ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) case. In addition, the provision to remove the 500 foot exception applies to the car wash exception to address students who hold a car wash because they will not be transported to a different location to wash the car.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2533 but did not speak:
Rebecca Baker, Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Discussion ensued between Mr. Miranda and the sponsor on the elements that have to be met for the bill to apply.
Question was called on the motion that HB2533 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-3-0-1 (Attachment 42).
HB2612 - postjudgment garnishment; attorney's writ – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Ash moved that HB2612 do pass.
Ralene Whitmer, Majority Research Analyst for the National Resources and Rural Affairs Committee, explained that HB2612 allows a licensed attorney to issue a writ of garnishment if a judgment has been entered, the amount of earnings or monies ordered is $5,000 or less and the writ contains a statement that complies with procedures for an application for writ of garnishment for monies, property or earnings and for issuance, service and return of writ (Attachment 43).
Representative Sam Crump, sponsor, advised that garnishments are a tedious process, especially for small amounts. When a judgment has been made under existing law, every court has its own process, which he said it is rather involved. He said he believes this will be a benefit to the courts and would eliminate a lot of paperwork and burden for them. This proposal allows an attorney to garnish wages of the debtor after a judgment has been received while still protecting the individual’s right to object to the writ and to request a hearing in the court that issued the judgment.
In response to Vice-Chairman Ash’s query, Representative Crump said he does not know how many states have this law.
Chairman Driggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2612 but did not speak:
Bryan Ginter, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2612 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-1 (Attachment 44).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12:32 p.m.
___________________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
March 31, 2009
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
19
March 5, 2009
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------