ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-eighth Legislature – First Regular Session
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 1 -- 9:00 a.m.
Chairman Weiers called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and secretary called the roll.
|
Mr. Barnes |
Mr. Nelson |
Mrs. Burges, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Biggs |
Mrs. Pancrazi |
Mr. Weiers JP, Chairman |
|
Mr. Kavanagh |
Ms. Sinema |
|
|
Mrs. McGuire |
Ms. Ulmer |
|
|
None |
|
|
|
S.B. 1118 – Held by Chairman S.B. 1347 – DPA (8-1-0-1) S.B. 1045 – DPA (9-0-0-1) |
S,B, 1170 – DP (9-0-0-1) S.B. 1268 – Discussion Only S.B. 1250 – DP (8-1-0-1) |
Ralene Whitmer, Majority Research Analyst
Senator Barbara Leff, sponsor
Stuart Goodman, representing Arizona Automobile Association (AAA)
Dale Norris, Executive Director, Arizona Police Association
Bob Beaudette, HANNAH Foundation
Dennis Seavers, Executive Director, Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Senator Linda Gray, sponsor
Kelsey Bullington, Majority Intern
Senator Chuck Gray, sponsor
Karen Peters, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, City of Phoenix
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc.
Names of persons who did not speak (pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS:
S.B. 1118, vehicle accidents; minimum reporting requirement – HELD BY CHAIRMAN
Chairman Weiers announced that S.B. 1118 will be held.
S.B. 1347, teenage driver safety act – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1347 do pass.
Ralene Whitmer, Majority Research Analyst, advised that beginning July 1, 2008, S.B. 1347 will impose passenger and curfew restrictions on drivers under the age of 18 for the first six months after the issuance of a Class G driver’s license (Attachment 1). Exemptions are provided for curfew and passenger restrictions. The bill increases the number of mandatory supervised driving hours a Class G permittee must complete to be eligible to apply for a license and mandates a longer instruction permit period. In addition, the bill requires that a person who is at least 21 years of age and who holds a valid driver’s license occupy the seat beside the Class G permittee while the permittee is operating the vehicle.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Weiers six-line amendment dated 2/27/07 be adopted (Attachment 2).
Ms. Whitmer explained that the Weiers six-line amendment dated 2/27/07 specifies that the provisions in the bill only apply to permits and licenses issued from and after the effective date (Attachment 2).
Senator Barbara Leff, sponsor, stated that 16 year olds lack driving experience. They can easily be distracted by activity in the car if there are other teenagers in the car. Siblings have been excluded from the provisions of this bill. She said she thinks it is important for the first six months for new drivers to prove that they are responsible and that they can follow the rules. If they have no incidents during that six-month period, the restriction will be lifted from their driver’s licenses. She said she does not believe this is a burden. There are exemptions in the bill for family members and for curfew. Only five states in the country have not implemented similar legislation. In all the states that have imposed restrictions for 16 year olds, statistics show that accidents have gone down.
Mr. Barnes said the only problem he sees with the bill is driving neighborhood teenagers to school. Senator Leff answered that the bill allows the new driver to drive his siblings plus one other unrelated teenager. She said statistics have shown that the more unrelated teenagers in the car, the more likely incidents will happen.
Stuart Goodman, representing Arizona Automobile Association (AAA), expressed support of S.B. 1347. He advised that a coalition of stakeholders has been meeting for the last six to nine months to develop a balanced package relating to enforcement and implementation. Arizona is only one of five states in the country that does not have a meaningful program. In the states that have implemented similar programs, there has been a reduction of 10-30 percent in teen-related accidents. This legislation is just for the first six months when a 16 year old receives his license. There are practical exemptions included in the bill. This is a broad approach to try to address the problem of safety.
Chairman Weiers commented that one of the problems he has with this bill is that it takes one idea that tries to encompass everyone. He understands it is difficult to pass a law that encompasses everyone and everything. He said he appreciates what the sponsor is trying to accomplish by trying to save lives and prevent accidents; however, he does not think it can apply to everyone and still work.
Dale Norris, Executive Director, Arizona Police Association, testified in support of S.B. 1347. He advised that rank and file officers support this bill. The bill is limited in its scope in that it only affects the first six months of driving and only certain types of driving situations. He said it may cause some inconvenience to some people but, from a law enforcement perspective, it is beneficial if it saves even one life. He stated that children are very vulnerable when they get their driver’s license. This bill asks for some guidance and direction. The Association is strongly behind this bill. He said he hopes Members will support this legislation.
Bob Beaudette, HANNAH Foundation, testified in support of S.B. 1347. He advised that on June 14, 2006, his niece, Hannah, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a 16 year old. The driver was traveling about 80 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood when he lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle flipped several times and Hannah was thrown from the vehicle. She died nine days later of massive brain injuries. He said this scenario repeats itself a hundred times a year and the trend is increasing. It is time to stop this senseless slaughter. He said the worst driver in America is 16 years old. Teen drivers constitute seven percent of all licensed drivers and they constitute 14 percent of fatalities. Arizona is ranked dead last in how it protects its children according to the January 2007 report of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. He said that car crashes are the number one cause of teen deaths today. He maintained that it is imperative for parents to provide better tools for their children. Similar programs to what is being proposed have been implemented in 45 states in the country and have been successful. He spoke of the need to show America that Arizona cares for its children. He urged Members to support S.B. 1347.
Mr. Barnes noted that Arizona has laws dealing with this issue; however, enforcement is practically nil. Mr. Beaudette said this legislation gives parents the tools to work with. If this bill passes, parents will become more involved.
Persons in support of S.B. 1347 who did not speak:
Don Isaacson, representing State Farm Insurance
Richard Fimbres, Director, GOHS
Andy Swann, President, Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona,
Chuck Shipley, Executive Director, Beer and Wine Distributors of Arizona
Elizabeth Baskett, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
Robin Scoins, representing self
Tom Van Dorn, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police Department
Todd Sanders, Vice President, Public Affairs, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
Jessica Pacheco, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Kerry Hayden, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
Brian Wilcox, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anne Wendell, Director, Government Relations, St. Joseph's Hospital and Barrow Neurological Institute
Laura Hahn, Executive Vice President, Arizona Academy of Family Physicians
Wendy Briggs, representing American Insurance Association
Peggy Stemmler, American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Chapter
Arthur Chapa, representing Pima County Board of Supervisors
Linda Gorman, Public Affairs Manager, American Automobile Association
Charles Sobczak, representing self
Michael Preston Green, representing National Safety Council, Arizona Chapter
Rita Anderson, Arizona Emergency Nurses Association
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that the Weiers six-line amendment dated 2/27/07 be adopted (Attachment 2). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1347 as amended do pass. The motion carried with a roll call vote of 8-1-0-1 (Attachment 3).
S.B. 1045, fingerprint clearance cards – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1045 do pass.
Ralene Whitmer, Majority Research Analyst, related that S.B. 1045 alters who may receive a fingerprint card by precluding offenses (Attachment 4). The bill also gives the option to the Board of Fingerprinting to appoint a hearing officer to determine good cause exemptions.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Burges 22-line amendment dated 2/27/07 be adopted (Attachment 5).
Ms. Whitmer explained that the Burges 22-line amendment dated 2/27/07 makes several offenses relating to prostitution unappealable precluding offenses (Attachment 5).
Dennis Seavers, Executive Director, Arizona Board of Fingerprinting, expressed support of this legislation. He said it has been several years since the Board has reviewed the crimes that are listed as cause for denial of a fingerprint clearance card. This legislation identifies and incorporates new offenses and closes loopholes in the law.
Ms. Sinema noted that she has received e-mails from the Arizona Education Association (AEA) regarding concerns. Mr. Seavers said that the Board did receive comments from the Association opposing the amendment because they felt there were certain crimes that individuals should be allowed to appeal. Because of the passage of time and mitigating circumstances, they felt that an individual may have been rehabilitated. He said the Board considered their concerns; however, it supports the amendment. He said a very few who currently hold a fingerprint card would be affected and the Board feels the impact on the public would be minimal.
Ms. Sinema asked whether the Board has discretion on appealable offenses and can grant a good- cause exception. Mr. Seavers said that is correct. Ms. Sinema noted this would take a few of those crimes out of the appealable cases so that certain individuals would not even be able to state their case to the Board. Mr. Seavers related that the amendment would do that.
Mr. Kavanagh queried which occupations require fingerprint clearance. Mr. Seavers answered that a variety of occupations involving children, including day care, people working with at-risk youth committed to juvenile facilities, teachers, foster home licensures and foster care providers, employees of domestic violence and homeless shelters, individuals who work in nursing care institutions and home health agencies, individuals who work with the developmental disabled and employees of Child Protective Services.
Mr. Biggs said the criminal damage provision in the list of offenses being added seem unique. Mr. Seavers said that in his experience, this crime is often associated with violent acts. He said there is a pattern of criminal damage with individuals who had a violent past and that raised questions about suitability. The concern is that their crimes are often associated with instances of violence. Mr. Biggs queried whether the Board is looking at felonies or misdemeanor criminal damage. Mr. Seavers said the Board considers the circumstances and nature of the offense. Mr. Biggs asked whether that is an appealable offense. Mr. Seavers replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Sinema said she would like to see a list of existing offenses. She brought up the situation where an individual has been convicted of an offense and the judgment is later set aside. She wondered how that would impact that person’s ability to obtain a fingerprint card. Mr. Seavers answered that, under Arizona law, the set-aside would not change the fact of the conviction. He said it might help the individual’s case but it does not obviate the need to go through the good- cause exception application process.
Senator Linda Gray, sponsor, said there is a list of appealable offenses. Sometimes in people’s youth, they might have made mistakes but people do overcome them and become productive citizens.
Ms. Sinema brought up the AEA’s position on the amendment and their concerns on offenses related to prostitution becoming nonappealable. Senator Gray stated that each of the offenses that are being moved in the amendment is directed to those individuals who promote prostitution. She said it is appropriate to apply this to “pimps.” Ms. Sinema questioned the impetus to move this from appealable to nonappealable. Senator Gray noted that prostitutes can sometimes be victims. The people listed are those individuals who are promoting prostitution. Ms. Sinema said a former prostitute would not be affected by this amendment and would have an appealable defense. Senator Gray replied in the affirmative.
Persons in support of S.B. 1045 who did not speak:
David Miller, CEO, Arizona Council of Human Service Providers
Thomas Van Dorn, Arizona Assoc. of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police
Brian Wilcox, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Susan Cannata, representing State Board of Education
Person neutral on S.B. 1045 who did not speak:
Jennifer Daily, Arizona Education Association (AEA)
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that the Burges 22-line amendment dated 2/27/07 be adopted (Attachment 5). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1045 as amended do pass. The motion carried with a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 6),
S.B. 1170, public safety employees; disease testing – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1170 do pass.
Kelsey Bullington, Majority Intern, advised that a public safety officer or volunteer may petition the court to authorize a blood test of another person if it is reasonable to believe that exposure to specific diseases took place (Attachment 7). The bill defines public safety employee or volunteer.
Persons in support of S.B. 1170 who did not speak:
Don Isaacson, representing Fraternal Order of Police
James Mann, Chairman, Pension and Benefits, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police
Bill Everson, Chairman, Labor Council, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police
Tom Van Dorn, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police Department
Bryan Soller, Vice President, Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that S.B. 1170 do pass. The motion carried with a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 8).
S.B. 1268, sex trafficking; child prostitution – DISCUSSION ONLY
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1268 do pass.
Ralene Whitmer, Majority Research Analyst, explained that S.B. 1268 modifies the sex trafficking offense and the definition of prostitution (Attachment 9). The bill establishes that knowingly engaging in or attempting to engage in prostitution with a minor is a child prostitution offense. The bill contains an emergency clause.
Mr. Kavanagh expressed concern with the change relating to knowledge of the age of the minor. Ms. Whitmer said the bill repeals the existing defense and states that it is a Class 4 felony if the minor is 15, 16 or 17 years old and the defendant could not have reasonably known the age of the minor.
Mr. Biggs pointed out that the bill states on page 2, lines 27 and 28, that it is no defense if the defendant did not know and could not reasonably know the age of the minor.
Senator Chuck Gray, sponsor, said the issue here is trafficking in prostitution. That provision relates to the pimp that is prostituting a minor. It takes away that person’s defense who has contracted young girls into prostitution and is running a ring of prostitution.
Mr. Biggs disagreed. He said that the language can apply to a “john” who is using any minor for purposes of prostitution. This takes away their defense even if they had no knowledge of the age of the minor. Senator Gray agreed. He said that if a person is going to be out picking up young girls, he should have no defense.
Mr. Biggs said the intent is to try to protect children from engaging in prostitution. Even if the wrongful actor is an adult male, this takes away the defense of the person who had no possible way of knowing if the child was under 15 years of age. He said this steps up the prosecution regardless of the person’s culpable mental state. Senator Gray said that is right. The excuse that is being used by the johns or by the pimps is that they did not know the age of the minor. He said these individuals are operating in an illegal field so they better make sure the girl is 18 years old or older, otherwise there will be a serious penalty.
Mr. Biggs objected to the phrase “and could not have known the age.”
Ms. Sinema expressed concern that a person engaging in an already illegal activity can be penalized more heavily if the prostitute lies about her age. Senator Gray said that is correct. Ms. Sinema said she does not think that is fair. She said she does not understand the reasoning and justification behind why the penalty is enhanced for engaging in this activity with a minor who appears to be older than she actually is. Senator Gray said that is a policy issue that Members have to make.
Mr. Kavanagh said he has no concern if this only applies to pimps, however, this also applies to customers. If the person has every right to believe the prostitute is 21 years of age or older but is actually a minor, what would have been a misdemeanor changes to a felony. Senator Gray said he is willing to amend the language if the City of Phoenix agrees.
To that point, Mr. Barnes reminded Members that this legislation will go to the Rules Committee. If there is anything wrong with it, Rules will make it constitutional.
Ms. Sinema said she does not think the debate is a constitutional issue. She said the issue is people who are engaging in an illegal activity with children and use the defense that they did not know the age of the minor. She said that is problematic.
Mr. Biggs said his concern is only with that one phrase “and could not reasonably know the age.” He said this is talking about a felony. He wondered how the County Attorney is prosecuting these cases. This takes away any real defense for not knowing the age. Senator Gray said he does not know what the County Attorney is doing with this. Cases can be plea- bargained down to a lesser crime if there are extenuating circumstances. He said this will be used primarily for those instances for those individuals who are seeking young girls or for the people who are pimping minors. Mr. Biggs suggested looking further at the language about reasonable knowledge.
Karen Peters, Director,
Intergovernmental Affairs, City of Phoenix, testified in support of
S.B. 1268. She stated that this legislation is one of the City’s top public
safety bills this year. She advised that the Mayor formed an ad hoc task force
on child prostitution. The average age of child prostitutes has dropped from
15 to 13 years of age in the last five years. The task force felt it needed to
remove the defense in the law for those people engaging in prostitution with
minors. The task force believes very strongly that a Class 4 felony charge is
an appropriate way to address the demand for child prostitution. The law
should be very clear that children are valued in Arizona and that they should
be protected, and anyone thinking about engaging in an act of prostitution
should avoid anyone who could possibly be under the age of 18.
Ms. Sinema queried whether there were any defense attorneys on the task force. Ms. Peters said she believes so. She will get a list of the people to confirm that.
Ms. Sinema expressed concern about defense. This bill obviates any defense and presents some challenges. She wondered whether there were other ways the coalition considered to address the issue of those who are seeking child prostitutes as opposed to those who are seeking prostitutes. Ms. Peters said she does not know the answer to that question but she will try to get that information. She said she understands that because of defenses in law, prosecutors do not prosecute johns at all.
Ms. Sinema asked if they prosecute them under the child prostitution laws. Ms. Peters said that prosecutions of johns are very difficult to pursue and that prosecutions are very few and far between. She said she will get statistics on that. Ms. Sinema commented that since prosecutions are so difficult, she does not see how this legislation will change that. Ms. Peters said the bill does other things that make the prosecutions more effective and able to be pursued. The most important thing is expanding the child prostitution laws to protect the child prostitute who is the victim. It allows law enforcement to intervene before the act occurs.
Ms. Sinema said the bill does not address the fact that the City is not prosecuting regular prostitution crimes. Ms. Peters said this bill is strictly addressing child prostitution.
Ms. Sinema expressed concern about children who often appear older than they are.
Chairman Weiers announced that S.B. 1268 will be held. He said the sponsor has advised that he wants to work with those Members who have concerns.
Vice-Chairman Burges withdrew her motion that S.B. 1268 do pass.
Persons in support of S.B. 1268 who did not speak:
Sandra Junck Carpenter, representing City of Phoenix
Tom Van Dorn, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police Department
Jeffrey Kros, Legislative Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
S.B. 1250, concealed weapons permit; renewal – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that S.B. 1250 do pass.
Kelsey Bullington, Majority Intern, stated that S.B. 1250 removes the requirement for concealed gun permit holders to provide additional fingerprints when applying to renew a permit (Attachment 10). The bill has an effective date of December 31, 2007 and makes technical changes.
Mrs. Pancrazi queried how often a permit must be renewed. Ms. Bullington said that renewal is every five years.
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., testified in support of S.B. 1250. The bill removes the requirement to submit to fingerprinting with renewal of a carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit. He said there is no perceivable benefit for requiring law-abiding citizens to provide another set of fingerprints upon renewal. He anticipates that the citizens and the State will see a cost savings associated with the removal of this provision from statute. He has not heard of any opposition to this proposal, and he does not see any real problems with the bill. He urged Members to support this legislation.
Mrs. Pancrazi asked whether the fingerprints on file are checked out to ensure that the person has not committed a crime. Mr. Kopp said that the individual’s background is checked. If anyone has committed a crime, the permit will be revoked.
Chairman Weiers commented that people still have to fill out an application. He stated that these are law-abiding citizens who are renewing their permits.
Mrs. Pancrazi said that as a former teacher, she was required to be fingerprinted every three years. She said she wants to ensure that the person’s background will be checked. If someone commits a crime within that period, she wants to have the permit revoked.
Chairman Weiers said that if a person violates the law, the permit will not be renewed.
Ms. Ulmer questioned how this saves the State money. Mr. Kopp answered that it costs money to process a person’s fingerprints. Ms. Ulmer thinks that is an expense of the applicant. Mr. Kopp said that in addition to being an expense of the permit holder, it also costs the State to process the fingerprints. Ms. Ulmer disagreed. She maintained that it should not be a taxpayer expense.
Person in support of S.B. 1250 who did not speak:
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League
Person neutral on S.B. 1250 who did not speak:
Brian Wilcox, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that S.B. 1250 do pass. The motion carried with a roll call vote of 8-1-0-1 (Attachment 11).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
___________________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
December 27, 2016
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
AND PUBLIC SAFETY
9
February 28, 2007
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------