Court Opinion

ID: 9781638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:57:50.394537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:20.279678
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
with whom BRYNER, Chief Justice, joins, dissenting.
The question presented is whether the statutory requirement that “[t]he commis*834sioner of corrections shall make available return transportation to the place of arrest for a prisoner who is released from custody in a state correctional facility”1 means that a released prisoner who was arrested at his home is entitled to return transportation to his home, or merely to the public transportation terminus in the community nearest his home. I think the former meaning is right for the reasons that follow.2
First, “place of arrest” suggests a particular spot, not a broad geographical area.3 If the legislature had intended that released prisoners need only be returned to “the community nearest their place of arrest”4 it probably would have said so.
Second, the legislative history supports the conclusion that it was the intent of the legislature to pay for the transportation of a prisoner to his home if that was where he was arrested. The assistant attorney general who explained the objective of the statute to the House Judiciary Committee testified that the statute’s “intent was to get the prisoner back home.”5
Third, considerations of fairness on which the statute is based also suggest that a literal construction is the right one. Just as it may be unfair to strand released prisoners in the city of their incarceration, it can also be unfair to strand them at the airport or ferry terminal of the community nearest them home. This will be true where the terminal is a significant distance from a prisoner’s home and the latter can be reached only by an additional expenditure of money or effort. The general idea of the statute is that since the state has expended the effort to forcibly take the prisoner away from where he was arrested, it is fair that the state expend something like the same effort to return him after he has served his time. Most released prisoners are impecunious and even a cab fare can be a significant burden. Further, where cabs, buses, or water taxis, are unavailable, simply telling a prisoner to take a hike seems like a callous response that is inconsistent with the underlying spirit of the statute.6
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.’

. AS 33.30.081(b).

. In my view this is a question of law on which the court should exercise its independent judgment: "Questions of law which do not involve any particular agency expertise are reviewed under the substitution of judgment standard. Questions of law involving agency expertise are reviewed under the 'reasonable basis test.' ” Arnesen v. Anchorage Refuse, Inc., 925 P.2d 661, 664 (Alaska 1996) (citations omitted) (holding that the question whether self-employment as a real estate sales agent is a "job” within the meaning of a provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act is a question of law suitable for judicial determination de novo). Here the state does not argue that the term "place of arrest” is something that is uniquely within the knowledge of the Department of Corrections nor, in my opinion, could a reasonable argument to this effect be made. It also follows that, although subsection (d) of the statute instructs the department to issue regulations "governing the furnishing of transportation” to released prisoners, I cannot agree with the court (see at 829) that this bland language could authorize a regulation in contravention of the "place of arrest” requirement in (b).

. Many Alaska communities encompass a broad area, and sometimes much of the area is only thinly settled. Tenakee Springs is an example. According to a state monograph, it is a community of some 100 people, consisting of about 47 permanent households that are situated along a single trail that parallels the north shore of Te-nakee Inlet for approximately ten miles. Most of the houses are concentrated along a two-mile stretch near the center of the town, but others are located along the full length of the trail. Ken Leghorn & Matt Kookesh, Div of Subsistence, Alaska Dep't of Fish & Game, Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Communities: Tenakee Springs, Alaska 8, 13 (1987).

. See Op. at 830.

. At 83 In. 27.

. Some walks home have special hazards. For example, brown bears are common on the shores of Tenakee Inlet, and a concentration of them exists at Indian River, which the trail from the town core to Columbia Cove crosses. Bear encounters are said to be on the increase both in the town core and Indian River according to the state-sponsored community profile of Tenakee Springs. City of Tenakee Springs, Tenakee Springs Community Plan 15-16, 33 (July 26, *8352001 Revision), available at http://www.com-merce. state.ak.us/dca/ plans/ TenakeeSprings rev2001.pdf. Of course it is unlikely that any particular person walking through brown bear country will actually be attacked, but one can never be certain, and many Alaskans in bear country carry a