02/05/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB25 | |
| HB7 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2007
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use of
land without charge for a recreational activity; relating to
landowners' liability where landowner conduct involves gross
negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct; relating to
claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easements, or
similar claims; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to bail."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 2/8/07
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON, WILSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/24/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/24/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/25/07 (H) RES RPT 8DP
01/25/07 (H) DP: GUTTENBERG, EDGMON, SEATON,
KAWASAKI, WILSON, ROSES, JOHNSON, GATTO
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/31/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/05/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN, GARDNER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) JUD
01/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/22/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/24/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/24/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/31/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/05/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Joint prime sponsor of HB 25.
KATIE SHOWS, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 25, responded to a
question on behalf of Representative Seaton, joint prime
sponsor.
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 7, outlined the
changes incorporated into the proposed CS, Version C, and
responded to questions on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint
prime sponsor.
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 7, assisted in
outlining the changes incorporated into the proposed CS,
Version C, and responded to questions.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 7 and proposed
amendments, suggested changes and responded to questions.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 7 and proposed amendments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, acting as chair, called the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:38:14 PM.
Representatives Holmes, Gruenberg, Samuels, and Lynn were
present at the call to order. Representative Coghill arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 25 - RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS
1:38:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to
landowners' immunity for allowing use of land without charge for
a recreational activity; relating to landowners' liability where
landowner conduct involves gross negligence or reckless or
intentional misconduct; relating to claims of adverse possession
and prescriptive easements, or similar claims; and providing for
an effective date."
1:38:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, joint
prime sponsor, relayed that at the last meeting on HB 25, it was
requested that he research the statutory uses of the phrases
"directly [or] indirectly" and "explicitly [or] implicitly."
Referring to a memorandum dated 2/2/07 that he'd written and
provided to members, he explained that the phrase "directly or
indirectly" occurs 192 times in current statute, while the
phrase "explicitly or implicitly" occurs 1 time. He opined that
the examples show common knowledge and use of the phrase
"directly or indirectly", and that the meaning would be clear to
the public. Regarding a request made during the previous
hearing that the drafter be present, he relayed that the member
who'd made that request no longer felt that such was necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to [Amendment 1], which, along
with an explanation, read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 9
Delete "indirectly" and insert "implicitly."
Explanation: This change would clarify how a
landowner allows recreational activity on a
landowner's land. The current language - "indirectly
allows" could be interpreted to indicate some positive
action though not directly to the person using the
land; while "implicitly allows" would not necessitate
any positive action on the part of the landowner.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his belief regarding the
importance of clearly drafting legislation in order to have
uniform interpretation of the resulting law. He expressed that
he is not comfortable with the use of "indirectly allows", and
offered his understanding that in the examples given,
"indirectly" is used actively, rather than passively. He
pointed out that this may be interpreted many ways, perhaps more
broadly or more narrowly than intended. Referring to
Amendment 1, he stated that the term "implicitly" would indicate
that no action was taken, thus signifying direct allowance. He
then stated that he would be amenable to amending Amendment 1 to
reduce ambiguity in its interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the phrase "directly or
indirectly" is used many times throughout the current statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the phrase "indirectly
allows" appears anywhere in the current statutes.
1:45:58 PM
KATIE SHOWS, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Seaton, joint
prime sponsor, explained that she did perform a quick search for
the phrase "indirectly allows", and the search did not return
any results. However, she said, she was unable to search for
any passive reference to that phrase.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS commented that the drafter has researched
this issue, and therefore he is maintaining his objection to
adopting Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES commented that the intention is to clarify
the intent of the bill. She inquired as to whether the phrase
"implicitly allows" will more clearly define the intent, adding
that she is not convinced that it will.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that Amendment 1
would clarify the intent. He inquired as to whether the drafter
researched the phrase "indirectly allows".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the drafter
used the drafter's manual, adding that while he is aware of the
definition of "indirectly allows", he is uncertain regarding the
definition of "implicitly allows". He reiterated that the
former wording occurs 192 times in statute, while the latter
wording is found 1 time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested defining the term
"indirectly" in order to provide further clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES stated that she spoke with the drafter and
was unable to develop superior language. She further stated
that although she would like the legislation to be as specific
as possible, the committee has yet to develop better language.
She noted that the drafter did relay that a list specifying what
the term "indirectly" means could be added later if determined
necessary. Representative Holmes relayed her desire to report
the legislation, as written, from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1.
1:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 25 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 25 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 7 - FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
1:51:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 7, "An Act relating to false
caller identification."
1:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of HB 7,
moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 7,
Version 25-LS0057\C, Bannister, 2/2/07, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, after asking whether there were any
objections and getting no response, announced that Version C was
before the committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, at this time, objected - for the
purpose of discussion - to the adoption of Version C as the work
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his motion.
[The motion was later treated as still being before the
committee.]
1:54:00 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint
prime sponsor, outlined the changes incorporated into Version C
by first explaining that when the amendments to the original
bill were incorporated into Version C, the new proposed language
of, "with the intent to defraud or cause harm" was shortened to
just, "with the intent to defraud" because the word "defraud"
covers the concept of "cause harm". Another amendment to the
original bill replaced "the state" with "a state" in proposed AS
45.45.940(b)(1).
[Representative Samuels turned the gavel over to Representative
Coghill.]
The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, acting as chair, asked Mr. Moffett for a
recap of his explanation thus far.
MR. MOFFATT provided one.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS assisted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged the correctness of the
explanation thus far.
1:58:33 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska
State Legislature, further detailed the changes that were
incorporated into Version C as a result of the adoption of
amendments to the original bill, and noted that the drafter
inserted a definition - on page 2, line 5, of Version C - of the
term, "intent to defraud" as having the meaning given in AS
11.46.990.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to the adoption
of Version C as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL announced that Version C was before the
committee.
2:01:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0057\A.3, Bannister, 2/2/07, which read:
Page 1, lines 10 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) A violation of (a) of this section is
(1) a class B misdemeanor if the false
information is inserted in fewer than 25 caller
identification systems;
(2) a class A misdemeanor if the false
information is inserted in 25 or more caller
identification systems."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. MOFFATT explained that Amendment 1 would make the insertion
of false information into fewer than 25 caller identification
systems a class B misdemeanor, and the insertion of false
information into 25 or more caller identification systems a
class A misdemeanor, which carries with it a maximum one-year
jail sentence as opposed to a maximum 90-day jail sentence for a
class B misdemeanor. In response to a question, he acknowledged
that the number 25 is an arbitrary number, adding that
originally they'd contemplated using the number 5 as the
threshold between a class A misdemeanor and a class B
misdemeanor.
2:03:52 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in
response to a question, concurred that the number 25 was
arbitrarily chosen, and relayed that at one point the DOL had
suggested that inserting false information less than 25 times
ought to be a class B misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to the term, "is inserted" as
used in Amendment 1, and asked whether, for purposes of charging
someone with a crime, the insertion of the false information
occurs in the caller's system or in the recipient's system.
MS. CARPENETI said her impression is that to be charged with one
class B misdemeanor, a person would act once by inserting false
information, which would then be transmitted to less than 25
caller identification systems.
MR. MOFFATT explained that the intent is to make each instance
of false information showing up on the recipient's system one
act; so if someone called up more than one person using one set
of false information, each call should be considered a separate
act. He acknowledged, though, that this point could be further
clarified in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that a bill's intent and its
verbiage don't always travel well together. He asked whether an
individual's phone would be considered "a system", or whether "a
system" is an automatic caller system that could then make 5,000
calls, for example. The bill needs to be clarified with regard
to that point. If 25 individual home phones receive false
information, would the intention be for each of those instances
to be considered a separate crime?
MR. MOFFATT referred to another proposed amendment, and
suggested that it might better clarify that point.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
2:09:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 10 -11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) a violation of (a) of this section is
(1) a class B misdemeanor if a person inserts
false information that is transmitted to less than 25
call recipients, except as provided in (2) of this
section;
(2) a class A misdemeanor if a person inserts
false information that is transmitted to 25 or more
call recipients, or 25 or more times to the same call
recipient."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she used the language in Amendment 1
as a starting point and then altered that language in an attempt
to clarify the point of what actions are going to be counted.
She relayed that she and Ms. Carpeneti worked together on
Amendment 2.
2:10:41 PM
MS. CARPENETI suggested that Amendment 2 is clearer on the point
that it would be one act to type in the false information, and
then the level of misdemeanor charged would be determined by how
many people that false information actually reaches.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether Amendment 2 would be
improved by adding to the word, "information" - as used in both
paragraphs (1) and (2) of Amendment 2 - the words, "into a
caller identification system".
MS. CARPENETI acknowledged that such a change could further
clarify the point.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend Amendment 2 to
that effect.
MR. MOFFATT pointed out, though, that a caller identification
system is the device at the recipient's end, not the device that
transmits the false information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected - for the purpose of discussion
- to the motion to amend Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, acknowledging Mr. Moffatt's point,
surmised that this particular amendment to Amendment 2 would be
[unnecessary].
MS. CARPENETI suggested that Representative Samuel's concern is
addressed by Amendment 2's cross reference to subsection (a) of
the bill, and concurred that that amendment to Amendment 2 is
unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew that amendment to Amendment 2.
MS. CARPENETI, raising a drafting issue, suggested that
Amendment 2 be amended by moving the language, ", except as
provided in (2) of this section" to the beginning of Amendment
2's proposed paragraph (1). The DOL, she relayed, when it
drafts legislation, places exceptions at the beginning of
sentences rather than at the end. If such an amendment to
Amendment 2 is adopted, Amendment 2, as amended, would then
read:
Page 1, lines 10 -11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) a violation of (a) of this section is
(1) except as provided in (2) of this section, a
class B misdemeanor if a person inserts false
information that is transmitted to less than 25 call
recipients;
(2) a class A misdemeanor if a person inserts
false information that is transmitted to 25 or more
call recipients, or 25 or more times to the same call
recipient."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 2 to
that effect. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was amended.
2:15:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether changing the threshold
in Amendment 2, as amended, from 25 calls to 5 calls would make
it easier to get a conviction [for a class A misdemeanor].
MS. CARPENETI acknowledged that it would be easier to prove that
only 5 calls have been made, but pointed out that phone records
could be used to determine how many calls have been made.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that with scarce
resources, this new law might not be used if the class A
misdemeanor threshold were as high as 25 calls. He suggested
either reducing the number of calls from "25" to "5", or, at the
very least, stipulating that a class A misdemeanor could result
from either 25 or more call recipients, 25 or more calls to the
same recipient, or a combination of the two totaling 25. He
asked what the committee's thoughts were on the concept of
lowering the threshold.
2:19:33 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), in response to comments and a question,
acknowledged that spoof caller ID technology may be being used
by someone to target just one person or a group of people. As a
practical matter, most who commit this form of fraud against
Alaskans are from out of state, and so he is not sure what
resources the DOL will have to prosecute people outside of
Alaska for a misdemeanor. He opined that the number of calls
won't be an issue when it comes to the practicality of enforcing
this proposed statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he can envision the bill being
used as a tool in domestic violence (DV) [prosecutions], and
this is one of the reasons why he wishes to lower the threshold
number to "5".
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, offered her belief
that individual entries, regardless of how closely or how far
apart they occurred, would warrant separate charges.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pondered whether setting a threshold
would in effect tell scam artists that they merely need to
restrict the number of times they use the technology.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the bill still
contains some problems and thus ought to be amended further.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend amendment 2, as
amended, to change "25" to "5". There being no objection, this
second amendment to Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
2:26:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 2, as
amended, to add the words ", or a combination of both" before
the period in proposed subsection (c)(2). His goal, he
indicated, is to ensure that a person would be charged with a
class A misdemeanor as long as the number of calls he/she makes
totals "5", thus illustrating a course of conduct.
MS. CARPENETI characterized the words ",or a combination of
both" as problematic, adding that she doesn't see the two
existing categories of calls outlined in subsection (c)(2) as
alike enough to combine.
MR. MOFFATT surmised that the intent is to make each time false
information shows up on someone's system a separate act, and so
if there are separate acts totaling at least "5", it could
result in a class A misdemeanor charge.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested instead changing Amendment 2,
as amended, to say, under subsection (c)(1), "except as provided
in (2) of this section, a class B misdemeanor if a person
inserts false information that is transmitted less than 5
times", and under subsection (c)(2), "a class A misdemeanor if a
person inserts false information that is transmitted 5 or more
times". Under such a change, it won't matter who is called,
whether it be one recipient or multiple recipients.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said such a change would be acceptable
to him.
MR. MOFFATT added that each call would be one transmission.
2:34:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his amendment to Amendment 2,
as amended, to insert ", or a combination of both".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend Amendment 2, as
amended, such that it would read:
Page 1, lines 10 -11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) a violation of (a) of this section is
(1) except as provided in (2) of this section, a
class B misdemeanor if a person inserts false
information that is transmitted less than 5 times;
(2) a class A misdemeanor if a person inserts
false information that is transmitted 5 or more
times."
2:36:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, asked whether there were any objections
to this amendment to Amendment 2, as amended. There being none,
this third amendment to Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, relayed that her
understanding is that if the person inserts the false
information that is then transmitted over a period of time, the
number of times that calls were made could result in an
aggravating factor for that one entry, "subject to some
reasonable limits as to time."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that if calls are made to
60 individuals over a period of eight months, for example, that
activity could be charged as one class A misdemeanor.
MS. CARPENETI said it would depend on the situation; for
example, in the aforementioned situation, if all the calls
resulted from just one entry of false information, it could be
just one charge.
2:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS argued that there could be 12 separate
charges because every fifth call could subject the person to a
class A misdemeanor charge.
MS. CARPENETI said that that would be true if the person is
changing the information after every fifth call - then it would
be a new act of inserting false information. In response to
questions, she offered her belief that if a person is entering
false information that would lead people to believe that a bank
is calling, that person will probably be calling hundreds of
people, and that if a person - for example, in a DV situation -
is entering different information each time, he/she could still
be charged with several [class B] misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it is somewhat a matter
of prosecutorial discretion whether numerous calls during one
course of conduct in a DV situation could be aggregated. For
the purpose of sentencing, though, the question of whether to
apply concurrent sentences for one course of conduct could
arise.
MS. CARPENETI agreed, adding that there is statutory direction
regarding consecutive and concurrent sentencing, though it
doesn't necessarily apply to misdemeanors. The DOL, however,
does make arguments [for/or against a particular form of
sentencing] and the legislature has told the courts that the
general approach should be to give consecutive sentences for
different offenses.
2:43:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that it might be better to
charge someone with ten class B misdemeanors rather than one
class A misdemeanor, and thus they ought to leave the language
of Amendment 2, as amended, as is.
MS. CARPENETI concurred that if there are a series of class B
misdemeanors, it could result in a larger sentence than one
class A misdemeanor could result in.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, though, that it is also
more difficult to prosecute separate charges because each would
have to proven separately.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that if a person is
being charged with the crime created by HB 7, he/she will
probably also be charged with other crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there were any objections
to Amendment 2, as amended. There being none, Amendment 2, as
amended, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to page 1, line 4, of Version C
and suggested that the language should say "transmit" instead of
"insert".
MR. MOFFATT suggested instead that both terms be used; the
caller inserts the false information and the recipient then
receives that transmitted information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that they'd been told that
someone could insert the false information and then his/her
employee actually transmits the information. He suggested,
therefore, that the language on page 1, line 4, be changed to
say, "insert or transmit", and that the language on page 1, line
10, be changed to say, "inserts or transmits". In this way,
both the person who sets up the equipment to display false
information and the person who transmits that false information
could be charged. He acknowledged, however, that they should
ensure that Amendment 2, as amended, tracks any further changes
they make.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that after the committee
finishes amending Version C, that they bring the new CS back
before them.
2:48:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, to
add "or transmit" after "insert" on page 1, line 4, and
elsewhere in the bill where necessary.
MR. MOFFATT opined that Amendment 3 would reflect a completed
circuit - that of inserting the false information and then
transmitting that information to the recipient - and expressed
favor with such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there were any objections
to Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language on page 1,
line 5 - "a caller identification system" - and suggested that
it be altered to say, "one or more caller identification
systems". He expressed concern that the prosecution might have
to prove that all calls were from just one system.
MS. CARPENETI opined that such a change would not be necessary
because under the principles of the drafting manual and
legislative interpretation, "a caller identification system"
could be one or more systems.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he tended to agree, particularly
given the specificity of the language adopted via Amendment 2,
as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that that point be confirmed with
the drafter when the new CS is created.
2:52:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 13-14 - which
defines "caller" as one who places a call by a telephone or over
a telephone line - and asked whether spoof caller identification
technology only gets used with telephones or over telephone
lines. Or should other forms of communication be included in
that definition?
MR. MOFFATT noted that the definition also includes calls that
are begun on a computer.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP), and offered his understanding that a lot of long
distance callers use VoIP.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that device names will change
over time.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that there are some types of calls
that may originate on the computer but are not then going over a
telephone line. Therefore, additional language ought to be
inserted into that definition because currently the proposed
crime is limited to actions that take place by telephone or over
telephone lines. In response to a question, she opined that it
ought to be an easy fix for the drafter to come up a definition
that includes any sort of communication.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to comments, noted that any
new definition language would still come before the committee
for review.
[The committee spent a few moments introducing audience
members.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that HB 7 [Version C, as amended]
would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|