Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/30/1999 01:20 PM House JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 154 - ILLEGAL USE OF LASER POINTERS Number 0078 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first item of business would be House Bill No. 154, "An Act relating to the use of laser sighting devices." Number 0113 CHRIS KNIGHT, Researcher for Representative Allen Kemplen, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He explained that HB 154, introduced after speaking with an Anchorage police officer, provides an avenue for halting disruption of community events. In addition, he reminded members of the difficulty in differentiating between laser sighting weapons and pointing devices, and that officers could feel the threat of imminent danger upon detecting a beam on them. Current statutes on assault in the fourth degree have a minimum requirement of 30 days if an officer feels threatened or can prove that he or she was under the threat of imminent danger. However, it is often difficult to prove a threat of imminent danger. Therefore, HB 154 also allows in-line officers a second option for prosecution, by amending the statutes to add another form of disorderly conduct, with the requirement of just proving that the officer was under the "painting" of a laser sighting device. Number 0284 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there are incidents that the Anchorage Police Department could cite in the state as examples. MR. KNIGHT replied that he doesn't have any examples in print. However, to his understanding, a court case was prosecuted successfully for assault in the fourth degree concerning a laser sighting device, wherein the defendant admitted he had wanted to see what the police officer's reaction would be. Mr. Knight also recounted a recent personal experience where laser sighting devices were used to highlight a female cheerleader's body. He noted that he had provided to the committee aide some articles discussing various situations, and he informed members that a police officer he knows is willing to provide more information, as well. Number 0380 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to an amendment that had just been distributed, which read: Change Section 3 to Section 4 Add new Section 3: Section 3. AS 11.61.110 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) The provisions of (a)(8) of this section do not apply to a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment. Modify Section 4 to reflect correct subsection: Section 4. AS 11.61.110 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (e) In the section, "laser... REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he believes it was proposed by the Department of Law. He asked whether Mr. Knight had seen it. MR. KNIGHT said no. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the concern, to his belief, is that putting this under "disorderly conduct" is fine, but there is a need to ensure that it doesn't stop the prosecution Mr. Knight had described for assault against a police officer, when the higher crime can be proved. He suggested HB 154 would be appropriate for the run-of-the-mill harassment, however. Representative Croft said he believes that is all the amendment does. He asked for confirmation that, at least conceptually, Mr. Knight and the sponsor have no problem with ensuring that an assault charge is still open, if assault can be proved. MR. KNIGHT replied, "We definitely don't want to preclude the higher option, which would be a Class A misdemeanor for assault in the fourth degree. So, if this amendment would actually increase that option, then I think this is a great amendment." Number 0497 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested clarification about the classification of the offense under AS 11.61.110(a). Number 0527 MR. KNIGHT explained that currently if an officer feels the threat of imminent danger, that is prosecuted as assault in the fourth degree, which carries a minimum of 30 days in jail and a maximum, as a Class A misdemeanor, of a year in jail. This legislation allows for a second prosecutable offense, in that an individual can be charged with disorderly conduct. If the device were used on a police officer, the charge wouldn't be limited by the current statutes for disorderly conduct, with a maximum of 10 days. Rather, the judge would have discretion under the entire statute of Class B misdemeanors, from zero to 90 days, allowing greater flexibility. Number 0601 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed members that the committee would lay aside HB 154 until after the hearing on HB 214. HB 154 - ILLEGAL USE OF LASER POINTERS Number 0604 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would again take up House Bill No. 154, "An Act relating to the use of laser sighting devices." He noted that there had been opening remarks and discussion with the sponsor's representative. He then showed members the laser pointer on his own key chain. Number 0623 DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, told members that his department's concerns over the bill were already expressed. First is that the bill takes an offense that could be a misdemeanor assault, punishable by up to a year in jail, and lowers it to disorderly conduct, punishable by 90 days in jail, at most. When a police officer is the victim and is afraid of being shot, the current law regarding assault is the appropriate level, he stated, noting that at least one case has been successfully prosecuted at that level. Misdemeanor assault on a police officer carries a minimum of 30 days in jail, which the department believes to be appropriate. Mr. Guaneli suggested there are a variety of ways to draft around that, although he needs time to work with the sponsor and drafters to try to accomplish that. MR. GUANELI voiced another concern, referring to an amendment mentioned by Representative Croft. Proposed by the Department of Public Safety, that amendment says that this section wouldn't apply to a peace officer; in other words, a peace officer with a laser sight on a gun or some equipment wouldn't be charged under this statute, even though someone found that harassing or annoying. Mr. Guaneli said he isn't absolutely certain that this amendment is required, because he believes that some general provisions in Alaska law say that peace officers acting within the course and scope of their duties can do things that otherwise might be crimes. He cited handling drugs as evidence as an example. However, he added, if it would make peace officers feel better, the department has no objection to that provision. MR. GUANELI restated that lowering the level of offense to a Class B misdemeanor when it rises to the level of an assault is problematic. He requested time to see whether there is a way around that. Number 0739 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he'd had concerns with that as well. MR. GUANELI clarified that if it were enacted as it is, he doesn't believe that an assault could be charged. This is a much more specific offense, with specific elements. Therefore, it has been removed from the assault offense, in effect, and placed one level lower. Number 0794 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that they would hold the bill over and have the sponsor work with the Department of Law. "I think all of us have basically the same concern," he added, indicating the desire to eliminate any unintended consequences. Number 0819 GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward, disagreeing with Mr. Guaneli's conclusion that this would prevent the charge of assault. He said one element of assault is causing physical injury or placing the person in imminent fear. He sees nothing in Alaska case law or under the United States Constitution that would prevent the department from charging assault after this crime. Mr. Luckhaupt stated: If that is a concern, we can draft around that very easily. We can say, under this, "in circumstances not proscribed under assault in the fourth degree," for example, "or not proscribed under AS 11.41," and ... those circumstances will all be removed. I see this as merely something that adds on to those alternatives that can be charged now, and I think the sponsor understands it, through our discussion with his staff, that, to the extent that a laser pointer ... gets in the eye of the officer or something like that, and to the extent you cause any physical pain, that's an assault. It's clearly a crime under current law. To the extent the officer is placed in fear of imminent physical injury, that's fourth degree assault, and that's a crime. As to Representative Croft's proposed amendment about having to ... set out that this does not apply to peace officers, we don't do that in terms of pointing the gun that the laser sight is on, which, ... [if] a peace officer were to point that at a suspect or something like that, that is not a crime under Alaska law, because of the defense we provide. ... But we don't, anywhere in the assault statutes, say that this does not apply to officers, when you place someone in fear of imminent physical injury, by means of a dangerous instrument. To do it here would imply that the legislature is not providing that defense elsewhere. And so, I would advise very strongly against doing that. And, basically, the main reason is it isn't necessary, because we provide an "out" later on in our statutes, that anyone performing a public duty (indisc.) from the crime, the criminal liability. But the reason the sponsor has it drafted this way is due to some interplay between us and the Department of Law earlier in session. Number 0946 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the term "threatening" isn't used for assault. MR. LUCKHAUPT replied: Not exactly. We use the term, "if you are placed in fear of imminent physical injury." It's a fourth degree assault. Or "by means of a dangerous instrument you're placed in fear of physical injury," that becomes a higher level of assault, that becomes a felony form of assault. We don't use ... the word "threat" per se in the assault statutes. We use it in stalking. We use it in some of the offenses in AS 11.61 around disorderly conduct, in regards to annoying and harassing phone calls that can be considered threatening. ... While people think of it as being something akin to an assault - and it is, under a common law idea, what assault and battery is: the assault is the threat, the battery is the actual touching - that's the common understanding, but it's not how we define it, in terms of our assault statutes themselves. MR. LUCKHAUPT indicated this follows how other jurisdictions have enacted such laws, as a disorderly conduct type of offense. He noted that to the extent that any physical injury was caused or threatened, that would be assault, already codified under current law. Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for confirmation that "the threatening effect the act may have on another person" is not assault. MR. LUCKHAUPT said that is not assault. If the victim is placed in fear of physical injury, however, that is an assault. He cited some examples using guns. If Person A points a toy gun at Person B, who knows it to be a toy, there is no fear and therefore no assault. Similarly, if a real gun is pointed but Person B believes it to be a toy, there is no fear and potentially no assault; however, there is reckless endangerment because the gun is real. In the case of the laser pointer, the statute wouldn't depend on the fear. Just as pointing a gun at someone is, of itself, a crime, this says that it is a crime to point a laser sighted device with reckless disregard for the fear that the person might feel. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that, as written, it seems that "threatening" could be interpreted either way. MR. LUCKHAUPT restated his earlier points. He added that some people will be annoyed by this, just as some people will be insulted by someone dropping their pants or "mooning," which is right above that, in subsection (7). Number 1266 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that another attorney had said there is a problem, however. MR. LUCKHAUPT noted that he had begun by saying although he didn't agree with Mr. Guaneli, it can be solved by adding a reference that says, "in a manner not proscribed under AS 11.41." He reiterated that he doesn't see where this prevents assault from being charged, and that in other states, it hasn't prevented assaults from being charged under these same circumstances. He also reiterated that he knows of no case law that would prevent that. Number 1304 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he personally would consider it an assault if a laser beam were pointed at him from an unknown source. It would frighten him, he said, and he would think it was a weapon. He suggested that is a much higher level of offense than being "mooned." Number 1380 CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that it has been described to him that these devices can shine up to 2,500 feet. The new green laser lights can supposedly shine up to three miles. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that HB 154 would be held over in order to try to satisfy the committee with language that resolves the problems described.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|