Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
04/02/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearings: || Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Confirmation Hearings: || Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| HB375 | |
| SB171 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 375 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 375-CRIMINAL TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
1:16:36 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 375, "An Act relating to the crime of trespass."
DARREL BREESE, Staff, to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska
State Legislature, said HB 375 is simple and yet complex. It
repeals two sections of the criminal trespass statute in the
definition section, eliminating the requirement to give notice
of trespass in a specific manner. He said that in the Matanuska
Valley last year there were two incidences where trespass
occurred but could not be enforced due to the specific
definitions in statute. In August, a constituent of
Representative Stoltze had his tame pet turkey shot and killed
in his driveway by bow hunters. Since there were no signs
clearly posted, there was nothing that could be done, he
explained. In November, there were people trapping on Nicole
Jordan's gravel pit without permission, but because there were
no signs posted to say trapping was prohibited, the trappers
were allowed to trespass.
MR. BREESE stated that "this isn't about hunting or trapping;
this about clearly defining property owners' rights to declare
what can happen and cannot happen on their property." The bill
repeals AS 11.46.350 (b) and (c):
(b) For purposes of this section, a person who,
without intent to commit a crime on the land, enters
or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land,
which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a
manner designed to exclude intruders, is privileged to
do so unless
(1) notice against trespass is personally communicated
to that person by the owner of the land or some other
authorized person; or
(2) notice against trespass is given by posting in a
reasonably conspicuous manner under the circumstances.
(c) A notice against trespass is given if the notice
(1) is printed legibly in English;
(2) is at least 144 square inches in size;
(3) contains the name and address of the person under
whose authority the property is posted and the name
and address of the person who is authorized to grant
permission to enter the property;
(4) is placed at each roadway and at each way of
access onto the property that is known to the
landowner;
(5) in the case of an island, is placed along the
perimeter at each cardinal point of the island; and
(6) states any specific prohibition that the posting
is directed against, such as "no trespassing," "no
hunting," "no fishing," "no digging," or similar
prohibitions.
1:20:47 PM
MR. BREESE stated that in the case in Matanuska Valley, the
property owners had a no-trespassing sign that was not large
enough and was not posted on each point of access, so it was
determined that the individuals who were trapping were not in
violation of the law.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if he said that the owner can give
specific notice and the trespass will be illegal. "I gather
from the newspaper article that the owner said 'hey, you
shouldn't be here.'" She asked why they were not prosecuted.
MR. BREESE answered that the law requires that the signs be
posted in a clear and concise manner.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she heard him say that the landowner
can personally tell people not to trespass.
MR. BREESE said she is correct based on his interpretation, but
the courts determined that signs needed to be clearly posted.
1:22:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the turkey. It was a pet with
a name, so why was there no prosecution?
MR. BREESE said that is a question for the Department of Law,
but his understanding is that the owner did not want to [press
charges], but he was disappointed that someone is allowed to
come on his property and "take such severe action."
1:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said HB 375 sounds like a great bill, but
she does a lot of hiking, and if she does not see a sign when
she is out, she could be guilty of a misdemeanor by crossing
someone's land.
MR. BREESE noted that there are easements that exist across
lands with historic trails in rural areas. The incidents he
referred to were just outside of Palmer and not in wilderness
where there is more hiking. It was clearly in someone's
driveway, he added. Easements are "allowed if you're crossing
an existing easement and existing trails." If a person is
blazing a trail on someone's property, it could be trespassing.
1:24:34 PM
MR. BREESE said that HB 375 will place the burden on the person
to get permission to access someone's property, as opposed to
the property owners, who, "if they do not post signs currently,
they basically say anyone who wants to have access to my
property has access to my property." If a person wants to hike
or trap, maps are available from government entities, he stated.
In rural areas of Alaska it is more difficult to know who the
landowners are, but that information is becoming more available,
he added. "We need to look out and protect the personal
property rights and put the burden on those who want to access
people's land to acquire the permission rather than just opening
[the land] up for anyone and everyone who wants to access
someone's land," he stated.
1:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he has the same concern as
Representative LeDoux. He said he does a lot of hiking, but he
understands the need to protect the private landowner,
especially when there is the killing of pets and such. There
are times when he hikes without a planned direction; "I just
start walking." He does not envision people going to get maps,
he added, but he understands both sides and it is a little bit
of a conundrum.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has the same concerns, although
his hiking consists of walking from the refrigerator to the
couch.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that it is probably far-fetched, but
she gave the example of turning around in someone's driveway,
and asked if that would be a misdemeanor.
1:27:27 PM
MR. BREESE said that the statute refers to a person "who enters
or remains unlawfully," so someone turning around in a person's
driveway will probably not run the risk of prosecution unless he
or she remains there. He said that may refer to hiking as well,
so if a person is just walking across.... He said "most
landowners would understand if they see you out there and don't
want you there, they would say 'hey, could you please stay off
my property in the future.'" He added that he cannot envision a
large number of cases being filed just because of HB 375. The
enforcement issues will be in more urban areas and places where
people clearly do not want people accessing their property and
conducting activities such as trapping and hunting, he stated.
1:28:29 PM
CHAIR KELLER said this is a big issue considering all the
different types of land in Alaska. There is a big difference
between a lot and land held by a Native corporation, he stated.
NICOLINE JORDAN stated that she was the lessor of the property
where the trappers were operating. She said she filed a civil
suit against the trappers and "they gave us an offer of judgment
of $250." It cost her quite a bit of money to bring this
forward to begin with, she noted. The trappers were there for
the second year and they entered through an access point that
was blocked with logs and rocks, so it was obvious that she did
not want anyone in there. The trappers brought in moose
carcasses as bait, and one of the trappers was an Alaska
wildlife trooper and should have known better, she said. She
opined that the law needs to be rewritten "because if the
troopers can't understand it, then obviously the general public
is having a hard time with it too." She said she went to the
borough just to determine land ownership in the valley, and the
time it took her was only four minutes. On an electronic
device, property ownership can be determined within minutes-a
person does not have to gather maps, she noted.
MS. JORDAN said there were no trespassing signs around the
property, but it is 160 acres. Her biggest concern is keeping
out the four-wheelers and dirt bikes so that she will not go to
work one morning and find out that someone is dead at the bottom
of one of her gravel banks. She said "the trapping thing" was a
big surprise, and it is not hard to figure out who the owner of
a property is today. She said it is important to protect the
rights of property owners, and it should not be their burden to
prosecute [trespassers]. It is not right to be on anyone's
property "unless you're dying ... and you need to use somebody's
cabin to stay alive, then that's OK," she added.
1:32:48 PM
JOHN VINDUSKA said he is the person whose turkey was shot at the
end of his driveway. He has lived in his residence for 40 years
and has always had free-ranging chickens on his property, but
four years ago he incubated four turkey eggs. He said he could
not eat the turkeys because they were friendly, followed him
around like a dog, and were a heritage breed. They were like
little members of his community, he stated, but one day one of
them turned up missing and then another one. He found a bloody
arrow and later a neighbor came over and told him that someone
just shot one of his turkeys. The neighbor said there was a car
parked at the end of Mr. Vinduska's driveway and three kids were
headed toward the chicken coop with bows, and the neighbor told
them that the owner would not like them hunting there. Mr.
Vinduska confronted them and they said they had killed a "wild"
turkey.
1:36:08 PM
MR. VINDUSKA called the troopers, and a trooper came and said
the driveway was not posted with a no hunting sign. He noted
that he owns 120 acres and has the same problems that Ms. Jordan
has with four-wheelers. He stated that his property is pretty
well posted, and there is a sign about 100 feet from his
driveway, but it was not properly placed on his driveway and was
not the correct size. The trooper said it was wrong what the
kids did, but the turkey is not a native game animal and the
land was not posted, so the kids did not commit a crime. He
asked what would happen if a dog, cat, or horse was shot-they
are not native animals. He was told that a chicken or turkey
does not meet the value of the other animals. He expressed his
belief that most landowners would not prosecute a person for
just walking through their properties. The intent of this bill
is stop people from causing trouble on private property, he
concluded.
1:38:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested asking someone from the
Department of Law why the killing of a pet would not be
prosecuted.
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency, Alaska
Department of Administration, said he did not research that
particular issue but he is not sure why it would not be a crime.
He spoke of criminal trespass.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected and said even if it is not
criminal trespass, why would it be perfectly fine to take out a
bow and arrow and shoot a pet?
1:41:10 PM
MR. STEINER said he assumes it would be, at the very least,
criminal mischief, if a pet is somebody's property.
BURKE WALDRON, Captain, Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, in response to being asked if the trooper had
given the correct message, said that he does not feel
comfortable answering that question until he can find out more
information. He will get back to the committee later.
CHAIR KELLER set HB 375 aside.