Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
01/28/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR23 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 255-UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
8:35:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 255, "An Act relating to unmanned aircraft systems; and
relating to images captured by an unmanned aircraft system."
8:36:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES introduced HB 255, as joint prime sponsor.
She said the Legislative Task Force on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
was created to study the issue [of unmanned aircraft systems],
which is technology that will be seen in a wide variety of uses.
She stated her number one concern is privacy. She said she also
considered the Fourth Amendment as it relates to what government
agencies are allowed to use. Representative Hughes talked about
the benefits of harnessing unmanned aircraft use within Alaska
for search and rescue missions, for monitoring pipelines, and
for keeping watch for fires. She pointed out that with Alaska's
lack of roads, it makes sense to use unmanned aircraft to save
lives. Further, she indicated that the use of unmanned aircraft
is cost effective.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES acknowledged that there have been concerns
about the federal government's collecting of data over the last
few years, including the keeping of phone records; therefore,
she said the task force spent most of its time focusing on the
issue of privacy. She indicated that there are two parts to the
issue, and each had to be addressed "under two pieces." She
said today she is discussing the piece that sets the parameters
for law enforcement use and allows the University of Alaska to
establish a training program for unmanned aircraft systems
operations.
8:39:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that under HB 255, law enforcement
would be allowed to use unmanned aircraft to gather evidence for
a criminal investigation, under the express terms of a search
warrant, as under AS 12.35, or in accordance with judicially
recognized exception to the warrant requirement. She said the
proposed legislation would set the parameters for the retention
of images, limiting them to use in an investigation or
prosecution, for training purposes, or if the image is required
by federal or state law.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES brought attention to new language [in
Section 1, beginning on page 1, line 13], which would: require
a law enforcement agency to follow Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) training certification requirements;
require the chief administrative officer of a law enforcement
agency to approve each use of an unmanned aircraft; require a
law enforcement agency to maintain records, establish an
auditable flight record system, and establish a method of
notifying the public, unless doing so would endanger a person's
safety; and require that a law enforcement agency provide for
community involvement in policy development. She mentioned
police departments and state troopers around the country
adopting procedures and guidelines specifically addressing
privacy.
8:40:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said it is sometimes difficult to take a
balanced approach, because the application of technology will
sometimes go beyond current laws. She noted that there were
people available to testify.
8:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned [surveillance] cameras taking
photos of people on the street and unmanned aircraft. He asked,
"Why are we concerned about one and not the other?"
8:43:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES opined that an unmanned aircraft, as a
tool, is in itself neither evil nor good; the intention of the
operator is key. She said the same type of camera can be used
on a manned aircraft as well as on an unmanned aircraft;
however, the unmanned aircraft is smaller, quieter, and able to
access places that a manned aircraft cannot, "and so there is a
concern." She said there have been technological advances,
which extend the life of the batteries, so unmanned aircraft can
be up for extended periods of time. She said the Fourth
Amendment is part of the discussion when considering state use,
and the First Amendment discussion falls under commercial use,
which is increasing. She related that there is an application
("app") available that makes it possible to determine the
location of drones and satellites. She said the drones being
considered for use in Alaska are smaller than the ones used by
the military. She further related that the FAA does not allow
any weapons on unmanned aircraft. She indicated that that is
one of the safety features that will bring peace of mind to the
public.
8:46:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if the proposed legislation would affect a
private citizen who puts a video camera on a small aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that HJR 22 would not affect that
type of hobby use; it pertains to training and law enforcement
use. She said whether [remote controlled] aircraft is
considered a hobby model aircraft or an unmanned aircraft
depends on the "purpose of use." She said hobby craft falls
under the guidelines of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA).
CHAIR LYNN observed that many kinds of airplanes can be
controlled from the ground.
8:47:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to page 2, lines 24-26,
which read as follows:
(b) In adopting procedures under (a) of this
section, a law enforcement agency shall adopt the
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
Recommended Guidelines for the Use of Unmanned
Aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would like the sponsor to describe
the association. He mentioned the concerns of privacy, and
thanked the sponsor for being willing to tackle the issue. In
response to the chair, he pointed to a proposed requirement
under HB 255, in paragraph (8), on page 2, lines 22-24, that the
law enforcement agency would provide for public consideration,
and he questioned the directive for the agency to adopt [the
guidelines]. He said, "I still am wondering if the law
enforcement agency shouldn't be required to take that into
consideration at the same level as community input, as opposed
to an international interest." He said Alaska is unique that it
has a privacy clause in its constitution. He said, "There's a
directive in there that legislators are to set guidelines for
protecting the right to privacy. That's a tall order. I
personally think that we have not done enough." He explained
that he has trouble not customizing an international standard.
CHAIR LYNN said he shares Representative Keller's concern.
8:51:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES responded that she has "the same aversion
... to anything international," but realized when she read the
document that "the guidelines would help protect Alaskans." She
said the committee could choose which guidelines to adopt. She
related that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has adopted
the guidelines. She said local governments may decide to employ
unmanned aircraft in the future, and the task force was
concerned that they offer the same privacy protections. She
noted that the issue of community engagement is addressed within
the guidelines and "being involved in the ... internal policy
[making] for the agencies is part of the process." She deferred
to Lieutenant Rodney Dial to speak about the guidelines.
8:53:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he has not read the guidelines. Notwithstanding
that, he surmised that the guidelines are probably good, but he
is not sure the bill language should state that "we must look at
these guidelines."
8:53:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON thanked Representative Hughes for the
task force. He indicated that he had heard both cynical and
favorable response from his community. He said it is known that
Fort Wainwright may operate a military drone called, "Gray
Eagle." He said the military has expressed concern about
finding a location where it can "immediately access restricted
air space and not go over private residences, to allay the fear
of government snooping." He said there are people in the Salcha
area, on the eastern side of Fort Eielson, in the line of sight
of the restricted area. He emphasized the need to define the
public purpose, the training purpose, and the municipal
ordinance. He said that as a former mayor, he can see the value
of using unmanned aircraft to check out downed utility lines,
for example. He indicated that public purpose could include
parking, traffic control, animal control, speed traps, or
searching for "old girlfriends." He questioned what the
training purpose would be as it pertains to the retention of
images. He relayed that retired Brigadier General Beau Daily
(ph) had demonstrated how unmanned aircraft can be used to count
marine mammals, without scaring the mammals. He reiterated that
concern over unmanned aircraft revolves around the private
citizen aspect.
8:57:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES offered her understanding that the same
instances when a manned aircraft would be permitted would apply
in use of unmanned aircraft, and that it would not include
looking for old girlfriends. Regarding the capturing of images
of private citizens, she said case law has shown that "if there
is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that ... situation,
then the images could not be retained and not be used and not be
admissible." She deferred to state expert, Dean Dawson, for
further comment on the issue.
8:58:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked that he cannot imagine flying unmanned
aircraft without going over someone's private residence - even
inadvertently. Regarding the retention of images, he said the
images captured by surveillance cameras in public areas are
retained for a period of time. He said the bombers at the
Boston Marathon were caught because of surveillance camera
images that were retained. He surmised that those images could
have been taken by an unmanned aircraft.
8:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON responded that the other side of this is
the public benefit. For example, he talked about "Google
Earth," which captures "all sorts of stuff," but is relied upon
by many as a "base map." He questioned what the impact would be
if a guideline is set different from that which is set for
something else, for example, a satellite or shopkeeper's store
[surveillance]. He questioned whether there would be unintended
consequences from trying to keep people from abusing the system
while using the unmanned aircraft for a good purpose, such as
seeking out forest fires in order to extinguish them faster.
9:00:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that there is economic opportunity
for Alaska in this matter, and she warned that being overly
restrictive with a tool could prevent it being harnessed for
beneficial uses. She said there are issues unique to unmanned
aircraft, such as their small size and quiet operation, and
that, plus law enforcement use, is the reason for HB 255.
9:01:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned a farmer in North Dakota, who
was the first U.S. citizen to be thrown in jail for using
unmanned aircraft in response to a situation where livestock
crossed over property lines. Representative Keller said this is
a "real issue" that must be addressed.
9:03:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES responded that that would not have played
out the same in Alaska, because a search warrant would have been
required.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it concerns him that the farmer's
defense had been that "there was no warrant for the drone
surveillance."
9:04:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention the proposed exemption
on page 3, line 10, which would allow retention of images
captured by unmanned aircraft if the image is required "by
federal or state law or by municipal ordinance." He asked for
examples. He questioned what kind of state law would be passed
to allow those images to be kept in the context of law
enforcement.
9:05:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES indicated that investigation, prosecution,
and training purposes are being addressed. She said the task
force did hear from DPS that current state retention policies do
provide some challenges for them, and it's something that [the
task force] decided not to address, because "it impacts more
than this"; instead, it recommended the state look at the
retention policies overall. She again deferred to Dean Dawson.
9:06:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated the need to have clear
guidelines as to whether or not data can be retained, and he
questioned whether Alaska wants "a blanket, wide open door for
any state law that comes along that says they can retain"
[images].
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested that it would also be beneficial
for the committee to hear from Lieutenant Rodney Dial.
9:08:18 AM
DEAN DAWSON, State Archivist, Alaska State Archives/Records &
Information Management Service, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), said the state records retention
policies under AS 40.21 apply to the retention of images, and
the state's general administrative retention schedule prescribes
mandatory retention periods for all state records. He said, for
example, there is a 30-day retention for video footage. He
added, "And then, of course, the caveat is unless there is a
pending litigation, audit investigation, or law enforcement
activity." He said EED would recommend that DPS implement the
records retention review and stipulate on its [records]
retention schedule - which the attorney general also signs -
exactly how long those images would be retained.
MR. DAWSON said in a situation where the state and a local
government have differing retention periods, the general premise
in a records and information management field is to retain for
the longest period of time. He said those images would be
confidential and privileged, pending a Freedom of Information
Act request. He said DEED recommends that DPS prescribe
procedures through policy development [outlining] exactly what
the course of action for release of any potential privacy
documents would be.
9:10:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Dawson to confirm that "these would be ...
for governmentally acquired images."
MR. DAWSON responded yes.
CHAIR LYNN asked if the retention of images recorded by private
entities, such as Gavel to Gavel and all television stations,
would be impacted.
MR. DAWSON answered no. He said the State Records Retention Act
applies only to state government entities. He said, "We provide
guidance to local governments upon request, but they're not
bound by our statute."
9:11:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS questioned how current law differs for
manned aircraft.
MR. DAWSON replied, "I'm not aware of any distinguishing
parameter manned ... [vis-à-vis] unmanned."
9:11:27 AM
MR. DAWSON, in response to Representative Isaacson, expounded
upon his previous statement regarding local governments, by
explaining that the state consults and provides a general
retention schedule to local governments, 95 percent of which
follow the schedule.
9:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES echoed that the record retention policy
pertains only to records required by state departments.
9:12:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON ventured that municipalities defer to
the aforementioned guidelines, because the archivists have
already thought through all the issues.
MR. DAWSON said yes, and added, "In fact, we solicit the clerk's
input for our retention schedules." In response to a follow-up
question, he said generally speaking, the department does not
engage the public in the development of its retention schedules.
9:13:23 AM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated that the Alaska State
Troopers agency has no concerns regarding the image retention
requirements proposed in HB 255 and believes they strike the
right balance between privacy concerns and the operational needs
of the department.
9:14:00 AM
GREGORY WALKER, Chief Technology Officer, Alaska Center for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration (ACUASI), University of
Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF); Member, Legislative Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems, relayed that he started the unmanned
aircraft program at UAF ten years ago and still leads it from a
technical perspective today. He said unmanned aircraft systems
operations are used to observe wildlife, oil and gas operations,
and climate change, and for emergency response.
MR. WALKER said there really is no new technology to consider;
it is just a matter of how the technology for surveillance is
being employed. For example, he said there are dashboard
cameras in today's public vehicles that record imagery, and how
those images are used is an ongoing concern involving
consideration of retention length and the possible need for
search warrants. He said he is part of the progressive task
force, which is trying to protect Alaskans' constitutional
rights for privacy, while at the same time putting out the
message that Alaska is open for business with regard to unmanned
aircraft technology, which can help in terms of the state's
climate diversity and large land masses. Mr. Walker concluded
by stating that the task force wanted to ensure there is a clear
position on public use of unmanned aircraft and how other
agencies manage the technology.
9:17:34 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), opined
that Section 1 of the bill is not only important to the FNSB,
but to the entire state, because it would give the University of
Alaska the ability to establish a training program in unmanned
aircraft systems operations. He stated that this is important
to the state's economic development. He said the University of
Alaska has been designated to be the lead in the FAA test site
for developing the ability for unmanned vehicles to be operated
in commercial air space at some point in the future. He
emphasized the importance of the University of Alaska to advance
research development and the use of technology to benefit
citizens with the safe use of unmanned aerial systems. He said
citizens demand that privacy and the transparency of law
enforcement are upheld, which is why "the major piece of this
legislation is so important for our citizens, with the proposed
amendments that should provide proper oversight within the
judicial parameters of our law enforcement agencies."
9:19:55 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS said the importance of gathering information by a
law enforcement agency is understood, and the procedures
proposed under HB 255 "set forth a fair and reasonable activity
concerning law enforcement oversight." He warned against losing
the aspect of the economic development of unmanned aerial
systems. He said he thinks the task force "has done incredible
work on establishing those."
MAYOR HOPKINS stated that as mayor, he understands Section 4,
which would amend Title 29 so that "a municipality may not adopt
an ordinance that permits the release of images captured" by [an
unmanned aircraft system]. He said he is certain that any
future assemblies will understand: "It'll be law." Mayor
Hopkins reiterated that there are many benefits that unmanned
aerial systems can have for Alaska, and he asked the committee
to keep in mind, "While we have to regulate, we also don't want
to regulate out of existence this new technology."
9:22:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that "this allows law enforcement
applications," but the FNSB is "second class" and has not been
given law enforcement powers. Nevertheless, he asked Mayor
Hopkins if he thinks the proposed legislation would help in
addressing issues related to the drug trade in outlying areas of
the borough. He asked, "Do you have any particular concerns or
do you feel that this is being adequately addressed through
reference to these other statutes?"
MR. HOPKINS indicated that the borough is already in
communication with DPS's detachment in the Interior. He said he
thinks what law enforcement would be allowed to do and not
allowed to do is clear in the proposed legislation. He echoed
Representative Hughes' remark that this is a starting point, and
changes can be made in the future.
9:24:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that Section 29 makes a reference
back to a section of the law that is dealing with law
enforcement, and said he is trying to figure out "if there's any
implication here of anything to do with technology, data
collected, that's outside of that narrow .903."
9:25:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES deferred to Anne Carpeneti.
9:26:38 AM
ANNE CARPINETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), to the
question from Representative Keller, said there are state
statutes that do put constraints on law enforcement on retention
of evidence. She said that in 2010, the legislature passed a
retention of evidence law, which requires, in homicide
investigations, that the evidence be retained for up to 50 years
or the length of time the case is unsolved - whichever is
longer. She said, for example, in some sexual assault cases,
the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has to be kept for as long as
the defendant is required to register as a sex offender, and if
that is sexual assault or sexual abuse in the first degree, that
is for the duration of his/her life. She said there are
statutes, and they bind municipal and state law enforcement
agencies.
9:28:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that he would keep public testimony open.
9:28:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON, regarding public purpose, training, and
municipal ordinance, asked Ms. Carpeneti, "What is currently on
the books, and how does that ... play into this bill from [a]
legal standpoint?"
9:29:07 AM
MS. CARPENETI answered that generally law enforcement keeps
records in an investigation as directed in statute and according
to the seriousness of the case. She stated that when the
legislature debated the issue of record retention, it tried to
adopt laws that took into account the size of the law
enforcement agency and its ability to preserve evidence. She
said there is always tension between keeping the evidence and
returning it to the owner. She related that a bill passed last
session set up a procedure for a victim to be represented by the
Office of Victims' Rights to bring an action in case that victim
believes the police were retaining property that belonged to
him/her unnecessarily. She noted that there is a provision in
law that allows a law enforcement agency to take a cutting from
a sofa for purposes of collecting DNA. She explained this is
helpful for smaller agencies that may not have the ability to
store the entire sofa.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON recollected that [Mr. Dawson] had
testified that municipalities do not have to follow state
archiving schedules. He asked if municipal law enforcement
officials have to follow the criminal laws established by the
State of Alaska.
MS. CARPENETI answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON ventured, then, that whatever the
legislature does "on the state side" will govern "the municipal
side."
MS. CARPENETI responded yes, if that is made clear in the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON directed attention to page 3, line 10,
which lists one of the exceptions wherein a law enforcement
agency could retain images as when the retention of the image is
required "by federal or state law or by municipal ordinance".
He asked, "At what point does municipal ordinance have more
weight than state law, in law enforcement?"
MS. CARPENETI said she is not an expert in Title 29, but knows
there are provisions in Title 9 that say state law rules. She
said she could get back to Representative Isaacson with an
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested that if law enforcement is the
purview of the state, then the committee should probably clarify
the boundaries of municipal ordinance.
9:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if there are sections of law that
govern non-law enforcement governmental retention of images.
9:34:49 AM
MS. CARPENETI replied that she is sure there are; she recalled
that Mr. Dawson had testified that there are standards for
retention of public records.
9:35:17 AM
BARBARA JOHNSON, Special Assistant, Mayor Luke Hopkins,
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), related that she had
attended several of the task force's meetings, where concerns
were heard, other state's methods were studied, and
opportunities to learn from missteps were taken. She stated,
"We have worked really hard on the economic development side of
this industry." She reported that an Association of Unmanned
Vehicle Systems international 2013 study showed that in Alaska,
direct jobs have the potential to bring in $19 million, with 95
jobs, from 2015-2017, and increase from there to $112 million,
with 141 jobs to 2025. She thanked the University of Alaska for
its work and participation with the task force, as well as in
the community and around the state.
9:37:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that he would keep public testimony open.
9:37:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 255 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB255 Version N.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 02 HB255 Sponsor Statement 21Jan14.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 03 HB255 FINAL Legislative Task Force UAS Interim Report - Jan 15-2014.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 04 HB255 IACP UAGuidelines.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 05 Fiscal Note DPS HB255.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 06 Fiscal Note UOA HB255.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 07 Fiscal Note DOL HB255.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 255 |
| 01 HJR023A.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 23 |
| 02 HJR 23 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 23 |
| 03 Fiscal Note HJR23-01-27-14.php.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 23 |
| 04 HJR 23 Letter of Support Volanti.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 23 |
| 05 HJR23 ASHSC Resolution 2013-1_Passed 14 Nov '13.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 23 |