Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/19/2002 01:37 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 350-TERRORISTIC THREATS CHAIRMAN KOHRING announced that the next matter before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 350, "An Act relating to terroristic threatening." [In committee packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version F.] Number 197 REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 350, testified before the committee. She said that the bill is the result of an incident in the Sitka airport. An individual was frustrated over his bags' being searched. He made a verbal threat to an Alaska Airlines employee that he would return to the airport as an assassin. Representative McGuire said it was her understanding that the witnesses who testified to what occurred said it was a frightening and disruptive situation. Representative McGuire said it did not cause an evacuation or bodily harm, but she expressed her belief that situations like this will become more common as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. She said she had looked at the statutes pertaining to terroristic threatening to make sure that prosecutors had "all of the tools available" to prosecutors. She said upon looking at the statutes, she discovered those dealing with terroristic threatening could be strengthened. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that the case ended in the individual "walking away" without state or federal prosecution. She said one of the reasons was a question of jurisdiction. The federal government did not prosecute because the threat was not made by telephone or on the plane itself. The State of Alaska decided not to prosecute the individual. Representative McGuire said that decision was a controversial one. She said that the prosecution had "tools available" such as fourth degree assault. Representative McGuire said she would like this legislation to make it painfully clear that life has changed since September 11. She said air travel has become a very serious matter. She said her intent is to "add some tools to the prosecutor's tool belt." Number 254 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she was aware that some of the committee members were uncomfortable with the language in the original House bill. She referred to [paragraph] (2), beginning on line 15. She said it stated that: A person would commit a crime of terroristic threatening if they knowingly threatened a person actually engaged in providing transportation services or transportation [support] services with physical injury, regardless of whether the person had the ability to carry out the threat or intended to carry out the threat, and [the person] threatened [actually was] placed in fear of physical injury. She said it was not her intent to debate that deletion, but she wished to explain what her thought was in introducing the language. She offered the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy from law school. She said in the analogy the individual does not have matches, but the harm is evident immediately because of the fear instilled in the people in the theatre. She said she wanted to capture the notion because of the possibility of a similar situation in an airport due to the terrorist attacks of September 11. She said after September 11, a claim to return as an assassin, or the assertion of one's having a bomb, would cause panic and fear. She wanted the bill to make people realize that there are consequences to the words people use. She said she was willing to accept the proposed (CS). CHAIRMAN KOHRING asked if there was a motion to adopt the CS. Number 292 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if Chairman Kohring was the one who had proposed the CS. CHAIRMAN KOHRING said that it was initiated by him, and said that his aide had gone around to as many committee members as possible to see if there was a concurrence on making the modifications. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told Representative Kookesh that she was comfortable with the language and said she would be working with the Department of Law, as well as Representative Rokeberg, to pursue the same idea without the language being so broad. Number 301 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy was a First Amendment issue or an assault issue. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said it was an assault issue. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked why the person was not charged with and prosecuted for fourth degree assault. He said an action that puts someone in fear of physical harm is fourth degree assault. He said unless the person was not taken seriously, there were clearly grounds to charge and prosecute. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she could not know the mind of the particular prosecutor, but said she understood there was a jurisdictional issue, and perhaps a political issue. She said that there was a question of whether the person fit the elements of the crime. The ultimate decision rested on the person's inability to meet the elements of the crime. She said the district attorney characterized the incident as one of poor taste and bad judgment. Representative McGuire expressed her belief that it was more than that. She said that she would have prosecuted the case. Number 336 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to adopt the proposed CS, version 22-LS1300\F, Luckhaupt, 2/13/02. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that this crime would be a class C felony. He said that the House Judiciary Standing Committee had been looking at several bills relating to classification as felonies. He said the results of being a convicted felon were serious, such as the loss of the right to vote or own a gun. He asked if a felony conviction would be appropriate when no one was caused fear by what amounted to an idle threat. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN then raised the issue of someone using bad judgment by going through security, forgetting something, and bolting back through security in the other direction. Representative Ogan asked if in this scenario, would the fact that a whole wing of an airport had to be shut down would make the individual a felon. He asked how that theoretical person would be affected by the bill. Number 367 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that under Version F, the crime of terroristic threatening already exists as a class c felony in statute. She said Version F adds "public area", "mode of public transportation", "disruption of the schedule of an entity providing transportation services", and threats to oil transportation, water, and sewer facilities. She said it is considered more serious because the potential for harm is greater. She expressed her belief that it is appropriate to place the threat of public facilities within the realm of a class C felony. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE addressed Representative Ogan's second point. She said that the scenario of the person returning back through security would be a question for the prosecution. The prosecution would "have that tool in their tool belt" and would have to argue the elements of the crime. She said that times had changed since September 11. She said terroristic threatening is already a class C felony. Number 410 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI drew the inference that since this is a subjective law, if the bill were passed, the prosecutor could take the same action as was taken in the Sitka case and say it was bad judgment. He asked if they could not use the same subjectivity under Version F. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said under Version F, the Sitka situation would not even be addressed. She said all it adds to the existing terroristic threatening law is if it concerns a public area as well as a regular building; if the schedule of a transportation-providing entity is disrupted; or there is an assertion that a false threat exists or is about to exist that is dangerous to an oil or gas pipeline [or] supporting facility, utility, or water pipe. She said the committee chose to remove the language that would have included the incident in Sitka in terroristic threatening. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he does not like "hate crime legislation." He said that the prosecution could make the determination of whether someone is a threat or not. He asked if either the proposed CS or the original bill would make a difference in whether or not the prosecution would have to proceed. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that the prosecution would not have to proceed under the new legislation. The elements would have to be proven just the same. Number 444 LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference. She said that her comments were initially to address what she saw as the broadness of the language in the original bill. She said that Version F corrects that. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if she would be detained if she were talking about a bomb or spoke about a bomb in an airport. She asked if she would have to say she was going to "blow the airport up" to be detained. She asked for a clarification of the "fine line." REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to [page 2, beginning at line 8]. She said that the person must knowingly make a false report of a circumstance that disrupts the schedule of an entity providing transportation services for persons or property, or causes an evacuation. She said that under the current statutes, one could already be convicted of terroristic threatening if one caused the evacuation of "the building itself." All that is added to the language is, "public area or mode of public transportation", and onto the false-report language, "disrupts the schedule of an entity providing transportation". REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said "it is like any other crime": there is a mental state and the actual fact of whether a false report was made, and public defenders would probably argue something different than the prosecution. Number 478 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what would happen if she were to just talk about a bomb at an airport. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that the prosecution would have to assess, via witnesses or security cameras, whether an individual knowingly made a threat or not. They would then have to assess if the report was false, and then there would have to be an action such as an evacuation. She said there were several checks and balances in Version F. She said the language being removed from the original bill has made the new version very tight and specific. Representative McGuire expressed her belief that sitting in an airport chatting about a bomb would not rise to the level of terroristic threatening. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he shared some of Representative Masek's concerns. He gave the example of a child running through airport security to see his father. He said someone might "hit the panic button" and shut down the whole wing of an airport in such a case. He said that some things happen and people are not always intending to be terroristic. He expressed his concern that "somebody is going to slip through the cracks." He paraphrased Benjamin Franklin, saying; "Those who compromise their liberty to gain security deserve neither." He said he supports Representative McGuire's intention in the legislation but expressed concern about the potential for dire consequences and misunderstandings. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she empathized with Representative Ogan's concerns, but as with any crime, the elements must be proven. She made clear that it would not be as simple as an evacuation being caused, and someone automatically being convicted of a class C felony. Once again, she said that a mental state must be met for the crime to be committed. She said this would prevent Representative Ogan's example from being an example of terroristic threatening. She said the language is narrow, and a mere accident would not lead to a class C felony. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN thanked Representative McGuire for putting it on the record so that people defending those charged with terroristic threatening can research the bill in the future if need be. He asked what the lesser-included offense for the crime would be. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she did not know. She said the lesser-included offense is another "way out." She said if the elements of the case are not met, they are not met. After Representative Wilson expressed confusion about some of her references to Version F, Representative McGuire explained that the confusion was the result of her having a written addendum instead of the new draft. She said that the only difference between her draft and those held by the committee members was line 20. She said "when referencing Section 2 on your draft, it is lines 18 through 21." CHAIRMAN KOHRING voiced his concern that there may already be a law adopted at the federal level that would address the same issues as Version F. Representative McGUIRE said she did not know if there was, but added that it did not matter because of the jurisdictional issue. She said there is a fine line between the federal and state jurisdiction. She said that this bill aims at shoring up holes in the federal jurisdiction that require threats to be either made via a telephone or on an airplane. She followed up on Representative Ogan's question about the lesser-included offense. She said that it would be a class A misdemeanor. Number 590 CHAIRMAN KOHRING said that it would be prudent to exercise restraint in the process of improving security. He said he shared Representative Ogan's concern of prosecuting those who did not intend to commit a serious crime. He said he also understood Representative McGuire's position that there are a lot of "hoops" to "jump through." TAPE 02-2, SIDE B Number 593 CHAIRMAN KOHRING said that it is a fine line between safety and freedom. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she agreed, and said it is a good thing to acknowledge that line. She said she appreciates the comments of everyone on the committee. She said it is the job of policymakers to be aware of the fine line between overprotection and freedom. She expressed her hope that the bill is a good "middle ground." Number 582 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said that the legislation is good, but added that what leads to people making remarks that are "out of line" is the frustration of passengers. He said that he did not want to see people punished for frustration. He said he travels frequently and that he could understand why the individual in Sitka was frustrated with his luggage being lost. He said he identified with Representative Ogan, and that he wanted to make sure that there is some discretion in determining whether a particular activity is terroristic threatening, or if it is frustration. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed with Representative Kookesh's concerns, but said it was important to remember that as policy makers, [legislators] are in the business of protecting public transportation. She listed some of the resources and public facilities that must protected, and said the bill was broader than just applying to airports. Representative McGuire said the bill is making the statement that Alaska's public facilities deserve protection. Number 549 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that some of the issues that members were concerned and frustrated with in Version F, would be taken care of in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to move the CS for HB 350, version 22-LS1300\F, Luckhaupt, 2/13/02 out of committee. There being no objection, CSHB 350(TRA) was moved out of the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|