Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 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
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 1999
1:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 108(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 77(JUD)
"An Act prohibiting certain civil actions against firearms or
ammunition manufacturers and dealers."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 77(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a
child."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims arising out of or
in connection with the year 2000 date change; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 82(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Halcro, Phillips, Kerttula
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/22/99 278 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/22/99 278 (H) TRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/26/99 328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS, KERTTULA
3/30/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
3/30/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 108(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/31/99 618 (H) TRA RPT COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(TRA)
5DP
3/31/99 619 (H) DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, HALCRO, HUDSON,
3/31/99 619 (H) MASEK
3/31/99 619 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)
3/31/99 619 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, DNR)
3/31/99 619 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 77
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY PETE, Ward, Donley, Taylor, Halford,
Green, Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/18/99 286 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/18/99 286 (S) JUD, FIN
2/24/99 353 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WARD
3/08/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM
3/08/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/12/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM
3/12/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/12/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/15/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/15/99 (S) MOVED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE (JUD) OUT
OF COMMITTEE
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/15/99 546 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY,TAYLOR, HALFORD,
3/15/99 546 (S) GREEN, MILLER
3/16/99 563 (S) JUD RPT COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE 4DP
NEW TITLE
3/16/99 563 (S) DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON,DONLEY, HALFORD
3/16/99 563 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
3/22/99 635 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
3/23/99 (S) RLS AT 10:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/23/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/25/99 681 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/25/99
3/25/99 684 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/25/99 684 (S) JUD COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ADOPTED
UNAN CONSENT
3/25/99 684 (S) ADVANCED THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
3/25/99 684 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 77(JUD)
3/25/99 685 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
3/25/99 685 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/26/99 703 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/26/99 704 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/29/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/29/99 597 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/29/99 598 (H) JUD
4/07/99 680 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): DYSON
3/29/99 (H) JUD RPT HCS(JUD) 5DP 1NR
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 34
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 27 (H) JUDICIARY
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD/SUBCOMMITTEE
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/22/99 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/22/99 531 (H) JUD
3/24/99 562 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN
3/29/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/29/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) TABLED
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 82
SHORT TITLE: IMMUNITY:CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG, Dyson, Halcro
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/05/99 144 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/05/99 144 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
2/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
2/12/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/12/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
2/16/99 228 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
2/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
2/26/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/26/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/03/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/03/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 82(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/03/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/03/99 350 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
3/05/99 361 (H) L&C RPT COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(L&C) NT
3DP 3NR
3/05/99 361 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, HALCRO, HARRIS;
3/05/99 361 (H) NR: SANDERS, CISSNA, MURKOWSKI
3/05/99 361 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, COURT)
3/05/99 361 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
3/24/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/24/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED
3/24/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 64 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 64 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
1/22/99 64 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)
1/22/99 64 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/04/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/04/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
2/05/99 142 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
2/05/99 142 (H) DP: DYSON, MORGAN, HARRIS, MURKOWSKI,
2/05/99 142 (H) HALCRO; NR: KOOKESH
2/05/99 142 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)
1/22/99
2/05/99 142 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
3/15/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/17/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/17/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 108.
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Specialist
Alaska Coast Guard
PO Box 25517
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5517
Telephone: (907) 463-2297
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 108.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
PO Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 108 and HB 151.
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
for Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 510
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 77.
SENATOR PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 510
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 77.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 34.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2199
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 34.
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director
Public Defenders Agency
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 34.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 34 and HB 151.
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant
for Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 151.
LINDA WRIGHT
Good Legislation Assures Democracy
PO Box 105
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9694
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
DAVID HUDSON
Alaska State Troopers
5700 East Tudor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
MIKE GATTI
350 East Dahlia
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
KEVIN SMITH, Joint Insurance Association
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred to others present.
JOHN CORSO, City Attorney
City & Borough of Juneau
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5240
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested that a municipality's liability
should be equivalent to the state's
liability.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, Murkowski, Croft and
Kerttula. Representative James arrived at 2:07 p.m.
HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business is HB 108,
"An Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee should have copies of the
proposed committee substitute (committee substitute) which reflects
the changes discussed at the April 7, 1999 hearing.
Number 0097
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON, Sponsor of HB 108, noted that at the last
hearing there was concern regarding the failure to register being
labeled a class A misdemeanor which some felt was an excessive
penalty. Therefore, on page 9, line 7 the failure to register was
added to the list of violations. Representative Hudson recalled
that there had been discussion regarding the need to restrict the
amount of meetings the Alaska Boating Safety Council could have.
Therefore, it was determined that two council meetings per year
would be appropriate and such language was included on page 8, in
Section 7 (c). He noted this would not restrict the council from
meeting electronically. Both those changes are incorporated into
the proposed committee substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99.
CHAIRMAN KOTT believed that one of the concerns raised was in
regard to Section 4, AS 05.25.040 which deals with reporting.
There was discussion regarding the location of that in the proposed
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that he was looking at page 4 of
the proposed committee substitute, Version S.
Number 0322
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99, as the working document
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed concern with Section 11, the penalties
section of the proposed committee substitute. Section 11 (b) does
not include AS 05.25.030 which deals with rendering assistance
reporting. He stated, "That's the two main areas which would then
include that particular section in the penalty section which would
make it a class A misdemeanor."
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Specialist, Alaska Coast Guard,
explained that AS 05.25.030 was not placed in the violations
section was due to the issue of rendering assistance. "So you
could basically have a hit and run accident and then that would
have been reduced to a violation by switching that whole section.
So, if you wanted to consider--previously the state had in the
bill, that the person was guilty of a misdemeanor was not a
classified misdemeanor. So, if you want to reduce that to a class
B misdemeanor or something else. But that's why, I think, the
rationale and the discussions yesterday for not switching 030 [AS
05.25.030] into that violations section was strictly because of
reducing the penalty for somebody who might be involved in a hit
and run accident rather than the reporting issue."
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that in Section 4 which discusses
reporting, one would remain subject to penalties under the class A
misdemeanor for not reporting. To put someone away for up to a
year with a fine up to $1,000 under a class A misdemeanor seems a
bit harsh. Chairman Kott said that he would prefer a class B
misdemeanor which carries up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Chairman Kott commented that would be a policy call for the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed that a class A misdemeanor is probably
excessive, therefore it would be reasonable to change to a class B
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that failure to render
assistance would remain a class A misdemeanor while failure to
report would be a class B misdemeanor.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that was the direction being taken. The
committee should consider whether those two should be separated or
AS 05.25.030 placed in its entirety as a class B misdemeanor under
the penalty section. Chairman Kott further clarified that the
class A misdemeanor would be switched to a class B misdemeanor.
This is a policy call. He noted AS 05.25.030 could be placed in
the fine section and rendering assistance could be left as a class
A misdemeanor. Chairman Kott thought that AS 05.25.030 should be
a class B misdemeanor so that anything other than those listed in
the penalties section would be a class B misdemeanor which would
cover rendering assistance and reporting.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he felt it important to separate
subsection (b) which defines a violation from a class B
misdemeanor. Currently, there are two levels: a misdemeanor and
a lower violation such as a traffic ticket. Representative Croft
did not believe the bill included a class B misdemeanor; the bill
only includes a misdemeanor or a violation. Placing AS
05.25.030(b) under subsection (b) of the bill which defines only
violations would leave (a) as a misdemeanor and should accomplish
what Chairman Kott desired. Would it be inappropriate to have the
failure to report within 20 days as a violation?
MS. HARGIS stated that would be appropriate because the other
portion in subsection (a) is negligent operations which she
suggested should not be lowered. Either meets the Coast Guard's
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Ms. Hargis. If subsection (a) on
page 9, line 4 was left as is and AS 05.25.030 was placed under the
violation section, an adequate penalty appropriate to the offense
would be created.
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that on page 9, line 7, after "AS
05.25.020," the language "AS 05.25.030(b)" would be inserted.
Therefore, failure to report would be subject to a fine of up to
$500. The rendering of assistance section on page 4, lines 11
through 14, would be left in tact as a class A misdemeanor.
Number 0860
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved the following as a conceptual amendment.
Page 9, line 7, after "AS 05.25.020,"
Insert, "AS 05.25.030(b)"
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 10, line 16 regarding the fee
schedule and the non-motorized boat registration which he
identified as another policy call for the committee. Currently,
non-motorized boat registration is set at $10 in this statute.
Does the committee want that fee to be consistent with paragraph
(1) in Section 13 which requires a fee of $24. This is an
administrative function for the department. Chairman Kott
indicated the need for consistency whether it be $10 or $24. He
noted that testimony from the Coast Guard at the March 7, 1999
hearing stated that 30 percent of the fatalities occur within
non-motorized vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA informed the committee that she has an
amendment prepared which would remove vessels such as canoes and
kayaks from the ambit of the bill. This section was specifically
changed to reduce the fees to non-motorized vessels.
Representative Kerttula noted that there is great concern regarding
registering everyone's canoe and kayak. Representative Kerttula
opposed increasing non-motorized vessels to $24.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether Representative Kerttula would
consider making it $10 a year. He believed that much of the money
collected goes towards education and publishing the pamphlet.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed the committee that this topic was
discussed at length in the first committee of referral. During
that discussion, the canoers and kayakers testified that they
should not be included in this legislation because they are not in
the federal law. Representative Hudson explained that this fee
schedule attempts to generate a reasonable rate of return from
every boater in Alaska in order to have an educational boating
safety program. He indicated that the fee schedule was drawn from
the discussion of families who use a canoe a few times a year
versus a motorized vessel which would probably be utilized more
often. Representative Hudson said he would like the committee to
consider leaving the fee schedule as it is.
CHAIRMAN KOTT was not sure of the usage. He reiterated that the
same administration is being done for both fees and the same
boating safety pamphlet will be utilized by both types of boaters.
Chairman Kott acknowledged that the usage of non-motorized vessels
would be less than that of motorized vessels.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that it is the same low level of effort
to register a boat or a kayak. To some extent, there is a
distinction between the purchase price of a motorized and
non-motorized vessel. He inquired as to how onerous the fee should
be on a canoe owner versus a motorized boat owner. The price of a
canoe is not in the same category as that of a motorized boat.
Representative Croft drew a parallel between the fact that bikes
are not required to be registered although there may be a lot of
bike accidents; it is not the same level or cost as registering an
automobile.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if page 10, line 15 could include
inflatables as well as non-motorized boats with regard to the $10
registration fee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the Coast Guard has not required
inflatables to be registered. Representative Hudson said that a
motorized inflatable is different.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is not much chance of damage with
an inflatable, therefore the registration fee for an inflatable
should be lower. Representative Green believed the question of
whether this is an attempt to recoup costs or make money should be
addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that her impression was that the
fees would cover the minor administrative costs, but more
importantly the fees would be utilized for boating safety
educational purposes. In her mind, anyone using the water should
pay for some of these educational courses. Furthermore, $10 for a
three year period seems minimal.
Number 1452
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that the registration fee is for
each non-motorized boat. Often, people own more than one
non-motorized boat. In response to Representative Green,
Representative Hudson clarified that this is an attempt to recoup
the costs for the management provided by the Division of Motor
Vehicles(DMV) as well as establish a boating safety educational
program. Motorized boat operators believed that those responsible
for a third of the accidents should have registration fees. On the
other hand, the non-motorized boat operators note that they are
only on the water a few times a year and it does not seem equitable
for non-motorized boats to have the same registration fee as
someone who is pulling crab pots every week. He explained that
this legislation has been a balancing act between motorized and
non-motorized boats.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these people with multiple
non-motorized boats go out in a different boat each time, if their
argument is that they are only on the water a few times a year. He
asked why these folks do not use the same boat.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that those with multiple
non-motorized boats could have single kayaks. Therefore, a family
would have multiple kayaks requiring under this legislation a
registration fee for each which would amount to more than the
registration fee for a motorized boat.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that he has three
non-motorized river rafting boats which are only used once a year.
He pointed out that one could own multiple non-motorized boats such
as three drift boats or three single kayaks which he indicated
would not cost as much as a single motorized boat. Representative
Croft emphasized that the registration requirement should not
overburden the non-motorized boat owner.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested a compromise in which a multiple
non-motorized boat owner would pay a registration fee of $24 for
the first boat and $10 for each boat thereafter.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he shared the concerns of
Representative Croft and Representative Green.
Number 1791
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, stated that Representative Green's
suggestion would be an administrative nightmare. Currently, those
with senior citizen exemptions are allowed to have the registration
of one vehicle free per year per household, if two or more vehicles
in which the registration fee is paid are owned by that senior.
Ms. Hensley stressed that it is a nightmare to control due to the
difficulty in determining who owns which vehicle or in this case
boat. The fees in HB 108 would generate revenue. She estimated
that in fiscal year(FY) 2001 the revenue generated by HB 108 would
amount to about $1 million per year.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee, in response to Representative
Croft, that there are approximately 75,000 motorized boats and
100,000 non-motorized boats. She noted that Ms. Hargis could
provide better information.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the net effect of making the motorized
boat registration and the non-motorized boat registration a $15
fee. With the approximately 175,000 registrations, as Ms. Hensley
approximated, the registration fee would generate approximately
$2.5 million.
MS. HENSLEY clarified that DMV would process 58,000 registrations
per year of which 33,000 registrations would be non-motorized boats
and 25,000 for motorized boats. Therefore, the result of 58,000
times $15 would be the net effect of a $15 fee for all boats.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if water skis would qualify as a boat
capable of being used as a means for transportation on water and
therefore, be charged a $10 registration fee.
MS. HENSLEY replied no. She explained that water skis are a device
which the boat pulls.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the definition on page 10, line
30, which states, "'boat' means watercraft used or capable of being
used as a means of transportation on water,".
MS. HENSLEY believed that unless the ski is being pulled it would
not be considered a method of transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he did not believe skis were
watercraft.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that water skis have never been
declared as watercraft by the federal government. He explained
that he has attempted to take the federal program, rate,
definitions, and intent in order to take over the federal boating
program. The state would then administer the boating program and
assume those monies and expand the safety program. He pointed out
that he has expanded the program to non-motorized boats that are
over 10 feet in length. Representative Hudson expressed the hope
that the funds generated would be utilized towards saving lives.
Number 2036
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if HB 108 had a fiscal note and
indicated the need for a fiscal note.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that there would be a new fiscal
note as soon as the legislation passes from committee. She said
that she could not prepare a final fiscal note on the proposed
committee substitute. Certainly, this will cost DMV to administer
the registration portion of the legislation. The boat registration
fees will offset the administrative costs and in future years will
generate revenue for the general fund. The revenue generated would
exceed the DMV's operation, therefore the rest of the money would
be placed in the general fund in order to be appropriated for the
boat education, safety programs, and to meet the federal match, if
any, for federal tax dollars that go to the rest of the U.S. Ms.
Hensley emphasized that in order for DMV to operate this program,
DMV would need the operational costs in the general fund. Ms.
Hensley further stated that DMV does not want its regular budget
reduced as a result of that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the fiscal note dated March 25, 1999 was
correct or were changes made adding non-motorized boats.
MS. HENSLEY stated that the March 25, 1999 fiscal note is not
correct. The final fiscal note will be different due to the
addition of the non-motorized boats and the change in fee. The
proposed committee substitute would add an additional 100,000 boats
as well as additional personnel required to monitor this program.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that the distinction between motorized
and non-motorized vehicles, in this case boats, is an appropriate
distinction. The distinction is appropriate because motorized
vehicles can get one farther faster and in more trouble than a
non-motorized vehicles. Representative Croft commented that this
is why cars are registered and not bikes. Bikes are registered in
order to protect them from theft, but there is not a state
requirement or fee for bike registration. He acknowledged that
there are vehicles that fall in between such as a motorcycle which
is required to be registered. Representative Croft expressed
concern that good legislation would be hurt by requiring everyone
with a kayak or a canoe, similar to a bike, to have the same
registration requirements as a motorized vehicle. Representative
Croft stated that it made sense to have a less onerous registration
or none at all, which he preferred, for non-motorized vehicles.
Representative Croft suggested that language on page 7, line 26 be
changed from "10 feet" to "20 feet". Therefore, the bikes of the
sea world would not be included. This is an onerous registration
requirement. He acknowledged that the kayaking community is
willing to be included at a lower level, but to treat them
identical to a motorized boat creates a disproportionate intrusion.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to an article by a journalist in
Fairbanks who does not like HB 108. The Fairbanks journalist's
comments lead to Representative Murkowski's question regarding
whether the boating safety regulations are a mirror image of what
is in the Lower 48 or have the regulations been adapted to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the regulations are comparable
to some states in the Lower 49. Some states do not include
non-motorized boats while others do. Representative Hudson
believed that all states must apply its boating safety program to
all waters, not just federal navigable waters which the U.S. Coast
Guard is currently responsible for administering. Representative
Hudson felt that if the interest is truly in saving lives, the
regulations must apply to all the waters of the state. There are
not many small rivers or unconnected lakes that would be added.
Representative Hudson specified that under this legislation,
operating a boat on any water in Alaska would have to comply which
he believed necessary to save lives. Furthermore, expanding the
federal regulations to include all waters provides fairness to all.
Number 2428
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report CSHB 108, Version LS03445\S,
Ford, 4/7/99, as amended from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes and final fiscal note
forthcoming. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she has not had a chance to
explain the committee substitute and its changes to folks.
SENATE CSSB 77(JUD) - LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS
TAPE 99-24, SIDE B
Number 0055
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is Senate CSSB
77(JUD), "An Act prohibiting certain civil actions against firearms
or ammunition manufacturers and dealers."
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that HB 103, the companion to
SB 77, passed out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. The
precedent is that the first legislation to pass to the other house
is the legislation to be used as the vehicle. Chairman Kott noted
that he had requested that SB 77 be waived from committee, but the
committee objected due to amendments made to HB 103 that were felt
important to include in SB 77.
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant for Senator Pete
Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, noted that SB 77 is basically
identical to HB 103.
SENATOR PETE KELLY, Sponsor of SB 77, Alaska State Legislature,
informed the committee that currently there is a move by many
municipalities to sue firearm manufacturers for the lawful use of
firearms. With the recent success of the tobacco suits,
municipalities have looked to other manufacturers of legal products
to help with the municipality's general fund. He believed this was
being fueled by entrepreneurial lawyers spurred by the tobacco
suits and anti-gun advocates who are unwilling to enter into the
political discourse regarding the Second Amendment. Senator Kelly
explained that SB 77 would preclude lawsuits against firearm
manufactures for the lawful use of firearms, but it does not remove
the ability for civil actions for negligent design, breech of
contract or warranty. Senator Kelly stated that he had no
objections to the amendments made to HB 103.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 1 which reads as
follows:
Page 1, line 8
Delete "related to"
Insert "based on"
Page 1, line 8
Delete "design, or marketing"
Insert "or design"
Page 1, line 10 after "design"
Insert "a manufacturing defect,"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0283
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HCS CSSB 77(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 77(JUD) so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 34 - REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HB 34,
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a
child."
Number 0369
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 34, Version LS0241\D, Luckhaupt, 4/8/99, as the
working document before the committee. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the
committee that the proposed committee substitute was developed with
Representative Dyson's office as well as the Department of Law.
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that the proposed committee substitute
changes the name of the offense from misprision of felony to the
failure to report the kidnapping or murder of a child. This would
apply to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted
kidnapping. If a person witnesses one of those crimes committed
against a person under the age of 18, the person must report the
crime to the police in a timely manner or the person must come to
the aid of the individual. Mr. Luckhaupt noted, "If you cannot
timely report or you can't come to the aid immediately of the
person, then you have an affirmative defense if you can't do so
safely and without jeopardy to yourself." He further noted that
the penalty is reduced to a class A misdemeanor.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 2, line 1 which states, "immediately
come to the aid of the child." Chairman Kott recalled that in the
incident in Nevada, a person peered over the restroom stall and
told the perpetrator to stop and then left. Would that be
considered immediately coming to the child's aid?
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that question is one that he had not entirely
satisfied in his own mind yet.
Number 0502
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, Sponsor of HB 34, Alaska State Legislature,
informed the committee that he had discussed this issue with Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law. Perhaps, that language should be further
defined if it poses a problem. He suggested inserting the
language, "rescue" or "attempt to rescue."
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that "rescue" would imply that there is an
attempt to remove the person from the dangerous situation. Mr.
Luckhaupt assumed that coming to the aid of a child meant more than
merely telling someone to stop. Since no definition is provided,
the definition will be subject to whoever wins the argument of the
case. Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out this is referring to the minimal
end of satisfying the statutory requirements.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the net result of deleting the "or" on
page 1, line 14, and inserting "and".
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that such a change would impose a duty for
people to not only report, but also come to the aid of the child
which would be broader.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, "Without that in there, you could come to the
aid, but not necessarily be required to report."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that he liked that solution, but
suggested using "and or" language.
Number 0697
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the "or" language is appropriate
because it allows an individual to report a crime if the person,
perhaps an elderly woman, and be in compliance without having to
come to the aid. The "or" language also allows a person to come to
the aid of the child and be in compliance without having to report
the crime. Representative Croft expressed concern with the "and"
language on page 2, line 3, and suggested that "and" be deleted and
"or" inserted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed the following situation. If
Representative Green came across a situation in which a person is
seriously injured, but Representative Green made a mistake; would
this language increase Representative Green's liability?
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that people coming to the aid in
such a situation would be covered under the Good Samaritan Act. If
one makes a good faith effort to assist someone in danger or
injured, that person would be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he understood that in the context of
voluntarily taking action, however this language says that the
person would be required to take action.
Number 0808
MR. LUCKHAUPT clarified that under this legislation a person would
be required to notify the police or come to the aid of the person.
The Good Samaritan Act discusses the distinction between those
persons paid to come to the aid and those who are not paid. If you
are a person who is paid to perform a service, then that person
would not fall under the Good Samaritan Act. If a person
voluntarily comes to someone's aid, that person would be covered by
the Good Samaritan Act to the extent of their training.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that if HB 34 creates a preexisting
duty, then would the person not be under the Good Samaritan Act.
He indicated that the police officer should still respond
responsibly, but the citizen being forced to aid would be given
more discretion.
MR. LUCKHAUPT informed the committee that the immunity is provided
by AS 09.65.090 (a) which refers to, "A person at a hospital or any
other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling
to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person...."
Therefore, coming to someone's aid to stop an assault would not be
providing first aid to the person. Mr. Luckhaupt further pointed
out that there is a distinction in AS 09.65.090 (b) which states,
"A member of an organization that exists for the purpose of
providing emergency services...." If such a person is paid for the
services, that person would not be covered under the Good Samaritan
Act. Mr. Luckhaupt stated that Alaska's statute does not look to
whether one has duty to provide care to that person. If one were
to provide emergency care to a person in need, the person rendering
assistance would be covered.
Number 1027
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the question would be regarding
how far one would be compelled or required to go.
MR. LUCKHAUPT informed the committee of an early 1960's case in
Alaska which discussed police officers having the duty to rescue.
A police officer stopped for coffee on the Alaska Highway where he
came across a child who had been grabbed by a caged bear. In the
process of trying to shoot the bear, the officer shot the child.
The supreme court found that the trooper had a duty to do
everything possible to rescue the child. The trooper was immune
for those actions, as long as the actions were taken reasonably
which the court found. If there is a statute that requires one to
report a crime or come to the aid of a child in that crime, he did
not necessarily see that there is a preexisting legal duty to
render legal aid to that person. Mr. Luckhaupt stated that there
is a legal duty to report or come to the aid as the person sees
fit. This is a discretionary duty, one is not required to come to
the aid of the person by statute because there is an option. He
did not see a problem with HB 34 in regards to the Good Samaritan
Act. Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that if the committee so desires,
immunity for persons coming to the aid could be provided.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that HB 34 only refers to children
who are being kidnaped or murdered. He wondered if the language on
page 2, line 1 which reads, "come to the aid of the child" could be
changed to "act to stop or prevent the crime in progress."
Representative Dyson said that was what he really desired.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that would be a good approach.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there is an affirmative defense
to this if the person reasonably believes he/she would be placed in
substantial risk of physical injury. However, that refers only to
the defendant. "What happens if you reasonably believe, that by
reporting this, that little girl who has been kidnaped is going to
be killed? ... Can that be a reasonable affirmative defense, if you
think that there is going to be further harm to the victim, not
just as to the defendant?" She indicated this could be a
legitimate issue in a kidnapping situation.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated agreement that in a kidnapping
situation with ransom, parents are left to wonder if they should
involve the police. Representative Dyson said that he would be
open to inserting language indicating that it would be a positive
defense to be both afraid for your own life as well as possibly
increasing the risk of the victim.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested on page 2, line 5, after "defendant",
insert "and or another".
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that in Minnesota law the language
"without danger or peril to self or others" was added.
Number 1444
CHAIRMAN KOTT offered Amendment 1 which reads as follows:
Page 2, line 5 after "defendant"
Insert "or others"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was conceptually adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that HB 34 originally required reporting,
but has been expanded to coming to the aid. He asked if it was the
intent of the sponsor for one to come to the aid of someone without
requiring the crime be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON specified that it was his intention to
encourage people to act to prevent the crime and if that is not an
appropriate option for those reasons already discussed, the second
option is to report the crime.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the desire is to prioritize aid to the child
and if not feasible, then report the crime in a reasonable manner.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that it was not his intention to
prioritize, but to provide an option to the individual.
Representative Dyson did not want to place an individual in
jeopardy of prosecution for not choosing the priority someone else
would have chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned a New York Case, where if there
is a statutory mandate to aid, then the issue of what level of
physical force can be utilized is brought into question. Care must
be taken with a statutory mandate to aid.
Number 1677
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA appreciated the intent of the legislation,
but subsection (b) on page 2 could create problems as mentioned by
Representative Rokeberg. She believed including affirmative
defenses would problematic. Representative Kerttula supported
cleaning up the failure to report rather than including the aid
portion in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON inquired as to whether Representative Kerttula
would feel more comfortable with the language, "act to stop a crime
in progress" versus "aid".
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that it is problematic all together.
She reiterated that limiting the legislation to the failure to
report issue could be addressed cleanly. In response to Chairman
Kott, Representative Kerttula pointed out that even with the
language "to reasonably act to stop or prevent the crime in
progress", many questions remain. She said that questions such as
what is reasonable, what is the degree of aid, what is immediate,
and what is substantial risk remain.
Number 1858
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee that
he did not have the proposed committee substitute before him. Mr.
McCune believed this to be a difficult question because it
attempts to achieve a level of moral behavior to which people are
held accountable. Mr. McCune said, "I frankly, have problems with
this entire area. I think the model penial code, when they
thought--what they did was, you know, you don't have the duty to
report, you don't have the duty to come to the aid, but if you're
not--if you're in any way rendering assistance to someone who's
committing a crime and had that rendering assistance very broadly
defined, you get at 99 percent of these problems."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to when an individual would know
when a crime is occurring. If someone jumped into a movie set and
attempted to prevent a child's murder and someone was seriously
harmed, what happens. Representative Croft posed many examples of
situations in which it would be difficult to determine whether a
crime was occurring or not. Representative Croft stated that the
risk must be allocated one way or another. Either the individual
must take action and the risk that the individual may be wrong lies
with that individual or the individual must take the action and
others must bear the risk that the individual acts erroneously.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that this will only be used in flagrant
cases. When police arrive at the scene with a dead body, the
police are going to look for the perpetrator. If there was someone
present who could have presented the crime and did not, would this
be used. Representative Dyson feared that all these "what if"
scenarios could be problematic. The current situation is
intolerable. Representative Dyson reiterated that the individual
has the responsibility to "pick up the whistle and blow it."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that an individual who is an
accessory to a crime would have a defense due to this legislation.
The accessory could say that he/she did not report the crime
because he/she felt it would place him/her in harms way. Would a
defense attorney use such?
TAPE 99-25, SIDE A
Number 0013
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, believed that the legislation is problematic
with regards to the word "aid" and the need for a definition of
that language. Under this legislation, Ms. Carpeneti believed that
in the Nevada situation the individual who told the person
committing the crime to stop would have been considered aiding the
victim and therefore, excused from reporting the crime. Ms.
Carpeneti stated that this legislation does not resolve the problem
of discouraging witnesses from reporting in a timely manner from
ever reporting. If such a witness were ever found, immunity,
although problematic, could be offered. Immunized testimony is not
very good testimony and juries are instructed to look at such
testimony with caution and distrust. Ms. Carpeneti suggested that
if the desire is to make this work for the prosecution, then making
the bill only speak to reporting would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that reporting a crime at a time specific is
very circular. He believed that some form of prosecutorial
discretion would be afforded in cases in which a person reported a
crime two weeks later.
MS. CARPENETI agreed, but noted that the problem is then that there
is a witness that has not been prosecuted, but the witness is
subject to cross examination on that issue which lessens the
impact.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there will be prosecutorial discretion,
but legislation should be written to do what is intended and no
more. Criminalize what is intended and nothing more.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed, but was unsure as to how to deal with the
dilemma surrounding what circumstances would warrant reporting a
particular crime two weeks after the fact.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI mentioned that the Y2K legislation allowed
"wiggle room" and therefore, intent language was included in that
legislation. Perhaps, this legislation should be restricted to the
failure to reporting the crime with some intent language.
Representative Murkowski agreed with Representative Dyson that
there should be legislation that promotes people to do the right
thing.
Number 0448
MR. LUCKHAUPT mentioned that the substantive crime could be the
failure to report and the references to coming to the aid of the
child could be removed. Furthermore, an affirmative defense could
be provided for someone who comes to the aid of the child and stops
the commission of the crime. Therefore, no one is required to come
to the aid of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected and stated that could be defined
very narrowly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the drafting of the
legislation could be such that discretionary language could be
utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON understood Representative Rokeberg to mean
that the rendering of aid could be an option with permissive
language, "may", while the reporting language could be mandatory.
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that such is achieved in criminal statute by
utilizing "shall" language, in this case the failure to report
would be the crime. Furthermore, the affirmative defense would be
provided by using permissive language, "may", regarding the aid
issue which would negate criminal liability under the statute
itself.
Number 0685
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated the need to ensure that the Good
Samaritan Act covers when an individual has the option to do that.
He believed it comes close, but suggested that there should be a
reference to that civil liability. He acknowledged that there is
overlap with the rendering aid and preventing a crime, however he
indicated it should be clear that the individual would be covered.
MR. LUCKHAUPT reiterated the problems with requiring someone to
act. He noted that the option for an affirmative defense is
available for acting, but people are not compelled to act.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the Good Samaritan Act
returns to the question regarding what is one immunized from civil
liability from.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to discussions at the previous
hearing which recognize in law that our young are fairly helpless
and therefore, need more care and stewardship. The distinction
between children and adults is important. Representative Dyson
said that he would be glad to do more work on HB 34.
Representative Dyson informed the committee that he would like to
broaden the legislation to include rape and felonious assault. He
asked the committee for guidance on that expansion. Representative
Dyson specified that the goal is to stop a child from being hurt.
CHAIRMAN KOTT requested that Mr. Luckhaupt work with the sponsor on
the additional language in order to have the legislation before the
committee tomorrow.
HB 151 - REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HB 151,
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."
Number 1108
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, Version LS0492\N, Ford, 3/30/99, as the working draft
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN KOTT, Sponsor of HB 151, Alaska State Legislature,
informed the committee that HB 151 was introduced in response to
the "Use It, Lose It" legislation which passed four or five years
ago. The "Use It, Lose It" legislation would take the license of
an underage person caught with the possession of alcohol. Chairman
Kott believed that the "Use It, Lose It" legislation has had some
unintended consequences. He noted that work on HB 151 has been
done in conjunction with the Department of Public Safety as well as
the Department of Law. Chairman Kott pointed out that Version N
eliminates all references to the youth court.
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant for Representative Kott,
Alaska State Legislature, stated that often the "Use It, Lose It"
law incurs unintended results. He explained that the desire is to
amend the law by requiring consumption of alcohol as a requisite
for revoking a license. Currently, there is a probable cause
standard which a police officer must find before the revocation of
a license. He commented that requiring consumption arose from the
inequities that occur with possession. Furthermore, the probable
cause standard is a very low finding. Mr. Winchell pointed out
that this legislation would remove "consecutive" penalties and run
them concurrently. Some teens have accumulated multiple offenses
which result in many years of license revocation. Running the
penalties concurrently, allows those teens to mend their ways and
have their license returned pursuant to good behavior. This
legislation removes youth courts, therefore, administrative hearers
were authorized to re-issue licenses upon a showing of the
following: compliance with the statute and compliance with the
title or department regulation. He pointed out that the license
would allow the offender to attend school, care for a dependent
child, or earn a livelihood without creating a danger to the
public.
CHAIRMAN KOTT specified that the legislation eliminates the
possession.
MR. WINCHELL interjected that this legislation does not negate the
criminal liability of teens that possess alcohol. Upon a probable
cause standard, possession is not the mere requisite for the
revocation of a license under this legislation. He pointed out
that if an underage person is caught with alcohol, the underage
teen can be charged. Mr. Winchell informed the committee, "It was
within the purview, that there be about 2,500 revocations per year.
That number has jumped to over 4,500 a year."
Number 1485
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to why the youth court
provisions were deleted.
MR. WINCHELL noted that he had spoken with the youth court. The
youth court did not want the liability that could be associated
with requiring these hearings and reissuing licenses to youth that
may end up in accidents. Although the original youth court
language was permissive, the concern resulted in the deletion of
the youth court.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, noted that she and Ms. Carpeneti have
worked on this issue a great deal. Ms. Hensley passed out a graph
produced by the Department of Health & Social Services from the
statistical information provided by Ms. Hensley. When the law
first passed in 1994, it was estimated that 2,500 licenses would be
revoked. It was not anticipated that through 1995-1998, the number
would rise to 4,800 arrests. In the calendar year of 1995, there
were 2,891 revocations.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to whether these statistics refer
to when the violation occurred or when the revocation of the
license occurred.
MS. HENSLEY pointed out that a minor consuming is a violation, that
was decriminalized at the time of the "Use It, Lose It" law. The
numbers on the first page indicate the numbers of incidents
referred to the DMV in order to revoke the drivers license. Ms.
Hensley clarified that the numbers strictly deal with the
incidents. The last page deals with the number of revoked licenses
during those calendar years. The information provided indicates
the first offense, the second offenders, and the third and
subsequent defenders. She clarified that the difference between
the numbers of revoked licenses is due to some incidents being
found that the officer did not have probable cause or the
individual was under appeal. She pointed out that less than 25
percent of the individuals request an administrative hearing.
Number 1718
MS. HENSLEY pointed out the struggle with requiring chronic
violators to seek treatment. She requested guidance in that area.
Ms. Hensley referred to information from the 1994-1998 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency which
reports that there were a total of 13 crashes with a driver under
the age of 21 in 1994. Of those 13 crashes, six were alcohol
related. Those 13 crashes resulted in 17 fatalities of all ages
and nine alcohol related deaths. In 1998, there were a total of 16
crashes which resulted in 19 fatalities of all ages, but there was
only one alcohol related crash. Ms. Hensley said that in some
instances, the "Use It, Lose It" law has helped.
MR. HENSLEY explained that for a first offense revocation is 90
days, the second offense results in revocation for one year, and
the third and subsequent offenses result in an additional three
year license revocation. The revocations are currently run
consecutively. There are some teens who will not receive their
drivers license until the age of 30 or 50. Currently, there is no
mechanism in the law which would allow review of those records
after a certain time period. Ms. Hensley believed that the sponsor
has addressed this issue and developed criteria that if met, would
return the license to the teen.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that there are approximately
450,000 licensed drivers in Alaska of which 10 percent are picked
up for drunk driving. Of that, 6.9 percent of the licensed drivers
are ages 16 to 20 of which 10 percent of those individuals are
being picked up for drunk driving under the "Use It, Lose It" law.
Currently, there are approximately 9,400 "Use It, Lose It"
revocations for second and subsequent offenders. Of those 9,400 or
so, a little more than 700 have drunk driving convictions on their
record. She mentioned that she would provide the committee with
information regarding those revoked licenses for the "Use It, Lose
It" law for their second and subsequent offenses.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if these statistics attribute the
second offense to driving without a license or because there is
another offense under the "Use It, Lose It" law?
MS. HENSLEY clarified that these statistics refer to the second and
subsequent offense for minors consuming. There is nothing included
in the statistics regarding an additional charge of driving while
a license is revoked. She noted that some of these individuals may
have an identification card, not a drivers license. She specified
that what is being revoked is the privilege to obtain a license.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG believed a huge number of offenders of
driving without a license would be created; are there statistics
regarding the number of minors charged with driving while license
revoked and no valid drivers license.
MS. HENSLEY said that she could provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the original bill created
criminals out of offenders.
MS. HENSLEY discussed some examples of those minors with multiple
offenses which she believed should be reviewed to determine if
those individuals could be helped. She reiterated that there is no
mechanism other than screening with regards to whether the minor
should attend a program.
Number 2124
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether Ms. Hensley had any statistics
regarding whether those minors with multiple offenses were actually
using alcohol or were in the vicinity of an entire group that was
picked up.
MS. HENSLEY did not have such breakdowns, but did note that she
knew that at least one of the minors with multiple offenses was
using alcohol.
CHAIRMAN KOTT submitted that there are many infractions in which
minors were guilty by association.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there was any requirement for
alcohol screening at all for these offenses.
MS. HENSLEY stated that alcohol screening only occurs at the time
the minor's license is reinstated. Before the minor can receive
his/her drivers license, the minor must be enrolled in, compliant
with and complete an alcoholism rehabilitation program. Ms.
Hensley pointed out that there is no monitoring of the minor to
ensure the alcoholism rehabilitation program because the program
does not go through the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP).
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, informed the committee that minor consuming used
to be a class A misdemeanor in Alaska. Those minors charged with
consuming went to superior court and appeared before a judge who
would order whatever necessary for that minor with regards to
rehabilitation and evaluation. At the time the "Use It, Lose It"
law was adopted, minor consuming was reduced to a violation which
means that a minor in violation of such receives what is similar to
a traffic ticket, goes to district court, and pays a minimum fine
of $100. Ms. Carpeneti believed that the rationale for reducing
minor consuming from a class A misdemeanor to a violation was that
the "Use It, Lose It" law would address the tragedy of alcohol
abuse among young people in Alaska by focusing on an area important
to a teen, a drivers license. Under the "Use It, Lose It" law, a
minor must be evaluated and complete whatever the evaluator
suggests in order to have the license returned. Perhaps, those are
not appropriate and minors in violation should go before a superior
court judge who can order treatment.
MS. CARPENETI agreed that the "Use It, Lose It" could use some work
in areas addressed by HB 151. The Department of Motor Vehicles
does need discretion with minors who have multiple offenses. Ms.
Carpeneti supported the provisions in HB 151 which provides the
Department of Administration and DMV that discretion; however, she
expressed concern with the elimination of the possession of
alcohol. She informed the committee that the police do not cite
minors who are not drinking. The definition in Title 11 which
specifies that the alcohol must be under the minor's immediate
control or in their actual possession is used. Currently, the
violation for minor consuming includes consuming or possessing
alcohol. If the "Use It, Lose It" law is limited to consuming, the
program will be gutted. When minor consuming prohibited consuming
only, a case could not be proven unless the police officer saw the
minor actually drinking. Ms. Carpeneti emphasized that removing
possession hurts the effort to protect minors from the effects of
alcoholism.
TAPE 99-25, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. HENSLEY noted that currently, minor consuming is a violation in
which the police officer would write a citation to the minor and
order license revocation. The minor is given a copy of the
citation which is used as a temporary drivers license for seven
days, if the minor has had a driving permit. Within seven days,
the hearing must be requested. Ms. Carpeneti informed the
committee that she has heard many complaints regarding why the
license can be revoked if the case was dismissed. These are
officer prosecutions and therefore, the officer cannot always be
present in court which results is dismissal of the ticket.
Number 0051
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to how many minors were age 18 to
21 and how many were under the age of 18. Although that would not
make a legal difference, it would seem to make a practical
difference.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that in 1994, the law was in
effect only six months, through the first three months of 1998,
there were 2,753 revocations of minors 16 and under. During that
same time, there were 1,274 revocations of minors age 20 and 1,955
revocations of minors age 18. Ms. Hensely said that she would
provide the committee with this information in graph by tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that the "Use It, Lose It" law
is not making an impression on minors, if there are minors with
multiple offenses. Representative Murkowski did not believe that
HB 151 would help because there is not an opportunity for
administrative review. The chronic repeat offenders are not being
addressed. Is there an opportunity with HB 151 to address those
chronic repeat offenders?
MS. HENSLEY deferred to Loren Jones, Director, Division of Drug &
Alcohol Abuse, Department of Health & Social Services who deals
with this on a daily basis and is responsible for all the screening
programs. One of the bills passed last year gave the Division of
Drug & Alcohol Abuse the authority for screening alcohol programs;
however, that was not funded.
Number 0218
LINDA WRIGHT, Good Legislation Assures Democracy (GLAD),testified
via teleconference from Kenai. Ms. Wright indicated that the
changes encompassed in HB 151 do help bring the "Use It, Lose It"
law into constitutional compliance, but not all the problems are
addressed. Ms. Wright stated that GLAD is a unified group which
loves its children, fears for their safety, and is concerned for
the constitutional protection of their children. Ms. Wright said
that GLAD does not condone under age drinking, but the current "Use
It, Lose It" law has become a roadblock to responsible behavior and
endangers children's development to responsible adulthood as well
as the child's safety.
MS. WRIGHT said that her concern for her son's behavior was
overshadowed by the loss and abuse of her son's constitutional
protection. Ms. Wright discussed the designated driver program
which she believed had the rug pulled out from under it by the "Use
It, Lose It" law. In response to Chairman Kott, Ms. Wright
informed the committee that her son was subject to the "Use It,
Lose It" law.
DAVID HUDSON, Alaska State Troopers, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. He stated that Ms. Carpeneti had already spoken to
his primary concern which is the elimination of possession of
alcoholic beverages as a reason for license revocation. This sends
a mixed message to minors and law enforcement officers. He said,
"Clearly, under Alaska Statute 416.050 which has be decriminalized
... now a violation based upon the use of the "Use It, Lose It"
law, it will create conflicts in the administration of that
particular law. We would hope that might be given some
consideration."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Hudson was suggesting that
minor possession is no longer a misdemeanor.
MR. HUDSON said that is correct; minor possession has been
decriminalized to be a violation. The purpose of that
decriminalization was to allow the "Use It, Lose It" law to
eliminate the criminal prosecution for a minor consuming. In
response to Chairman Kott, Mr. Hudson noted that he had not
personally cited any minor under the "Use It, Lose It" law.
However, Homer police officers and other troopers have cited minors
under the "Use It, Lose It" law.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to whether an 18 year old with
beer in the back seat of a car would be cited with the "Use It,
Lose It"law.
MR. HUDSON replied no. He informed the committee that he had
attended numerous youth parties in the Homer area and there were
large amounts of alcoholic beverages. Only those minors which it
could be determined had consumed alcoholic beverages were cited.
He added that he had responded to the Vice President of Students
Against Drunk Driving who was concerned that the designated driver
program would be hurt due to the possibility of the driver losing
his/her drivers license. Mr. Hudson did not understand how that
could occur.
Number 0540
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the statute mandates that the
designated driver be cited or does the officer has discretion.
MR. HUDSON explained that if the designated driver has not consumed
any alcoholic beverage or does not have control or possession of an
alcoholic beverage, that designated driver should not be cited.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what would be happen if there was a
six pack of beer in the back seat.
MR. HUDSON stated that it would depend upon the circumstances.
There could be circumstances in which the open container law could
come into play. Mr. Hudson believed that the idea in law
enforcement and society as a whole is to curb alcoholic beverage
use by youth.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether a designated driver with a six
pack of unopened beer in front of their seat would be interpreted
as the designated driver being considered in control or possession
of the beer.
MR. HUDSON said in that case, the designated driver would be
considered to be in control for the purposes of the law, however
there is officer discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the culpability of the driver would
be when there is an open container in the car regardless of if the
driver is a juvenile or an adult.
MR. HUDSON believed that having an open container, whether the
individual is driving or not, is a violation and would be treated
the same whether an adult or a juvenile. He acknowledged that
there are some mitigating circumstances.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that HB 151 would be held over to tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he has received more
complaints regarding the "Use It, Lose It" law than any other bill
passed in past years. Representative Rokeberg said that he
supported this legislation. He discussed some instances in which
the "Use It, Lose It" law created problems.
The committee stood at-ease from 4:02 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
HB 82 - IMMUNITY: CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to immunity for certain claims
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0901
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, Version LS0398\K, Ford, 4/1/99, as the working document
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed the committee to pages 1 and 2 of
the proposed committee substitute which now includes the finding
intent language. He specified that the intent language can be
found on page 2, lines 13 through 26. Representative Rokeberg
pointed out that Representative Croft's concern is addressed on
page 2, paragraph (4) which reads, "if a party is unsuccessful in
asserting the year 2000 date change defenses created in this Act,
nothing in this Act would preclude a court or jury from awarding
compensatory or punitive damages as provided by law;". He stated
that the intent language was requested in order to leave no doubt
as to what the bill does. On page 3, line 4, the word
"substantial" was inserted before "efforts" and on page 3, line 5,
the words "such as" were inserted. He explained that inserting
"such as" language allows the business to be in compliance without
having to achieve all the efforts listed under paragraph (1). On
page 3, the first word of each subparagraph has added the suffix
"ing" in the proposed committee substitute. He pointed out that on
page 3, line 15 the language has been changed to "generally
accepted business practices of a business sector".
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the intent language and the contract
language on page 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the language on page 4, line 8
refers to "noneconomic losses" which he believed allowed for
punitive and compensatory if (indisc.).
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report CSHB 82, Version LS0398\K,
Ford, 4/1/99, as amended, from the committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, CSHB 82(JUD) so moved from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 57 - STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business is HB 57,
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 1207
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, Version GH1005\G, Ford, 4/8/99, as the working draft
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that on page 3 of
the proposed committee substitute a provision regarding the state's
immunity was deleted. In Section 3, Mr. Ford inserted a new
standard which is the same standard in HB 82 that applies to
private businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the proposed committee substitute
maintains the state's immunity and provides the same immunity for
municipalities as provided for private businesses.
MR. FORD clarified that the standard for municipalities has changed
in which certain steps must be taken that are reflected on page 5
or reasonable care must be taken. The state is immune.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to whether the state is immune to
intentional misconduct with regard to Y2K.
MR. FORD said that is not addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what applies to gross negligence
regarding Y2K by the state.
MR. FORD stated that it is simply in reference to the year 2000
date change.
Number 1308
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented, "Well, it's just the bad example
of if, you know, you have intentional misconduct. You can still be
immune."
MR. FORD agreed that is not excluded. Mr. Ford did not believe
that was ever addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there was language in an
amendment which addressed that issue.
MR. FORD noted that could be addressed easily, but the legislation
does not at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how that was addressed in
HB 82.
MR. FORD explained that HB 82 utilizes the standard of reasonable
care. Mr. Ford affirmed Representative Rokeberg's comment that the
committee adopted the reasonable care standard for the
municipality, but not the state. The state has a blanket immunity
while the municipalities have the qualified immunity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there are no resolution
steps as in HB 82, therefore one would have to go straight to
court.
MR. FORD agreed that there is no provision for that with the state.
Number 1460
MIKE GATTI, testifying via teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley,
inquired as to the rationale behind providing the state and
municipalities blanket and qualified immunity, respectively.
Municipalities provide the same type of necessary services as does
the state and therefore, should be given blanket immunity as well.
He urged the committee to review the reasoning behind the
municipality having qualified immunity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that there is no assurance that those
local bodies are taking the appropriate steps. If those local
bodies do have a plan, HB 57 provides them with protection.
KEVIN SMITH, Joint Insurance Association, Alaska Municipal League,
noted that John Corso would be explaining what the City & Borough
of Juneau would be doing. Possibly the MIS Director for the
Municipality of Anchorage is still on-line to inform the committee
of Anchorage's efforts. He informed the committee that he also had
information regarding what 14 other municipalities are doing with
regard to this issue.
JOHN CORSO, City Attorney, City & Borough of Juneau, informed the
committee that Y2K compliance is regarded as a public safety and
welfare issue which cities should do independent of liability.
That is Juneau's approach. Fear of liability does not provide
anything particularly constructive. Mr. Corso agreed with Mr.
Gatti that municipalities should be treated more like the state.
Furthermore, municipalities should be treated differently than
private businesses because private businesses are better able to
quickly adapt to the detailed list outlined in statute. Mr. Corso
stated that it will be likely that creative plaintiff counsel will
hold defendants to exact compliance to the specific language of
this statute. Although municipalities such as Juneau may have met
the substance of Y2K preparedness, as government agencies there
would be difficulty in complying with the technicality of the
statute and may have to defend litigation not based on the merits.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Corso would be more
comfortable if the multi-step plan was removed leaving only the
reasonable care standard as set out on page 5, line 19.
MR. CORSO believed that subparagraph (B) on page 5, line 19 is the
legal standard that would apply. Mr. Corso suggested that the
statute should be as close to the state's liability which could be
achieved by inserting "." after "law" on page 4, line 29.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that it seemed to him that the state
should be under the same standard as the municipality. He
indicated that the state is probably meeting its obligations now,
but he was not sure if that would continue. Furthermore, the
alternative dispute resolution which was in the original business
Y2K preparedness could be applied to the state in order to provide
an avenue other than the courts to reach resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether Mr. Corso had
reviewed the curative, mediative, and litigated steps prior to
pro-litigation which HB 82 includes.
MR. CORSO replied no. In further response to Representative
Rokeberg, Mr. Corso stated that alternative dispute resolution
could be helpful.
MR. GATTI pointed out that parties can already agree to alternative
dispute resolution. He noted that he had not seen the HB 82
provisions pertaining to that issue. Mr. Gatti stated that he
always advised his clients not to make alternative dispute
resolution mandatory because it adds another step and cost to the
litigation process which could be agreed to independent of what is
expressly stated in a contract or legislation.
Number 2046
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that he intends to hold HB 57
and to review the provisions in HB 82.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the amendment regarding the
REAAs could be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the statute is unclear
regarding what REAAs are, whether an REAA is a political
instrumentality of the state, political subdivision, or a hybrid.
REAAs are treated differently in different statutes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated that HB 57 would be held.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that the problem is
that the "state" is defined as including a REAA city or rural
school district. He recommended that the committee review that.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|