01/31/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2007
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use of
land without charge for a recreational activity; relating to
landowners' liability where landowner conduct involves gross
negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct; relating to
claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easements, or
similar claims; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to release in domestic violence cases."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN, GARDNER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) JUD
01/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/22/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/24/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/24/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON, WILSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/24/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/24/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/25/07 (H) RES RPT 8DP
01/25/07 (H) DP: GUTTENBERG, EDGMON, SEATON,
KAWASAKI, WILSON, ROSES, JOHNSON, GATTO
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7 and responded
to questions.
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 7, responded to a
question on behalf of Representative Lynn, one of the bill's
prime sponsors.
SONIA SUBANI, Intern
AARP
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7 on behalf of
both herself and the AARP.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 7.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as one of the bill's prime
sponsors, introduced HB 25 and responded to questions.
KATIE SHOWS, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 25, responded to
questions and comments on behalf of Representative Seaton, one
of the bill's prime sponsors.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:08:36 PM. Representatives Samuels, Lynn,
Holmes, Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present
at the call to order.
HB 7 - FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
1:09:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 7, "An Act relating to false caller
identification."
1:09:43 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), after relaying that his primary
responsibilities include enforcement of Alaska's consumer
protection and antitrust laws, said that the DOL has reviewed
HB 7, doesn't see any legal problems with it, and supports it.
With regard to the issue of enforcing HB 7, he said that it
would be difficult for the DOL to positively enforce it unless
specific resources were relegated to that task; however, the
DOL's hope in having such legislation enacted is that consumers
being subjected to caller ID spoofing can come to the DOL and
provide information about the perpetrators so that the DOL could
then follow through in getting the conduct stopped. In
conclusion, he encouraged the committee to consider giving HB 7
a positive recommendation, adding that he thinks it will do some
good.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether changing the mens rea from
"knowingly" to "with the intent to defraud or cause harm" would
make it harder to prosecute the behavior.
MR. SNIFFEN said it would but only in the sense that the DOL
would have to show that someone acted with the specific intent
to defraud or cause harm; that is a little higher threshold than
just acting knowingly - one can act knowingly without having the
intention of causing harm. He surmised that for the kinds of
conduct that "spoofers" engage in, a change in mens rea,
although perhaps making prosecution a bit more challenging,
won't be problem from a practical standpoint because his belief
is that most of those who engage in caller ID spoofing are in
fact intending to defraud or cause harm to someone.
1:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the bill criminalizes those
who use caller ID spoofing cards but not those who sell them,
and questioned whether they should make efforts to also
criminalize those who sell such cards.
MR. SNIFFEN offered his understanding that most spoof caller ID
cards are purchased on the Internet from out-of-state vendors,
and he is not sure that the DOL can prohibit the sale of such
cards by out-of-state vendors, though it might be a good idea to
prohibit the sale of such cards by in-state vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is questioning
whether they should make it illegal to sell spoof caller ID
cards in Alaska or sell such cards for use in Alaska. He then
asked whether there are legitimate uses of spoof caller ID
cards.
MR. SNIFFEN said he suspects that there might be legitimate uses
but he doesn't know what they would be.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he could think of a legitimate use,
and offered an example involving his own family wherein one of
his sons might wish to have a particular nickname show up on
another family member's caller ID equipment. In response to a
question, he noted that there is an amendment in members'
packets that speaks to the intent to defraud, adding that in his
example entering a fictitious name would not be done with the
intent to defraud.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred and mentioned some of the cellular phone
technologies currently available that allow one to enter
personalized identification information. He surmised that the
bill pertains to using false/fraudulent caller identification
and won't limit the use of personalized caller identification.
1:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked how the public would be notified
of the enactment of such legislation and what costs would be
associated with that notification.
MR. SNIFFEN relayed that statutory changes pertaining to
consumer protection would posted on the DOL's web site, press
releases would be issued, and the DOL would include the new
information whenever discussing consumer fraud issues [with the
public].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM pointed out that one of the bill's
fiscal notes mentions a start up cost of approximately $25,000.
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, relayed on behalf of Representative Lynn, one of
the bill's prime sponsors, that that particular fiscal note came
from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and is indeterminate.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that to the best of his knowledge,
spoof caller ID cards are sold outside of Alaska. He suggested
that telephone companies could also play a part in informing the
public by placing information regarding the new law in telephone
books.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there have been any
complaints of caller ID spoofing in Alaska.
MR. SNIFFEN said the DOL has not yet received complaints
specific to spoof caller ID cards but has received identity
theft complaints, and the DOL suspects that some instances of
identity theft occur because callers are able to obtain personal
information using caller ID spoof technology.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how the prosecution of someone
arrested for committing the proposed crime might unfold,
particularly given that the bill only provides that the behavior
will be a class B misdemeanor and thus might be "pled down."
MR. SNIFFEN said that the Commercial/Fair Business Section would
put the necessary information together and present it to the
criminal division of the DOL, adding that he shares the concern
regarding the level of interest there is in prosecuting class B
misdemeanors. He said he would leave it to a representative
from the criminal division to explain the prosecution side of
things.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to an article in members'
packets by "Contact Center Today" that recounts that a company
that has developed a caller ID spoofing system has claimed that
it intends to market its product solely to collection agencies,
private investigators, and police; however, the article then
goes on to say that the potential for abuse by collection
agencies and private investigators is huge. House Bill 7
currently only provides an exemption for law enforcement
agencies of the federal government, the state government, a
municipality, or intelligence or security agencies of the
federal government. He asked whether the exemption should be
expanded.
MR. SNIFFEN expressed concern about exempting collection
agencies and private investigators because of their potential to
abuse caller ID spoofing technology.
1:29:10 PM
SONIA SUBANI, Intern, AARP, relayed that the AARP has submitted
a letter of support for HB 7, and emphasized that older people
are more likely to be subjected to scams and illegal,
inappropriate phone calls because they are home alone [during
the day] more often than any other age group. The AARP feels
that HB 7 will benefit its memberships, and urges the committee
to support it. She noted that she, herself, has been the victim
of caller ID spoofing. She didn't appreciate having someone
intentionally trick her caller ID mechanism, particularly given
that the whole point of having caller ID is to know who is
calling so that the receiver can then decide whether to answer
the phone; she didn't find it funny having someone pretend to be
someone else in order to get personal information from her. She
added that she personally supports HB 7, and urged its passage
from committee.
1:31:16 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), in response to questions, indicated agreement that
perhaps the term on page 1, line 7, ought to be changed to say,
"a state government", given that caller ID spoofing technology
may well be used by the law enforcement agencies of another
state to aid in a successful prosecution; and agreement, with
regard to language on page 1, line 9, that other states could
well have security agencies, and so perhaps that language could
be changed to say, "intelligence [agencies] of the federal
government or security agencies of the federal government or a
state". In response to other questions, he said he suspects
that the commissioner of the DPS would not be in favor of
allowing private investigators to use caller ID spoofing
technology, and that he would be willing to ask the commissioner
how he feels about the issue of licensing private investigators.
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 7.
1:36:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
changing "the state" to "a state" on page 1, line 7.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, indicated
that someone who is exempted from the bill could simply assert
his/her exemption as an affirmative defense.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
LIEUTENANT DIAL, in response to a question, said he is not aware
of states having intelligence agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to
change page 1, line 9, to read, "intelligence agencies of the
federal government or security agencies of the federal
government or a state government".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and opined that those agencies
are already covered under the term, "law enforcement agencies"
and would be working under the auspices of some law enforcement
agency. He characterized Amendment 2 as unnecessary, and asked
what a security agency in Alaska could be doing that would fall
outside the scope of law enforcement authority.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he tended to agree that the language on
lines 7 and 9 - as currently written - cover everyone that would
need to be exempted from HB 7.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued, though, that intelligence
agencies are not law enforcement agencies. In response to a
comment, he pointed out that Amendment 2 [and the language
currently on line 9] is referring to governmental agencies, not
private agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that such agencies
would still be collaborating with law enforcement and thus
working under the auspices of law enforcement.
LIEUTENANT DIAL, in response to a question, concurred with
Representative Coghill [on that point].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that intelligence
agencies - for example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) -
often do things without involving law enforcement, and he wants
to ensure that people "who are under deep cover" are not
criminalized by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would be maintaining his
objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2.
1:44:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled
25-LS0057\A.1, Bannister, 1/30/07, which read:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "knowingly"
Page 1, line 5, following "system":
Insert "with the intent to defraud or cause harm"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "knowingly"
Page 1, line 11, following "system":
Insert "with the intent to defraud or cause harm"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete ";"
Insert "."
Page 2, line 5:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that Amendment 3 would change the
mens rea from "knowingly" to "with the intent to defraud or
cause harm". In response to a comment, he noted that testimony
from Mr. Sniffen indicated that although Amendment 3 would make
it more difficult to prosecute the behavior outlined in the
bill, it would not do so to a significant degree.
MR. SNIFFEN concurred, and pointed out that the change proposed
by Amendment 3 would also allow for the permissible use of such
technology. In response to a question involving a hypothetical
example, he offered his belief that under Amendment 3, caller ID
spoofing technology could legitimately be used as long as its
use was not intended to defraud or cause harm.
1:46:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the use of caller ID
spoofing technology by a bill collector would be considered
defrauding someone if the goal was to purposely trick that
person into answering the phone.
MR. SNIFFEN said his initial thought is that the use of such
technology by a bill collector would not be defrauding the
person if that person owes a legitimate debt, and thus that use
would be exempted from the bill. In response to a question, he
said he is not sure whether the term, "defraud" is defined in
statute.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said that his understanding of the phrase, "with
intent to defraud" means to obtain a benefit to which the person
is not entitled to, adding that that is the meaning which the
Division of Alaska State Troopers uses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, and characterized an attempt
to collect a bill as an attempt to collect a justly due and
owing debt - thus there would be no intent to defraud.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected to Amendment 3 for the purpose of
[continued] discussion.
MR. SNIFFEN opined that Representative Gruenberg's summation is
correct - a debt collector attempting to collect a legitimate
debt would not be committing fraud when using caller ID spoofing
technology.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining that there were no further
objections to Amendment 3, announced that Amendment 3 was
adopted.
1:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, labeled
25-LS0057\A.2, Bannister, 1/31/07, which read:
Page 1, line 11, following "misdemeanor.":
Insert "Each time a person knowingly inserts
false information into a caller identification system
constitutes a separate violation under this section."
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that there was an objection for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the wording be changed
such that a violation wouldn't occur unless the call is
completed.
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized that suggestion as a possible
amendment to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS observed that the drafter will have to
fix Amendment 4 to reflect the fact that Amendment 3 deleted the
term "knowingly" from the bill. He then sought clarification
that Amendment 4 would make each insertion of the false
information a violation rather than each call made after the
false information was inserted. In other words, if he were
working at a call center and entered false information into the
system once and then made 1,000 calls, it would be just one
offense.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said that is his understanding. In response to
another question, he said that a class B misdemeanor generally
carries a maximum jail sentence of 90 days.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES added that a class B misdemeanor also
carries a maximum fine of $2,000.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, with regard to call centers, asked
whether it would be the company itself that would be charged
with the crime, or the employee who entered the false
information.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the statutory definition of
person includes corporations, and surmised that the "person" -
whether a company or an individual - responsible for the
behavior would be the one charged with the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered her understanding that when
folks are hired at call centers they may be reading a script
after just pushing a button and so may not be inserting a number
at all, and suggested, therefore, that the point of who gets
charged with a violation should be clarified.
1:56:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered, though, that the employee in
those situations won't have the intention to defraud or cause
harm and might not even be aware that false information was
being sent out. She then concurred that the bill is a little
unclear on the point of who would be charged.
CHAIR RAMRAS observed that Amendment 4 has some construction
problems, both with regard to the term, "knowingly" and with
regard to not being clear about who would be in violation under
certain circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that the
intention of Amendment 4 ought to have been to make each call
received a violation, and yet Amendment 4 currently refers only
to the person making the call.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed an interest in having input
from the industry.
CHAIR RAMRAS encouraged Representative Gruenberg to seek out
that input.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Representative Lynn whether he
wants the entering of the information to constitute the
violation or the making of the separate calls to constitute
separate violations.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said, "I'm perfectly happy with it just to
be one call," adding that he would be amenable to withdrawing
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that it could be cost
prohibitive to prosecute, for example, thousands of calls as
just one class B misdemeanor, and suggested that a balance could
be arrived at by making the number of violations dependent upon
the number of calls being made. One person using caller ID
spoofing technology to harass a former spouse, for example, is
quite different than a commercial operation using such
technology and making thousands of calls.
2:02:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that as currently written, Amendment 4
doesn't seem to quite fit members' intentions.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS again asked whether the language
currently on page 1, lines 10-11, means that only one violation
would occur each time the false information is entered
regardless of how many phone calls are then made using that
information. And if the current language does mean that, is
that the sponsor's intention?
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed to clarify that point via a future
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked that more information regarding the
technical aspect of caller ID spoofing technology be provided
the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 7, as amended, would be set aside.
HB 25 - RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS
2:05:57 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to landowners' immunity for
allowing use of land without charge for a recreational activity;
relating to landowners' liability where landowner conduct
involves gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct;
relating to claims of adverse possession and prescriptive
easements, or similar claims; and providing for an effective
date."
2:06:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, one of the
bill's prime sponsors, said that HB 25 will raise the standard
of liability for private landowners who provide free public
access to their land for recreational use. Additionally, that
free public access cannot be used as the basis for a claim of
adverse possession or prescriptive easement. House Bill 25 is
intended to expand the recreational opportunities of Alaskans
while also protecting the landowner; however, a landowner will
not be protected by the bill if he/she either charges for access
or is guilty of intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent
conduct. He then offered some examples of situations that he
believed might be construed as intentional misconduct or grossly
negligent conduct. Although there is some protection under
current statute for owners of unimproved land, what constitutes
unimproved land, he opined, is ambiguous; for example a hayfield
that hasn't been used for 20 years could still be considered
improved land and thus the owner of that hayfield would not be
protected under current statute. In conclusion, he relayed that
members' packets contain numerous letters of support for HB 25
and similar past legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the bill is meant to cover
corporately-owned private land.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that any land held privately would be
covered under the bill as long as the landowner allows free
access, but any state or municipal land would not be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 9-10, which
says in part, "A landowner that directly or indirectly allows a
recreational activity on the landowner's land without charge",
and asked whether the bill would cover a landowner that either
doesn't allow or doesn't knowingly allow recreational activity.
For example, would there be immunity for the landowner who
prohibits the use of his/her land, and, if not, should there be?
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the language
"indirectly allows" would cover landowners that don't knowingly
allow a recreational activity. With regard to the landowner who
specifically prohibits use of his/her land, he offered his
belief that that landowner would have other legal remedies
available. House Bill 25 is only meant to cover landowners that
do allow free public access.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
phrase, "indirectly allows" refers to someone who "doesn't
prevent", and suggested that alternative language might be
clearer. He said he is concerned about a situation in which a
trespasser injures himself/herself and the landowner who
prohibits the use of his/her land would end up having a higher
standard of duty than the landowner who allows free use of
his/her land; that is not a fair situation for the [first]
landowner to be in.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated his belief that the former
landowner would have other legal remedies available to him/her,
adding that the bill was not designed to address the issue of
trespass.
2:16:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that on his [recreational]
property he has "No Hunting" and "No Trespassing" signs, that
he's not there very much, that he knows that people ride their
horses and ski on his land, and that he doesn't really care that
they do - it doesn't bother him at all. He asked whether, even
though he's posted signs and thus those people technically are
trespassing, he is "indirectly" allowing people to use his
property because he's not there often and he doesn't care that
people are using his property. In his situation, he asked,
would he be immunized under the bill or would he have no
immunity because those people are trespassing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it would be the latter -
Representative Samuels would not be immunized under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doubts that Representative Samuels
has posted adequate signage from a legal standpoint, suggested
that the issue of liability for landowners who prohibit the use
of their land ought to be addressed in a separate bill, and
opined that unless Representative Samuels is enforcing his "no
hunting" and "no trespassing" wishes, he is, in effect, allowing
use of the land.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to comments, said he has
researched the attractive-nuisance doctrine, paraphrased
portions of a March 31, 2006, Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum discussing that issue, and offered his
belief that the bill adequately addresses that issue,
particularly with regard to recreational activity.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:22 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to further comments regarding
the aforementioned memorandum, offered his belief that the
courts are likely to disregard the attractive-nuisance doctrine,
particularly if the bill passes.
2:26:33 PM
KATIE SHOWS, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Seaton, one of the
bill's prime sponsors, in response to a question, offered her
understanding that the aforementioned memorandum discussed
different alternatives as they applied to a similar bill offered
in the previous legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that HB 25 is tailored
to supporting recreational use - encouraging landowners to agree
to expanding the free use of their private lands - and opined
that if the legislature wishes to immunize all private
landowners from negligence regardless of whether trespass
occurs, it should use a different bill as the vehicle.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Representative Samuels's concern is
that HB 25 will result in there being a different standard of
liability for those private landowners who refuse to allow
public access - by placing "No Trespassing" signs on one's
property, one's rights are thereby lessened.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred with that summation, adding,
"If we're going to lower the liability of a property owner, can
you lower the liability of the property owner who posts his
property as well as somebody who doesn't post his property." He
said he agrees with the concept of the bill but would also like
to go further.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that doing so would move away from,
and thus defeat, the purpose of the bill. In response to a
question, he offered his understanding that HB 25 is identical
to legislation that was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee in 2006.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agrees with the concept of the
bill and is merely attempting to ensure that there are no
technical problems with it.
2:32:10 PM
MS. SHOWS clarified that the aforementioned memorandum addressed
issues discussed internally between the drafter and the
sponsor's previous staff.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized the memorandum as
ambiguous on the issue of the attractive-nuisance doctrine,
particularly given that the drafter himself said, "It is not
clear how the doctrine" would be affected by [that prior]
legislation. Representative Gruenberg indicated that he views
such statements as red flags, highlighting for him the fact that
a particular point ought to be clarified in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she shares some of the concerns
regarding having different standards for those who wish to keep
the public off their land, adding that the bill doesn't
currently address the statute pertaining to trespass, and that
she would like to review that statute to ensure that passage of
HB 25 isn't creating a dichotomy. If there is a problem in that
regard, the problem might need to be addressed via separate
legislation, she remarked.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested holding the bill over to allow the
sponsor time to address members' concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agrees with the intent of the
bill, but remarked that it seems odd to have a different
liability standard for someone who posts "No Trespassing" signs
on his/her property even when he/she is doing so with goal of
protecting the public.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that AS
09.65.200 appears to address the issue of liability pertaining
to unimproved land, but suggested that members review that
provision as well before the bill is heard next.
[HB 25 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|