Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120

01/27/2006 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 150 LICENSING RADIOLOGIC TECHNICIANS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
*+ HB 379 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, INCL. ANALOGS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HB 343 HARASSMENT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
= HB 326 POSTING LEWD MATERIAL AS HARASSMENT
Moved New CSHB 326(JUD) Out of Committee
= HB 321 AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING
Heard & Held
= HB 314 USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT SELF/HOME
Heard & Held
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                        January 27, 2006                                                                                        
                           1:07 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair                                                                                             
Representative Tom Anderson                                                                                                     
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Peggy Wilson                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 326                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to harassment."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - RESCINDED ACTION OF 1/18/06; MOVED NEW CSHB 326(JUD)                                                                     
       OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 321                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to high  risk  operation of  a motor  vehicle,                                                               
aircraft,  or   watercraft  while  under  the   influence  of  an                                                               
alcoholic  beverage, inhalant,  or  controlled  substance and  to                                                               
refusal to submit to a chemical test."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 314                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to defense of self, other persons, and                                                                         
property."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 379                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to controlled substances."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 343                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to harassment."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 150                                                                                                              
"An Act requiring licensure of occupations relating to                                                                          
radiologic technology, radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine                                                                  
technology; and providing for an effective date."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 326                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: POSTING LEWD MATERIAL AS HARASSMENT                                                                                
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER, LYNN                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05                                                                              
01/09/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/09/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/18/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/18/06       (H)       Moved CSHB 326(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
01/18/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/26/06       (H)       FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                                                                       
01/26/06       (H)       <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                               
01/27/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 321                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING                                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05                                                                              
01/09/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/09/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/18/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/18/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
01/25/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/25/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/25/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/27/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 314                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT SELF/HOME                                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL, GATTO, LYNN                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05                                                                              
01/09/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/09/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/25/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/25/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
01/27/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 379                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, INCL. ANALOGS                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
01/18/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/27/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 343                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: HARASSMENT                                                                                                         
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/09/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/27/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as one of the prime sponsors of                                                                  
HB 326; testified as the sponsor of HB 379.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff                                                                                                        
to Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                   
House Finance Committee                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Assisted  with the  presentation  of  the                                                               
proposed CS  for HB 326,  Version F, on behalf  of Representative                                                               
Meyer,  one  of the  bill's  prime  sponsors; assisted  with  the                                                               
presentation of HB  379 on behalf of  the sponsor, Representative                                                               
Meyer.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion  of the proposed CS for HB                                                               
326,  Version F,  provided comments  and responded  to questions;                                                               
testified in support of HB 379.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JANE PIERSON, Staff                                                                                                             
to Representative Jay Ramras                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented HB 321 on behalf  of the sponsor,                                                               
Representative Ramras, and responded to questions.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
RON TAYLOR, Coordinator                                                                                                         
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)                                                                                            
Prevention and Early Intervention Section                                                                                       
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)                                                                                             
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Provided comments  during  discussion  of                                                               
HB 321.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff                                                                                                            
to Representative John Coghill                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented HB  314 on  behalf of one  of the                                                               
prime sponsors, Representative Coghill.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General                                                                               
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Provided   comments  and   responded  to                                                               
questions during discussion of HB 314.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MIKE MILLIGAN                                                                                                                   
Kodiak, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Provided comments  and suggested  a change                                                               
during discussion of HB 314.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TRINKA PORRATA, President                                                                                                       
Project GHB                                                                                                                     
Phoenix, Arizona                                                                                                                
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  on  HB 379,  answered                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 343.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
JAMES A. HELGOE, Lieutenant, Legislative Liaison                                                                                
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 343.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MAE L. BARNEY, Correctional Officer II                                                                                          
Fairbanks Correctional Center                                                                                                   
Division of Institutions                                                                                                        
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 343.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL SICA, Staff                                                                                                             
to Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB 343,  responded to                                                               
comments and  questions on behalf of  the sponsor, Representative                                                               
Lynn.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Public Information Officer                                                                                     
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau                                                                                             
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 343.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN A. PARKES, Deputy Attorney General                                                                                        
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Office of the Attorney General                                                                                                  
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  in   support  of  HB  343  and                                                               
responded to questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LESIL   McGUIRE  called   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order at  1:07:58  PM.    Representatives                                                             
McGuire,  Coghill, Wilson,  Gruenberg, and  Gara were  present at                                                               
the  call  to order.    Representative  Anderson arrived  as  the                                                               
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 326 - POSTING LEWD MATERIAL AS HARASSMENT                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:08:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                               
be  HOUSE  BILL  NO.  326,   "An  Act  relating  to  harassment."                                                               
[HB 326,  as amended,  was moved  from committee  on 1/18/06;  in                                                               
committee packets  was a proposed  committee substitute  (CS) for                                                               
HB 326, Version 24-LS1223\F, Luckhaupt, 1/26/06.]                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:08:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  made a motion to  rescind the committee's                                                               
action on 1/18/06 in reporting  CSHB 326(JUD) [HB 326, as amended                                                               
on 1/18/06] from committee.  There  being no objection, it was so                                                               
ordered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska  State Legislature, one of the                                                               
prime  sponsors  of  HB  326,   relayed  that  the  proposed  CS,                                                               
Version F, corrects some technical aspects  of the version of the                                                               
bill that moved from committee on 1/18/06.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:09:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  made a  motion to  adopt the  proposed CS                                                               
for HB  326, Version 24-LS1223\F,  Luckhaupt, 1/26/06, as  a work                                                               
draft.   There  being  no  objection, Version  F  was before  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:10:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  PAWLOWSKI, Staff  to Representative  Kevin Meyer,  House                                                               
Finance  Committee, Alaska  State Legislature,  one of  the prime                                                               
sponsors of  HB 326,  relayed on  behalf of  Representative Meyer                                                               
that  members'  packets contain  a  memorandum  from the  sponsor                                                               
highlighting  comments   from  Legislative  Legal   and  Research                                                               
Services, the  Department of Law  (DOL), and the Alaska  Court of                                                               
Appeals case, McKillop v. State;  and indicating that [Amendments                                                             
1 and 2] to HB 326  would hinder the state's ability to prosecute                                                               
someone.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:10:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
explained that the words, "sole  purpose" would make it much more                                                               
difficult  to  prosecute  someone,  notwithstanding  the  court's                                                               
ruling in McKillop, because the DOL  would have to prove beyond a                                                             
reasonable doubt that the person  performed the activities listed                                                               
in  proposed  AS 11.61.120(a)(6)  for  no  other reason  than  to                                                               
harass or annoy another person.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAWLOWSKI indicated that Version  F contains the title change                                                               
that was  incorporated into the  original bill via  [Amendment 3]                                                               
and aside from that change is identical to the original version.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  is concerned that  the court's                                                               
interpretation in McKillop would  make it impossible to prosecute                                                             
the  type of  behavior outlined  in proposed  AS 11.61.120(a)(6).                                                               
He offered  his belief that  they should  make it clear  that the                                                               
court should  reexamine its interpretation of  AS 11.61.120(a)(4)                                                               
because  it failed  to  note the  practical  implications of  its                                                               
decision in  McKillop, that being  that it will be  impossible to                                                             
prosecute  someone for  violating  that statute.    He asked  Ms.                                                               
Carpeneti to comment on this issue.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said  that the DOL's position is  that when statute                                                               
includes  as an  element of  the defense  that the  state has  to                                                               
prove  beyond a  reasonable  doubt that  the defendant's  actions                                                               
were  for  the sole  purpose  of  harassing or  annoying  another                                                               
person, then  the DOL  must prove that  fact beyond  a reasonable                                                               
doubt;  this will  be difficult  because people  do things  for a                                                               
variety of  reasons, or, at the  very least, can claim  that they                                                               
had a variety of reasons.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether it would  help to include                                                               
a "purposes"  section in  the bill, that  purpose being  that the                                                               
legislature  is  considering  the practical  implication  of  the                                                               
[ruling in McKillop].                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said she has found such statements to be helpful.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that "findings  and purposes"                                                               
language could  be drafted in  the House Finance  Committee; that                                                               
language could  reflect that they  are directly  confronting [the                                                               
interpretation in McKillop] and are  asking the court to consider                                                             
the practical consequences of its decisions.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:16:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  offered his belief that  without stipulating                                                               
that the  intent to annoy is  either a main purpose  or a primary                                                               
purpose  for distributing  the types  of photographs  outlined in                                                               
the  bill,  it   would  make  criminals  out  of   kids  who  are                                                               
distributing photographs of public figures.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PAWLOWSKI said  he would  argue that  even that  behavior is                                                               
unacceptable if  the photographs  contain the elements  listed in                                                               
proposed  AS 11.61.120(a)(6);  such  photographs  are not  casual                                                               
photographs   regardless  of   who  the   subject  is,   and  the                                                               
distribution of them  rises to a level of conduct  that should be                                                               
criminal.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief  that as written, the bill                                                               
also captures behavior that is not meant to be covered.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  offered  her  understanding  that  the  committee                                                               
doesn't  want to  be  making  criminals out  of  "people who  are                                                               
pranksters, who are  kids, who [are] goofing off";  not that that                                                               
conduct is  to be condoned,  however.   This proposed law  is for                                                               
those serious  cases where one  is truly harassing  somebody, and                                                               
stems from a situation in which  a constituent of the sponsor was                                                               
very upset  to have nude  photographs of herself being  posted in                                                               
an offensive  manner.  She  asked whether it would  be acceptable                                                               
to use the term "primary" or  "main" - or perhaps some other term                                                               
that is  used in  another criminal statute  - instead  of "sole";                                                               
some  word that  will relay  that  although there  may have  been                                                               
ancillary motivations for the behavior,  the main goal was really                                                               
to harass someone.   She surmised that  including something along                                                               
those  lines  would  make members  more  comfortable  while  also                                                               
clarifying the intent of the legislation.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI explained  that the  DOL  has to  prove, beyond  a                                                               
reasonable doubt, that  when the person did the  act, that he/she                                                               
did it  with intent to  annoy or harass.   Therefore, the  use of                                                               
the  word "primary"  is better  than  "sole", but  the DOL  would                                                               
rather only  have to prove  that the  person acted as  he/she did                                                               
with  the  intent  to  harass   or  annoy  another  person.    As                                                               
demonstrated in  the McKillop case,  she pointed out,  the courts                                                             
are not going  to allow broad-ranging prosecutions  that punish a                                                               
person for  a silly prank or  a child for behaving  in a juvenile                                                               
manner.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged that point.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:23:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  he is not comfortable  with the concept                                                               
of writing  a law  in a  broad fashion  and then  simply trusting                                                               
that all prosecutors won't enforce the  law to the full extent of                                                               
the words in that law.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI pointed out, however,  that this same standard must                                                               
be used  in the prosecution  of all  the other paragraphs  of the                                                               
harassment  statute.   "I  think  that  ... requiring,  beyond  a                                                               
reasonable  doubt, proof  of intent  to harass  or annoy  another                                                               
person ...  gets at the crux  of what you're looking  at; now, if                                                               
you  want to  put "primary",  that would  be better  than "sole",                                                               
[but] I think it's not  necessary and it might be problematical,"                                                               
she added.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that  with regard to "harass", that                                                               
is acceptable;  however, the language  is also making it  a crime                                                               
to "annoy" someone.   Someone may not be  forwarding a photograph                                                               
of a public figure with the  intent to harass the subject, but [a                                                               
reasonable person  could be expected  to assume] that  the action                                                               
will annoy the  subject; thus, even though it needs  to be proven                                                               
beyond a reasonable doubt, simply  annoying someone would also be                                                               
against  the  law.   Therefore,  he  expressed a  preference  for                                                               
including  the  word "primary"  or  some  other word  which  will                                                               
stipulate  that   the  purpose,  regardless  that   the  act  was                                                               
intentional, has to be a motivating purpose.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  argued that  by including  such language,  the DOL                                                               
would find  itself in  a situation  wherein the  defendant simply                                                               
says that  in addition to having  the intent to annoy  or harass,                                                               
he/she committed  the act  for his/her  own gratification  or for                                                               
various other reasons.  Again,  this could be problematic for the                                                               
prosecution,  she remarked,  and recommended  that such  language                                                               
not be included.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  using the  term,  "a  main                                                               
purpose" would address the DOL's  concern.  For example, a person                                                               
could have three  main reasons to commit the act  but one of them                                                               
was to harass another person.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:26:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  indicated that  the language  in subsection  (a) -                                                               
"with intent  to annoy  or harass" -  demonstrates that  a person                                                               
already  has  a  main  purpose   in  committing  the  act.    She                                                               
suggested, though, that if such  words are added, that they apply                                                               
only to proposed paragraph (6).                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON concurred  that a  defendant could  always                                                               
say,  whether true  or  not,  that he/she  committed  an act  for                                                               
reasons in addition to harassing or annoying.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  said proving  such  to  be  false would  be  very                                                               
difficult.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  surmised, then,  that defendants  could be                                                               
given a "total out."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that is why  he is suggesting the use of                                                               
the term, "a main purpose", rather than, "the main purpose".                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  noted   that  when  paragraph  (6)   is  read  in                                                               
conjunction with subsection  (a), it is clear that  one must have                                                               
the intent to  harass or annoy another person,  and therefore her                                                               
concern with  the current proposed  language is alleviated.   She                                                               
indicated  that  [the DOL  probably]  doesn't  want to  get  into                                                               
having to measure  to what percentage a person has  the intent to                                                               
harass  or annoy.   She  remarked that  she wants  the record  to                                                               
reflect that [the  committee does] not want the bill  to apply to                                                               
school pranks, and that it views harassment as a serious crime.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:29:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA suggested  that  the bill  could be  changed                                                               
such that it  wouldn't apply when public figures  are the subject                                                               
of a  photograph.   Another option  would be  to change  the bill                                                               
such that proposed paragraph (6)  only applies when the intent is                                                               
to harass, but not when the intent is to annoy.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI questioned how [the  latter suggested] change would                                                               
be drafted.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE said  she  is uncomfortable  with  the concept  of                                                               
having the  intent to annoy not  apply to paragraph (6).   As for                                                               
the suggested  change regarding public  figures, she  pointed out                                                               
that the  public figure would have  to come forward and  say that                                                               
the  publishing,  posting,  or   distributing  of  the  types  of                                                               
photographs listed  in paragraph (6) annoys  or harasses him/her;                                                               
therefore, a  kid in Alaska forwarding  on a picture of  a public                                                               
figure is unlikely  to be prosecuted under  the proposed statute.                                                               
Furthermore, a legislator could  be considered a "public figure".                                                               
Just because public figures have  a higher level of exposure, she                                                               
remarked, she  doesn't know that  they need to be  [exempted from                                                               
the bill].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  pointed out  that if public  figures were                                                               
[exempted  from the  bill], the  question could  then become  how                                                               
much of  a public  figure was  the subject of  a photograph.   He                                                               
surmised  that current  law  already outlines  that  one has  the                                                               
right  to  not   be  annoyed,  and  opined   that  paragraph  (6)                                                               
stipulates probably  the most egregious  behavior as  compared to                                                               
the behavior outlined in the other five paragraphs.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that paragraph  (6) pertains  to                                                               
more than mere speech, which  the court addressed in McKillop, as                                                             
did the  court in  Jones v. Anchorage,  which said,  "We conclude                                                             
that  AS   11.61.120(a)(4)  must   be  interpreted   to  prohibit                                                               
telephone   calls  only   when   the  call   has  no   legitimate                                                               
communicative purpose  - when  the caller's  speech is  devoid of                                                               
any substantial  information and  the caller's sole  intention is                                                               
to annoy or harass the recipient."   He asked whether the sponsor                                                               
wishes to  address only paragraph  (6) or  is willing to  take on                                                               
the  issue  raised  in  McKillop.    If  it  is  the  latter,  he                                                             
suggested,  they  could  add  to [subsection  (a)]  some  of  the                                                               
language used in  Jones to say, "when  the person's communication                                                             
is  devoid  of any  substantial  information  and the  [person's]                                                               
intention  is  to  annoy  or  harass the  recipient".    He  also                                                               
suggested  that they  should provide  a definition  for the  word                                                               
"anonymous", which is  used in paragraph (4)  of AS 11.61.120(a);                                                               
they could perhaps define it as the court does.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:38:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAWLOWSKI  relayed that  the sponsor  would prefer  to simply                                                               
address paragraph (6).                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI concurred.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered his  belief that at  some point                                                               
in the future  they should address the remainder  of AS 11.61.120                                                               
in light of the ruling in McKillop.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  pointed out that McKillop  and Jones are                                                           
many years old  and address the issue of phone  calls rather than                                                               
photographs, surmised  that many  public figures will  never even                                                               
know  that kids  might be  passing around  their photographs  and                                                               
thus won't be  harassed or annoyed by that  activity, offered his                                                               
belief that  the courts will  have the discretion to  ensure that                                                               
only  legitimate  instances  of harassment  are  prosecuted,  and                                                               
opined that  the legislature is  correct in making a  policy call                                                               
and  setting   a  precedent   to  say   that  such   behavior  is                                                               
unacceptable.  He further opined that  there is no need to codify                                                               
the court's interpretation of AS 11.61.120(1)(4).                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:43:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  made a motion to  adopt Conceptual Amendment                                                               
[1], to  insert the words, "with  a main purpose being  to harass                                                               
or  annoy the  person," on  page  1, line  15, after  "(6)".   He                                                               
opined  that  the addition  of  this  language will  satisfy  the                                                               
intent of  the sponsor  without making the  provision so  hard to                                                               
prosecute.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  said he opposes  Conceptual Amendment  1 as                                                               
being unnecessary  and potentially causing problems  further down                                                               
the road.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG sought  clarification that the amendment                                                               
would  be conceptual  in nature,  and offered  his belief  that a                                                               
conforming change, via that amendment,  would also be in order on                                                               
page 1, lines 4-5.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  indicated  that  he would  be  amenable  to                                                               
having Conceptual  Amendment 1 address  that portion of  the bill                                                               
as well.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  mentioned  that   he  doesn't  see  how                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1 could hurt the bill.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that it could  be problematic                                                               
for the prosecution  to have to prove that  annoying or harassing                                                               
another person is a main  purpose for committing an activity, and                                                               
said  he is  not  sure  how the  courts  would  go about  ranking                                                               
purposes so as  to determine whether a particular  purpose was "a                                                               
main purpose".   He asked whether any other statute  makes use of                                                               
the term, "a main purpose" with regard to mental intent.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI reiterated  that the DOL must  already prove beyond                                                               
a reasonable  doubt that  when the  photograph was  published the                                                               
person acted with  the intent to annoy or  harass; therefore, use                                                               
of the  term, "a  main purpose"  could create  a problem  for the                                                               
prosecution.   She  indicated that  she is  unaware of  any other                                                               
statute  that uses  the term,  "a  main purpose"  with regard  to                                                               
mental intent; specific intent crimes  usually are with intent to                                                               
cause a certain harm.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he is concerned  about forcing the                                                               
jury to determine whether a purpose was a main purpose.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PAWLOWSKI  reiterated his  belief  that  if the  photographs                                                               
contain the  elements listed in  proposed AS  11.61.120(a)(6), it                                                               
doesn't matter that  the photographs were sent around  as part of                                                               
a joke;  just because something  could be  viewed as a  joke, and                                                               
regardless  of who  the subject  is, it  shouldn't mean  that the                                                               
nature of the crime could be limited.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON used  an example  wherein a  person gets                                                               
charged with  a crime  even though  the person  had not  meant to                                                               
harass or annoy another person.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she is  concerned that layering on  the term,                                                               
"a main purpose",  could result in sort of having  a trial within                                                               
a  trial.   Other aspects  of the  criminal code  simply look  at                                                               
intent, she  noted, without having a  determination regarding the                                                               
percentages that could be attributed to particular purposes.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said  that under the harassment  statute, the state                                                               
has to prove that it was  the actor's specific intent to annoy or                                                               
harass, not that the subject  was actually annoyed or harassed by                                                               
the behavior.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:52:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives Anderson  and Gara                                                               
voted  in  favor  of Conceptual  Amendment  1.    Representatives                                                               
McGuire,  Coghill,  Wilson,  and   Gruenberg  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  again expressed  a desire to  deal with                                                               
the issues raised  by the McKillop case.  He  asked Ms. Carpeneti                                                             
whether  she  would  like  to  have the  issue  of  including  an                                                               
"intents or purposes" section addressed  by the next committee of                                                               
referral.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said she did not think so.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:53:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  moved to report  the proposed CS  for HB                                                               
326, Version  24-LS1223\F, Luckhaupt,  1/26/06, out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.    There  being  no objection,  [new]  CSHB  326(JUD)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 321 - AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:54:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 321, "An Act  relating to high risk operation of a                                                               
motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft  while under the influence                                                               
of an  alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or  controlled substance and                                                               
to refusal to submit to a  chemical test."  [Before the committee                                                               
was the  proposed committee substitute  (CS) for HB  321, Version                                                               
24-LS1099\F,  Luckhaupt, 1/16/06,  which  had been  adopted as  a                                                               
work draft on 1/25/06.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
JANE PIERSON,  Staff to Representative  Jay Ramras,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,   sponsor,  on   behalf  of   Representative  Ramras                                                               
answered questions posed  on January 25, 2006.   She reminded the                                                               
committee  that  Representative  Gruenberg   had  asked  why  the                                                               
committee would  want to  repeal AS  28.35.032(i) via  Section 5.                                                               
She explained that for those  circumstances outlined in the bill,                                                               
there would  no longer be  a 72-hour  sentence as outlined  in AS                                                               
28.35.032(i) for refusing to take  a chemical test to determine a                                                               
blood alcohol  concentration (BAC)  level; instead,  the sentence                                                               
for refusal  would mirror what is  in the bill for  driving under                                                               
the  influence (DUI)  convictions.   She  reminded the  committee                                                               
that Representative Gara had asked  for some statistics regarding                                                               
the  effectiveness of  the [current]  DUI laws  and informed  the                                                               
committee that the statistics are in the packet.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:56:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON  noted that Ron  Taylor, Coordinator,  Alcohol Safety                                                               
Action   Program  (ASAP),   Prevention  and   Early  Intervention                                                               
Section, Division of Behavior Health  (DBH), Department of Health                                                               
and  Social  Services  (DHSS),  brought up  the  question  of  [a                                                               
possible] amendment dealing with  increased [fees for reinstating                                                               
a  person's   driver's  license].    She   stated  that  although                                                               
Representative Ramras  didn't want  to increase the  court fines,                                                               
he  didn't  have   a  problem  with  increasing   the  [fee]  for                                                               
reinstating a  driver's license.   In regard to the  fiscal notes                                                               
and Representative Gruenberg's question  about them, she remarked                                                               
that she  has yet to receive  a return email from  the Department                                                               
of Corrections  (DOC).   In regard to  the available  grants, she                                                               
relayed   that    23   U.S.C.   410    alcohol-impaired   driving                                                               
countermeasures  incentive   grants  are  available   if  certain                                                               
criteria are met, and referred to  the criteria for the grants in                                                               
committee packets.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON relayed  that one of the things she  checked into was                                                               
whether a  .15 BAC would be  a threshold for that  and the answer                                                               
is no.  There are states that have  a high BAC law, for example a                                                               
.20 BAC,  and they  are still receiving  these grants.   [Alaska]                                                               
has to meet  the criteria and she offered  her understanding that                                                               
Alaska is qualified  under "Basic Grant A"  criteria and probably                                                               
under  "Basic Grant  B" criteria.   She  relayed that  Ron Taylor                                                               
also asked what it would count as  if one were to get a third DUI                                                               
and had  gotten two previous  DUIs with a  low BAC but  the third                                                               
DUI was with a high BAC.  She  opined that if one gets a high BAC                                                               
[DUI] and it  is the third one,  it falls under DUIs  that one is                                                               
charged  with under  [proposed]  AS  28.35.030, but  acknowledged                                                               
that perhaps this is not yet clear in the bill.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the  "rule of lenity":  if a                                                               
criminal statute  can be  interpreted two ways  - one  way that's                                                               
harsher than the other way -  the court will have to interpret it                                                               
the less-harsh way.  Therefore,  the statute needs to be clearer,                                                               
otherwise the aforementioned rule may be brought to bear.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 1, to                                                               
increase the  [fee for reinstating  a driver's license],  after a                                                               
second high-risk DUI offense, to $750.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  suggested that  Amendment 1  be conceptual  so the                                                               
drafter could put it where it's appropriate.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  then altered Conceptual Amendment  1 so                                                               
that it would  increase the fee to  only $700.  In  response to a                                                               
question  and comments,  he noted  that AS  28.15.271 relates  to                                                               
driver's license reinstatement fees.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said he doesn't understand  what the purpose                                                               
would be of increasing the [fee] by $200.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  posited  that increasing  the  fee  is                                                               
creating  another  aspect  of deterrence  for  this  higher-level                                                               
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
RON TAYLOR,  Coordinator, Alcohol  Safety Action  Program (ASAP),                                                               
Prevention   and   Early   Intervention  Section,   Division   of                                                               
Behavioral  Health   (DBH),  Department  of  Health   and  Social                                                               
Services  (DHSS),  relayed that  his  suggested  increase in  the                                                               
driver's license  reinstatement fee  is in response  to something                                                               
that  said at  the  previous  meeting, which  is  that each  time                                                               
something is changed  in [the DUI statutes] it's going  to send a                                                               
clear message  to a  high-risk driver that  he/she will  have the                                                               
distinction of being subject to  higher penalties - whether it be                                                               
fines,  jail  time, or  reinstatement  fees.   He  remarked  that                                                               
there's no rhyme  or reason for a 50 percent  increase across the                                                               
board for jail time, fines, and reinstatement fees.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:06:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  in response  to a  question, clarified                                                               
that if  one has a  .16 [BAC], [Conceptual Amendment  1] applies,                                                               
while if one has a .159 [BAC], it won't.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his  understanding that in 2000 there                                                               
were 4,686 DUI arrests  and the number was the same  in 2005.  In                                                               
the intervening years,  the number of DUI  arrests have increased                                                               
and decreased,  but that's not  compelling evidence  that changes                                                               
in DUI laws  have caused the number of arrests  or convictions to                                                               
decrease.    He   opined  that  although  the   fines  have  been                                                               
drastically increased,  it seems like  increases in jail  time is                                                               
more important because it is  punitive.  He expressed his concern                                                               
about whether [an increase in fees] is actually needed.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said,  "We   have  not  increased  the                                                               
[fines] ...  in the  bill, so [Conceptual  Amendment 1  would be]                                                               
... the only additional monetary sanction in it."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON concurred.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON recalled  Representative Ramras  stating                                                               
that someone  affluent can easily  pay a fine and  that therefore                                                               
his intent was to change the jail time, not the fine.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON concurred with that summation.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:11:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representative Gruenberg  voted in                                                               
favor  of  Conceptual  Amendment  1.    Representatives  McGuire,                                                               
Wilson,  Anderson,  and  Gara  voted   against  it.    Therefore,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-4.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON, in  response to comments, informed  the committee of                                                               
the  high   BAC  levels  in   states  which  are   receiving  the                                                               
aforementioned grants:   .15 in Arizona; .15 in  Arkansas; .20 in                                                               
California;  split  .15/.20  in  Colorado;  .16  in  Connecticut;                                                               
.16/.20 with  a graduated  law in Delaware;  .20 in  Florida; and                                                               
.15  in Georgia.   In  response to  a question,  she offered  her                                                               
understanding that  this legislation would  make it so  that [the                                                               
State of Alaska] would be able to apply for the grants.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. TAYLOR indicated that that  issue has not yet been clarified.                                                               
He said he was unaware of  whether having a high BAC threshold of                                                               
.16 would  impact [the State  of Alaska] for the  upcoming fiscal                                                               
year (FY).                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that the  point to him isn't that one                                                               
is half as dangerous with a .159  BAC than if one has a .161 BAC;                                                               
"the truth  is, you're a  fantastic danger  at both."   He opined                                                               
that to pretend that one is  twice or half as dangerous simply by                                                               
using these numbers  is a fiction, and that one's  first time DUI                                                               
conviction, in  a lot of  cases, just seems  like a "slap  on the                                                               
wrist" when  it should instead  have a  bigger impact.   It seems                                                               
reasonable to  him, he remarked, that  in a more serious  case, a                                                               
first  time DUI  should result  in  six days  [in jail],  whereas                                                               
always  making the  penalty  twice as  much,  every single  time,                                                               
doesn't make  as much sense.   He reiterated his concern  that HB                                                               
321 sends the message  that it's okay to drive with  a .10 or .08                                                               
BAC, and opined that dong so is not okay.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:17:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA moved  to adopt  Conceptual Amendment  2, to                                                               
make  a conviction  for a  first time  DUI at  the .16  BAC level                                                               
result  in a  minimum of  six days  [in jail]  and enhancing  the                                                               
sentence for subsequent DUIs by a  minimum of a third longer than                                                               
it currently is  though the court can impose  something longer if                                                               
it thinks the circumstances justify it.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:18:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives Anderson  and Gara                                                               
voted  in  favor  of Conceptual  Amendment  2.    Representatives                                                               
McGuire,  Wilson, and  Gruenberg  voted against  it.   Therefore,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-3.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was  a brief  discussion  regarding  what changes  to                                                               
sentences would have been effected by Conceptual Amendment 2.]                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested replacing "40 days"  with "30                                                               
days" on  page 2, line  26; "80 days" with  "70 days" on  page 2,                                                               
line 28; "140 days" with "130 days"  on page 2, line 31; and "280                                                               
days" with "260 days" on page 3, line 3.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE referred  to Representative  Gruenberg's suggested                                                               
changes as Amendment 3.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE informed  the committee that she would  hold HB 321                                                               
over.    She  expressed  her concern  about  the  bill  sponsor's                                                               
absence and Amendment 3 being  a fairly substantive change to the                                                               
legislation, which  is intended  to double  the penalties  in the                                                               
category of jail sentences.  She  expressed her desire for a more                                                               
definitive answer  - in writing  - as to  whether .15 BAC  or .16                                                               
BAC makes a difference.   In response to questions, she clarified                                                               
that HB  321 will  be held  over with  Amendment 3  left pending,                                                               
adding that it  would be okay if  Representative Gruenberg wanted                                                               
to withdraw Amendment 3 at the next meeting.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that  none of the committee members                                                               
should be doing "math on the  fly," and asked whether the federal                                                               
government has  stipulated how much  the states have  to increase                                                               
their sentences by.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON clarified that [the  federal language in part] reads,                                                               
"a law  that imposes stronger  sanctions or  additional penalties                                                               
for high risk drivers with a BAC of .15 or more".                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:27:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that  HB 321 [Version  F] would  be held                                                               
over  with the  question of  whether  to adopt  Amendment 3  left                                                               
pending.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 314 - USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT SELF/HOME                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:28:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 314, "An Act  relating to defense of  self, other                                                               
persons, and property."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:28:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KAREN  LIDSTER,  Staff  to Representative  John  Coghill,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, one  of the prime sponsors of  HB 314, relayed                                                               
on behalf of  Representative Coghill that HB 314  will expand the                                                               
area in  which a person  is allowed  to stand his/her  ground and                                                               
[use  deadly force  to] protect  himself/herself when  faced with                                                               
the threat of death, serious  physical injury, kidnapping, sexual                                                               
assault, or  robbery.   Currently one may  only use  deadly force                                                               
while on premises that one owns  or leases and is not the initial                                                               
aggressor.  She noted that  members' packets contain an Amendment                                                               
1,  which, with  some formatting  changes and  explanations, read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, Line 6:  after the word "assault" delete:                                                                          
          ", SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
           insert:                                                                                                              
           in the first degree, sexual assault in the                                                                       
     second degree                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               We are recommending deleting the proposed                                                                        
     change and  staying with the original  wording in order                                                                    
     to address the concerns that  "sexual abuse of a minor"                                                                    
     could be a loophole for a  father to walk in on his 15-                                                                    
     year-old daughter  with her 19-year-old  boyfriend, and                                                                    
     the  father   claim  "self  defense  of   a  child"  as                                                                    
     justification for killing the boyfriend.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          Line 10: after "to a" insert:                                                                                         
           reasonable                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
               In discussions with the AG's office, they                                                                        
     felt that  our original  language "to a  certainty" was                                                                    
     much too broad  and could let bad actors  get away with                                                                    
     using  deadly force.    It was  agreed  that adding  in                                                                    
     reasonable  was a  compromise that  we both  could live                                                                  
     with.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          Line 21:  after the word "assault" delete:                                                                            
          ", SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
           insert:                                                                                                              
           in the first degree, sexual assault in the                                                                       
     second degree                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               In this new section (b) we recommend staying                                                                     
     with the same language as Line 6 above.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LIDSTER  relayed  that  the  Department  of  Law  (DOL)  had                                                               
expressed concern that  one of the proposed changes  in Section 2                                                               
-  that which  would replace  the  words, "in  the first  degree,                                                               
sexual assault  in the second  degree" with the words,  ", sexual                                                               
abuse of a  minor" - could create a loophole  in situations where                                                               
a parent is angry that  his/her teenager is having a relationship                                                               
with someone over  the age of majority.  Amendment  1 proposes to                                                               
leave  the language  as it  currently is  in AS  11.81.335(a)(2).                                                               
Amendment 1 would  also change, in proposed  AS 11.81.335(b), the                                                               
proposed  new wording,  "to  a certainty"  to,  "to a  reasonable                                                               
certainty";  this  provision  specifies one's  duty  to  retreat.                                                               
This change  was also requested by  the DOL because it  felt that                                                               
without the word, "reasonable" there  could be difficulty proving                                                               
that  a  person really  could  have  retreated instead  of  using                                                               
deadly force.   The last alteration Amendment 1  proposes is that                                                               
of changing  Section 3 of  the bill  such that the  language will                                                               
mirror  what is  currently  in AS  11.81.335(a)(2) regarding  the                                                               
crimes listed.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:32:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  suggested that  Amendment 1  be incorporated                                                               
into a proposed committee substitute (CS).                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed to arrange that.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA indicated  that  the bill  might still  have                                                               
some  unintended  consequences.    For example,  he  offered  his                                                               
belief   that  the   crime  of   kidnapping  includes   custodial                                                               
interference, and relayed  that it's his belief  that the sponsor                                                               
doesn't  intend  for  the  bill to  apply  in  those  situations.                                                               
Referring  to Section  3, he  offered his  understanding that  as                                                               
currently written,  one could  use deadly  force simply  when one                                                               
reasonably believes that a child  is in imminent threat of having                                                               
one of the things listed occur  to him/her, and would not have to                                                               
reasonably believe that  the use of deadly force is  the only way                                                               
in which to stop those things  from occurring.  He suggested that                                                               
this also is  not the sponsor's intent,  particularly with regard                                                               
to  robbery, and  therefore  the current  language  in Section  3                                                               
could prove problematic.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER agreed to research those issues.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:37:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that the bill  should include                                                               
a definition  of "carjacking".   He asked what the  difference is                                                               
between "carjacking" -  as used in proposed  AS 11.81.350(e)(1) -                                                               
and "theft of  a motor vehicle when another person  ... is inside                                                               
the vehicle"  - as used  in proposed AS 11.81.350(e)(2)  - adding                                                               
that he thought the latter was a carjacking.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER  indicated that in  proposed AS  11.81.350(e)(1), the                                                               
person   is  still   in   the  vehicle,   and   in  proposed   AS                                                               
11.81.350(e)(2), the person  is outside of the  vehicle and there                                                               
is another person, perhaps even a child, in the car.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his  belief that the activity in                                                               
both proposed AS 11.81.350(e)(1)  and proposed AS 11.81.350(e)(2)                                                               
are simply different forms of carjacking.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER said she would research that issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE noted  that one of her former staff  was the victim                                                               
of a carjacking, and briefly  described that situation, which she                                                               
characterized as very serious.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  indicated  that  he  is  amenable  to  [the                                                               
changes  proposed via  Amendment 1],  and reiterated  his concern                                                               
regarding Section  3; on  the latter  point, he  suggested adding                                                               
the phrase,  "the person  reasonably believes  the use  of deadly                                                               
force is necessary.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER  acknowledged that point, again  offering to research                                                               
that issue further.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether carjacking  is currently                                                               
punished as a separate crime.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER said she would also research that issue.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:42:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEAN  J.   GUANELI,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Legal                                                               
Services  Section-Juneau, Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law                                                               
(DOL), relayed  that the administration  supports having  a good,                                                               
strong, self-defense law,  but at the same time wants  it to be a                                                               
workable  law  so that  gang  members,  drug dealers,  and  other                                                               
criminals  don't use  the  justification of  self  defense as  an                                                               
excuse for shooting up a neighborhood.   He mentioned that he has                                                               
been working  with the sponsor in  an effort to improve  the bill                                                               
so  that  it  will  accomplish   both  goals.    In  response  to                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg's question,  he  noted that  carjacking                                                               
can include any number of crimes  and can also be prosecuted as a                                                               
separate crime of vehicle theft - a  felony in and of itself - or                                                               
as felony theft  of property depending on what items  were in the                                                               
car.     Furthermore,   depending  on   what  is   done  to   the                                                               
driver/passengers, assault charges might also be warranted.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI,  in response to a  further question, said he  is not                                                               
sure how other states treat this behavior.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether the  administration would                                                               
like to see a separate crime for carjacking.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.   GUANELI  indicated   that   current   law  is   sufficient,                                                               
particularly given  that a lot  of case law involves  the merging                                                               
of  convictions when  they  relate to  one  continuous course  of                                                               
conduct.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  suggested that  what makes  the act  of carjacking                                                               
distinguishable  from the  act of  simply stealing  a car  is the                                                               
mental intent of  being willing to endanger someone  in order get                                                               
the vehicle,  and indicated  that she  would research  this issue                                                               
further.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether  there are many incidences                                                               
of carjacking in Alaska.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said he would have to research that issue.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a  preference for developing a                                                               
statute that would specifically  address the issue of carjacking.                                                               
He then referred to the  interplay between self-defense and gang-                                                               
related activity.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[Following was  a brief discussion regarding  provisions in other                                                               
legislation as they pertained to gang-related activities.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:51:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKE MILLIGAN  relayed that he  has submitted  written testimony,                                                               
shared  with the  committee some  personal experiences  regarding                                                               
the issue  of self defense, said  he is very concerned  about the                                                               
intent of  the bill,  and opined  that that  intent should  be to                                                               
allow people to  defend themselves without allowing  them to just                                                               
simply shoot  each other.   He noted that  Section 1 of  the bill                                                               
pertains  to  the  civil code,  whereas  the  remaining  sections                                                               
pertain to  the criminal code.   He  opined that the  bill should                                                               
emphasize  that there  are standards  [with regard  to firearms].                                                               
For  example,  one of  the  aspects  of the  original  "concealed                                                               
carry" legislation  was that in  order to  get a permit,  one had                                                               
[to pass a  handgun safety course], adding that he  would like to                                                               
see a  reference to that  requirement included in both  the civil                                                               
and criminal  provisions of the  bill.  Referring to  his written                                                               
testimony  wherein he'd  offered suggested  language changes  for                                                               
HB 314, he acknowledged that perhaps  the committee could come up                                                               
with better  wording for both  the civil and  criminal provisions                                                               
of the bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  offered  her  understanding  that  that  training                                                               
requirement had been eliminated.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised, then, that if  Mr. Milligan's                                                               
suggested  changes  were  adopted,  one would  have  an  enhanced                                                               
ability to [use the provisions of  the bill to justify the use of                                                               
deadly force] if  one had taken the  aforementioned safety course                                                               
and had a permit.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MILLIGAN  concurred, adding  that  in  a civil  case,  [such                                                               
changes]  would  provide  for a  preponderance  of  the  evidence                                                               
standard in  the defendant's favor.   He  pointed out that  he is                                                               
advocating for language that would  allow the permit to be either                                                               
current or  expired.  He  mentioned that the sponsor's  staff has                                                               
explained  to  him that  the  concealed  carry permit  provisions                                                               
remain in place  because of the reciprocal laws  that would allow                                                               
one to take a "concealed carry" permit to another state.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised,  then, that although one  doesn't have to                                                               
have a permit  to carry concealed, one could still  opt to obtain                                                               
such a permit, and that Mr.  Milligan is suggesting that in doing                                                               
so one  is a more responsible  gun owner and thus  there ought to                                                               
be  special considerations  given  in situations  wherein HB  314                                                               
comes into play.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILLIGAN concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether the  sponsor would  look                                                               
favorably upon  Mr. Milligan's suggested  changes.   He mentioned                                                               
that such  language might  provide people  with incentive  to get                                                               
the training that would enable them to qualify for a permit.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER said she would research that issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:56:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked  that the phrase, "any  place where the                                                               
person has a right to be", be further defined.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LIDSTER  listed  examples  such   as  one's  work  place,  a                                                               
healthcare provider's office, and shopping facilities.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  surmised,  then,  that  that  phrase  means                                                               
"everywhere."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIDSTER concurred.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  surmised  that  Representative  Gara's  point  is                                                               
whether the  phrase, "any place where  the person has a  right to                                                               
be" would be  legally defensible; she suggested  that the sponsor                                                               
have   Legislative  Legal   and  Research   Services  provide   a                                                               
definition for that  phrase.  She said she assumes  that there is                                                               
a reason for using that phrase  as opposed to "anywhere you are";                                                               
perhaps  the  distinction is  that  one  can't  be engaged  in  a                                                               
criminal act.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LIDSTER concurred,  adding that  AS 11.81.330  addresses the                                                               
issue of  what activities one cannot  be engaged in, in  order to                                                               
be justified in  protecting oneself through the  use of nondeadly                                                               
force.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that HB 314 would be held over.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB 379 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, INCL. ANALOGS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:58:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 379, "An Act relating to controlled substances."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska  State Legislature, sponsor of                                                               
HB  379, relayed  that the  bill  was engendered  by an  incident                                                               
wherein a 16-year-old  girl died and an  18-year-old was severely                                                               
injured after a group of older  men slipped an analog of GHB into                                                               
their drinks.   This legislation,  he explained,  elevates gamma-                                                               
hydroxybutyric  acid  (GHB) and  its  analogs  to a  schedule  IA                                                               
controlled  substance from  its current  listing as  schedule IVA                                                               
controlled substance.   He opined that GHB should  be elevated to                                                               
a schedule  IA because the primary  purpose of GHB is  for use in                                                               
date rape.   Furthermore, the  drug is potent,  almost impossible                                                               
to detect,  and easily slipped  into a drink.   Specifically, GHB                                                               
induces a  feeling of severe  intoxication and enables  others to                                                               
take advantage  of the vulnerable and  incoherent individuals who                                                               
are under its influence.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  highlighted  that  HB  379  also  includes                                                               
analogs  in the  statutory definitions  of controlled  substance.                                                               
He  further  noted that  the  legislation  does exempt  compounds                                                               
approved  by the  Federal Drug  Administration (FDA)  as well  as                                                               
those compounds involved  in specific medical tests  and used for                                                               
human consumption.  He specified  that HB 379 attempts to cleanup                                                               
the statutes while sending a  message that [use of] the compounds                                                               
in GHB are unacceptable and dangerous.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:01:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked if  the sponsor would  be willing                                                               
to narrow the title.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied, "Yes."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA opined  that the  purpose of  HB 379  "seems                                                               
appropriate."  However, the list  of chemicals considered illegal                                                               
drugs under  HB 379  is lengthy, and  therefore he  expressed the                                                               
need to  hear from  someone that the  chemicals listed  should be                                                               
considered illegal.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  said that  there are  individuals available                                                               
who can address that question.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:02:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TRINKA PORRATA, President, Project GHB,  began by noting that she                                                               
is  a retired  Los Angeles  police officer.   She  explained that                                                               
Project GHB  is a nonprofit  organization dedicated  to educating                                                               
people about GHB, a drug that she  has dealt with for the past 10                                                               
years.  She  noted that she is considered the  nation's expert on                                                               
GHB and thus has worked with  some of the top researchers of this                                                               
drug.   Ms.  Porrata said  that she  is glad  that this  issue is                                                               
being  addressed.   Furthermore,  the  analog  provision is  very                                                               
important because GHB has many  analogs, even more than the three                                                               
listed in  the bill.   The analog provision provides  the [state]                                                               
the  opportunity to  address them  without the  time required  to                                                               
pass legislation for  each drug.  She explained  that analogs are                                                               
chemical   cousins  and   thus   have  similar/related   chemical                                                               
structure and effects.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:06:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
relayed  that the  DOL supports  HB  379, although  she said  she                                                               
cannot speak to some of the technical aspects of it.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, drew the  committee's attention to page                                                               
2, lines 1-10, and relayed  his reluctance to adopt this language                                                               
because it may be subject to a challenge of void for vagueness.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. PORRATA  pointed out that the  language [on page 2,  lines 1-                                                               
10]  is  similar to  that  adopted  by  both California  and  the                                                               
federal  government to  address analogs.   Ms.  Porrata explained                                                               
that  an analog  of  a controlled  substance would  automatically                                                               
refer to the controlled substance.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  clarified that  his concern  is whether                                                               
such language  has already  been interpreted by  the courts.   He                                                               
questioned how [the public] could  be given fair notice that they                                                               
may be  prosecuted for  possessing something  that isn't  even in                                                               
existence or listed [as prohibited].                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:10:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. PORRATA interjected  that the point of that  language is that                                                               
when  a   comparable  drug  to   one  listed  is   created,  it's                                                               
automatically covered.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  reiterated that his concern  is whether                                                               
such can  be done from  a constitutional perspective  because due                                                               
process requires  fair notice.   He expressed interest  in seeing                                                               
case law  on the aforementioned,  though he noted his  support of                                                               
the legislation.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PORRATA relayed  that similar  language has  been tested  in                                                               
federal   court  and   has  been   consistently   upheld.     She                                                               
acknowledged that each  time [an analog is added]  there has been                                                               
a challenge, but the law itself has been upheld.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG requested  that  the  DOL research  his                                                               
concerns.  He  also expressed his desire to hear  from the public                                                               
defender on this matter.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her  understanding that because the                                                               
drug involves chemical formulas, [the  bill has been] narrowed to                                                               
refer to similar molecular structures.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:12:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he   is  wondering  whether  the                                                               
language "substantially  similar" has  been upheld by  the courts                                                               
and, if  so, how has  it been upheld.   He then pointed  out that                                                               
the language on page 2, lines  7-10, refers to any substance that                                                               
has a particular effect on the central nervous system.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:13:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  PAWLOWSKI, Staff  to Representative  Kevin Meyer,  House                                                               
Finance  Committee,  Alaska  State Legislature,  surmised,  then,                                                               
that  Representative  Gruenberg   is  concerned  about  providing                                                               
notice  when   a  chemical  compound  is   made  illegal  without                                                               
specifically being mentioned in law.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  further clarified that he  is concerned                                                               
because these  analogs aren't  even referenced  in a  list that's                                                               
established by regulation.  He  then noted that the bill contains                                                               
a provision repealing AS 11.71.170(b)(28), and asked why.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAWLOWSKI specified  that it refers to the  chemical name for                                                               
GHB  as it  is currently  listed in  the schedule  IVA controlled                                                               
substance statute.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA expressed  the  need to  be  reassured be  a                                                               
chemist that each  of the chemicals listed in  the legislation is                                                               
GHB.   The  language  on  page 1,  line  6,  specifies that  also                                                               
illegal is  any salt  or isomer  contained in  one of  the listed                                                               
drugs.  In regard to that  language, he expressed the need for [a                                                               
chemist] to  specify whether  any of these  drugs contain  a sub-                                                               
isomer that may be legitimate.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
[HB 379 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB 343 - HARASSMENT                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:16:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  final order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to harassment."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BOB  LYNN,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  sponsor,                                                               
mentioning that  he has worked as  a jailer, relayed that  HB 343                                                               
was requested  by correctional officers  and those who  want more                                                               
protection from inmates and others  who would throw bodily fluids                                                               
and feces.   Currently, such behavior - included in  the crime of                                                               
harassment - is prosecuted as  a class B misdemeanor, engendering                                                               
a sentence that can range from "0"  days to 90 days; HB 343 would                                                               
make such behavior  a class A misdemeanor - which  can engender a                                                               
sentence  ranging   from  "0"  days   to  1  year  -   and  would                                                               
specifically provide for a mandatory  minimum sentence of 60 days                                                               
if  the victim  is a  uniformed or  otherwise clearly  identified                                                               
peace  officer, fire  fighter,  correctional employee,  emergency                                                               
medical  technician,  paramedic,  ambulance attendant,  or  other                                                               
emergency  responder  who  was  engaged  in  the  performance  of                                                               
official duties at the time of the assault.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  noted that  a letter  provided by  the chief                                                               
police  of the  City of  Fairbanks Police  Department, Daniel  P.                                                               
Hoffman, says  in part, "Being  spit upon, having blood  or feces                                                               
flung at  you ..., should never  be considered 'just part  of our                                                               
job'"; that  in a  portion of  a position  paper provided  by the                                                               
Public Safety Employees Association,  Inc. (PSEA), John Cyr says,                                                               
"Any attempt  to increase the  penalty for this type  of behavior                                                               
is [overdue]";  that a  letter provided by  the president  of the                                                               
Alaska Association  of Chiefs of Police  (AACOP), Thomas Clemons,                                                               
says  in  part,  "...  someone  throwing  bodily  fluids  at  any                                                               
individual  is not  only  repulsive, but  should  have a  penalty                                                               
attached to it which will deter  the activity, or at least punish                                                               
the offender  more appropriately  than what is  currently allowed                                                               
under State Law"; and that a  letter provided by the president of                                                               
the  board  of  directors  of the  Alaska  Correctional  Officers                                                               
Association (ACOA),  Daniel Colang,  says in part,  "Inmates have                                                               
spit in the face of officers,  tried to smear them with feces and                                                               
in one  case sprayed a female  employee with a mixture  of semen,                                                               
urine and  saliva.  ...  we need our  leaders to protect  us from                                                               
the threat and danger of assault by bodily fluids."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN,  in summary,  said that HB  343 is  aimed at                                                               
protecting  everyone,  but  especially   those  who  protect  the                                                               
public's safety and respond to emergency situations.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:20:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  A. HELGOE,  Lieutenant, Legislative  Liaison, Division  of                                                               
Alaska State Troopers, Department  of Public Safety (DPS), stated                                                               
simply that the Alaska State Troopers support HB 343.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:21:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAE L.  BARNEY, Correctional  Officer II,  Fairbanks Correctional                                                               
Center,  Division  of  Institutions,  Department  of  Corrections                                                               
(DOC), relayed  that she is  the correctional  officer [mentioned                                                               
in the letter from the ACOA]  that had a mixture of semen, urine,                                                               
and  saliva  sprayed on  her,  adding  that another  correctional                                                               
officer was also  a victim.  In response to  a question, she went                                                               
on to describe that incident.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  SICA, Staff  to Representative  Bob  Lynn, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, sponsor,  asked, on  behalf of  Representative Lynn,                                                               
that  Ms.  Barney  comment  regarding  whether  the  correctional                                                               
officers in Fairbanks support the bill.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. BARNEY said all the correctional officers support HB 343.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:24:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  SCHMITZ,  Public  Information  Officer,  Office  of  the                                                               
Commissioner -  Juneau, Department  of Corrections  (DOC), stated                                                               
simply that the  DOC supports [HB 343], thinks it's  a good bill,                                                               
and would like to see it pass.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON noted  that  nurses are  often subject  to                                                               
contact with  the aforementioned  substances.  She  asked whether                                                               
nurses who  work in  emergency rooms would  be covered  under the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SICA relayed that for a  violation to occur under the bill, a                                                               
person  would have  to intentionally  subject  another person  to                                                               
those substances.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked whether similar behavior  by someone                                                               
who is  drunk or under the  influence of drugs [would  be covered                                                               
by the bill].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SICA suggested  that someone  else might  be better  able to                                                               
address that question, but proffered  that the intent of the bill                                                               
is  to  make this  type  of  behavior  fall  under the  crime  of                                                               
harassment,  which involves  someone  intentionally harassing  or                                                               
annoying another person.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:27:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  pointed out that drunken  people do things                                                               
intentionally.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SICA surmised,  then, that  such behavior  would be  covered                                                               
under the bill.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  offered  his understanding  that  the  bill                                                               
differentiates between  activity directed at a  police officer or                                                               
emergency  responder and  activity directed  at a  member of  the                                                               
public.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. SICA concurred with that summation.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA suggested  that  they might  want to  exempt                                                               
saliva and  perhaps sweat, and  gave an example wherein  two kids                                                               
start spitting at each other during a schoolyard fight.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. SICA  indicated that the  sponsor had intended for  saliva to                                                               
be included  in the bill but  perhaps had not intended  for sweat                                                               
to be included, and so he will research that issue further.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  acknowledged that when one  spits at another                                                               
person, the intention is to annoy that person.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SICA concurred,  and offered  his belief  that [spitting  at                                                               
someone] is  already included under  the harassment statute  as a                                                               
class B misdemeanor.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that AS  11.61.120(a)(5) already                                                               
makes subjecting  another person to offensive  physical contact a                                                               
crime of harassment,  and surmised that the bill  would make that                                                               
behavior  a class  A misdemeanor  -  as harassment  in the  first                                                               
degree -  if the offensive  physical contact involves the  use of                                                               
human or animal bodily fluids or feces.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. SICA concurred with that summation.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:30:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN  A. PARKES,  Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Office of the Attorney General,  Department of Law (DOL), relayed                                                               
that the  DOL supports HB 343,  and that the sponsor  did consult                                                               
with the DOL in drafting the bill.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  again asked  whether the bill  would cover                                                               
emergency room nurses who have  intoxicated patients spit at them                                                               
or throw other items at them.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES  said that  the DOL  would have  to prove  the factual                                                               
question of whether  the person took that action  with the intent                                                               
to harass or  annoy, and in the case of  an intoxicated person or                                                               
a  person under  the influence  of some  substance, the  level of                                                               
intoxication  or impairment  could  also  be a  factor.   If  the                                                               
person is spewing profanities, looking  the victim in the eye, is                                                               
coherent enough  to engage in  other intentional acts,  and spits                                                               
or throws other bodily fluids on  the victim, a jury could easily                                                               
make a finding  that although the person  was intoxicated, he/she                                                               
intended his/her conduct.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  offered his  understanding that  spitting is                                                               
not covered under existing law.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  argued that  spitting is  covered under                                                               
AS  11.61.120(a)(5) in  that it  would  be considered  "offensive                                                               
physical contact".                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES concurred,  adding that  the concern  of correctional                                                               
officers  is that  this  behavior  is currently  only  a class  B                                                               
misdemeanor, which  they argue  is insufficient.   The  intent of                                                               
the bill,  she suggested,  is to  recognize that  throwing bodily                                                               
fluids or feces is serious  conduct and that protecting those who                                                               
ensure the  public's safety and  respond to  emergency situations                                                               
is a priority.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  asked why  the bill shouldn't  just be  limited to                                                               
those who  protect the public's  safety and respond  to emergency                                                               
situations.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  opined that  no one  should be  subjected to                                                               
having bodily fluids or feces  thrown at him/her, and offered his                                                               
understanding that this  is occurring to people  other than those                                                               
who  protect  the  public's  safety   and  respond  to  emergency                                                               
situations.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:35:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  indicated  that  he  has  a  potential                                                               
conflict of interest and asked to be excused from voting.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  objected [thus requiring  Representative Gruenberg                                                               
to vote should it be necessary].                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked whether  spitting would  be considered                                                               
"offensive physical contact".                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES said, "That is the  theory that we prosecute it under,                                                               
and ... we've gotten convictions under that theory.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:37:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON referred  to  page 3,  lines  2-4 -  which                                                               
lists  the  people  against  whom   an  offense  would  garner  a                                                               
mandatory  minimum sentence  - noted  that medical  personnel are                                                               
not included, and suggested that they should be.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  said he  would view  such a  change to  be a                                                               
friendly amendment.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  that   such  a  change  may                                                               
warrant a title change.  He  then referred to the Alaska Court of                                                               
Appeals case,  McKillop v. State,  and opined that the  ruling in                                                             
that  case  makes the  current  statute  regarding the  crime  of                                                               
harassment virtually  unworkable.   He asked the  sponsor whether                                                               
he would be amenable to curing that problem via HB 343.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  said he would  follow the advice of  the DOL                                                               
on that issue.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES recommended  that that  issue  be taken  up with  the                                                               
drafter.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SICA relayed  that the drafter had simply  indicated that the                                                               
harassment  statute was  the most  appropriate section  of statue                                                               
with  which to  address the  behavior the  sponsor was  concerned                                                               
about.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:41:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said he is  uncomfortable making it  a crime                                                               
to throw  [or project]  sweat or  saliva at  regular people.   He                                                               
asked  the sponsor  to consider  amending the  bill such  that it                                                               
would only be a crime to throw  or project sweat or saliva if the                                                               
victim was someone [listed in Section 4].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested that if  someone has taken the time                                                               
to  collect enough  sweat to  throw  it at  another person,  that                                                               
illustrates real intent.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES  pointed out that  Section 4 of  the bill is  merely a                                                               
sentencing provision  that sets a mandatory  minimum sentence for                                                               
the behavior listed in Section 2  if the victim is someone listed                                                               
in  Section 4,  and opined  that Representative  Gara's suggested                                                               
change could be problematic.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that HB 343 would be held over.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects