Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120

02/10/2006 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 93 DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ HB 226 PERSONAL INFORMATION BREACH TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 226(JUD) Out of Committee
+ HB 190 REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 190(JUD) Out of Committee
+= Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 343 HARASSMENT TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 343(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                       February 10, 2006                                                                                        
                           1:17 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair                                                                                             
Representative Tom Anderson                                                                                                     
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
Representative Peggy Wilson                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 343                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to harassment."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 343(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 226                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating to  breaches  of  security involving  personal                                                               
information; and relating to credit report security freezes."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 226(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 190                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to the  purchase of alcoholic beverages  and to                                                               
requiring  identification to  buy alcoholic  beverages; requiring                                                               
driver's  licenses and  identification cards  to be  marked if  a                                                               
person  is restricted  from consuming  alcoholic  beverages as  a                                                               
result of a conviction or condition of probation or parole."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 190(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 93                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to dentists  and dental hygienists and the Board                                                               
of  Dental Examiners;  establishing  certain  committees for  the                                                               
discipline   and  peer   review   of   dentists;  excluding   the                                                               
adjudicatory  proceedings of  the Board  of Dental  Examiners and                                                               
its  committees from  the Administrative  Procedure Act  and from                                                               
the jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings; and                                                                  
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING CANCELED                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                             
01/27/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/27/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/10/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 226                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION BREACH                                                                                        
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARA                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
03/21/05       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/21/05       (H)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
04/06/05       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/06/05       (H)       <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                               
04/13/05       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/13/05       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/13/05       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/15/05       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/15/05       (H)       Moved CSHB 226(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/15/05       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/18/05       (H)       FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                           
04/22/05       (H)       L&C RPT CS(L&C) 4DP 1NR                                                                                
04/22/05       (H)       DP: LYNN, LEDOUX, GUTTENBERG, KOTT;                                                                    
04/22/05       (H)       NR: ROKEBERG                                                                                           
02/10/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 190                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL                                                                                 
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
03/01/05       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/01/05       (H)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
03/22/05       (H)       L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
03/22/05       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/22/05       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/20/05       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/20/05       (H)       Moved CSHB 190(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/20/05       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/22/05       (H)       L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 2NR                                                                             
04/22/05       (H)       DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, KOTT;                                                                              
04/22/05       (H)       NR: LEDOUX, GUTTENBERG                                                                                 
04/22/05       (H)       FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                           
02/10/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to questions during discussion of                                                                
HB 343; responded to questions during discussion of HB 190.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 343.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
JOHN L. GEORGE, Lobbyist                                                                                                        
for American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI)                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 226, provided                                                                      
comments and suggested a couple of changes.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LISA J. CORRIGAN, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating                                                                    
Officer                                                                                                                         
Alaska Pacific Bank;                                                                                                            
President                                                                                                                       
Alaska Bankers Association                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 226, provided                                                                      
comments and expressed support of a proposed amendment and hope                                                                 
that the legislation passes.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 190.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DUANE BANNOCK, Director                                                                                                         
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                                                
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Provided   comments  and   responded  to                                                               
questions during discussion of HB 190.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney                                                                                          
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System (ACS)                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to  questions during discussion of                                                               
HB 190.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BRYAN TALBOTT-CLARK, President                                                                                                  
Board of Directors                                                                                                              
Anchorage Chapter                                                                                                               
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 190.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing                                                                                                
Director's Office                                                                                                               
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                                                
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Responded  to a question  during discussion                                                               
of HB 190.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LESIL   McGUIRE  called   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order at  1:17:07  PM.    Representatives                                                             
McGuire,  Coghill, Wilson,  Kott, and  Gruenberg were  present at                                                               
the call to order.   Representatives Anderson and Gara arrived as                                                               
the meeting was in progress.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 343 - HARASSMENT                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:18:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to harassment."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:18:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  referred  to  Amendment  1,  labeled  24-                                                               
LS1002\G.5, Luckhaupt, 2/8/06, which read:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 4, following "responder":                                                                                     
          Insert "or medical professional"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, following line 8:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 5.   AS 12.55.135(j) is amended  by adding a                                                                
     new paragraph to read:                                                                                                     
               (3)  "medical professional" means a person                                                                       
     who is an  anesthesiologist, dentist, dental hygienist,                                                                    
     health   aide,   nurse,    nurse   aid   [sic],   nurse                                                                    
     practitioner,   mental  health   counselor,  physician,                                                                    
     physician    assistant,     psychiatrist,    osteopath,                                                                    
     psychologist,  psychological   associate,  radiologist,                                                                    
     surgeon,   or  x-ray   technician,  or   who  holds   a                                                                    
     substantially similar position."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  explained  that  Amendment  1  would  add                                                               
"medical professional"  to the  list of those  people for  whom a                                                               
violation against would engender  a minimum mandatory sentence of                                                               
60 days,  and would add  a definition of  "medical professional".                                                               
Thus the  protection afforded  by HB  343 would  not stop  at the                                                               
hospital door.   She indicated  that the proposed  definition was                                                               
gleaned, in  part, from [the  definition of "health  care worker"                                                               
in]  AS 11.41.470,  and now  also includes  dental hygienist  and                                                               
nurse aide.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON,  in response to questions,  indicated that                                                               
the definition  of "health care  worker" in AS 11.41.470  was too                                                               
broad  for  use  in  HB   343  because  it  included  hypnotists,                                                               
religious  healing  practitioners,  and chiropractors;  and  that                                                               
dental hygienists  and nurse aides  could be in  situations where                                                               
someone spits on them.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he  is concerned that chiropractors                                                               
are not included in the proposed definition.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that  as a rule, chiropractors are                                                               
not in hospitals or in emergency situations.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to amend  Amendment 1, to                                                               
add  chiropractors   to  the  proposed  definition   of  "medical                                                               
professional".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL asked  how  that would  fit  in with  the                                                               
crime of harassment.  He  then acknowledged that chiropractors do                                                               
work very  closely with people,  and indicated that he  would not                                                               
object to the amendment to Amendment 1.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:21:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE, indicating that she'd  heard no further objection,                                                               
announced that the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is removing his objection.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
Amendment  1, as  amended.   There  being none,  Amendment 1,  as                                                               
amended, was adopted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:22:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2, to  limit the bill,  with regard to saliva,  to just                                                               
those listed in proposed AS  12.55.135(d), so that it won't apply                                                               
in  cases where  two  kids in  a schoolyard  fight  spit on  each                                                               
other.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  the crimes outlined  in the                                                               
bill apply  to everyone, and  that the  bill then provides  for a                                                               
mandatory  minimum sentence  for those  found guilty  of the  new                                                               
crime of harassment in the first  degree if the victim is someone                                                               
listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d).                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said that  for spitting,  he wants  to leave                                                               
the  existing law  in place  except when  it involves  the people                                                               
listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d).                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:25:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
relayed that  currently, spitting  would be prosecuted  under the                                                               
crime  of  harassment,  which  is  a class  B  misdemeanor.    In                                                               
response to a question, she said  that the crime of fourth degree                                                               
assault is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   offered   his   understanding   that                                                               
[spitting] could be prosecuted as an assault.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said it would depend on the facts.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:26:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BOB LYNN,  Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor  of                                                               
HB 343, said he would prefer to  leave the bill as is with regard                                                               
to saliva.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking that  he may have a potential                                                               
conflict  of interest,  relayed that  his son  is in  a situation                                                               
wherein he is  sometimes subjected to being spit upon.   He noted                                                               
that spit can carry disease.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  mentioned that it  is unlikely that the  DOL would                                                               
be able to prosecute spitting as  an assault in the fourth degree                                                               
unless the circumstances were extreme.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG surmised,  then,  that the  prosecution                                                               
would have to  show that the victim was injured  from having been                                                               
spit upon.   He remarked, therefore,  that he likes the  bill the                                                               
way it is [with regard to saliva].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI,  in response  to a  comment, indicated  that under                                                               
the  bill, spitting  at  someone would  fall  under the  proposed                                                               
crime of harassment  in the first degree, a  class A misdemeanor.                                                               
In response to  a question, she offered her belief  that it might                                                               
be  possible to,  in  certain situations,  have  the behavior  of                                                               
spitting be subject  to a class A misdemeanor  without having the                                                               
proposed mandatory minimum sentence apply.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   McGUIRE  offered   her   understanding  that   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2 proposes  to make  the  crime of  harassment in  the                                                               
first degree when it involves  saliva, and the proposed mandatory                                                               
minimum sentence, only apply when  it involves a victim listed in                                                               
proposed AS 12.55.135(d).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA, in  response to  a question,  said that  he                                                               
wants  other  instances   involving  saliva  to  be   a  class  B                                                               
misdemeanor.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI sought clarification.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "remain a  class B misdemeanor just for                                                               
spitting when  it doesn't  involve the  ... professions  that are                                                               
addressed in this bill."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said that would involve  further altering existing                                                               
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  he wants  to know  why they  should                                                               
exclude  other  people   from  the  protection  [of   a  class  A                                                               
misdemeanor].    He  said  he   would  speak  against  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2,  particularly given  that  everybody  might at  one                                                               
point in their  life find themselves being spit upon.   He sought                                                               
further clarification regarding Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  said  that under  Conceptual  Amendment  2,                                                               
those not  listed in  proposed AS  12.55.135(d) would  still have                                                               
the remedy  of charging someone who  spit on them with  the crime                                                               
of  harassment.   And if  the person  doing the  spitting had  an                                                               
infectious  disease, he  surmised, then  a victim  not listed  in                                                               
proposed  AS 12.55.135(d)  could charge  the person  with a  more                                                               
serious crime  on the basis  that the spitting occurred  with the                                                               
intent to cause serious physical injury.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said, "Or through reckless endangerment."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he simply wants to exempt schoolyard-                                                                  
fight situations.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI acknowledged  that when  giving certain  groups of                                                               
people more  protection than others,  it is  a policy call  as to                                                               
who to include.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL suggested  that the  question is,  should                                                               
they  exclude  schoolyard  fights, and  acknowledged  that  maybe                                                               
sometimes  a situation  involving a  such a  fight would  warrant                                                               
prosecution.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:34:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  McGuire, Kott, and                                                               
Gara voted in  favor of Conceptual Amendment  2.  Representatives                                                               
Coghill,  Wilson,  Anderson,  and  Gruenberg  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:34:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3,  to alter  the bill  such  that it  would allow  the                                                               
behavior that  involves saliva  to be  a heightened  crime unless                                                               
the victim  is the initial  aggressor.   He noted that  the self-                                                               
defense provisions  of current law  contain a similar  caveat, so                                                               
that although  one generally has  the right to self  defense, one                                                               
loses that right  when one is the initial aggressor  - the person                                                               
starting the fight or altercation.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  objected,  and  noted  that  there  is  a                                                               
tendency  to think  that spitting  is  "no big  deal."   However,                                                               
spitting is  a big deal  because it could  lead to the  spread of                                                               
very serious diseases, even fatal diseases.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    GRUENBERG    noted   that    in    gang-related                                                               
altercations, the police  are tasked with trying to  find out who                                                               
started an  altercation.   Therefore, he  is concerned  about the                                                               
practical implications of Conceptual Amendment 3.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said the DOL would  prefer that such a  caveat not                                                               
be put in substantive statute,  and would prefer instead that the                                                               
committee  rely  on  the  current  justification  statutes.    In                                                               
response  to  a question,  she  said  that  she is  referring  to                                                               
AS 11.81.330(a)(1) [and (3)], and offered  her belief that [those                                                               
statutes are] not limited to serious crimes against a person.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that if  Ms. Carpeneti is convinced that                                                               
someone who is provoked into  spitting on another person would be                                                               
protected from prosecution, then he  would be willing to withdraw                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 3.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said she would give the issue more thought.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  that perhaps  a  letter  of                                                               
intent might be in order.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:39:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI,  in response  to a  question, reiterated  that she                                                               
would prefer  that a  justification not  be put  into substantive                                                               
statute, and that she would research this issue further.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE,  in response to  comments, suggested  that perhaps                                                               
an amendment  addressing Representative  Gara's concern  could be                                                               
crafted before the bill is heard on the House floor.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE announced  that Conceptual  Amendment  3 has  been                                                               
withdrawn.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to  the Alaska Court of Appeals                                                               
case, McKillop  v. State, thanked [Ms.  Carpeneti] for discussing                                                             
it with  him, and mentioned  that he  would be willing  to pursue                                                               
the issues  raised in  that case further  at another  time should                                                               
the DOL wish.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:42:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  moved to report  HB 343, as amended,  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSHB  343(JUD)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 226 - PERSONAL INFORMATION BREACH                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[Contains brief  mention that language of  proposed amendments to                                                               
HB 226 was derived from SB 222.]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:43:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  226, "An  Act relating  to breaches  of security                                                               
involving  personal information;  and relating  to credit  report                                                               
security freezes."  [Before the committee was CSHB 226(L&C).]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA,  speaking  as  the  sponsor,  relayed  that                                                               
HB 226  is  intended  to address  situations  involving  security                                                               
breaches  at financial  companies  that trade,  hold, and  supply                                                               
individuals'  personal and  financial information.   At  the time                                                               
the bill was started, only 3  or 4 states were responding to this                                                               
issue,  but more  have  responded since  then.   The  bill is  in                                                               
response to  a situation that  occurred over  a year ago,  when a                                                               
company called  ChoicePoint, Inc. ("ChoicePoint"),  experienced a                                                               
security  breach that  affected about  145,000 clients.   Because                                                               
California  law  mandated  that   clients  be  notified  of  such                                                               
security breaches,  ChoicePoint notified  its clients  located in                                                               
California,  but  didn't  notify   any  of  its  clients  located                                                               
elsewhere.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained  that HB 226 is modeled  in part on                                                               
two  provisions of  that California  law:   one,  when a  company                                                               
releases  a person's  financial information  accidentally because                                                               
of theft,  that company must  notify the person of  that security                                                               
breach;  two,  when  a  person has  an  indication  that  his/her                                                               
information is no  longer secure, the person will  have the right                                                               
to call  the three consumer financial  information clearinghouses                                                               
and  have  them   put  a  freeze  on   releasing  his/her  credit                                                               
information to a third party.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN L.  GEORGE, Lobbyist for  American Council of  Life Insurers                                                               
(ACLI), relayed that  the ACLI has been working  with the sponsor                                                               
on this  bill and  the sponsor has  been very  accommodating, and                                                               
characterized  CSHB  226(L&C)  as   a  better  version  than  the                                                               
original bill.   He indicated that  he has two issues  to discuss                                                               
and both pertain to language  in proposed AS 45.48.390 located on                                                               
pages 11-12.  Proposed subparagraph  (A) indicates that "personal                                                               
information" consists  of a combination of  an individual's first                                                               
name or  first initial,  the individual's last  name, and  one or                                                               
more of the following:   the individual's social security number;                                                               
the  number  of  the  individual's   driver's  license  or  state                                                               
identification card;  the individual's account number,  or credit                                                               
card  or  debit  card  account   number;  or  account  passwords,                                                               
personal   identification  numbers,   or   other  access   codes.                                                               
However, he  pointed out, proposed  subparagraph (B)  states that                                                               
"personal   information"   could   consist    of   one   of   the                                                               
aforementioned elements  if it would  be sufficient to  engage in                                                               
or attempt to engage in the theft of the individual's identity.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. GEORGE opined that as  written, this definition is ambiguous;                                                               
"personal  information"  should  consist  of one  or  the  other,                                                               
either what's  specified in subparagraph (A)  or what's specified                                                               
in  subparagraph (B).   For  example, under  subparagraph (B),  a                                                               
social  security  number  would   be  sufficient,  whereas  under                                                               
subparagraph (A), both the individual's  name and social security                                                               
number  would be  required.   He  suggested that  the removal  of                                                               
subparagraph (B) would  improve the bill substantially.   He then                                                               
referred to  the language  on page  11, line 23  - which  says in                                                               
part, "the information elements are  not encrypted" - and said he                                                               
is  unable to  find a  definition of  encryption.   He suggested,                                                               
therefore,  that   the  words,  "or  secured   by  another  means                                                               
rendering  the information  unreadable" be  added; such  a change                                                               
would cover  both current and  future technology  without harming                                                               
the intent of the bill.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GEORGE,  in  response  to a  question,  clarified  that  his                                                               
suggested change would be to replace  - on page 11, lines 23-24 -                                                               
the  words,  "or redacted"  with  the  words:   ",  redacted,  or                                                               
secured by another means rendering the information unreadable".                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA offered  his belief  that neither  suggested                                                               
change is  needed.  The  term "encrypted" is used  in California,                                                               
he  relayed,  and  opined  that  a definition  of  that  term  is                                                               
unneeded.     He  indicated  that  simply   saying  something  is                                                               
unreadable is vague, whereas if  an encrypted item is released it                                                               
won't constitute a security breach.  He elaborated:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     We  want  to  say  that it's  a  security  breach  when                                                                    
     certain personal  information is released -  part of it                                                                    
     has to  be the person's  name; we don't really  want to                                                                    
     regulate  it if  the  person's name  is not  associated                                                                    
     with the  security breach  - that's  just not  really a                                                                    
     big  security   concern.  ...   That's  why,   ...  [in                                                                    
     subparagraph (A)], it's two  pieces of information that                                                                    
     have  been   released  -  your   name  and   then  some                                                                    
     identifying  information [such  as]  your bank  account                                                                    
     [number or] your social security  number - that's a big                                                                    
     concern.   The  catchall  in  [subparagraph] (B)  says,                                                                    
     however,  [that]  there  might  be  some  circumstances                                                                    
     where  even  just the  release  of  one piece  of  this                                                                    
     information is a danger.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     And  you can  imagine where  just releasing  somebody's                                                                    
     credit  card number  or bank  account number  by itself                                                                    
     could be a  danger to the consumer.  So  that's why ...                                                                    
     California put this ... [language  in its law] as well.                                                                    
     So I  don't know why  you would  not want to  protect a                                                                    
     consumer  if  a  piece   of  information,  standing  by                                                                    
     itself,  would  be  sufficient  to  allow  somebody  to                                                                    
     engage  in or  attempt to  engage in  the theft  of the                                                                    
     individual's identity;  if it's a piece  of information                                                                    
     that  endangers the  consumer, I  think that,  standing                                                                    
     alone,  is a  breach.   And,  really,  again, all  [the                                                                    
     company has] ... to do is tell the consumer.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA,  in response to  a question, opined  that it                                                               
won't be burdensome for a  company to determine whether there has                                                               
been a breach.  A company  should notify an individual if his/her                                                               
account number, credit card number,  access code, or password has                                                               
been released.  He pointed out  that the bill only applies if the                                                               
company knows  the information  has been  breached, and  then the                                                               
only requirement  is that  the company notify  the consumer.   He                                                               
added:   "I don't think  any company's going  to have to  sort of                                                               
sit there  and pull there  hair out  and go, 'Shoot,  we released                                                               
somebody's  social security  number,  should we  tell  them?'   I                                                               
think the answer is yes - it's a courtesy."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:55:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LISA  J. CORRIGAN,  Executive Vice  President  & Chief  Operating                                                               
Officer,   Alaska  Pacific   Bank;   President,  Alaska   Bankers                                                               
Association, relayed  that Alaskan bankers share  the concerns of                                                               
the  sponsor  and  other  members   of  the  committee,  and  are                                                               
dedicated  to protecting  the privacy  and security  of sensitive                                                               
customer information.   In  fact, she  added, the  reputation and                                                               
the safety  and soundness  of the banking  industry depends  on a                                                               
foundation of  security and integrity,  and the  banking industry                                                               
knows it  has a  fiduciary responsibility  to its  customers, not                                                               
only to protect their money,  but to also protect their sensitive                                                               
personal  information.    She  assured  the  committee  that  the                                                               
banking industry  takes security  breaches and all  other related                                                               
issues very seriously.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CORRIGAN  relayed that  her  comments  will pertain  to  two                                                               
provisions  located   on  pages  1   and  2,  adding   that  [her                                                               
organizations] think  that the  remainder of  the bill  is great.                                                               
She  offered  her belief  that  the  concerns  [she is  about  to                                                               
express] will be adequately addressed  via a forthcoming proposed                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:57:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.   CORRIGAN  remarked   that  [subsection   (a)  of   proposed                                                               
45.48.010]  appears  to  appropriately require  disclosure  of  a                                                               
breach  of   security  if  sensitive,  personal   information  is                                                               
reasonably  believed to  have been  acquired  by an  unauthorized                                                               
person.  However,  that language doesn't go  further to stipulate                                                               
that  the   information  has   been  accessed   for  unauthorized                                                               
purposes.  This [lack] is a  bit of a difference from the banking                                                               
"guidance" that  banks already  operate under.   Since  banks are                                                               
already operating  under a complicated  web of federal  and state                                                               
regulations,  whenever   possible  [banks]  would  like   to  see                                                               
legislation that's consistent with  [the rules] they must already                                                               
comply with.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CORRIGAN  referred  to the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley  Act  (GLBA),                                                               
which  required  banking regulators  to  issue  guidance, and  to                                                               
continue  issuing guidance,  to  banks.   That guidance  requires                                                               
banks  to   create  information  security  systems;   complete  a                                                               
comprehensive risk  assessment relating  directly to  the subject                                                               
of  HB   226  -   the  likelihood   of,  and   vulnerability  to,                                                               
unauthorized  access to  sensitive customer  information; and  to                                                               
subsequently  develop   and  implement   a  response   program  -                                                               
basically disaster response in an  electronic format - that would                                                               
be used any  time the bank felt there was  reason to believe that                                                               
there could be harm to a customer or a customer base.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CORRIGAN  explained that the aforementioned  response program                                                               
requires  banks  to  begin an  immediate  investigation  if  they                                                               
believe that a  security breach may have occurred,  and then they                                                               
are  required  to determine  the  likelihood  that the  sensitive                                                               
information has  or will be misused.   A concern, she  relayed is                                                               
that  it  is  possible  that  an  unauthorized  individual  could                                                               
inadvertently come into  contact with or come  into possession of                                                               
sensitive  information   without  meaning  any  harm,   and  [her                                                               
organizations believe]  that it  is not  the sponsor's  intent to                                                               
have the  bill apply  in such  situations and  so want  to ensure                                                               
that  language in  the bill  recognizes that,  because if  a bank                                                               
believes that it  is reasonably possible that  misuse will occur,                                                               
then   the  bank   is  already   required  to   go  through   the                                                               
aforementioned   notification  process   and  notify   customers,                                                               
banking regulators, federal authorities, et cetera.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CORRIGAN said that the  Alaska Banking Association supports a                                                               
forthcoming  proposed  amendment  because it  believes  that  the                                                               
amendment will  clarify that the  information would have  to have                                                               
been  accessed  for  a  purpose   not  authorized  by  the  state                                                               
resident;   this  adds   the  piece   that  the   Alaska  Banking                                                               
Association felt was missing -  that it is an unauthorized person                                                               
who  has  unauthorized access  to  sensitive  information and  is                                                               
using it for unauthorized purposes  or there is reason to believe                                                               
that he/she could.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:00:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CORRIGAN then  drew members' attention to page  2, lines 7-10                                                               
-  proposed AS  45.48.020 -  which provides  that a  business may                                                               
delay  disclosing   a  security   breach  to  customers   if  the                                                               
Department of Law  (DOL) has an ongoing  investigation that could                                                               
be  compromised   by  that  disclosure.     The   Alaska  Banking                                                               
Association  is  asking  that  that  exception  be  broadened  to                                                               
include  all  appropriate  law enforcement  agencies;  banks  are                                                               
already  required  to   have  a  lot  of   contact  with  federal                                                               
authorities   in  situations   involving  suspected   or  ongoing                                                               
criminal  activity.    She offered  her  understanding  that  the                                                               
forthcoming  proposed  amendment  will address  this  concern  as                                                               
well.   She concluded by  saying that  with the inclusion  of her                                                               
aforementioned proposed  changes, [her organizations]  think that                                                               
HB 226 is good legislation and hope it passes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE, after  ascertaining that  no one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 226.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to the  language on  page 12,                                                               
lines  3-5, and  relayed that  his staff  is researching  whether                                                               
that language  is identical  to the  language in  California law.                                                               
He  said he  supports  the  bill, but  added  that that  language                                                               
currently  seems to  read that  the crime  is a  crime if  it's a                                                               
crime; in other  words, it's an identifier if  it's sufficient to                                                               
cause a crime, which is a circular argument.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:02:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  made a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1, which                                                               
read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 2 following "A"                                                                                               
          Delete "consumer"                                                                                                     
          Insert "credit"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, line 16                                                                                                           
          Delete "or conflicts with"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the  first part of Amendment 1                                                               
corrects a  typographical error  and the  second part  provides a                                                               
cleaner way of dealing with a federal preemption.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he  supports Amendment  1.    He                                                               
remarked, though,  that proposed  AS 45.48.300  - which  is being                                                               
altered  by the  second  portion of  Amendment 1  -  is not  even                                                               
necessary because it is always  the law that federal law preempts                                                               
state law.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  said  he   would  be  receptive  to  taking                                                               
[proposed AS  45.48.300] out of  the bill  on the House  floor if                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg  can  show  that  there  is  already  a                                                               
general preemption provision.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  there  isn't  one  now,  and  is                                                               
pondering whether  the committee would consider  adding a general                                                               
preemption provision to Title 1.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   said  he'd  prefer  to   consider  that                                                               
question separately from their debate on HB 226.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:06:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE noted  that  the issue  of  severability has  been                                                               
debated,  and  that sometimes  a  specific  clause pertaining  to                                                               
severability is put in legislation  and sometimes severability is                                                               
viewed as a  given.  She concurred that the  general rule is that                                                               
if  there is  a federal  law on  a particular  subject, it  would                                                               
preempt state  law, but pointed out  that this issue can  be more                                                               
complicated when it pertains to certain areas of the law.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said  he   would  not  want  to  concede                                                               
anything [to the federal government] that he did not have to.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE said she thinks  it's appropriate to keep [proposed                                                               
AS 45.48.300] in the bill.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
Amendment 1.  There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:07:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA   made  a   motion  to   adopt  [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 12 following "person,"                                                                                        
          Insert "for a purpose not authorized by the state                                                                     
     resident"                                                                                                                  
          Delete "due to the breach"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2 lines 7 following "Enforcement."                                                                                    
          Delete all material through page 2, line 10.                                                                          
          Insert "Notice of the breach may be delayed if an                                                                     
     appropriate  law  enforcement  agency  determines  that                                                                    
     notification   will    interfere   with    a   criminal                                                                    
     investigation    and   provides    the   business    or                                                                    
     governmental  entity with  a  written  request for  the                                                                    
     delay.   However, the  business or  governmental entity                                                                    
     shall   notify   the   state  resident   as   soon   as                                                                    
     notification   will  no   longer  interfere   with  the                                                                    
     investigation."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA   indicated   that  the   first   part   of                                                               
[Conceptual] Amendment  2 addresses  Ms. Corrigan's  first stated                                                               
concern,  and  the  second  part   of  [Conceptual]  Amendment  2                                                               
addresses  her  second stated  concern.    With the  adoption  of                                                               
[Conceptual]  Amendment  2, if  there  is  a  breach but  it's  a                                                               
harmless  breach, then  the  bill  won't apply,  and  a delay  in                                                               
notifying the customer  of a security breach  will temporarily be                                                               
allowed if  the company is  told, in writing, by  any appropriate                                                               
law  enforcement agency  that  such  notification will  interfere                                                               
with a criminal investigation, though  once law enforcement is no                                                               
longer concerned  about notification,  then the customer  must be                                                               
notified.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:09:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  said  she  would  not  want  the  first  part  of                                                               
[Conceptual] Amendment 2 to be used  as an excuse [to not provide                                                               
notification].    She  offered   her  recollection  that  in  the                                                               
ChoicePoint case,  the company offered the  defense that although                                                               
it knew  about the security breach,  it didn't think that  it was                                                               
going to cause any harm.  She said  she wants it to be very clear                                                               
that companies have  a duty to investigate  the reasonableness of                                                               
whether  the  breach would  cause  harm,  and  that it  isn't  an                                                               
automatic defense for  the company to simply say  it didn't think                                                               
it would.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  referred  to   the  last  sentence  of                                                               
[Conceptual] Amendment 2 and suggested  that it be changed to say                                                               
that  the law  enforcement  agency must  notify  the company  [or                                                               
governmental entity]  in writing  that the  customer notification                                                               
process will no longer interfere  with the criminal investigation                                                               
and thus may begin.  In  response to a comment, he clarified that                                                               
he would like  the law enforcement agency to also  have a duty to                                                               
notify.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion  to conceptually  amend                                                               
[Conceptual]  Amendment 2,  to rewrite  the  final sentence  such                                                               
that the  investigating law enforcement  agency shall  notify the                                                               
business or governmental  entity as soon as  the investigation is                                                               
sufficiently complete that the business  can notify the consumer.                                                               
At  that  point,  he  added,   the  [business]  must  notify  the                                                               
consumer.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE   noted  however  that  investigations   can  take                                                               
decades.  Therefore she would  prefer the phrase, "will no longer                                                               
interfere with the investigation".                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he  is amenable to such a                                                               
change to  the conceptual amendment to  [Conceptual] Amendment 2,                                                               
to have it  say, "the investigating law  enforcement agency shall                                                               
notify   the  business   or  governmental   entity  as   soon  as                                                               
notification will no longer interfere  with the investigation and                                                               
at that point  the business or governmental  [entity] must notify                                                               
the   consumer".     There  being   no  objection,   [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 2 was amended.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
[Conceptual]  Amendment  2,  as   amended.    There  being  none,                                                               
[Conceptual] Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:16:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA   made  a   motion  to   adopt  [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 15 following "than"                                                                                           
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          " (1) $3 for the first time that the consumer                                                                         
     places a  security freeze in  a five year  period under                                                                    
     AS 45.48.100"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 16 following "each"                                                                                           
          Insert "subsequent"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 16                                                                                                            
          Delete (1)                                                                                                            
          Insert (2)                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 19                                                                                                            
          Delete (2)                                                                                                            
          Insert (3)                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 12 following line 5                                                                                                   
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
     "CONTINGENT EFFECT OF AS 45.48.160(a)(1)  .  If a court                                                                    
     of competent  jurisdiction whose decisions  are binding                                                                    
     in this state enters a  final judgment that the charges                                                                    
     rendered  in AS  45.48.160(a)(1) are  unconstitutional,                                                                    
     then   the   charges  shall   be   as   stated  in   AS                                                                    
     45.48.160(a)(2), (a)(3) and AS 45.48.160(b)."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  said   that   he  took   care  to   mirror                                                               
California's comprehensive approach.   However, California allows                                                               
a credit-reporting agency  to charge $10 and $12  to either place                                                               
or remove a freeze.   That amount seems significant, he remarked,                                                               
and so  Conceptual Amendment  3 provides  for a  $3 charge  for a                                                               
first  time  request within  a  five  year period,  and  includes                                                               
conditional language which says that if  a court finds that it is                                                               
unconstitutional to impose the lower  charge then it will default                                                               
to the $10  and $12 charges.  He pointed  out that under language                                                               
currently in  the bill, a person  may place or remove  a security                                                               
freeze  without  charge if  he/she  provides  a credit  reporting                                                               
agency  with proof  that he/she,  in good  faith, filed  a police                                                               
report  stating  that  his/her  [personal  information  has  been                                                               
breached].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
Conceptual   Amendment  3.      There   being  none,   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:19:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4,   which,  along   with   a   note,  read   [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 14                                                                                                            
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
          "Sec. 45.48.150. Prohibition. When dealing with a                                                                   
     third  party,   a  credit  reporting  agency   may  not                                                                    
     suggest,  state, or  imply that  a consumer's  security                                                                    
     freeze  reflects  a  negative  credit  score,  history,                                                                    
     report, or rating"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 12                                                                                                            
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
          "Sec. 45.48.190. Notification after violation.                                                                      
     If  a  credit  reporting  agency  violates  a  security                                                                    
     freeze  by  releasing  a consumer's  credit  report  or                                                                    
     information derived from the  credit report, the credit                                                                    
     reporting agency shall notify  the consumer within five                                                                    
     business days  after the  release, and  the information                                                                    
     in  the notice  must include  an identification  of the                                                                    
     information  released  and  of   the  third  party  who                                                                    
     received the information."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber following bill sections accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     [Note: Taken from SB222]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  relayed that  SB  222  addresses many  more                                                               
subjects than HB 226, and  Conceptual Amendment 4, which contains                                                               
language from  SB 222,  says in  the first part  that if  a third                                                               
party  contacts a  credit reporting  agency, the  agency may  not                                                               
suggest,  state,  or   imply  that  a  freeze   on  a  consumer's                                                               
information reflects  a negative  credit score,  history, report,                                                               
or rating.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE removed  her objection,  and  asked whether  there                                                               
were  any  further  objections.   There  being  none,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA,   in  response  to  a   question  regarding                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 3, relayed that  he doesn't believe that the                                                               
lower  charge of  $3  proposed via  Conceptual  Amendment 3  will                                                               
violate the  [federal] commerce  clause but  he is  including the                                                               
contingent effect clause  just in case the  proposed lower charge                                                               
raises that issue.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:22:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 5,   which,  along   with   a   note,  read   [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, line 14                                                                                                           
          Insert a new article in the bill to read:                                                                             
          "Article 3. Right to File Police Report Regarding                                                                   
     Identity Theft."                                                                                                         
     Sec. 45.48.300.  Right to file police  report regarding                                                                  
     identity theft.  (a) Even if the  local law enforcement                                                                  
     agency does not have jurisdiction  over the theft of an                                                                    
     individual's  identity,   if  an  individual   who  has                                                                    
     learned or reasonably suspects  the individual has been                                                                    
     the victim of identity  theft contacts, for the purpose                                                                    
     of filing  a complaint, a local  law enforcement agency                                                                    
     that  has  jurisdiction  over the  individual's  actual                                                                    
     place of  residence, the  local law  enforcement agency                                                                    
     shall  make a  report  of the  matter  and provide  the                                                                    
     individual with  a copy of  the report.  The  local law                                                                    
     enforcement  agency  may  refer  the matter  to  a  law                                                                    
     enforcement agency in a different jurisdiction.                                                                            
     (b) This section is not  intended to interfere with the                                                                    
     discretion  of  a  local   law  enforcement  agency  to                                                                    
     allocate its  resources to the investigation  of crime.                                                                    
     A  local  law enforcement  agency  is  not required  to                                                                    
     count a  complaint filed under  (a) of this  section as                                                                    
        an open case for purposes that include compiling                                                                        
     statistics on its open cases.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
         Sec. 45.48.390. Definitions. In AS 45.48.300 -                                                                       
     45.48.390                                                                                                                  
       (1) "crime" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900                                                                        
          (2) "identity theft" means the theft of the                                                                           
     identity of an individual;                                                                                                 
          (3) "victim" means an individual who is the                                                                           
     victim of identity theft.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber following bill sections accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     [Language taken from SB222]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA mentioned  that  he'd  gotten this  language                                                               
from SB 222 as well, and  that it addresses a person's ability to                                                               
file a police report regarding identity theft.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ANDERSON  objected,   and  asked   whether  this                                                               
language will engender a fiscal note.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that  this language might have a                                                               
minor fiscal  impact, and explained  that Conceptual  Amendment 5                                                               
specifies that  law enforcement  shall allow a  person to  file a                                                               
report and thereby  obtain a free security freeze;  he noted that                                                               
[under Conceptual Amendment 5] a  law enforcement agency will not                                                               
be required to investigate a situation outlined in the report.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON   said  he   will  be   maintaining  his                                                               
objection  because he  thinks the  proposed requirement  to allow                                                               
people to file the aforementioned  reports will be too burdensome                                                               
on law enforcement agencies.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  reiterated   that  Conceptual  Amendment  5                                                               
stipulates that law enforcement will  not have to take any action                                                               
on such reports.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  argued  that law  enforcement  agencies                                                               
will still have to fill out the reports.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:24:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives  McGuire, Coghill,                                                               
Wilson,  Gruenberg,  and  Gara   voted  in  favor  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  5.   Representatives Anderson  and Kott  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore,  Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted by  a vote of                                                               
5-2.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE encouraged  Representative  Gara  to have  someone                                                               
from law  enforcement available  to address  this issue  when the                                                               
bill is heard in the House Finance Committee.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA agreed  to do  so, and  asked Representative                                                               
Anderson to contact law enforcement.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that he would.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:26:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 16 following "(3)"                                                                                            
          Insert "by substitute notice"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 17 following "$250,000,"                                                                                      
          Insert "or"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 5-7                                                                                                           
          Delete "if the employee or agent does not use the                                                                     
     personal  information for  a purpose  unrelated to  the                                                                    
     activities of  the business or governmental  entity and                                                                    
     does not  make further  unauthorized disclosure  of the                                                                    
     personal information."                                                                                                     
       Insert "provided that the personal information is                                                                        
    not   used   or   subject   to   further   unauthorized                                                                     
     disclosure."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 12 following "recover the"                                                                                    
          Insert "actual"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  referred  to   the  portion  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6 that proposes a change to page 2, line 16.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she doesn't  know what the  term, "substitute                                                               
notice" means.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  pointed  out that  [paragraphs  (1)-(3)]                                                               
direct how a business or government shall make the disclosure.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether the  term,  "substitute                                                               
notices" is  defined [in statute],  or, if not, who  would decide                                                               
what it  means, or is it  defined on lines  20-25 of page 2.   If                                                               
the  latter is  the  case,  he remarked,  then  he would  suggest                                                               
dividing Conceptual Amendment  6 into parts and  amending it such                                                               
that it  would add  to page  2, line  19, the  word, "substitute"                                                               
between the words, "provide notice".                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  amend   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, to  delete the change  proposed to page 2,  line 16.                                                               
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 6 was amended.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  referred  to   the  portion  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, as  amended, that proposes a change to  page 2, line                                                               
17, and characterized this as a technical change.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:29:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  referred  to   the  portion  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, as amended, that proposes  a change to page 3, lines                                                               
5-7, and  explained that  the new  proposed language  would track                                                               
California  statute; although  both the  current language  of the                                                               
bill and  the new proposed language  seem to say the  same thing,                                                               
as a  matter of caution  he would prefer  to use the  language in                                                               
California law.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked that  Conceptual Amendment  6, as                                                               
amended, be divided.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE suggested  instead  that Representative  Gruenberg                                                               
simply state his concerns.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to  the portion of Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, as  amended, that proposes a change to  page 3, line                                                               
12, offered  his belief  that "actual damages"  might be  read to                                                               
mean  special damages  only as  opposed to  general damages,  and                                                               
since  an  unauthorized  disclosure  could ruin  a  person,  they                                                               
should not limit the damage award to actual damages.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  said his  [initial  thought]  is that  both                                                               
"damages" and  "actual damages" mean "compensatory  damages", but                                                               
he is  willing to  [delete that  proposed change  from Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, as amended].                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  he would  be more  comfortable if                                                               
the term, "actual" was not included.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a  motion to again amend Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 6, as amended, by  deleting the portion that proposes a                                                               
change to page 3, line 12.   There being no objection, the second                                                               
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 6, as amended, was adopted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 6,  as amended  twice.   There being  none,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 6, as amended twice, was adopted.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON offered  his  belief  that Mr.  George's                                                               
concern regarding  encryption warrants  further attention  as the                                                               
bill moves through the process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to  proposed AS  45.48.390,                                                               
said  it seems  to him  that anything  in subparagraph  (A) would                                                               
necessarily  be in  subparagraph (B).   Referring  to the  actual                                                               
language  in  California's  law  pertaining  to  this  issue,  he                                                               
characterized that language as quite  clear and well drafted.  He                                                               
asked  Representative  Gara  whether  he  would  be  amenable  to                                                               
replacing the  language currently  in proposed AS  45.48.390 with                                                               
the language in California law, which read:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     For  purposes of  this section,  "personal information"                                                                    
     means an  individual's first name or  first initial and                                                                    
     last name  in combination with  any one or more  of the                                                                    
     following data  elements, when either  the name  or the                                                                    
     data elements are not encrypted:                                                                                           
          (1) Social security number.                                                                                           
          (2) Driver's license number or California                                                                             
     Identification Card number.                                                                                                
          (3) Account number, credit or debit card number,                                                                      
     in combination with any  required security code, access                                                                    
     code,  or  password  that would  permit  access  to  an                                                                    
     individual's financial account.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he  thinks that Representative Gruenberg                                                               
is  correct on  this  issue and  that [Mr.  George]  has a  valid                                                               
concern.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:35:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 7,  to replace  the language  currently in  proposed AS                                                               
45.48.390 with the language in  California law except that Alaska                                                               
terms  be used  in place  of California  terms.   There being  no                                                               
objection, Conceptual Amendment 7 was adopted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:37:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON,  after noting that she'd  had her personal                                                               
information stolen  in the past,  moved to report  CSHB 226(L&C),                                                               
as amended, out of committee  with individual recommendations and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB                                                               
226(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 190 - REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  final order of  business would                                                               
be  HOUSE BILL  NO.  190, "An  Act relating  to  the purchase  of                                                               
alcoholic  beverages  and  to  requiring  identification  to  buy                                                               
alcoholic    beverages;   requiring    driver's   licenses    and                                                               
identification cards to be marked  if a person is restricted from                                                               
consuming  alcoholic beverages  as a  result of  a conviction  or                                                               
condition of  probation or  parole."   [Before the  committee was                                                               
CSHB 190(L&C).]                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD,  Alaska State Legislature, sponsor                                                               
of  HB  190,  relayed  that  during  the  interim  he'd  had  the                                                               
opportunity  to consider  the question  of  what can  be done  to                                                               
prevent  the sort  of situation  in which  he found  himself last                                                               
year when his wife was struck by  a drunk driver.  House Bill 190                                                               
is intended  to stop  people from  getting alcohol,  from getting                                                               
drunk,  from  getting to  the  point  where  they kill  and  maim                                                               
people.   Currently, judges will  order people who  are convicted                                                               
of  felony  driving under  the  influence  (DUI)  to not  buy  or                                                               
consume  alcohol  or  enter  premises   where  alcohol  is  sold;                                                               
however, those orders aren't enforced  because there is not yet a                                                               
way to identify such people.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  said that  HB  190  would require  that                                                               
driver's licenses  or state identification  (ID) cards  be marked                                                               
so that  everyone could identify  those who've been  convicted of                                                               
DUI.  A  prior version of the bill  required establishment owners                                                               
to be  responsible for  checking IDs for  such marking,  but that                                                               
concept  didn't  have  statewide  support,  and  so  the  current                                                               
version of HB 190 - CSHB 190(L&C)  - makes the checking of IDs by                                                               
establishment  owners voluntarily.    If  an establishment  owner                                                               
does  choose to  check someone's  ID and  finds the  marking that                                                               
indicates the person has been ordered  by the court to not buy or                                                               
consume  alcohol or  enter premises  where alcohol  is sold,  the                                                               
establishment  owner  could  collect  a civil  damages  award  of                                                               
$1,000.  He noted that he'd  borrowed the civil fine concept from                                                               
legislation pertaining to minor consuming.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD relayed  that  Brown  Jug, Inc.  ("Brown                                                               
Jug"), had  expressed a willingness  to incorporate  the checking                                                               
of IDs for court order designations into its current practices.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  asked Representative  Crawford  whether                                                               
he's  consulted with  the Cabaret  Hotel Restaurant  & Retailer's                                                               
Association (CHARR) regarding this bill.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD indicated  that he  had but  doesn't yet                                                               
have anything in  writing.  His understanding is that  as long as                                                               
the  proposal is  voluntary,  CHARR would  have  no objection  to                                                               
checking IDs for evidence of court orders.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:45:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD, in  response to  a question,  explained                                                               
that the  first portion  of Section 1  specifies that  the person                                                               
who has been  ordered by the court to not  buy or consume alcohol                                                               
or  enter premises  where alcohol  is sold  may not  do so;  CSHB                                                               
190(L&C) does  not require  an establishment  owner to  check IDs                                                               
for such court orders.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ANDERSON  expressed   favor  with   the  concept                                                               
embodied in CSHB  190(L&C), and concern that IDs  will soon start                                                               
containing more and more information about a person.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD noted  that  the strip  on  the back  of                                                               
driver's  licenses  already   provides  certain  information  [as                                                               
described in AS 28.15.111(a)].                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  supports the  bill, but  he is                                                               
questioning whether a  stigma will be placed on a  person with an                                                               
ID marked  in the manner  being proposed; a stigma,  for example,                                                               
that could influence a job interview.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she agrees  with the  goals of the  bill, but                                                               
questions whether marking one's ID  in the fashion proposed would                                                               
be considered  "cruel and  unusual" punishment  in that  it would                                                               
constitute continued  punishment -  further punishment  meted out                                                               
after  one  serves  his/her  time  and  pays  his/her  fines  and                                                               
penalties.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD acknowledged that  having one's ID marked                                                               
in the proposed manner could be  somewhat of a stigma, but opined                                                               
that people should know that one  is not to have alcohol or enter                                                               
onto premises that  serve alcohol.  He  offered his understanding                                                               
that such  a mark can  be removed once  the court order  has been                                                               
satisfied/removed.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE noted  that some states mark the  license plates of                                                               
those who've been convicted of  DUI, and asked whether anyone has                                                               
looked  into the  constitutional aspects  of marking  IDs in  the                                                               
manner proposed.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:51:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
indicated that  she's not  yet researched  that issue,  but added                                                               
that  she would  be  surprised if  there  are any  constitutional                                                               
ramifications  given  that an  ID  would  only  be marked  for  a                                                               
limited period of time.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked what such a mark would look like.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that  the Division of Motor Vehicles                                                               
(DMV) would resolve that issue.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:52:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DUANE  BANNOCK,  Director,  Division  of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department  of  Administration  (DOA),  relayed that  he  is  not                                                               
familiar with  any state that uses  such a mark and  so he cannot                                                               
answer  that particular  question.   He said  that CSHB  190(L&C)                                                               
still causes  the DMV  concern because currently  there is  not a                                                               
direct  link of  communication  between the  DMV  and the  Alaska                                                               
Court System, and  thus there is no way for  the DMV to determine                                                               
who  has been  court ordered  to not  buy or  consume alcohol  or                                                               
enter premises where alcohol is sold.   And even though Section 2                                                               
of  the bill  states in  part, "the  person has  been ordered  to                                                               
refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages  as part of a sentence                                                               
for conviction  of a crime under  AS 28.35.030 or as  a condition                                                               
of  probation or  parole", the  DMV  doesn't have  any idea  what                                                               
would be  expected in terms of  how many "customers" it  could be                                                               
dealing  with and  what would  be  expected if  the court  simply                                                               
faxes over court orders.  For  example, would the DMV be expected                                                               
to revoke  the driver's  privilege until the  driver came  to the                                                               
DMV to  get another driver's license,  and is there a  time frame                                                               
involved?   So  although the  DMV  understands Section  4 of  the                                                               
bill, the DMV is concerned about  how it will get the information                                                               
in a timely manner so as to be able to act accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON asked  whether  the establishment  owner                                                               
would  be  held accountable  by  the  Alcoholic Beverage  Control                                                               
Board  ("ABC Board")  if  he/she failed  to  identify someone  as                                                               
having been  ordered by the court  to not buy or  consume alcohol                                                               
or enter premises  where alcohol is sold, what  the fiscal impact                                                               
will  be on  the DMV,  and whether  an individual  would be  held                                                               
liable for providing  alcohol to someone who has  been ordered by                                                               
the court to  not buy or consume alcohol or  enter premises where                                                               
alcohol is sold.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:55:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD answered  that  the establishment  owner                                                               
would not  be liable  for failing  to identify  such individuals,                                                               
and  that the  DMV would  be  able charge  those who  must get  a                                                               
marked ID with the cost associated issuing those IDs.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK,  in  response  to  a  question,  said  it  will  be                                                               
difficult to determine  the bill's fiscal impact on the  DMV.  He                                                               
noted that currently, every dollar  the DMV collects is "defined"                                                               
by  either  statutory  or  regulatory authority,  and  so  he  is                                                               
presuming that  the sponsor and  the committee recognize  that in                                                               
order for the DMV  to comply with the bill, there  will be a cost                                                               
to the DMV.  And although the  intent might be for the people who                                                               
have to  get a marked  ID to be the  ones paying that  cost, this                                                               
will require  a statutory  change because  currently the  cost of                                                               
licensure is  the same for everyone  and the DMV does  not get to                                                               
raise the rate.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD,   in    response   to   Representative                                                               
Anderson's third  question, offered his understanding  that it is                                                               
already against the  law for an individual to  provide alcohol to                                                               
someone who has  been ordered by the court to  not buy or consume                                                               
alcohol  or enter  premises where  alcohol is  sold, though  that                                                               
individual  is not  responsible for  checking someone  else's ID;                                                               
the bill will not change current law in that regard.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  asked Representative  Crawford whether he's  had a                                                               
chance to work  out the details of cost and  expectation with the                                                               
DMV.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD said  he'd thought  that that  issue had                                                               
been resolved and  so he will take further steps  [to ensure that                                                               
it is], adding that he would  be amenable to an amendment on that                                                               
issue.   There are  people being killed  and maimed  everyday, he                                                               
remarked, adding  HB 190  differs from past  attempts in  that it                                                               
establishes a  voluntary program that will  provide establishment                                                               
owners  with  the financial  incentive  to  check IDs  for  court                                                               
orders; something must be done  to stop alcohol from getting into                                                               
the hands of those that are  causing the most trouble, those that                                                               
continue to  drink and drive.   He explained that the  person who                                                               
struck his wife  had a blood alcohol concentration  (BAC) of .38,                                                               
and  offered his  belief that  one cannot  get to  that point  of                                                               
intoxication without  having had  a lot  of practice;  the person                                                               
was  a "multiple,  repeat  offender,"  and this  is  the type  of                                                               
person he is targeting.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:01:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA suggested  that they  consider a  conceptual                                                               
amendment  that  would provide  the  DMV  with the  authority  to                                                               
charge an enhanced fee for those that must get a marked ID.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  indicated  that  another issue  for  the  DMV  to                                                               
address  would be  how it  will go  about putting  an appropriate                                                               
program in  place.  She asked  Mr. Bannock whether he  would like                                                               
the  legislation to  speak  to  that issue  or  whether he  would                                                               
prefer that the details get worked out as the DMV sees fit.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK,  contrary to an  earlier comment, said that  the DMV                                                               
does  have a  communication link  with the  ACS, but  pointed out                                                               
that  probation   and  parole  situations  are   handled  by  the                                                               
Department of  Corrections (DOC), which  is not linked at  all to                                                               
the DMV.   One question  that will need  to be addressed  is what                                                               
happens to  the person referred  to in  Section 2.   For example,                                                               
will he/she  be required  to surrender his/her  unmarked ID?   He                                                               
pointed out that people frequently come  into the DMV and sign an                                                               
affidavit  saying they've  lost their  ID; therefore,  if someone                                                               
has  to get  a  marked ID  but claims  that  he/she lost  his/her                                                               
unmarked ID,  he/she will have both  IDs and will be  able to use                                                               
the one that suits him/her.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK said  that the  DMV  concurs with  the sponsor  that                                                               
something needs to  be done about Alaska's  drunk driver problem,                                                               
but from  the DMV's perspective,  the cost/benefit ratio  must be                                                               
considered.   Also,  if this  bill  passes, who,  then, won't  be                                                               
buying  alcohol, and  what will  happen  if a  person refuses  to                                                               
obtain a  marked ID.   Although vendors  will have the  option of                                                               
checking someone's  ID for court  orders, the bill  doesn't speak                                                               
to whether a  person under a court order will  be required to get                                                               
a  marked ID.    The DMV  will  do as  directed,  he assured  the                                                               
committee,  but the  question  remains of  how  to implement  the                                                               
proposed  program:    "exactly  how  are  we  going  to  get  the                                                               
information, what do we  do with it, and is it just  as much of a                                                               
voluntary program for the person as it is for the vendor."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD   requested   that  the   DMV   provide                                                               
suggestions for change.   He posited that if a  person refuses to                                                               
get  a  marked  ID,  then   he/she  may  be  refused  service  in                                                               
establishments  that  are  voluntarily  checking  IDs  for  court                                                               
orders.   He reiterated  that the  intent of the  bill is  to cut                                                               
down on the number of people  who buy alcohol when they have been                                                               
ordered not to,  and suggested that the $1,000  [civil] fine will                                                               
be  a  good  incentive  for establishment  owners  to  assist  in                                                               
stopping problem drinkers.   He indicated that he  is amenable to                                                               
working with the DMV to resolve  its concerns, and opined that it                                                               
won't  be  that  hard  for  the DMV  to  implement  the  proposed                                                               
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  asked whether  a  having  a DUI  conviction                                                               
mandates that one turn in one's license.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  offered his understanding that  a first-                                                               
time DUI conviction wouldn't mandate such.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:10:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOUG  WOOLIVER,  Administrative Attorney,  Administrative  Staff,                                                               
Office  of  the  Administrative  Director,  Alaska  Court  System                                                               
(ACS), in  response to  questions, relayed  that when  an officer                                                               
stops someone  for DUI,  the officer seizes  the license  [at the                                                               
time of arrest], and the person  can then get a temporary license                                                               
issued by the DMV.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON surmised,  then, that  those arrested  for                                                               
DUI won't  have a license;  thus such a  person won't be  able to                                                               
have two licenses as suggested by Mr. Bannock.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER concurred  that that  would  be the  case at  least                                                               
initially,  but remarked  that the  situation  could become  more                                                               
complicated  if a  person  is given  back  his/her license  while                                                               
litigating  the DUI  charge.   In  such a  situation, the  person                                                               
could simply claim  that his/her unmarked license  was lost, with                                                               
the  result being  as Mr.  Bannock predicted:   the  person would                                                               
then have both a marked license and an unmarked license.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  a  solution  would  be  to                                                               
require  a person  to  swear  under oath  before  the court  that                                                               
he/she [has  lost the unmarked  license]; then, if a  person lies                                                               
under oath, he/she  could be found guilty of perjury.   He opined                                                               
that a  person should be required  to have a marked  license even                                                               
while a case is being litigated;  in other words, while a case is                                                               
pending, if  the person seeks  to have his/her  license returned,                                                               
it should be  a license that is marked in  the manner proposed by                                                               
the bill.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. WOOLIVER  acknowledged that such  a requirement might  fill a                                                               
[loophole].                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOTT,  referring   to  Section   2,  offered   a                                                               
hypothetical  example  in  which  a judge,  as  part  a  person's                                                               
probation, tells  him/her that  he/she can't  have alcohol  for a                                                               
period of  time, and noted that  Section 1 of the  bill specifies                                                               
that a  person who is  not privileged to purchase  alcohol cannot                                                               
enter or  remain in the  premises of an establishment  that sells                                                               
alcohol.  He  asked whether this language would  preclude a judge                                                               
from  restricting  a  person's ability  to  consume  or  purchase                                                               
alcohol in situations where the  person is employed by a licensed                                                               
premises.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER offered  his understanding  that  judges have,  and                                                               
would  retain, the  discretion to  set  conditions of  probation.                                                               
For example,  a judge could say  to the person that  he/she can't                                                               
enter a  licensed premise of any  kind with the exception  of the                                                               
one at which the person works.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  concurred,  adding  that  the  bill  is                                                               
simply changing the enforcement aspect.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. WOOLIVER concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:14:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRYAN  TALBOTT-CLARK, President,  Board  of Directors,  Anchorage                                                               
Chapter,  Mothers   Against  Drunk  Driving  (MADD),   said  MADD                                                               
supports [HB 190], though he  acknowledged that it will not solve                                                               
the problems  of drunk drivers,  domestic violence,  child abuse,                                                               
sexual assault,  or any of the  many social ills that  are fueled                                                               
by alcohol.  He relayed  his personal experience involving a dear                                                               
friend, Jessie  Withrow, who was  killed by a drunk  driver who'd                                                               
been  convicted of  DUI six  times  previously and  who had  been                                                               
ordered  by the  court to  not drive  and to  not buy  or consume                                                               
alcohol or enter  premises where alcohol is sold.   He went on to                                                               
say:                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This is  an issue  about choices.   In this  case we're                                                                    
     talking about  a choice  made by  people who  are under                                                                    
     orders not  to drink, whether they're  going to violate                                                                    
     that order.   And this is  about a way of  helping them                                                                    
     to make the right choice,  making it easier for them to                                                                    
     make the right  choice.  Like any choice,  you can kind                                                                    
     of  imagine a  bell curve,  where,  on one  end of  it,                                                                    
     you've  got  people who  are  going  to get  around  it                                                                    
     anyway they can - whether  it's through a fake license,                                                                    
     getting somebody  else to the  buy the  booze, whatever                                                                    
     it's going to  be; on the other end,  you've got people                                                                    
     who are  afraid of  any consequences and  they're going                                                                    
     to  follow it  no matter  what; [and]  most people  are                                                                    
     going to be in the  middle, where, if they're presented                                                                    
     with  temptation,  it  kind  of  depends  on  how  much                                                                    
     temptation is it, what are  the consequences, [and] how                                                                    
     hard it is to get around it.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     And when we  can set up an obstacle like  this, we know                                                                    
     that  we're going  to  move a  few  people from  barely                                                                    
     making  the wrong  choice to  barely  making the  right                                                                    
     choice.   And so maybe  we only  save a few  lives, but                                                                    
     the  question  I  have  to  ask  is,  do  we  waste  an                                                                    
     opportunity  to  save even  a  few  lives with  just  a                                                                    
     little effort?   This bill  gives us  that opportunity,                                                                    
     and I urge  you not to waste it.   On behalf of Mothers                                                                    
     Against Drunk  Driving, and of myself,  and for Jessie,                                                                    
     I urge  you to support this  bill.  And thank  you very                                                                    
     much for your attention.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:18:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to                                                                    
testify, closed public testimony on HB 190.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual                                                                           
Amendment 1, which, with handwritten corrections, read:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     1)  While  a prosecution for a DWI, other  than a first                                                                    
     DWI, is  pending, and until  restrictions on  the right                                                                    
     to consume  alcohol remain in  effect, the  State shall                                                                    
       only issue a license or State ID with markings as                                                                        
     provided by this statute.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     2)  The State has the authority to charge an enhanced                                                                      
     fee for a license or ID under this statute.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA posited  that  Conceptual  Amendment 1  will                                                               
address the  two concerns  raised, the  one pertaining  to having                                                               
possession of  an unmarked ID  while a  DUI case is  pending, and                                                               
the one  pertaining to  fees.   He asked whether  it is  a common                                                               
condition  of  probation in  a  DUI  case  that one  not  consume                                                               
alcohol,  or  whether is  it  a  common  condition that  one  not                                                               
consume alcohol while driving.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  said  it  depends,  and  while  either  of  those                                                               
conditions is common, it is a  more common condition that one not                                                               
consume alcohol or enter establishments that serve alcohol.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  surmised  that  they would  only  want  the                                                               
marked-license provision  to apply when  the condition is  to not                                                               
consume alcohol.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:21:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  amend  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 such that "shall" will  become "may".  There being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was amended.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  removed her objection  to Conceptual  Amendment 1,                                                               
as amended.  She asked  whether there were any further objections                                                               
to  Conceptual  Amendment  1,  as amended.    There  being  none,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  the bill  currently doesn't                                                               
contain  a mechanism  requiring the  ACS to  notify the  DMV when                                                               
such conditions  are set by  the court, and pondered  whether the                                                               
bill should include such a mechanism.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD indicated  that he  would amenable  to a                                                               
conceptual amendment  to that  effect, and  surmised that  such a                                                               
change will engender a fiscal note.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. WOOLIVER  explained that right  now the ACS transmits  to the                                                               
DMV any judgment that affects a driver's license.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked   whether  this  transmittal  is                                                               
required by statute.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. WOOLIVER  said he is not  sure.  Currently the  judgments are                                                               
in paper form  and there is a time delay,  although the ACS hopes                                                               
to soon have everything done electronically.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK concurred that that is  the case with regard to court                                                               
orders,  but noted  that Section  2 of  the bill  references both                                                               
court orders and conditions of  probation and parole, and, again,                                                               
that the DMV has zero communication with the DOC.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked  how long it takes for  the DMV to                                                               
receive notification [of the aforementioned judgments].                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing,  Director's Office, Division of                                                               
Motor Vehicles  (DMV), Department  of Administration  (DOA), said                                                               
that although  such judgments are  received in about 10  days, it                                                               
can take up  to two more weeks to manually  enter the information                                                               
into the DMV's system.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to  a question, reiterated that the ACS                                                               
hopes   to   eventually   be    able   to   transfer   everything                                                               
electronically.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:25:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked the  sponsor whether he  would be                                                               
amenable to an  amendment "that would be  consistent with current                                                               
practice" but that didn't engender a fiscal note.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  indicated that  he would be  amenable to                                                               
such a change.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked whether  one can  be ordered  to not                                                               
drink and yet still be allowed to drive.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered his understanding  that limited                                                               
licensure provides for such circumstances.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  asked  whether a  limited  license  would                                                               
specify that the person could not drink.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered   his  understanding  that  it                                                               
would.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER  clarified  that   a  lot  judges  impose  drinking                                                               
restrictions on people who've  committed crimes, crimes unrelated                                                               
to driving, while under the influence of alcohol.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked how the  DMV would know to  change a                                                               
person's ID  to reflect  that although  the person  cannot drink,                                                               
he/she can still drive.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER said  that currently,  under  such an  order for  a                                                               
crime  unrelated to  driving, a  person's driver's  license isn't                                                               
affected and therefore  it isn't changed; under  HB 190, however,                                                               
the ACS would  have to begin sending such information  to the DMV                                                               
so that a person's ID could be marked.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  offered her understanding that  this would require                                                               
additional processing  [of information] by the  DMV, and surmised                                                               
that  it would  be  up to  the DMV  to  decide how  court-ordered                                                               
limitations will be designated on the licenses.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:29:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  remarked  that  he  might  have  created  a                                                               
constitutional problem  via Conceptual  Amendment 1,  as amended.                                                               
He elaborated:   "My belief is  that ... if you've  already had a                                                               
[DUI] and you're  on to your second [DUI], even  when the case is                                                               
pending we  should be able  to mark a  license, but I  don't know                                                               
that  constitutionally we  can mark  somebody's  license if  they                                                               
haven't been  convicted just  because the case  is pending."   He                                                               
suggested that the sponsor simply seek  a way, before the bill is                                                               
heard in  its next committee  of referral, to close  the loophole                                                               
wherein  someone might  be  able  to have  possession  of both  a                                                               
marked license and an unmarked license.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked that  the committee rescind  it action                                                               
in adopting Conceptual  Amendment 1, as amended.   There being no                                                               
objection, the committee rescinded it action.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to  a question, made a motion to                                                               
adopt  Amendment 2,  "which  would  say that  the  state has  the                                                               
authority to charge  a higher fee for a state  ID or license that                                                               
contains the  markings required  by this bill".   There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to Conceptual  Amendment 1,                                                               
as amended, remarked,  "I'm sure that the judge could  do that as                                                               
a condition of bail."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  suggested  that Representative  Gruenberg  pursue                                                               
that issue further with the sponsor.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  reiterated his concern that  the language in                                                               
Sections 1  and 2 will preclude  a judge from placing  a drinking                                                               
restriction  on someone  who works  in  licensed premise  because                                                               
then that person wouldn't be able to go to work.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER  acknowledged that  his  earlier  response to  that                                                               
concern might have been in error.   While it is true that a judge                                                               
can tailor  conditions of probation,  once a license that  has an                                                               
alcohol  restriction  is  issued,  Section 1  of  the  bill  will                                                               
preclude  a  person from  entering  or  remaining in  a  licensed                                                               
premise  regardless  of what  the  conditions  of probation  say.                                                               
What one  can do if  one has a marked  license is spelled  out in                                                               
Section  1 of  the  bill,  not in  the  conditions of  probation.                                                               
Therefore, Representative Kott is correct in his concern.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:33:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD offered  his  belief,  though, that  the                                                               
judge still has  the discretion to specify that a  person may not                                                               
drink but may enter his place of employment.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE surmised  that  Representative  Kott's concern  is                                                               
that the bill  states that if a judge says  one can't drink, then                                                               
one can't enter  or remain in a licensed premise.   She suggested                                                               
that  the sponsor  didn't intend  for this  to be  the case,  and                                                               
therefore perhaps [Section  1 of] the bill could  be changed such                                                               
that one may  not knowingly enter or remain  in licensed premises                                                               
for the purposes of consuming alcohol.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  maintained his  argument that  the judge                                                               
can specify  whether a person who  has been ordered to  not drink                                                               
may  enter into  a  licensed  premise for  a  purpose other  than                                                               
consuming alcohol,  adding his belief  that the license  could be                                                               
marked to reflect this distinction.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE opined  that it  would be  better to  clarify that                                                               
point in the  bill.  For example, currently under  the bill, if a                                                               
restaurant  had  an  alcohol license,  then  someone  who'd  been                                                               
ordered by  a judge to not  consume alcohol could not  go to that                                                               
restaurant for a meal without violating Section 1.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD   offered  his  belief  that   the  only                                                               
possible   penalty   for   such   a  violation   would   be   the                                                               
aforementioned civil  penalty should the establishment  choose to                                                               
pursue it.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  surmised,  then,  that the  bill  would  allow  a                                                               
restaurant to  seek a $1,000 civil  fine from someone who  had no                                                               
intention of drinking while in the restaurant.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concurred.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE said she completely rejects that [concept].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD argued that  currently, that person would                                                               
be violating the  law anyway because he/she  is violating his/her                                                               
court  order if  that order  says that  he/she may  not enter  or                                                               
remain  in a  licensed premise.    What a  judge may  order of  a                                                               
person is  not being changed by  HB 190; instead the  bill merely                                                               
proposes to institute an enforcement mechanism for such orders.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE questioned whether there  are really judges in this                                                               
state  that  are  issuing orders  precluding  someone  from  even                                                               
entering premises that  are licensed to serve alcohol.   She said                                                               
she agrees that there are people  who should not be drinking, and                                                               
that she  is compelled by  the arguments in favor  of instituting                                                               
marked IDs,  but she pointed  out that  it is tremendous  leap to                                                               
then say that  establishments with alcohol licenses  would be off                                                               
limits to those people even if they  are just there to eat, or to                                                               
gather for a social function, or to secure employment.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER said  it is  not uncommon  for a  court to  issue a                                                               
condition of  probation that  the person  not consume  alcohol or                                                               
enter a  premise that serves  alcohol; this is typically  done in                                                               
more serious cases, though not all judges do so.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:39:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested  amending page 1, line  10, to say,                                                               
"enter or  remain on a premise  that's licensed in this  title to                                                               
obtain alcohol  for personal consumption".   Such a  change would                                                               
allow a person to still eat or work in such a premise.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  indicated that  such a change  would address                                                               
his concern.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON   remarked  that   a  judge  may   make  a                                                               
determination   that   a   person   shouldn't   even   enter   an                                                               
establishment that is licensed to  serve alcohol, and pointed out                                                               
that there are  plenty of places for that person  to eat or work.                                                               
Therefore she  is not  that concerned  that a  person may  not be                                                               
able to enter certain establishments.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE pointed  out that  in small  communities, the  few                                                               
restaurants there are may well  all be licensed to serve alcohol,                                                               
and so such an order would  in effect preclude someone from going                                                               
out to eat.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  in such  a  situation  the                                                               
license could simply be marked to  indicate that a person may not                                                               
be in such an establishment  for the purpose of obtaining alcohol                                                               
for personal consumption, though for  some people the judge might                                                               
even  go  so far  as  to  say a  person  can't  go into  such  an                                                               
establishment for  any purpose -  the judge's discretion  in that                                                               
regard would not be altered via the bill.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she'd  forgotten that some communities                                                               
may not have many restaurants.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered the City of Kake as an example.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD,  in response  to questions,  offered his                                                               
understanding  that  the bill  provides  that  either a  driver's                                                               
license or a state identification  card could be marked, and said                                                               
that he  didn't want someone's ID  to be marked until  he/she has                                                               
been convicted,  and then only  if that  conviction is for  a DUI                                                               
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3, to insert  after the word, "title", on  page 1, line                                                               
10,  the words,  "to  obtain alcohol  for personal  consumption".                                                               
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:44:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  moved to report  CSHB 190(L&C),  as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying  fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection,  CSHB                                                               
190(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects