Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/24/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 24, 1994
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 75: "An Act relating to qualifications for permanent
fund dividends; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 75 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 315: "An Act relating to the unauthorized use of or
unauthorized interference with transmission and
delivery of subscription cable services; and
amending the definition of the offense of theft of
services and the penalties for its violation."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 350: "An Act requiring that all official interviews
with children who are alleged to have been abused
or neglected be videotaped."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. ELDON MULDER
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 116
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HB 75
TOM WILLIAMS, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Phone: 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
ERIC MUSSER, Legislative Aide
Representative Brian Porter
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: Rep. Porter Prime Sponsor of HB 315
GARY HAYNES
Vice President of Operations
Prime Cable of Alaska
5151 Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 786-9326
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 315
MIKE ROBERGE, President
Alaska Cable Television Association
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard, Suite 400
Kirkland, Washington 98033
Phone: (206) 822-0252
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 315
DANIELLA LOPER
House Judiciary Counsel
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-6841
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions regarding HB
315
MARGO KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 315
MARY HUGHES, Attorney
Hughes Thorsness Gantjz Powell & Brundin
509 W. Third Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 274-7522
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 315
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 75
SHORT TITLE: QUALIFICATIONS FOR PFD'S BY MILITARY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER,Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/93 114 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/20/93 114 (H) MLV, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/93 (H) MLV AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
03/03/93 (H) MLV AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/03/93 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/05/93 545 (H) MLV RPT 2DP 3NR
03/05/93 545 (H) DP: MULDER, FOSTER
03/05/93 545 (H) NR: WILLIS, NAVARRE, KOTT
03/05/93 545 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/5/93
01/19/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
01/19/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/26/94 2149 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE
2DP 2NR 2AM
01/26/94 2150 (H) DP: JAMES, NORDLUND
01/26/94 2150 (H) NR: DAVIDSON, PHILLIPS
01/26/94 2150 (H) AM: KOTT, GREEN
01/26/94 2150 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 1/26/94
01/26/94 2150 (H) REFERRED TO FINANCE
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: THEFT OF SUBSCRIPTION TV SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Green,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2009 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2009 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2009 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/24/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
01/24/94 2139 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, TOOHEY
01/31/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 350
SHORT TITLE: VIDEOTAPE ALL INTERVIEWS OF ABUSED MINORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2019 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2019 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/24/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-7, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Standing Judiciary Committee was called to order
at 1:22 p.m. on January 24, 1994. A quorum was present.
Vice Chair James announced the committee would not be
hearing HB 350 today and would address HB 75 first.
HB 75 - QUALIFICATIONS FOR PFD'S BY MILITARY
Number 020
REP. ELDON MULDER, Prime Sponsor of HB 75, testified that he
believed the concerns raised at the last meeting had been
worked out, and he presented the committee with a new work
draft. He said the work draft codifies a lot of the
regulations that were previously being implemented; however,
HB 75 reenforces those actions in statute. Rep. Mulder
continued by saying it also resolves some of the concerns
reflected by committee members about treating everybody
equal.
REP. MULDER said the bill contains two issues now:
resolving the piggyback question and answering the policy
question. He stated that the state of Alaska should not be
discriminatory towards spouses of non-resident military
personnel if they are traveling out-of-state.
Number 080
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Mulder if he was fully satisfied
that, as far as measuring intent, the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) program is adequately addressing through HB
75 the measure of intent to remain an "Alaskan resident."
Number 098
REP. MULDER replied yes.
Number 100
REP. DAVIDSON asked what the primary basis is for intent to
be measured.
Number 118
TOM WILLIAMS, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, testified that they had reviewed the
revised committee substitute and it contained provisions
which addressed the piggyback problem. Mr. Williams said
there was still language in Section 2 that the department
had substantial concerns about which would allow a resident
to remain eligible while accompanying a non-resident
military member out-of-state. Mr. Williams provided
statistics to the committee regarding the amount of money
going out-of-state to PFD recipients. He concluded by
saying the department still raises concerns about the intent
of the program to individuals who maintain their residents
here, and Section 3 precludes the department from even
considering the residency of a spouse in trying to determine
their intent to remain permanently in the state.
Number 190
REP. DAVIDSON discussed a scenario whereby a non-resident
marries a resident, becomes eligible for the PFD, moves,
divorces, and the resident returns. He asked what happens
to the non-resident's eligibility.
Number 231
MR. WILLIAMS replied that he believes the scenario described
was already covered in statute where the individual can
remain eligible as long as he or she meets the criteria. He
explained the department's concern was over a non-resident
marrying a resident, and the family leaves the state. He
said currently this would be a nonallowable absence, but
under HB 75 it would be allowed. The bigger concern,
however, was two non-residents moving into the state and one
declaring residency, obtaining eligibility for self and
children, and then the whole family leaves the state. Mr.
Williams said at that juncture, under HB 75, the individual
and children would retain their eligibility for dividends.
Number 277
REP. DAVIDSON asked for the department's recommendations for
plugging the leak.
Number 281
MR. WILLIAMS said he didn't know if there was a way to do so
under HB 75. He concluded that the solution would be for
both individuals to declare residency, and then under the
current laws and regulations they could remain eligible
while out-of-state.
Number 296
REP. PHILLIPS stated that the department could charge people
with fraud if they take the money and are gone with
absolutely no intent to return.
Number 308
MR. WILLIAMS told the committee that Rep. Phillips was right
except the department can only determine intent by an
individual's external actions, and HB 75 was directing the
department to ignore certain external signs of intent.
Number 318
REP. PHILLIPS said it was a matter of weighing the balance:
are more people going to be positively affected doing it
this way versus the state having to file lawsuits for fraud.
Number 323
MR. WILLIAMS said as a practical matter the department
wouldn't be filing fraud if an individual leaves with a non-
resident because intent could change at any time. He
explained that's why the department thinks HB 75 is
inconsistent, because there is a likelihood that many of
these people say they have the intent to return to Alaska,
but they are leaving with a spouse who also doesn't have the
intent to return.
Number 345
REP. PHILLIPS stated that at the end of a two-year period,
if the family has been gone with no external action on their
part to return, wouldn't that be a strong determining factor
for a fraud suit?
Number 350
MR. WILLIAMS replied that intent can change at any time and
that the individuals would lose their eligibility if they
didn't come home to Alaska in that two-year period.
Number 359
REP. GREEN asked if the department required proof that
individuals return at the end of two years.
Number 366
MR. WILLIAMS replied yes.
Number 380
REP. NORDLUND stated that the new list of allowable absences
is greatly embellished from what it is now, and asked where
the language came from.
Number 396
MR. WILLIAMS responded that the allowable absences in HB 75
are currently in regulations, and this moves them into the
bill.
Number 409
REP. NORDLUND questioned Number 14, which says an individual
actively participating in a U.S. athletic team as a
nonprofessional is eligible, and he doesn't see that
authority in statute.
Number 414
MR. WILLIAMS replied that there is a provision in current
statutory language that the commissioner may establish
eligibility for other reasons by regulations. He said this
provision is deleted in HB 75, and the department supports
the move.
Number 441
REP. KOTT discussed the requirement to return to the state
every two years to retain eligibility, and asked if an
individual could come back for the sole purpose of retaining
the eligibility to receive the PFD, and if so, how long
would they have to stay.
Number 479
MR. WILLIAMS replied that an individual can come back solely
to retain eligibility for PFD, and there is no time length;
and it often happens that an individual just comes back,
touches Alaska, and leaves.
Number 485
REP. PHILLIPS asked at what point in time does it become
uneconomical to do that, and do Alaska resident children
have to accompany the individual?
Number 495
MR. WILLIAMS responded that the children do have to
accompany the adult to qualify, but if just the parent
comes, that parent is qualified.
Number 496
REP. PHILLIPS discussed a situation where an Alaskan gets an
appointment to a joint state/federal task force and ends up
spending more time in Washington, D.C., than in Alaska. He
said there is no provision for the individual to qualify for
a PFD and wondered why. She also asked if that had ever
come up or a request been made on the matter.
Number 506
MR. WILLIAMS replied that there is no provision unless they
are a state employee.
Number 515
Discussion ensued on the two-year rule.
Number 535
REP. DAVIDSON remarked that it would solve a lot of problems
if the definition of a resident was a person physically in
Alaska without exception.
MR. WILLIAMS agreed that it would be easier for the
department to administer.
Number 562
REP. MULDER remarked that military personnel are serving
Alaskans and it would be a punishment to deny them PFD's.
The committee discussed eligibility and residency relating
to military personnel.
REP. PHILLIPS moved for passage of the Committee Substitute
for HB 75, the version dated January 21, 1994. There were
no objections.
REP. PHILLIPS moved or passage of CSHB 75(JUD) with
individual recommendations.
VICE CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote, as follows:
Rep. Davidson yes Rep. Green yes
Rep. Kott yes Rep. Nordlund yes
Rep. Phillips yes Rep. James yes
VICE CHAIR JAMES declared CSHB 75(JUD) was moved from
committee with individual recommendations. She then brought
HB 315 to the table.
HB 315 - THEFT OF SUBSCRIPTION TV SERVICES
Number 710
ERIC MUSSER, Legislative Aide to Rep. Brian Porter, Prime
Sponsor of HB 315, testified that HB 315 was introduced
primarily to put in statute penalties for wrongful use or
misuse or theft of subscription cable services. He
described Section 1, which amends the definition of the
crime of theft to add theft of subscription cable service to
the statute. He said Section 2 amends the definition of the
crime of theft in the third degree to add theft of cable
services under the statute; Section 3 proposes dealing with
actions taken knowingly in order to obtain the authorized
interception receipt or use of a program or other service
provided by a subscription service, and would also prohibit
the unauthorized manufacturing and distribution or sale of
like acts; and Section 4 essentially sets out the
definitions used in the bill.
MR. MUSSER stated that two questions have come up regarding
HB 315. One is whether the term inductively was a term of
art or actual necessity. He explained that it is an
industry term. The second question regards redundancy in
the language of the bill.
Number 756
REP. PHILLIPS expressed surprise that legislation of this
sort was necessary in Alaska, and said the sponsor statement
refers to $1 million in theft a year. He asked how that
figure was justified.
Number 772
MR. MUSSER explained that the value of the theft was
determined by looking at the availability of pay per view,
premium channel-type movies to a subscriber. He cited
figures that potentially cover the magnitude of the problem.
Number 792
REP. PHILLIPS asked if the bill was consistent with
legislation in other states.
Number 795
MR. MUSSER replied yes, and said that Alaska is one of only
three states without this type of statute.
REP. DAVIDSON questioned the need for the legislation. He
asked what the problem was with the enforcement gap, and
what people are stealing.
Number 820
MR. MUSSER replied that Alaska's current statute is very
broad and too vague, and is unenforceable as currently
written. He said HB 315 would lay out the crime and
penalties for theft of subscription services.
Number 849
REP. KOTT asked if this legislation would prevent someone
from using their own descrambler.
TAPE 94-7, SIDE B
Number 000
GARY HAYNES, Vice President of Operations, Prime Cable of
Alaska, displayed for the committee copies of electronic
magazines he bought in Anchorage with articles showing how
to unscramble and descramble cable. He detailed the problem
and cost to cable companies caused by theft of services.
Mr. Haynes said the National Cable Television Association
has published their best guest on cost of theft as $4.7
billion nationally.
Number 130
VICE CHAIR JAMES said she thought a cable system was
connected to a cable and asked how the box gets the
information off of the cable if you are not connected to the
cable.
Number 143
MR. HAYNES described various ways of hooking into the cable,
including subscribers that have a basic package and then
hook into the other channels, and others hooking directly
into the cable.
Number 163
VICE CHAIR JAMES wondered if the law should go after the
sellers of boxes rather than the user.
Number 170
MR. HAYNES explained that they are trying to do that through
the FBI, but the FBI has told them if they can't prove
anything $25,000 or higher they have to go to local
enforcement. He said current statute doesn't make it
illegal for people to have the boxes, just to use them. Mr.
Haynes said HB 315 adds possession language so they can
discourage consumer theft and shut down the source of
customers for commercial users that are trying to sell the
boxes, which is the intent.
Number 197
REP. PHILLIPS told Mr. Haynes that she serves on a federal
telecommunications commission committee dealing with federal
legislation, and this is one of the biggest communications
problems in the United States. She indicated that there is
legislation pending or has just been passed in Congress that
affects this kind of control, and asked if Mr. Haynes could
bring the committee up-to-date on that. Rep. Phillips said
she thought the federal legislation would put people at very
high risk for jail sentences.
Number 214
MR. HAYNES said the Cable Regulation Act increased the
fines, but the fed's are depending on local statutes to
cover this type of theft. Mr. Haynes then showed the
committee a number of modified boxes being used in Anchorage
and how they are used for cable theft.
Number 335
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Haynes if he thought HB 315 would
solve the problem.
Number 340
MR. HAYNES replied that it would, and to solve the problem
of getting rid of the boxes, he is working with the police
department to have an amnesty program to turn them in.
Number 357
VICE CHAIR JAMES asked, if the legislation passes, how would
the cable company find the people who have illegal boxes?
She also asked if the cable company could just knock on a
person's door and ask to have a look at their box.
Number 214
MR. HAYNES said a number of people are turned in by
legitimate customers; and yes, their service agreement
states they have reasonable access if they suspect there is
a problem with their equipment, and they can at a reasonable
hour knock on the door and ask to take a look.
Number 407
MIKE ROBERGE, President, Alaska Cable Television
Association, testified via teleconference from Kirkland,
Washington. He focused his comments on small system
applications, such as small, rural or bush communities, and
explained a number of ways for individuals to obtain cable
services illegally.
Number 573
REP. GREEN asked who does the enforcement in other states
that have enacted this legislation.
Number 597
DANIELLA LOPER, House Judiciary Committee Counsel, answered
that it would be enforced by the police because it is a
criminal offense.
Number 591
REP. GREEN asked about the zero fiscal note.
Number 602
MS. LOPER answered that there is already enforcement in this
area, but that is being directed more to the area of sellers
of boxes and this statute just makes it more explicit.
Number 613
MARGO KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, testified that one of the greatest things
HB 315 does is define theft of cable services as theft in
the second degree without regard to the value of the
services, because previously they had to prove a value of
$500 or more to prosecute. Ms. Knuth said she had two
technical questions on page 3 of the bill where part of
subsection 1 is repetitious of subsection 2, and the
drafter, Mr. Chenoweth, has proposed a rewrite that takes
out the replication. Her other question was, what is an
inductive connection?
Number 663
MARY HUGHES, an Anchorage attorney, referred the second
question to Gary Haynes. Regarding the first question, Ms.
Hughes asked if Ms. Knuth would agree that this problem
would be resolved if we took out (undecipherable) on line 19
and continuing on line 20, thereby not duplicating those
words.
Number 704
MS. KNUTH said she understands now what Ms. Hughes' point
is, and she would appreciate an opportunity to review Ms.
Hughes' language and Mr. Chenoweth's language. She said she
understands the legislation wants to reach both the person
who has the box and separately wants to reach whoever is a
party to setting it up in the first place.
Number 712
REP. PHILLIPS asked that "inductively" be defined.
Number 717
MS. KNUTH said that depending on what the answer to the
question actually is, it may not be a matter that requires
statutory definition if it's a common scientific principle.
MS. KNUTH said she would also like to address the concern
regarding fiscal impact, and the Department of Law
anticipates handling a few of these prosecutions, and they
expect that once the word is out, that will act as a
deterrence to other people.
Number 734
VICE CHAIR JAMES said she still has a problem with the
person that sells it. Is he or she in any kind of violation
by this law? And if so, how would that enforcement be
handled?
Number 738
MS. KNUTH replied that 4(b) criminalizes the conduct.
Number 752
REP. GREEN asked if the hammer would drop harder on the user
than the seller.
Number 757
MS. KNUTH replied no, the courts are forever making
distinctions between, for example, furnishing alcohol to a
minor versus minor consuming.
Number 762
REP. PHILLIPS discussed Section 11.46.200, the whole statute
on theft of services, where the last Section (c) in the
existing law states that a person may not be prosecuted
under this section for theft of cable, microwave,
subscription, etc. Rep. Phillips said she thought it was in
that section that changes would have to be made to the
existing statute. In addition, she asked if the committee
needed to add at the end of this on Section 200, or what we
are going to do here, and if that was going to be covered.
Number 782
MS. KNUTH responded that she believes that 200 (c) will
continue to be on the books, and as long as it's a part of
the same statute, it should be o.k. She indicated she would
look at that section also.
Number 786
MS. LOPER asked Ms. Knuth if the felonies are different,
because any violation of this statute is a class C felony.
Number 794
MS. KNUTH said what she was discussing was the probable
sentence that would be imposed by the judge, and a judge in
sentencing somebody on a class C felony will look at whether
the person was a consumer or user, or seller, or
distributor; and will judge more harshly within the judge's
sentencing discretion the distributor rather than the
consumer.
Number 800
Discussion ensued on how to interpret HB 315 relating to
second and third degree felonies. Rep. Phillips asked for a
clear definition in the new draft.
TAPE 94-8, SIDE A
Number 000
VICE CHAIR JAMES said it was her intention to carry the bill
over.
ADJOURNMENT
VICE CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|