03/12/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB126 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB29 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 2007
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and permits, commercial
driver's licenses, and other motor vehicle laws; relating to the
driver's license compact; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 126(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to underage possession of alcoholic beverages
in a dwelling."
- MOVED HB 118 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 29
"An Act relating to infants who are safely surrendered by a
parent shortly after birth."
- MOVED CSHB 29(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 126
SHORT TITLE: DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERMITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN
02/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/15/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/15/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/20/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/07 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/21/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, JOHANSEN, LYNN, ROSES,
DOLL, JOHNSON
02/21/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 118
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT ALLOWING MINORS TO HAVE ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER
02/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/07 (H) L&C, JUD
02/16/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/21/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/21/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/21/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/22/07 (H) L&C RPT 4DP 2NR
02/22/07 (H) DP: GARDNER, RAMRAS, GATTO, OLSON
02/22/07 (H) NR: LEDOUX, NEUMAN
03/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 29
SHORT TITLE: SAFE HAVEN FOR INFANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LEDOUX, GRUENBERG, LYNN, HARRIS,
NEUMAN, WILSON, DAHLSTROM, GARDNER, OLSON, DOLL, KERTTULA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) HES, JUD
02/08/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) Moved CSHB 29(HES) Out of Committee
02/20/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/07 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 6DP
02/21/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, NEUMAN, WILSON, FAIRCLOUGH,
GARDNER, ROSES
02/21/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 126.
RANDALL RUARO, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 126, provided
comments and responded to questions on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Johansen.
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 126.
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing Manager
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 126.
MARGARET PATON-WALSH, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 126.
AVES THOMPSON
Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 126.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Governmental and Legislative Affairs
Teamsters Local 959
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of HB 126, expressed
concerns, suggested a change, and responded to questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 118.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 118, responded to
questions on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Meyer.
DIANE CASTO, Acting Deputy Director;
Section Manager;
Prevention & Early Intervention Manager
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 118.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 118.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 29 on behalf of Representative
LeDoux, joint prime sponsor.
GLENN CLARY, Pastor
Anchorage Baptist Temple
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 29 and
recommended changes.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Child Protection Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 29.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07:52 PM. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Samuels and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 126 - DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERMITS
1:08:35 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 126, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and
permits, commercial driver's licenses, and other motor vehicle
laws; relating to the driver's license compact; and providing
for an effective date."
1:08:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 126, Version 25-LS0453\L, Luckhaupt,
2/23/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version L
was before the committee.
1:09:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 126 is intended to reduce the number and
severity of commercial-motor-vehicle-related fatalities and
injuries, and incorporates into Alaska law key provisions of the
federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which is
aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of the commercial
driver's license program. The bill will bring Alaska into
compliance with the regulations set forth in the aforementioned
federal law. Noncompliance would result in a loss of up to 5
percent of federal-aid highway funds in the first year and up to
10 percent in subsequent years; over a five-year period, this
could total a loss of up to $80 million. He mentioned that the
bill has two zero fiscal notes and no further committee
referrals.
1:12:02 PM
RANDALL RUARO, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johansen,
sponsor, outlined the changes incorporated into Version L:
Section 16 now also contains the language, of a person who holds
or is required to have a commercial driver's license - this will
clarify that the provision doesn't apply to anyone else;
Sections 18 and 19 now reference proposed AS 28.33.140(a)(9) and
(10) - which are being added via Section 16; and Section 28 now
in part proposes to delete the words, "in writing" from AS
28.35.135(b).
1:14:24 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that [the
introduction of] HB 126 is in response to an audit performed on
the DMV last summer which revealed that certain statutory
changes needed to be made in order for the state to come into
compliance with federal law pertaining specifically to
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs); HB 126 encompasses those
necessary changes.
1:15:34 PM
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing Manager, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), concurred
that most of the changes encompassed in HB 126 allow Alaska to
comply with federal regulations; however, the DMV did request
the inclusion of an exemption from the CDL requirement for those
who operate snow removal equipment in small communities, such as
those out in the Bush communities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 8, lines 14-15, which
says, "(1) is at least 19 years of age, to operate in intrastate
commerce, or at least 21 years of age, to operate in interstate
commerce;", and asked whether this change is necessary in order
to comply with federal law.
MR. RUARO said it is; federal law specifically states that a
person must be 21 years of age.
MR. BANNOCK concurred, adding that a CDL that is used for
interstate commerce may only be granted to a person 21 years of
age or older.
MR. RUARO, in response to a question, said that the term
"imminent hazard" as used in Section 23 is also used in 49
U.S.C. 31310(f), which says that the secretary of transportation
shall disqualify an individual if the secretary determines that
allowing the individual to continue to drive would create an
imminent hazard as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5102.
MS. HENNINGS explained that the federal government requires the
inclusion of the term, "imminent hazard" in state law. She
added, "If there was a major crash, there were fatalities
involved, they could come in and take action and declare someone
an imminent hazard and remove them from the road; it would be a
very, very rare occurrence - I don't know if they've ever done
this, but they want the authority to do it."
1:20:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that proposed AS 28.33.190(17)
says:
(17) "imminent hazard" means the existence of a
condition that presents a substantial likelihood that
death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a
substantial endangerment to health, property, or the
environment may occur before the reasonably
foreseeable completion date of a formal proceeding by
the United States Department of Transportation begun
to lessen the risk of that death, illness, injury or
endangerment.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions, said that a person can
get a CDL if he/she has had a driving under the influence (DUI)
conviction, or even two such convictions, though it might be
harder to get a job.
MR. RUARO, in response to questions regarding the term,
"knowingly" as used in proposed AS 28.33.140(m), said he is not
sure how that standard would be applied, but offered his belief
that the employer would be charged if he/she knew that the
employee wasn't permitted to drive and allowed it anyway.
"Since the goal is to hold employers to a high standard, I would
assume that the acts of a supervisor or a lower-level employee
still lead to liability," he added. Furthermore, the bill
stipulates that the employer would be subject to the civil
penalties outlined in 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
1:23:10 PM
MARGARET PATON-WALSH, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), offered her understanding that the federal government
originally proposed a "knowingly or willfully" standard, but
this was modified because "willfully" isn't used that much in
Alaska law. She went on to say that the term "knowingly" comes
from standard Alaska tort law, adding that in terms of vicarious
liability, it still requires some kind of knowledge on the part
of the employer, so the penalties wouldn't apply to an employer
that was unaware that his/her driver was driving on an invalid
CDL or in violation of an out of service order - the employer
has to know that in order to attract the additional civil
penalties. The bill is not changing standard vicarious
liability tort law in the larger Alaskan context; the
"knowingly" standard used in the bill only applies to the
imposition of the aforementioned civil penalties.
MS. HENNINGS offered her understanding that the civil penalty
would consist of a fine of up to $25,000.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, said that a DUI
conviction won't necessarily result in a person losing his/her
privilege to own a CDL, it's simply that the CDL wouldn't be
valid during the license suspension/revocation periods outlined
in Section 13. In response to further questions, he confirmed
that federal law requires the state to adopt regulations that
conform to 49 U.S.C., and that this is the purpose of HB 126.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Section 1 in part says that
an employee of the department assigned to perform functions
under the specific chapters listed therein may access
information, and asked whether this provision gives the
department the authority to obtain private records from private
employers without a court order.
MS. HENNINGS explained that that access pertains to criminal
justice records; the DMV had access to those records when it was
part of the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and was granted
access again by changes to the DUI statutes, but this authority
wasn't clearly specified in those statutes, and so the federal
auditors pointed out that the DMV was missing data and thus not
in compliance [with federal law].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the language on page
1, line 9, doesn't specifically say "criminal justice
information", and asked whether that term is defined.
MR. RUARO said that the scope of the access is modified by the
chapters referenced in Section 1, and pointed out that language
on page 1, line 6, specifies that proposed AS 28.05.065 pertains
to access to criminal justice information.
MS. PATON-WALSH relayed that Section 30 of Version L adds to
proposed AS 28.90.990(a) a definition of "criminal justice
information" as having the same meaning given in AS 12.62.900.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that AS 12.62.900(12) says:
(12) "criminal justice information" means any of
the following, other than a court record, a record of
traffic offenses maintained for the purpose of
regulating drivers' licenses, or a record of a
juvenile subject to the jurisdiction of a court under
AS 47.12:
(A) criminal history record information;
(B) nonconviction information;
(C) correctional treatment information;
(D) information relating to a person to be
located, whether or not that person is wanted in
connection with the commission of a crime;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that this means
relevant information only.
MS. PATON-WALSH concurred, and offered her belief that with
regard to Section 1, subsections (a) and (b) need to be read
together; for example, subsection (a) begins, "For purposes of
carrying out the provisions of AS 28.05, AS 28.15, AS 28.33, and
AS 28.35 ...", and so the access to information is only for the
purpose of serving the provisions pertaining to the DMV's
responsibility, and is not just access to any kind of
information from any source.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to a question, indicated
that he didn't object to having the language on page 1, line 9,
specify "criminal justice information".
1:32:38 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA), said
that the ATA supports HB 126 and any efforts to reduce the
frequency and severity of crashes and to create a safer work
environment for ATA drivers. The ATA is pleased to see
increased penalties for bad driving behavior, as this will help
improve highway safety by removing those bad drivers from
Alaska's highways. The ATA is also pleased that Alaska will be
coming into compliance with federal law so as not to jeopardize
federal highway funding, which he characterized as being very
important to Alaska's transportation system. In response to a
question, he offered comments regarding the Dalton Highway.
1:35:17 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, spoke in favor of HB 126, adding
that if the underlying federal law is good, the state shouldn't
have to be threatened with a loss of federal funds in order to
comply. She mentioned that her organization has two issues of
concern. One pertains to the CDL being issued in the state
where a driver is domiciled; currently, if a driver works in
Alaska, he/she is required to get an Alaska driver's license,
but that requirement has been removed by the bill and, instead,
under federal law, a CDL will be issued in whatever the driver's
state of residence is.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS said that the other issue of concern is the
bill's lack of training requirements in order to get a CDL;
under current law, those seeking to obtain a CDL are not
required to receive any training. She suggested, therefore,
that language in proposed AS 28.33.100(a)(2) be changed to say
in part, "meets the experience qualifications, education and
training established by the department". She concluded by
noting that in many states, hairdressers, cosmetologists,
manicurists, and barbers are all required by state law to have
more training and education than CDL holders regardless that CDL
holders are responsible for driving extremely large vehicles on
roads of varying conditions.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS, in response to a question, offered her
understanding that Alaska is one of the few states which require
that training schools for CDL holders be certified.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether a CDL is required for
employees of a small business, for example, a small business
that makes deliveries.
MR. BANNOCK explained that a CDL is not necessarily required for
what he characterized as a regular automobile. Whether a CDL is
required will be dependent upon the gross vehicle weight or the
potential to carry a number of passengers.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how often a CDL must be renewed and
whether companies that employee CDL holders are required to
check their employees for possible violations and, if so, how
often are they required to perform those checks.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS relayed that CDLs must be renewed every five
years; that under the new federal regulations, the state would
be required to run checks on CDL holders; and that a DUI
conviction would affect the driver's regular driver's license
and his/her CDL. She surmised that if a person were convicted
of a DUI crime, his/her employer would know about it because the
person would be off work for several days in order to serve the
accompanying jail sentence.
MR. BANNOCK confirmed that CDLs are issued in five-year blocks,
and went on to mention that AS 28.33.110(b) says the driver must
notify his/her employer before the end of the business day
following the day the driver received notice of suspension,
revocation, cancellation, loss, or disqualification of his/her
operating privilege. He said he is aware of at least one firm
that is attempting to contract, with large trucking companies,
the monitoring of that program and thereby keep employers out of
trouble.
1:48:43 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Mr. Bannock to comment on Ms. Huff Tuckness's
suggested change.
MR. BANNOCK said that the DMV is fully supportive of education
efforts; however, the DMV has promoted HB 126 as being a
conforming Act rather than as something that creates new law,
and the DMV is not in a position to handle the education
component of driver training. He said he concurs with some of
Ms. Huff Tuckness's points, but asked that the issue of driver
education be addressed outside the context of HB 126. In
response to another question, he said that a lot of the funding
that is contingent upon the CDL program isn't necessarily
funding that is received or recorded by the DMV, and so the DMV
doesn't have information regarding what might be driven by a
matching-fund component, though perhaps either the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) or the DPS could
provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested to Ms. Huff Tuckness that her
organization provide members with information about training
programs in other states, so that members can perhaps pursue
that issue further at another time.
MS. PATON-WALSH, in response to questions about proposed
28.33.140(m), said the proposed statute must be read to mean
that the penalties would apply if the employer knew that the
employee was driving in violation of the out-of-service order,
not just that the employer knew the employee was driving. She
also offered her belief that the standard of "knowingly"
requires actual knowledge - again, the employer would have to be
aware of the violation - but acknowledged that the federal
government might have a different take on the standard of
"knowingly". She offered to research that issue further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that AS 11.81.900 defines
"knowingly", and concurred that it requires actual knowledge.
He suggested that a definition of "knowingly" be referenced in
the bill. He then referred to the language on page 12, line 8,
which says in part, "The department may adopt regulations", and
pointed out that for at least one other statute, it has taken a
long time and the threat of a lawsuit to get a department to
adopt necessary regulations. He suggested, therefore, that the
word "may" be changed to "shall".
1:57:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the federal law conforms to
international standards.
MR. BANNOCK said he is not aware of whether it does.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what would be the result of
eliminating - from page 12, lines 5-8 - the language, "An
employer who knowingly allows an employee to drive in violation
of an out-of-service order or in violation of a railroad-highway
grade crossing is subject to civil penalties as described in 49
U.S.C. 521(b) as established by the department in regulation."
MR. BANNOCK said that if that language is removed, Alaska won't
be in compliance with federal law; part of the CDL program is to
hold employers responsible. The federal government is very
clear on that point - the language the federal government is
providing must not be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again suggested altering proposed AS
28.33.140(m) such that the term "knowingly" would be defined via
a reference to AS 11.81.900.
MR. BANNOCK posited that such a change would not create a
problem, and indicated that the DMV would not object to it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said it wouldn't alleviate his concern,
however, that being that an employer will be the one who is held
responsible when an employee refuses to follow the law.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that noncompliance puts at risk $80 million
of highway funds over the next five years.
MR. BANNOCK concurred.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for having the committee
address the bill rather than the issue of tort reform.
MS. PATON-WALSH explained that the aforementioned language on
page 12, lines 5-8, does not create a new tort liability for
employers; it merely makes employers subject to additional,
specific civil penalties, which would be imposed by the
department via regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to questions, said he has
no objections to adding a reference to the definition of
"knowingly", or to changing "may" to "shall" on page 12, line 8.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would object to changing "may" to
"shall" since the department is going to have to promulgate
regulations that are substantially similar to federal
regulations in order to come into compliance with federal law.
2:06:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
add to page 1, line 9, the words, "criminal justice" after the
word, "access". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
2:06:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to add a sentence to page 12, line 10, "In this
[subsection] (m) 'knowingly' is defined in AS 11.81.900". There
being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, to
replace "may" with "shall" on page 12, line 8.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He opined that the department
will promulgate the regulations anyway because it won't want to
jeopardize federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock whether the
department would be promulgating regulations if the language is
left as is.
MR. BANNOCK said the department would be, and mentioned that the
DMV has no objection to either Amendment 3 or the current
language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 3.
2:09:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 126, Version 25-LS0453\L, Luckhaupt, 2/23/07, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
126(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 118 - PROHIBIT ALLOWING MINORS TO HAVE ALCOHOL
2:10:38 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to underage possession of
alcoholic beverages in a dwelling."
2:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 118 came about because constituents of his had a
neighbor who was allowing his kids and their friends to have
parties at his home wherein alcohol was consumed. Typically the
police weren't doing anything when they'd respond to complaints
about the parties, because the person wasn't providing the
alcohol and the kids weren't admitting where they got the
alcohol. Under HB 118, the person throwing the party,
regardless of whether he/she provided the alcohol, could be
fined up to $500. It is common knowledge, he remarked, that
children most often get access to alcohol at either their own
homes or at the homes of their friends. House Bill 118 would
make it a non-criminal violation to permit underage persons to
possess alcohol in the home.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that ideally, at such a party,
law enforcement officers would determine who purchased the
alcohol for the kids and then charge him/her with the crime of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but that is often
very difficult to determine, and so often the only thing law
enforcement officers do is break up the party. With the passage
of HB 118, an officer can at least issue a ticket to the host of
the party, and thus it will be another tool to help fight
underage drinking.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the child whose house it was would be
the one ticketed if a parent weren't present.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that that would be the case, but
if the parent were present, then he/she would receive the
ticket. In response to another question, he said that only the
person in control of the house would receive the ticket provided
for in HB 118, though all of the kids could also be cited for
minor consuming. He mentioned that HB 118 was derived from
[another state's legislation].
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether this type of legislation would
act as a deterrent.
2:16:47 PM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Meyer, sponsor,
surmised that HB 118 would act as a deterrent, particularly if
one considers that just two or three such tickets can quickly
amount to a lot of money, especially for those in their late
teens or early twenties who are throwing parties for younger
friends. In response to another question, he indicated that the
bill would not apply in situations where kids gather outdoors
and throw a party.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said his intent is to deal with situations
in which parents are letting their children and their children's
friends consume alcohol in the home.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the phrase "recklessly
permit" - which is used on page 1, line 6 - is defined somewhere
in statute.
MR. PAWLOWSKI observed that AS 11.81.900(a)(3) reads:
(3) a person acts "recklessly" with respect to a
result or to a circumstance described by a provision
of law defining an offense when the person is aware of
and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that
the circumstance exists; the risk must be of such a
nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation; a
person who is unaware of a risk of which the person
would have been aware had that person not been
intoxicated acts recklessly with respect to that risk;
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that this standard would protect the
parents if they had not given the kids permission to possess
alcohol.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question, suggested that the
bill would apply in situations involving roommates in a
dormitory room [at a college].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS acknowledged that such legislation might
change the behavior of college students.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER added that in such a situation, the
underage persons could also be cited for the crime of minor in
possession.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to questions, indicated that although
subsection (b) only references AS 12.55, for purposes of
stipulating the punishment, only AS 12.55.035(b)(7), which says
that a violation warrants a $500 fine, would be applied.
2:23:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, noting that there are already laws
regarding minor in possession and minor consuming, asked why
this bill is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that typically when the police respond
to complaints pertaining to underage drinking parties, the
police don't try to charge all of the minors, and he feels that
the proposed non-criminal violation will provide law enforcement
with another tool.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that the Department of Law (DOL) prosecuted only
241 cases of minor consuming. According to law enforcement, he
relayed, when officers respond to complaints of underage
drinking parties, no one will admit to having furnished the
alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that because the bill uses the
phrase, "a person who possesses ... a dwelling" the homeowner
could still be fined even if he/she is out of town at the time
his/her child threw the party. Furthermore, the phrase
"exercises dominion and control" could be the subject of much
debate in cases that go to court. He suggested that if the
intent is to restrict the violation to only those present at the
time, the bill ought to be more tightly drafted. In response to
a comment, he questioned whether the bill would in essence
require homeowners to lock up their alcohol [when they leave
town] so that they wouldn't be held responsible should their
children decide to throw a party in their absence.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that HB 118 puts the responsibility on the
host of the party, and will become a tool for law enforcement.
There is a degree of lawlessness that occurs when police respond
to complaints of underage drinking parties taking place in homes
- the kids simply scatter, no one can be held responsible, and
then there are a bunch of kids under the influence roaming the
neighborhood. The bill will act as another deterrent to stop
underage people from consuming alcohol and will make
neighborhoods safer.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether being ticketed under the
provisions of the bill would affect either the homeowner's
insurance or the minor's car insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered to research that issue further.
MR. PAWLOWSKI noted that AS 11.81.900(b)(63) says in part that
conviction of a violation doesn't give rise to any disability or
legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime, but
acknowledged that traffic tickets - which are also violations -
do affect insurance rates.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned that the bill will
create confusion during prosecution. The standard being used
may have some tort implications because it might apply when a
child's friend gets drunk and then causes damage. Would the
homeowner then be responsible for that damage?
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his understanding that there is what he
termed a "social host exemption for culpability" in Title 4.
2:35:40 PM
DIANE CASTO, Acting Deputy Director; Section Manager; Prevention
& Early Intervention Manager, Division of Behavioral Health
(DBH), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said the
[DBH] supports HB 118, adding that social host laws are becoming
more popular around the country, are recommended at the federal
level, are recommended in the [Institute of Medicine (IOM) of
the National Academies'] "Reducing Underage Drinking" policies,
and are recommended in the recently-published "Blueprint for the
States: Policies to Improve the Ways States Organize and
Deliver Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment". Regardless
of liability concerns, from prevention and early intervention
standpoints, such laws will start to change some of the public
"norms" about alcohol. For example, numerous times, she has
heard parents say that if their kids are going to drink anyway,
they'd prefer to let the kids drink at home.
MS. CASTO questioned whether this is really what society wants,
particularly given all the recent information about the effect
alcohol consumption has on adolescent brain development. She
suggested that this situation should be changed such that
society stops supporting alcohol and drug consumption by youth,
and bills like HB 118 are one step in that direction; such bills
are aimed at changing the attitudes and the behaviors of the
adults who purchase alcohol for youth. Although children will
strive to obtain alcohol, the problem is compounded by large
numbers of adults who think it is acceptable to purchase alcohol
for children. The [DBH] supports HB 118 as a tool to start
changing the societal attitude about underage drinking and the
attitude of adults who currently think it's okay to give their
children alcohol.
MS. CASTO noted that the IOM has relayed that if the
aforementioned public norm is to change, social host laws must
also be partnered with a good public education campaign,
otherwise people won't know about the change in law. She
mentioned that 20 states currently have social host laws, and
that 7 of those states specifically gear their law towards
youth.
2:39:19 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said the DPS supports HB 118, and sees it as a means of
improving the quality of life in the neighborhoods. When law
enforcement receives information of an underage drinking party
in a home, one officer shows up at a scene where potentially
there are dozens of kids who've been drinking and at least one
person who is in control of the home. At that point the officer
simply attempts to maintain some semblance of control and
doesn't take the time to issue tickets to all the kids who've
been drinking. If HB 118 were adopted, the officer would be
able to at least issue a ticket to the person in charge of the
home and thereby exert some control over the scene. He
reiterated that the DPS fully supports the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on HB 118.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she agrees with Representative
Gruenberg's comments regarding the phrase, "possesses or
exercises dominion and control over a dwelling", adding that she
does not want to have a homeowner be held liable if his/her
house sitter throws a party wherein youth consume alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked the sponsor to provide information
regarding possible exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that sometimes the kids are
drinking in the home without the parents being aware of it, and
suggested to the sponsor that he look into tightening the bill
up.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, in response to comments, said he would
provide members with the additional information they requested.
He surmised that in the case of a house sitter, unless the
homeowner knows that the house sitter is going to be throwing
underage drinking parties but leaves town anyway, the homeowner
shouldn't have to worry about being held liable.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that HB 118 provides for no greater degree
of liability than the liability that already exists for every
homeowner regardless of his/her individual circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is comfortable with moving the bill
from committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested to Representative Meyer that he work to
address members concerns before the bill is heard on the House
floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is simply trying to help
improve the bill rather than delay it, and would be happy to
work with the sponsor.
2:47:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report [HB 118] out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 118 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 29 - SAFE HAVEN FOR INFANTS
2:48:35 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 29, "An Act relating to infants who are safely
surrendered by a parent shortly after birth." [Before the
committee was CSHB 29(HES).]
2:49:19 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 29 on behalf of
Representative LeDoux, joint prime sponsor. She stated that
HB 29 is also known as the Safe Haven for Infants Act, that it
has the potential to save the lives of infants up to 21 days of
age, that similar legislation passed the House last year, and
that there is similar legislation in 47 other states. She
mentioned that members' packets contain information about the
legislation in those other states. In response to a question,
she said CSHB 29(HES) is not substantially different from what
passed the House last year, though the list of people to whom an
infant can be surrendered has been expanded and the age limit is
now 21 days of age.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that members' packets contain two proposed
amendments.
2:51:26 PM
GLENN CLARY, Pastor, Anchorage Baptist Temple, said he is in
support of HB 29, but recommended that it include an age limit
of 3 days of age rather than 21 days of age. He acknowledged
that one of the proposed amendments will add members of the
clergy to the list of people that a person can surrender an
infant to. He mentioned, however, that although the bill makes
use of the term, "department", he can't tell just by reading the
bill which department is being referred to, and suggested that
that point be clarified. He also recommended that the language
in Section 5 that says, "is not required to" be changed to say
"may"; this would ensure that efforts by the department to
provide family support services are not precluded by the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to [Amendment 2], which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 13, following "is":
Delete "abandoned safely within the meaning of"
Insert "surrendered in the manner described in"
Page 2, line 17:
Following "identity,":
Insert "and"
Following "history":
Delete ", or"
Insert "of the infant and"
Page 2, line 23:
Following "(4)":
Insert "immediately"
Following "the":
Insert "nearest office of the"
Page 2, line 23 - 24, following "department":
Delete "for initiation of custody, placement, and
adoption proceedings as appropriate"
Insert "that the infant has been surrendered in
the manner described in (c) of this section"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Mr. Clary, explained
that the department referred to in the bill is the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS).
2:54:18 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Child Protection
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said
the changes proposed by Amendment 2 are primarily housekeeping
changes. The change proposed to page 2, line 13, provides
conforming language; the change proposed to page 2, line 17,
would allow the parent to provide the medical history of the
child and the parents; the first change proposed to page 2, line
23, would assist the department in getting involved immediately;
and the second change proposed to page 2, line 23, would clarify
that the department is simply being notified of the surrender of
the infant without specifying what steps the department would be
taking next.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 29.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to language on page 2, line 7,
which says in part, "a hospital employee", and asked whether
that means an infant could be left with a janitor, for example.
MS. MARASIGAN indicated that the point of the bill is to ensure
that the infant is given to another human being rather than just
abandoned someplace potentially dangerous.
2:58:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 25-LS0192\K.2, Mischel, 2/26/07, which read:
Page 2, line 7, following "peace officer,":
Insert "member of the clergy,"
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:59:14 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 29(HES), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
29(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|