04/04/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB78 | |
| SB211 | |
| HB323 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2008
1:11 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
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 78(JUD)
"An Act relating to the installation of window tinting in
automobiles."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 78(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 211
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes directed at a victim because of the victim's
homelessness."
- MOVED HCS SB 211(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE; ADOPTED A HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE TITLE CHANGE
HOUSE BILL NO. 323
"An Act relating to the crimes of assault in the fourth degree
and of resisting or interfering with arrest; relating to the
determination of time of a conviction; relating to offenses
concerning controlled substances; relating to issuance of search
warrants; relating to persons found incompetent to stand trial
concerning criminal conduct; relating to probation and to
restitution for fish and game violations; relating to
aggravating factors at sentencing; relating to criminal
extradition authority of the governor; removing the statutory
bar to prosecution of certain crimes; amending Rule 37(b),
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to execution of
warrants; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 78
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRENCH
02/09/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/07 (S) TRA, JUD
03/06/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/06/07 (S) Moved SB 78 Out of Committee
03/06/07 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/07/07 (S) TRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/07/07 (S) DP: KOOKESH
03/07/07 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, WILKEN, COWDERY
03/14/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/20/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/23/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/23/07 (S) Moved CSSB 78(JUD) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/07 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/25/07 (S) DP: FRENCH
04/25/07 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
05/03/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/07 (S) VERSION: CSSB 78(JUD)
05/04/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/07 (H) TRA, JUD
03/06/08 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/06/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/06/08 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/10/08 (H) TRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/10/08 (H) DP: DOOGAN
03/10/08 (H) NR: NEUMAN, KELLER, JOHANSEN
04/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 211
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING FACTOR: HOMELESSNESS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DAVIS
01/16/08 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/16/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/08 (S) JUD
02/01/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/08 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/11/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/11/08 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/15/08 (S) Moved SB 211 Out of Committee
02/15/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/19/08 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR
02/19/08 (S) DP: FRENCH
02/19/08 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
03/12/08 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/12/08 (S) VERSION: SB 211
03/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/08 (H) JUD
03/27/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 323
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE: OMNIBUS BILL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/17/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/08 (H) JUD, FIN
01/30/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 78.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
BOB BOSWOOD, President/Owner
Auto Trim Design
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 78.
TRAYCI ALFARO, Owner
Alfaro LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
JOSE ALFARO, Owner
Alfaro LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
CORY TIPTON, Owner
Shades of Competition
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
TRAVIS CORKERY, Owner
Northstart, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
STEVE VINCENT, Director of Operations/General Manager
Auto Trim Design
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
PAUL HONEMAN, Lieutenant, Public Affairs Supervisor
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 78.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 211.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:11:14 PM. Representatives Gruenberg,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras were present at
the call to order. Representative Holmes was excused.
SB 78 - MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING
1:11:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 78(JUD), "An Act relating to the
installation of window tinting in automobiles." [Before the
committee was the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for
SB 78, Version 25-LS0526\L, Luckhaupt, 4/4/08.]
1:12:08 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SB 78 was very important to his constituents. He
recalled that members of the community council in his district
expressed their concerns about vehicles with darkly tinted
windows causing unease in their neighborhood. The reason for
the unease was that if it is not legal to operate a car with
darkly tinted windows, it should not be legal to install darkly
tinted windows. Research into this issue revealed that there
exists a complex web of regulations regarding the installation
of tinted windows that is unknown to the consumer. For
instance, there are different rules for sport utility vehicles
(SUVs), passenger cars, and for front and rear windows.
1:13:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed HCS for SB
78, Version 25-LS0526\L, Luckhaupt, 4/4/08, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version L was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the regulations are
associated with the installation of windows, or with driving.
SENATOR FRENCH answered that the regulations deal with what
level of tint the windows may have. Returning to the purpose of
SB 78, he explained that if the police prevented the initial
installation of dark tint on windows, although that would not
cure the entire problem, it would decrease it significantly. He
acknowledged that the bill would have an effect on those
businesses that install window tinting, but indicated that the
overriding public concern is public safety. The bill makes the
installation of darkly tinted windows a violation with a $300
maximum penalty.
1:16:27 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), informed the committee that the DPS supports SB 78, but
strongly opposes [legislation] that relaxes Alaska's tinted
window law that has been in effect for over 10 years.
Lieutenant Dial relayed that between 2,000 and 3,000 citations
are issued annually around the state. In response to a
question, he explained that the citations issued by DPS are "fix
it" citations, and that he is unsure about the amount of the
fines assessed by municipalities. He observed that those in the
window tinting industry claim that most new vehicles come from
the factory with close to the allowable level of tint and
therefore almost any extra tint added would make those windows
illegal, and so justify their behavior by stating disagreement
with the law. He expressed his understanding that the committee
substitute is a compromise with the window tinting industry, but
warned that it would further confuse the public because the
lowest level of tint available commercially, applied on top of
the factory tint, would still be in excess of the amount allowed
by the [bill].
LIEUTENANT DIAL provided the committee with a sample of glass
tinted at 10 percent, which means a 10 percent reduction in the
amount of light that passes through the glass. He pointed out
the unintended consequences of the tinting; for example, the
vehicle would be illegal to operate in all of Canada and in many
U. S. states. In fact, most windows are additionally tinted to
"limo tint" level and are completely blacked out. Furthermore,
consumers who are cited are often unaware that the additional
tint they paid several hundred dollars for is illegal. He noted
that the arguments for increased tint, such as protection from
ultraviolet light and heat build-up, are already addressed by
the factory tint. Furthermore, Alaska is a rural state, he
reminded the committee, without the benefit of street lights
everywhere, and dark tinting reduces a driver's vision on dark
roads, and well as a public safety officer's vision into the
car.
1:21:58 PM
BOB BOSWOOD, President/Owner, Auto Trim Design, informed the
committee that his company does window tinting, and expressed
his agreement with SB 78. He provided pictures of vehicles,
some with "unsafe" window tint, and others with tint that is
legal in 50 states. He referred to the sponsor statement and
Lieutenant Dial's testimony regarding "dark tints" and "heavy
tints" and opined that "these are not films that you want to see
on vehicles." In response to a question, he clarified that the
tint shown in the picture was 35 percent with a visible light
transmittance of 32 percent and explained that "the lower the
number, the darker the tint."
MR. BOSWOOD opined that there are medium tints that allow good
visibility into the vehicle, and visibility at night. He
provided a comparison of Alaska's window tint law with that of
other states. He said that he is asking for a change in the law
"to allow for my industry to survive," agreed that consumers are
unaware of the restrictions on window tint, and noted that he
requires his customers to sign a waiver. Mr. Boswood pointed
out that his business is self-regulated and that he has an
unwritten agreement with the police is his area.
CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that the committee would be considering a
forthcoming amendment.
SENATOR FRENCH said it was not his objective to relax Alaska's
tinted window standards when he introduced SB 78. He opined
that the current law is acceptable, and that most of the
arguments for tinting could be addressed by a pair of
sunglasses. He recalled testimony from the trooper that at
night, with a little bit of tint, "you're blind." Senator
French called the committee's attention to the news reports in
the committee packet regarding two officers who were shot from
inside the car with dark window tint.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the aforementioned
amendment would gut the bill.
SENATOR FRENCH said no, but it would set a standard to which
troopers are opposed and that the Senate would not have
considered. In response to a further question, he said he would
not approve of the bill if the amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further asked whether Alaska's darker
days "argue for a higher tint number."
SENATOR FRENCH pointed out that in general, northern states tend
to have tint laws similar to Alaska's.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted the exception for law enforcement
vehicles on page 2, lines 16-17, of Version L. He asked whether
that exception would also apply to other emergency vehicles and
National Guard vehicles.
SENATOR FRENCH said he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then asked whether, after enactment of
this law, an installer who knowingly violates the law at the
request of a customer could be charged as an accessory if the
customer shoots somebody.
SENATOR FRENCH opined that there would have to be proof that the
installer installed the dark window tint in furtherance of a
crime.
1:33:00 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that Version L effects
four changes: it establishes the offense of illegal window
tinting if one exceeds the percentage of light transmittance; it
puts regulatory allowable levels of window tinting into statute;
it makes paid installers put an identification sticker under the
film; and it adds an exemption for law enforcement.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0526\L.1,
Luckhaupt, 4/4/08, which read:
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "70"
Insert "50"
CHAIR RAMRAS described Amendment 1 as a compromise with the
industry that would lower the minimum amount of light
transmitted from 70 percent to 50 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that if moved from committee
with the amendment, the bill could end up in a conference
committee. He asked whether, given Alaska's northern climate, a
lighter window is important.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed that it is in Alaska's best interest to
maximize drivers' visibility during periods of darkness, and on
vast distances of highways without exterior light.
MR. BOSWOOD re-stated his opposition to the installation of dark
film; however, medium tint is beneficial in Fairbanks where
there is 14 hours of daylight and the sun is in one's eyes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then asked Lieutenant Dial whether he
supports Amendment 1.
LIEUTENANT DIAL stated that the DPS would oppose SB 78 if
Amendment 1 were adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the exception for law
enforcement vehicles should be extended to other emergency
vehicles or National Guard vehicles.
LIEUTENANT DIAL relayed that he has never seen [tint] on a law
enforcement or military vehicle.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that that exception is
already in regulation.
1:40:45 PM
TRAYCI ALFARO, Owner, Alfaro LLC, informed the committee that
window tinting is in high demand and is a major part of her
business. She opined that a compromise should be reached that
would regulate all vehicles the same. She suggested that police
officers use a public address system to instruct drivers to roll
down windows before approaching the vehicle. In response to a
question, Ms. Alfaro explained that window tinting accounts for
$150,000-$170,000 per year of revenue and five employees. She
pointed out that tint holds the window glass together in the
event of breakage, eliminates glare from headlights and snow,
and reduces the risk of theft. In response to a question, she
estimated that three or four of her employees would be affected
by [passage of the bill].
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the bill's proposed requirement that
the window tint installer also install his/her identification
and certification of compliance poses a problem for her
business.
MS. ALFARO said no.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that Amendment 1 changes "70 percent light
transmittance" to "50 percent light transmittance", asked
whether there would still be a market for window tinting if
Version L's language was left as is.
MS. ALFARO said no. She explained that vehicles coming from the
factory already have a tint allowing 70 percent light
transmittance on the driver and passenger windows, and that SUVs
and trucks have a 20 percent tint from the factory.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the relevant regulation, 13
AAC 04.223, contains the same language as that in Version L,
without the proposed amendment, such that there must be at least
70 percent transmittance of light going through the front
windshield, and at least 40 percent going through the rear door
windows, quarter glasses, and back glasses. He pointed out that
SB 78 would not change the regulation; however, adoption of the
Amendment 1 would require a change in the regulation pertaining
to the front windshield. Representative Gruenberg advised that
the industry should be aware that installing window tint below
that percentage is a violation. In fact, he remarked, there is
the possibility of charging the installer with responsibility in
the event of a personal injury.
MS. ALFARO characterized that possibility as the most ridiculous
thing she's ever heard. She concluded that a compromise would
allow her a little bit of leeway to continue to tint cars for
her customers.
1:50:11 PM
JOSE ALFARO, Owner, Alfaro LLC, expressed his desire to have the
law relaxed to allow window tint. He stated that his business
informs consumers of the law; however, people want to have their
windows tinted. Drivers who commute from the valley in the
summertime want shade.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Alfaro whether [his
employees] install illegal window tint at the request of
customers.
MR. ALFARO said they tint windows up to 35 percent; in fact, his
customers [are willing to] pay the fine and keep the tint. He
observed that most of his customers have new vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Alfaro whether the passage of
SB 78 would stop the practice of installing illegal window tint
for a customer.
MR. ALFARO said that would either change his business or put him
out of business or in jail.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that a fine, not jail time,
would be assessed.
MR. ALFARO stressed that it would still be harder to conduct
business.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that customers would simply
get the level of tint that was available.
MR. ALFARO opined that it would depend on who it was and what
they wanted. Many customers want to change the appearance of
the vehicle and that requires a darker tint.
1:57:18 PM
CORY TIPTON, Owner, Shades of Competition, informed the
committee that he requires waivers from customers who purchase
tint darker than the legal limit. He gave examples of why an
installer would not be liable for a crime. He opined that a
tint of 50 percent would be a product that he could sell. Mr.
Tipton supported the attachment of an identification sticker and
explained how the addition of more tint could be detected.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. TIPTON agreed that [police] officers should not be hurt;
however, he stated that there were no statistics proving that
window tinting causes accidents. He then suggested that window
tinting should be registered and a fee should be paid by those
who decide to tint their windows.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Tipton whether he would lose any
employees if the bill was enacted.
MR. TIPTON said that his business also installs tint on windows
in houses; however, 90 percent of his business pertains to
vehicles.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if any customers would be lost
due to the adoption of Amendment 1. He questioned whether jobs
would be lost "from that little 20 percent."
MR. TIPTON pointed out that new cars come from the factory with
tint at 70 percent; therefore, no additional tint could be
applied.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that tint could be applied to
side glasses and rear windows.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how many people would lose their jobs and how
much income would be lost, due to the enactment of the bill.
MR. TIPTON responded that his business produces revenue of over
$370,000 per year with 90 percent of that stemming from work on
automobiles. He opined that at his business, enactment of the
bill would result in six or seven people being out of work.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how difficult it would be to "bootleg" the
installation of tint.
MR. TIPTON indicated that it is somewhat difficult to do a good
job installing window tinting.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that the other side of the public safety
argument is: lost jobs, lost profitability, and [bootleg]
installation.
MR. TIPTON concurred. He emphasized that the vehicle owner, not
the installer, is responsible when illegal window tint is
installed on a vehicle.
2:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated the illegality of driving a
car with less than 70 percent of light going through [the
windshield] and less than 40 percent of light going through the
rear and [side] windows. He asked whether installers have
received legal advice as to whether a customer's signature on a
release would eliminate civil liability in the event of an
injury to a third party.
MR. TIPTON said his lawyer recommended that customers sign a
release statement separate from the receipt for services.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that that is not protection from
a claim from a third party.
MR. TIPTON expressed his belief that there is always the risk of
a lawsuit when one is doing business.
2:11:27 PM
TRAVIS CORKERY, Owner, Northstart, LLC, informed the committee
that his automotive accessories shop offers window tinting and
other products and services. He clarified that automotive glass
from the factory, without any after-market film applied, only
allows 70 percent to 75 percent of available light to transmit
through. Therefore, if after-market film that allows only 50
percent of light to come through is applied to the factory tint,
"you've taken that below the legal limits stated in here." The
50 percent tint is not allowing 100 percent of light to it and
then 50 percent past it, it is only allowing 70 percent of the
available light coming into it to go through the film, so that
makes the window already illegal. He stated his belief that a
70 percent tinted factory glass, with 70 percent film on top,
would still be below a 40 percent threshold, which effectively
prohibits the [legal] installation of any film on most vehicles.
2:13:14 PM
STEVE VINCENT, Director of Operations/General Manager, Auto Trim
Design, spoke about solar gain in Alaska. He said the amount of
annual solar gain received in Fairbanks is equivalent to that of
Northern California. In fact, considering the reflectivity off
of snow in the winter time, the statistics could even be higher.
He opined that the bill does not seem to address tint that is
not affixed to the window, and asked whether accessory items,
such as baby shades, would be subject to [the bill's proposed
penalty]. Mr. Vincent offered to provide a history of federal
window tint laws.
2:16:08 PM
PAUL HONEMAN, Lieutenant, Public Affairs Supervisor, Anchorage
Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), said
he appreciates the position of the businesses affected by [SB
78]. He reiterated that windows tinted beyond 70 percent of
light transmittance in the front windows, and 40 percent in the
rear, are illegal under both the Alaska Administrative Code and
the Anchorage Municipal Code. He emphasized that that level of
allowable tinting is already in place on most newer vehicles;
furthermore, darker tinting for medical reasons is allowed and
requires an annual certified medical waiver. Mr. Honeman said
that law enforcement is asking for compliance with [existing]
law. He agreed that the owner and driver of a vehicle are
responsible for following the law; however, his experience
indicates that the installer of illegal tint is complicit in the
violation of the law. He re-stated the public safety concerns
regarding pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Honeman concluded
that the APD wrote about 1,200 citations last year for illegal
window tint, all of which were completely avoidable and thus a
waste of time and money.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Anchorage Municipal
Code prohibits the installation of dark window tint.
MR. HONEMAN answered that the Anchorage Municipal Code mirrors
the law of the state.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the passage of the bill would result
in the "bootleg" installation of window tint.
MR. HONEMAN indicated yes. He suggested a solution similar to
the procedure instigated to limit the acquisition of
pseudoephedrine, whereby the manufacturers create a list of
product consumers that is then reported to the police. In this
case, the list would consist of the waivers that people sign to
acknowledge that the window tint violates the known statutes.
Reporting this list to the local police would allow the police
to contact the owners and hold them responsible.
2:21:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned the committee's attention to 13
AAC 04.223(e), which read:
Light transmittance must be measured by using a light
transmittance measuring device with an allowance for
manufacturing variances of plus or minus three
percent. The accuracy of the device must be certified
by the manufacturer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the measurement would be
done by the dealer, not by public safety officers. Furthermore,
that standard is meant to ensure that the measuring is done
accurately. He then asked Lieutenant Dial if he would like to
see identical language added to SB 78.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said yes.
MR. BOSWOOD indicated that he would not have a problem with
[such a change].
2:23:23 PM
MR. BOSWOOD, in response to questions, answered that he employs
two full-time window tinters who also work on automobiles, and
his total volume for window tinting is about $130,000 per year.
He opined that [the passage of] SB 78, unamended, would
eliminate "all of that because I will not be able to keep a flat
glass person around in the wintertime." In response to further
questions, he said that he had no competition in the Fairbanks
area except for unlicensed activity - in fact, if his legitimate
tinting is unavailable, consumers will still obtain tinting but
without being informed of the regulations - and that his company
employs 33 people in the Fairbanks area.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the adoption of Amendment 1
would allow the installer to install [tint] allowing only 50
percent light transmittance, and asked whether this would
encourage people to break the law because although the
installation would be legal, the level of tint would still be in
violation of the regulations.
LIEUTENANT DIAL acknowledged the confusion over the light that
goes through the window versus tint. The installers have
testified that the cars are currently coming from the factory
with almost the maximum allowable tint. So, even if the
standards are relaxed, the lowest level of additional tint would
still be illegal, as it is now.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is a federal law
that limits the amount of tint.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that federal law addresses how cars
are made and then states set further standards.
MR. BOSWOOD offered his belief that there is middle ground that
would allow the industry to survive. He pointed out that 32
other states accept "35 percent film all the way around
vehicles."
2:28:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on SB 78.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN spoke in favor of protecting police
officers.
2:30:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill and Ramras
voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Dahlstrom, Lynn,
and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed
by a vote of 2-3.
2:30:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to add the following language to the appropriate
place in the bill:
Light transmittance must be measured by using a light
transmittance measuring device with an allowance for
manufacturing variances of plus or minus three
percent. The accuracy of the device must be certified
by the manufacturer.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and suggested that language may
not be necessary because it is already in regulation. He
expressed interest in finding out whether the sponsor would
approve of the addition of that language to SB 78.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would seek to have
the Conceptual Amendment 2's proposed language removed from the
bill if the sponsor objects to it.
2:31:49 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives
Coghill, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-3.
2:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed HCS for SB
78, Version 25-LS0526\L, Luckhaupt, 4/4/08, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 78(JUD) was reported
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:32 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.
SB 211 - AGGRAVATING FACTOR: HOMELESSNESS
2:37:30 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 211, "An Act relating to an aggravating factor
at sentencing for crimes directed at a victim because of the
victim's homelessness." [Included in members' packets was the
proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 211, Version
25-LS1245\E, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08; and a proposed House concurrent
resolution (HCR), Version 25-LS1626\A, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08,
allowing a title change.]
2:37:53 PM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
expressed her appreciation for the committee's work on the bill.
She offered the assistance of her aide should there be any
questions from the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS thanked Senator Davis and stated his support for
the [proposed HCS].
2:39:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed HCS for SB
211, Version 25-LS1245\E, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version E was before the committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:40 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Gruenberg to explain the title
change and compromise encompassed in Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agreed with Representative
Coghill's suggestion, made during a previous hearing, that a
better way to go was to enact legislation that makes
homelessness a way of showing particular vulnerability or
incapacity for resistance under AS 12.55.155(c)(5), rather than
adding "homelessness" to AS 12.55.155(c)(22). In Version E, the
word "homelessness" was added to AS 12.55.155(c)(5) in order to
protect the homeless in the manner that both the sponsor and the
committee would like. After discussions with the drafter and
the revisor of statutes, he concluded that the issue was not
that the aggravator is homelessness, but rather the
vulnerability or incapacity of resistance due to homelessness,
and the defendant's knowledge of that factor. Further, he
relayed, the drafter suggested that the committee amend the
title by introducing the prepared House concurrent resolution
(HCR).
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that the change gets around the
problem of what constitutes homelessness and what does not, and
it addresses the vulnerability of the person because of his/her
particular situation. He questioned whether [adding the term,
"homelessness"] would be redundant given that AS 12.55.155(c)(5)
already uses the terms, "disability" and "advanced age".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he did not think so
because of the use of the word, "or" in AS 12.55.155(c)(5).
2:44:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed HCS for SB
211, Version 25-LS1245\E, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 211(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, [treating the House concurrent
resolution as having been adopted as a work draft] moved to
report the proposed House concurrent resolution (HCR), Version
25-LS1626\A, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08, out of committee. There being
no objection, the proposed HCR, [which later became HCR 28] was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 323 - CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE: OMNIBUS BILL
2:45:34 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act relating to the crimes of assault in
the fourth degree and of resisting or interfering with arrest;
relating to the determination of time of a conviction; relating
to offenses concerning controlled substances; relating to
issuance of search warrants; relating to persons found
incompetent to stand trial concerning criminal conduct; relating
to probation and to restitution for fish and game violations;
relating to aggravating factors at sentencing; relating to
criminal extradition authority of the governor; removing the
statutory bar to prosecution of certain crimes; amending Rule
37(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to execution
of warrants; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 323,
Version 25-GH2038\E, Luckhaupt, 3/25/08, which had been adopted
as the work draft on 3/28/08; included in members' packets was
another proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 323, Version
25-GH2038\K, Luckhaupt, 4/2/08.]
2:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB
323, Version 25-GH2038\K, Luckhaupt, 3/25/08, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version K was before the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a question, explained that changes
from Version [E] to Version [K] were that Sections 1 and 2 will
make serving alcohol to a minor a class A misdemeanor, and that
Version K no longer contains the "three strikes" provision for
assault in the fourth degree because that proposed language is
now part of another bill. He further noted that by request from
the Department of Law, the House Judiciary Standing Committee
will introduce a letter of intent clarifying Section 26.
[HB 323, Version K, was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
2:47 p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting was reconvened
April 6, 2006.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|