02/08/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB253 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2012
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 253
"An Act classifying certain substances as schedule IIA
controlled substances; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 253(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor vehicle from reading
or typing a text message or other nonvoice message or
communication on a cellular telephone, computer, or personal
data assistant while driving a motor vehicle."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act allowing appropriations to the civil legal services fund
from court filing fees."
- BILL HELD OVER TO 2/10/12
HOUSE BILL NO. 303
"An Act relating to suspended imposition of sentence for certain
criminal offences."
- BILL HELD OVER TO 2/10/12
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 253
SHORT TITLE: CATHINONE BATH SALTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE, THOMPSON, MILLETT,
PRUITT, TUCK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) JUD, FIN
02/08/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 255
SHORT TITLE: READING OR TYPING MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARA, THOMAS, GATTO, P.WILSON,
GRUENBERG, TUCK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
01/26/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/26/12 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/26/12 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
01/27/12 (H) TRA RPT 5DP
01/27/12 (H) DP: FEIGE, PRUITT, PETERSEN, GRUENBERG,
P.WILSON
02/08/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments as one of HB 253's joint
prime sponsors.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
Senator Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 253 on
behalf of Senator Meyer, one of the joint prime sponsors of
SB 140, the Senate companion bill.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 253.
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Supervisor
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory ("Crime Lab")
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 253.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 253; during discussion of HB 255, testified in support,
provided comments, and responded to questions.
MICHAEL COOPER, M.D., Deputy State Epidemiologist
Section of Epidemiology
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 253.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 253; responded to questions during discussion of HB 255.
RICHARD ALLEN, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 253; provided comments during discussion of HB 255.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 255 as one of its joint prime
sponsors.
MARK S. HALL, Chief
Anchorage Fire Department
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 255.
BOB GRIFFITHS, Chief
Cordova Police Department
City of Cordova;
Executive Director
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. (AACOP)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 255.
PATRICIA GRISWOLD
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 255.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 255.
ALBERT JUDSON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 255.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:11 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Holmes,
Keller, Pruitt, and Thompson were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 253 - CATHINONE BATH SALTS
[Contains brief mention of SB 140, the Senate companion bill,
and testimony from staff of one of its joint prime sponsors.]
1:03:44 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 253. "An Act classifying certain substances as
schedule IIA controlled substances; and providing for an
effective date." [Included in members' packets was a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 253, Version 27-LS1131\M,
Luckhaupt, 2/3/12.]
1:03:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of HB 253's joint prime sponsors, mentioned that [the
synthetic cathinones which HB 253 is proposing to add to
Alaska's list of schedule IIA controlled substances] are
sometimes referred to as bath salts, relayed that there are very
severe consequences associated with their use as mind-altering
substances, and indicated that there is a Senate companion bill.
CHAIR GATTO noted that that Senate companion bill is SB 140,
sponsored [jointly by Senators Meyer, Geisel, and Olson].
1:07:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 253, Version 27-LS1131\M, Luckhaupt,
2/3/12, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:08:25 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Meyer, one of the joint prime
sponsors of SB 140, the Senate companion bill, explained that
the drafter had noticed that one of the compounds which HB 253
is proposing to add to the list of schedule IIA controlled
substances was already included in Alaska's list of schedule IA
controlled substances, and so Version M makes conforming changes
- deleting that compound from the list of schedule IA controlled
substances via Section 2, and providing [a more chemically-
descriptive] reference to that compound in Section 1's proposed
AS 11.71.150(e)(12). The supervisor of Alaska's Scientific
Crime Detection Laboratory, she relayed, has confirmed that it's
the same compound [regardless that the various references to
that compound are worded differently]. Moving that compound as
Version M is proposing to do makes sense given that the list of
schedule IA controlled substances addresses opiates, whereas the
list of schedule IIA controlled substances would [with passage
of the bill] address other cathinones.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Version M as the working document.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that Version M was before the committee.
1:14:32 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response
to questions, concurred that Version M's reference to that
compound - sometimes called methcathinone - is more complete,
and that that compound is being moved to the list of schedule
IIA controlled substances because it's chemically similar to the
other cathinones being added by the bill and to [other schedule
IIA controlled substances - such as] methamphetamine; and
explained that in Alaska, controlled substances are categorized
according to the level of danger they pose or might pose to the
public as determined by the legislature, with schedule IA
containing what the legislature considers to be the most
dangerous of substances. Moving the aforementioned compound as
Version M is proposing to do will have an impact for purposes of
sentencing, she surmised, because which of the various
controlled-substance crimes and their penalties might apply in
any given case is dependent upon which schedule a particular
drug/compound is listed under [and on the amount and
behavior/activities involved].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that the question before the
committee is which schedule of controlled substances should the
compounds referenced in the bill be added to.
1:19:22 PM
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Supervisor, Scientific Crime
Detection Laboratory ("Crime Lab"), Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), in response to questions,
relayed that methcathinone was first developed around 1957 as an
appetite-suppressant weight-loss drug, but was "pulled" due to
its adverse side effects; that methcathinone can be thought of
as methamphetamine because chemically they are extremely
closely-related materials that can be easily manipulated to form
new compounds/drugs, and they have similar effects on a person;
and that Version M provides for a very thorough list of known
[cathinones].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the presence of cathinones in
someone's system can be detected via chemical testing.
MR. DYM - mentioning that such biological samples are sent
outside the state for analysis - said that currently there are
protocols for detecting methcathinone, cathinone, and
methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and that technology, though perhaps
a bit behind, is advancing in terms of being able to test for
the other compounds. For purposes of possession crimes,
however, the Crime Lab is able to identify the substances
themselves in their bulk form.
1:26:24 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), in response to questions, explained that when law
enforcement officers suspect that a person is under the
influence of an intoxicating substance, the standard protocol is
to conduct a series of field sobriety tests, and if the person
fails those, and interviews with the person indicate that he/she
is under the influence of something, then law enforcement
officers can make an arrest and obtain a search warrant for a
[biological] sample to send off for testing. Furthermore, some
law enforcement officers qualify as being what he termed, "drug-
recognition experts," who could be brought in, in certain
situations, and law enforcement officers in the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) valley, for example, have recently been
experiencing quite a few incidents involving cathinone abuse,
and so now have more experience in identifying people under the
influence of such compounds; the effects on a person are like
those of methamphetamine but far more pronounced: more
paranoia, more delusions, more hallucinations, et cetera.
However, because it is often the case that someone stopped for
impaired driving will be under the influence of multiple
intoxicating substances, law enforcement officers simply look
for general signs of impairment, rather than trying to determine
what particular substance the driver's behavior could be
attributed to. In conclusion, he predicted that with
cooperation from the Crime Lab, law enforcement officers are
going to be able to address many of the issues related to
enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE mentioned that when samples are sent
outside for analysis, it is simply because doing so is much less
expensive than conducting such analyses in house.
CHAIR GATTO posited that the specificity of Version M's list of
cathinones will make it difficult for people to subvert the law
simply by changing the chemical composition of a particular
cathinone.
1:31:37 PM
MICHAEL COOPER, M.D., Deputy State Epidemiologist, Section of
Epidemiology, Division of Public Health, Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), explained that synthetic cathinones
are the active compounds found in pre-packaged powders - usually
made overseas, and found in local stores and over the Internet -
that are deceptively labeled as bath salts or plant food or
pond-water cleaner, and, in order to avoid regulation, usually
state on the packaging that the product is not for human
consumption. One study, he relayed, found that intravenous use
is the most common form of consumption, though snorting,
smoking, and rectal administration are pretty common as well.
Cathinone, derived from an East African shrub called Khat, is
included in the federal list of schedule I controlled
substances, and is easily altered to avoid regulation.
Cathinones are essentially like methamphetamines, increasing
certain neurotransmitter levels in the brain, creating an
adrenaline rush and a sense of euphoria, and increasing arousal
and alertness; their effects are very similar to those of
amphetamines, cocaine, and ecstasy; and they are often called
fake cocaine or legal cocaine. However, in addition to the
"desired" effects, he relayed, there is a host of unpredictable,
dangerous, and undesirable effects, including agitation,
aggression, hallucinations, paranoia, and seizures. There are
also widespread reports across the country attributing violent
crimes, suicides, homicides, and other bizarre behavior to the
use of cathinones.
DR. COOPER said that according to his limited research, most
experts are classifying the abuse of "bath salts" as being more
dangerous than the abuse of synthetic cannabinoids, though both
are dangerous. The typical patient under the influence of
cathinone can be agitated, aggressive, require substantial
restraints, hallucinate, exhibit bizarre behavior, have elevated
heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature, and can be a real
danger to himself/herself and everyone else around.
Furthermore, a recent article in a medical journal indicates
that another side effect of cathinone use is a life-threatening
skin infection - a necrotizing fasciitis - at injection sites;
in one case, amputation of the arm and a mastectomy were
required to address just such an infection.
1:35:45 PM
DR. COOPER - confirming that chemical testing of biological
samples for the presence of cathinones is currently done at an
outside laboratory - indicated that although the science behind
such testing is rapidly evolving, there are still a lot of
unknowns about it, and, in each individual case, also about
other things such as which particular compound was taken, how
much was taken, and how long after dosing might testing still
reveal a compound's presence. There is no antidote or specific
treatment for someone suffering the effects of cathinones. Such
a person can be monitored, though, and any observed secondary
side effects can be treated. Usually the effects of cathinone
use are short-lived - lasting anywhere between four to eight
hours - but there have also been reports of very long-term
psychiatric side effects occurring. After their initial
development, cathinone compounds fell out of favor because of
their high abuse and addiction potentials, but they've recently
become popular as mind-altering substances. For example, in
2010, poison control centers received only about 300 calls
related to cathinone use, whereas in 2011, they received over
6,000 such calls.
DR. COOPER said that as a result of cathinones' widespread use
and increasing popularity, their addictive potential, and an
increase in the number of reports of crimes related to cathinone
use, "about over" 30 states thus far have enacted legislation
banning the sale and possession of certain synthetic cathinones,
with a couple of those states having specifically addressed in
their legislation the issue of potential future variations.
Furthermore, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has used
its authority to temporarily [ban] certain synthetic cathinones
while it formulates a long-term policy. Synthetic cathinones
are being used in Alaska, he assured the committee, adding that
the Section of Epidemiology has published a bulletin documenting
case reports of patients under the influence of cathinones, and
he's heard from his colleagues working in Alaska's clinics and
emergency rooms that they've also been encountering people under
the influence of cathinones, and thus far this year, Alaska's
poison control center has received 15 calls related to cathinone
use.
DR. COOPER, in conclusion, said that the Division of Public
Health considers the abuse of synthetic cathinones to be a
growing problem [because] such products are poorly regulated,
are widely available, may contain a variety of chemicals, are
hard to detect, are psychoactive, and, by all accounts, are
gaining in popularity.
1:40:02 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), reminded
members that which schedule a particular controlled substance is
placed under has a fairly significant impact on the PDA [because
its workload is dependent upon whether a particular case
involves a felony crime or a misdemeanor crime]. If, for
example, a particular drug is listed as a schedule IIA
controlled substance, then possessing only a small amount
[might] be a felony, whereas if that same drug is instead listed
as a schedule IIIA controlled substance, then possessing only a
small amount [might instead] be a misdemeanor, and the
difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is fairly
significant in terms of penalties for the perpetrator and case-
processing costs.
MS. CARPENETI - providing just a few examples of particular
behavior that could constitute particular controlled-substance
crimes, [and thereby indicating that which crime and subsequent
penalty might be charged and applied in any given case depends
upon the type and amount of drug/compound involved, and the
behavior/activities involved] - relayed that for the crimes of
misconduct involving a controlled substance, a first degree
crime is an unclassified felony under AS 11.71.010; a second
degree crime is a class A felony under AS 11.71.020; a third
degree crime is a class B felony under AS 11.71.030; [a fourth
degree crime is a class C felony under AS 11.71.040;] a fifth
degree crime is a class A misdemeanor under AS 11.71.050; and a
sixth degree crime is a class B misdemeanor under AS 11.71.060.
In response to a question, she noted that both methamphetamine
and cocaine [which have effects similar to those of the
cathinones listed in HB 253] are currently listed as schedule
IIA controlled substances.
1:44:55 PM
RICHARD ALLEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), said he
would echo Mr. Steiner's comments, indicating that those
comments were also pertinent with regard to the OPA. Regardless
that everyone might agree that cathinones should be outlawed and
shouldn't be available for legal sale in stores, as they
currently are, the more often that drugs/compounds get added to
the more dangerous controlled-substances' schedules, the longer
the sentences become for possession of even just small amounts,
which in turn increases incarceration costs. He opined, though,
that importing or distributing large quantities of cathinones
ought to be a high-level felony crime.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished testify,
closed public testimony on HB 253.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES characterized the bill's proposed
placement of the enumerated cathinones into Alaska's list of
schedule IIA controlled substances as appropriate - cathinones
are dangerous drugs and should be treated that way.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed appreciation for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON surmised that there would be more such
legislation in the future as manufacturers continue to develop
new compounds.
1:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 253, Version 27-LS1131\M, Luckhaupt, 2/3/12, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 253(JUD) was reported
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:57 p.m.
HB 255 - READING OR TYPING MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING
1:57:14 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor
vehicle from reading or typing a text message or other nonvoice
message or communication on a cellular telephone, computer, or
personal data assistant while driving a motor vehicle."
[Included in members' packets was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 255, Version 27-LS1165\D, Gardner,
2/2/12.]
CHAIR GATTO mentioned that members' packets contain forthcoming
amendments.
1:57:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 255, Version 27-LS1165\D, Gardner,
2/2/12, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version D was before the committee.
1:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
one of the bill's joint prime sponsors, explained that HB 255
was engendered by a recent court decision that the state's
current statute prohibiting the use of screen devices while
driving does not cover the behavior of "texting" while driving
regardless that many members of the legislature thought that it
did. He said he anticipates that this issue will eventually be
addressed by the Alaska Supreme Court, but meanwhile, HB 255
would clarify the legislature's intention that texting while
driving be illegal. Statistics indicate that people who text
while driving are 20 times more likely to get into an accident
than those who don't text while driving. Also, if one "texts" a
"normal-sized" text message while driving, one can drive the
length of a football field before being done - the length of a
football field full of potential victims. Other states - 35 of
them - have already banned texting while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that in Alaska, there have already
been severe and even fatal accidents attributed to texting while
driving. Texting while driving is dangerous. A person who
texts while driving is not paying attention to what he/she ought
to be paying attention to while driving a 2,000 pound vehicle,
and this can result in somebody being killed. One of the main
reasons for making it illegal to text while driving is to start
educating people with regard to how fatal texting while driving
can be, similar to what occurred with regard to educating people
about the dangers of drunk driving. Because a lot of people
view texting as just a social phenomenon, it must be reinforced
that it can be a fatal phenomenon - a person texting while
driving can kill someone. A recently-conducted poll indicates
that over a third of people text while driving, illustrating the
need for an outright ban on texting while driving. Attempting
to prosecute someone for this behavior under the state's
existing distracted-driving or negligent-driving laws, however,
simply won't work, he predicted, because in such cases, there
must be a unanimous jury verdict, and it is unlikely at this
point in time that jurors who themselves text while driving will
see anything wrong with such behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited that HB 255 has been drafted broadly
enough to address possible future forms of [text-capable]
technology. Simply rewriting Alaska's distracted-driving law to
address the behavior of texting while driving would result in
the behavior being a mere violation rather than a crime, and
simply adding the word, "texting" to the state's existing
prohibition against using a screen device while driving, as the
court has suggested the legislature do, won't suffice because
the term, "texting" doesn't cover all the forms of technology
that [either already, or might in the future,] enable a person
to type and/or read text. It is for this latter reason, he
relayed, that many legislators think that the court was wrong in
its aforementioned decision. Again, HB 255 is intended to
clarify for the court that texting, or using other technology
for that purpose, is improper while driving a moving vehicle.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [Version D's proposed AS
28.35.161(a)(2) in part] specifies that a crime is committed if
a person, while driving a moving vehicle, reads or types a text
message or other "non-voice" message or communication. In other
words, he elaborated, no texting, no "facebooking," no
"tweeting," no typing on a "laptop" computer - "we don't want
you typing while you're driving, we don't want you reading a
text message while you're driving, we don't want you reading a
computer screen while you're driving, we don't want you reading
a facebook message while you're driving." To get into a car
"knowing you're going to engage in this dangerous conduct" is
almost premeditated behavior, he opined. Under the bill, if one
types on or reads a screen device while driving, it would be a
[class A] misdemeanor; however, if one engages in that behavior
and causes physical injury to another person, causes serious
physical injury to another person, or causes the death of
another person, it would be [a class C felony, a class B felony,
or a class A felony, respectively].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA mentioned that existing AS 28.35.161
provides for the aforementioned differing penalties, and that
HB 255 would not change that. The behavior addressed by the
bill is dangerous - a person shouldn't be shocked when he/she
runs into someone while texting. This means, he relayed, any
sort of typing or reading, whether on/from a cellular telephone
("cell phone"), a laptop, an "iPad", or whatever new technology
that comes along which lets a person view messages or type them.
He assured the committee that under both existing law and the
bill, the vehicle must be moving in order for the crime to be
committed; this stipulation will ensure that the behavior, when
conducted in a stationary vehicle, isn't criminalized. He
offered his belief that as currently written, HB 255 is going to
address 90 percent of the perceived problem.
2:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [Version D's proposed
28.35.161(d)] would provide an additional exemption for the
viewing of authorized screen devices by law enforcement
personnel or other emergency responders when such persons
reasonably believe that the information on such devices is
necessary to respond to health, safety, or criminal matters;
existing AS 28.35.161(d) currently provides an exemption for
devises/equipment installed in emergency vehicles, which are
defined as police, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles.
Subsection (d)'s proposed language, he indicated, covers
"wireless" technology, and has met with the approval of law
enforcement personnel, emergency responders, the Department of
Law (DOL), and Legislative Legal and Research Services. In
conclusion, he offered his belief that HB 255 would protect
people from fatal accidents without compromising the efforts of
the state's law enforcement and emergency response personnel,
and that the aforementioned forthcoming amendments in members'
packets seem consistent with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to questions and comments, said
he thinks that existing law already makes texting while driving
illegal; assured members that HB 255 does not address the
behavior of talking on a cell phone, which includes "dialing" a
phone number, that existing law - as a matter of public policy -
already provides exemptions for [among other things] mapping and
global positioning system (GPS) equipment, and dispatching
equipment [used in certain industries], and that HB 255 is
proposing to broaden only the existing exemption addressing law
enforcement and emergency responders; and concurred that HB 255
only pertains to motor vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions and comments,
noted that AS 28.90.990(a)(16) defines the term "motor vehicle"
as a vehicle which is self-propelled except a vehicle moved by
human or animal power.
2:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to other questions, explained
that the bill is not specific with regard to where a motor
vehicle is being driven when the proscribed behavior takes
place. If a person runs into someone while texting, for
example, it should be a crime regardless of where it happens,
whether on a public roadway, on private property, or in a
parking lot. He acknowledged, though, that one would first have
to be caught doing the proscribed behavior, and thus enforcement
of HB 255's provisions could be difficult. Regardless, the bill
should be passed because it's going to act as a deterrent, he
predicted, sending the message that texting while driving is
dangerous.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to further questions,
reiterated that the state's existing ban on texting while
driving isn't always being enforced because of court
interpretations, and that until the Alaska Supreme Court has a
chance to rule on the issue - which could take some time yet -
HB 255 would clarify [for the court and the public] that the
behavior of texting while driving is illegal. To merely wait
until the Alaska Supreme Court has a chance to rule on the issue
could result in lives being lost during the intervening time.
CHAIR GATTO expressed a preference for having the issue
addressed sooner via passage of HB 255, rather than later as a
result of waiting for a possible favorable ruling by the Alaska
Supreme Court.
2:25:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.1, Gardner, 2/7/12, which read:
Page 1, lines 6 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is
to conform and clarify that the use of a cellular
telephone, computer, personal data assistant, or any
other similar means for texting or communicating in a
manner prohibited by AS 28.35.161 has been illegal
since AS 28.35.161 was enacted and that the
December 1, 2011, magistrate's decision in State v.
Adams, 3KN-11-719 CR, is legally incorrect."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the existing law
prohibiting the use of screen devices while driving was intended
to cover the behavior of texting while driving, and that its
language was intentionally left broad on that point in order to
address the fact that [texting technology] is rapidly advancing;
and indicated that Amendment 1's proposed change to the bill's
statement of purpose - found in Section 1 of Version D - would
better clarify the point that the court has incorrectly
interpreted existing law as not applying to texting. It
wouldn't have made any sense, he opined, to have prohibited the
act of watching a screen device while driving without also
prohibiting the act of typing on a screen device while driving -
one can't do either and still drive properly - and to have done
so would have led to an absurd result, he asserted, and the
court, in State v. Adams, neglected to recognize that legal
point. He also offered his understanding that when the court
reviews this issue further, it would be giving additional weight
to the fact that the legislature had taken specific steps - via
passage of HB 255 - to clarify existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, explained that the
drafter has recommended that it would be better to include in
the proposed statement of purpose both the specific case and the
assertion that an incorrect decision was made in that case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the phrasing
used in Amendment 1 is proper - containing the correct terms of
art - and would simply clarify that the legislature believes
that a legal error was made in that court decision.
CHAIR GATTO announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.4, Gardner, 2/8/12, which read:
Page 2, line 11, following "driving":
Insert "or takes an affirmative act to access
such data"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that Amendment 2 would make
it easier to prosecute someone for the behavior of reading or
typing a text message while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, offering his belief that it's already
implied under the bill's existing language, said "we don't want
you fiddling around with your cell phone, while you're driving
and moving, to access your text messages," and surmised that
Amendment 2 would simply clarify that point further.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said that she objects to Amendment 2, both
because of its proposed placement and use of the word, "or",
seeming to indicate that one could either be driving or taking
an affirmative action in order for the bill to apply, and
because its language is overbroad and ambiguous, remaining
unclear with regard to what would constitute an applicable
affirmative action under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, acknowledging those points, withdrew
Amendment 2.
2:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.5, Gardner, 2/8/12, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "and"
Page 1, line 4, following "vehicle":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 3, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 3 would
provide for an immediate effective date, which he characterized
as an important thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion,
and then removed his objection.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:45:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that passage of HB 255 -
specifically Version D - is now also necessary in order to
address the use of wireless technology by law enforcement and
emergency response personnel; again, Version D's proposed
28.35.161(d) would provide an additional exemption for the
viewing of authorized screen devices by law enforcement and
other emergency response personnel when such persons reasonably
believe that the information on such devices is necessary to
respond to health, safety, or criminal matters.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that to address a concern
expressed by the court regarding the meaning of the word
"verbal" [as it's used in the existing statutory exemption for
certain equipment], the bill would also, via its proposed
AS 28.35.161(c), change the term, "verbal communication" to the
term, "voice communication".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in conclusion, said, "I'm very serious
about this bill - I think texting is dangerous - I think we
should pass the bill this year."
2:48:31 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said that the DPS supports HB 255, and has no concerns
with the proposed exemption for the authorized viewing of screen
devices for emergency vehicles. Currently, he relayed, some DPS
vehicles have "in-car video camera systems" and monitors that
display some text information, and some DPS vehicles are being
equipped with computers, which will display suspect and wanted-
vehicle information, and occasionally dispatch sends photos of
suspects or suspect vehicles to law enforcement officers via
their cell phones. In response to questions, he acknowledged
that failures of [installed equipment] have occasionally
resulted in law enforcement officers having to use their cell
phones or other forms of communication to speak with dispatch
and other officers; and that it can be difficult for law
enforcement officers to observe the proscribed behavior - it's
more common to discover during the course of investigating a
traffic accident that the proscribed behavior had occurred.
Unless there is probable cause to believe that someone is
texting while driving, law enforcement officers won't take any
enforcement action, and if there is such probable cause, then it
would be up to the individual law enforcement officer to
determine whether the person actually was texting.
2:52:38 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
questions regarding the PDA's fiscal note, indicated that its
analysis includes information he'd received from the DOL that
the state's existing crime of texting while driving isn't always
being prosecuted because of court interpretations, and offered,
"my expectation is that with the explicit criminalization of
texting and driving, you will see more enforcement, prosecution
- and, of course, successful prosecution - which will have some
fiscal impact on our agency, though it's impossible for me to
determine what that would be."
2:54:54 PM
MARK S. HALL, Chief, Anchorage Fire Department, Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), said simply that the Anchorage Fire Department
supports HB 255.
2:55:18 PM
RICHARD ALLEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that
the OPA is not anticipating that there will be a significant
impact on its caseload as a result of passage of HB 255, and has
therefore submitted a zero fiscal note. Speaking, then, as the
parent of two young children who have to be driven around on
Alaska's roads, he said he supports a ban on texting.
2:56:16 PM
BOB GRIFFITHS, Chief, Cordova Police Department, City of
Cordova; Executive Director, Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police, Inc. (AACOP), relayed that he and the AACOP extend their
unqualified support for HB 255.
2:56:50 PM
PATRICIA GRISWOLD, [characterizing HB 255's proposed changes as
a start,] said she would prefer to see a complete ban on cell
phone use while driving, considering such use to be more
dangerous than driving under the influence because of the
prevalence of cell phones, and mentioned that one of her sons
was involved in a motor vehicle accident after which the driver
of the other vehicle was heard speaking on a cell phone.
2:59:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, relayed
that he'd been involved in a hit and run accident - while he was
stopped at a stop sign, his car was struck from behind by
another vehicle - and after the accident occurred he saw the
driver of the other vehicle texting and continuing to text as
she drove away. In conclusion, he offered his belief that
texting while driving is an issue that needs to be addressed,
and his hope that such behavior could be modified.
3:02:52 PM
ALBERT JUDSON said he would like to speak in favor of HB 255 and
any bill that would ban the use of cell phones and any other
devices while driving. Mentioning that he was run over in 2007,
and recounting some the details of that accident and the
injuries he suffered as a result, he raised the issue of non-
reporting/under-reporting; for example, when he was run over,
there was no mention of it in the paper, but the day after he
was run over, his dog was run over, and the paper ran a story
about that. Statewide, he opined, there is lack of reporting
about people being injured and/or killed, and he suggested that
there should be an investigation to determine why. Other issues
that need to be addressed, he opined, are the issue of
accountability, particularly accountability [for causing] long-
term injuries, and the issue of possibly expanding the statutory
penalties for causing injury and/or death. In conclusion, he
thanked the joint prime sponsors for introducing and promoting
HB 255, characterizing it as being long overdue - a matter of
life and death - and said he would like to see HB 255 pass,
along with other bills addressing the issue of cell phone use
while driving, adding that he did not know whether the driver
who ran him over was texting at the time or merely talking on
the cell phone.
[HB 255, Version D as amended, was held over.]
The committee took an at-ease from 3:10 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.
3:12:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 255 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB 255 version I.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| NCSL Texting Law by State.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-ACS-TRC-01-20-12 (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-LAW-CRIM-01-22-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-DOA-OPA-1-20-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB 253 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB0253A.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB253-DPS-LAB-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB253-LAW-CRIM-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB0299A.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 Letter of Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 ALSC general handout(Jan2012) (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 SPONSORS STATEMENT.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299-LAW-CIV-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299-LAW-CIV-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 303 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB0303A.PDF |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HJR 303 Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB303-LAW-CRIM-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| Legal Memo 02.01.12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 255 CS D version 2 2 12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |