03/28/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB75 | |
| SB93 | |
| HB367 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2018
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to gun violence protective orders; relating to
the crime of violating a protective order; relating to a central
registry for protective orders; relating to the powers of
district judges and magistrates; requiring physicians,
psychologists, psychological associates, social workers, marital
and family therapists, and licensed professional counselors to
report annually threats of gun violence; and amending Rules 4
and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska
Rules of Administration."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to security freezes on the credit reports or
records of incapacitated persons and certain minors."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to the liability of a Native corporation for
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances
present on certain lands."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 75
SHORT TITLE: GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
02/28/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/18 (H) JUD AT 7:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/26/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/26/18 (H) JUD AT 7:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 93
SHORT TITLE: CREDIT REPORT SECURITY FREEZE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL
03/13/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/17 (S) L&C
03/28/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Bill Postponed to 1:30 p.m. 3/28/17
03/28/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/17 (S) L&C RPT 5DP
04/04/17 (S) DP: COSTELLO, HUGHES, STEVENS, MEYER,
GARDNER
04/04/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/17 (S) Moved SB 93 Out of Committee
04/04/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/17 (S) VERSION: SB 93
04/11/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/17 (H) L&C
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/17/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/19/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/19/18 (H) Moved SB 93 Out of Committee
01/19/18 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/22/18 (H) L&C RPT 6DP 1NR
01/22/18 (H) DP: SULLIVAN-LEONARD, , WOOL, BIRCH,
KNOPP, KITO
01/22/18 (H) NR: JOSEPHSON
03/19/18 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RLS
03/28/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) RES, JUD
02/26/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/26/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/18 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
02/28/18 (H) Moved HB 367 Out of Committee
02/28/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/07/18 (H) RES RPT 5DP 2AM
03/07/18 (H) DP: TALERICO, LINCOLN, JOHNSON, TARR,
JOSEPHSON
03/07/18 (H) AM: PARISH, RAUSCHER
03/28/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN, Deputy Commander
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 75, answered
questions.
MATTHEW HIGHTOWER, Sergeant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 75, answered
questions.
CAPTAIN ANDREW MERRILL
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO)
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 75, answered
questions.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 93, presented the
legislation and offered a sectional analysis.
HANS RODVICK, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 367, presented the
legislation and answered questions.
HALLIE BISSETT, Executive Director
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association (ANVCA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 367, testified.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Legal Services Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 75, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:02 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Claman, LeDoux,
Kress-Tomkins, Eastman, Reinbold, Kopp, and Stutes were present
at the call to order.
HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
1:06:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to gun violence protective
orders; relating to the crime of violating a protective order;
relating to a central registry for protective orders; relating
to the powers of district judges and magistrates; requiring
physicians, psychologists, psychological associates, social
workers, marital and family therapists, and licensed
professional counselors to report annually threats of gun
violence; and amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration." [Before
the committee was proposed committee substitute (CS), Version
30-LS0304\R, Martin, 3/26/18, adopted by the committee during
the 3/26/18, 7:00 p.m. meeting.]
1:07:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Dan Lowden whether, in terms of
standard procedure for state troopers and VPSOs, there is a
difference in how domestic violence protective orders are served
today, and to describe the general practice when serving
domestic violence protective orders.
1:08:32 PM
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN, Deputy Commander, Division of Alaska State
Troopers, Department of Public Safety, responded that this
question is best answered by Sergeant Matthew Hightower.
1:09:18 PM
MATTHEW HIGHTOWER, Sergeant, Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety, answered that there is no difference between
how an Alaska State Trooper and or a Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) would serve a domestic violence protective order.
He explained that the domestic violence protective order is
entered into the Alaska Public Safety Information Network
(APSIN) database as well as its Records Management System (RMS),
and they serve the respondent with little delay to no delay, if
possible.
1:09:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the department typically sends one
state trooper or VPSO out to serve a domestic violence
protective order, or whether the service is typically a team of
two officers.
MR. HIGHTOWER responded that it depends upon who is being served
and whether the division has any prior knowledge of possible
officer safety concerns. The division may choose to go with
more than one or more than two officers, but typically, he said,
the order is served by either one state trooper, court service
officer, or VPSO.
1:10:27 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there is a difference between rural
settings and urban settings in terms of the standard practice of
the state troopers.
MR. HIGHTOWER responded that there is not a particular
difference, although it takes a bit more time in rural settings.
Typically, (indisc.) protective order in the same day and if
there is no VPSO in the village, there may be a delay in the
service of the protective order due to air flights or weather
delays, and so forth.
1:10:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario wherein law enforcement had
knowledge that the respondent being served a domestic violence
protective may have a firearm, and he asked how that knowledge
would impact practices.
MR. HIGHTOWER asked Chair Claman to clarify his question.
1:11:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the state troopers assume everyone
being served a domestic violence protective order probably has a
firearm in the house.
MR. HIGHTOWER answered in the affirmative.
1:11:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that based on Mr. Hightower's understanding
of CSHB 75, how would a gun violence protective order compare to
a domestic violence protective order when serving those orders.
MR. HIGHTOWER answered that there would not be any difference
other than the actual document that is being served on the
respondent. He added that the state troopers follow the
provisions of the protective order and remove any property under
that order.
1:12:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the frequency that state troopers and VPSOs
are involved in serving domestic violence protective orders
currently.
MR. HIGHTOWER deferred to Captain Dan Lowden.
1:12:35 PM
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that in 2017, 1,360 domestic violence
protective orders were served, and the state troopers received
approximately 1,937 requests. As to the stalking orders, he
advised that 265 protective orders were served, "and we had
received an additional 66 orders for a total of 344 stalking
orders received in 2017."
1:13:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested a description of the Department of Public
Safety's (DPS) policy regarding the storage of weapons.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN responded that the process for taking a weapon
into custody is as follows: the serial number is run through the
state and national databases to determine whether the weapon was
stolen; and all information regarding that weapon is recorded,
such as, the make, model, caliber, barrel length, serial number,
and so forth. Under the right circumstances, he explained, if
the person "is there" and the state troopers know the owner,
they would probably give the person a receipt for the weapon "if
we had it in our custody, but not all of the time." He
continued explaining the storage of weapons process as follows:
after returning to the office with the weapon, it would be
packaged in specially designed boxes for the storage of weapons
in the evidence room, enter that weapon into the RMS system,
list it with the associated incident number, and place it in the
evidence locker for storage.
1:15:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked that if this legislation becomes law, whether
the state troopers would have enough storage capacity to manage
the weapons storage that may be required under gun violence
protection orders.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that the difficulty in pinning the
number down to a definitive answer is that this legislation
moves into new territory and the number of weapons to expect is
unknown, but storage is at capacity in many of the rural
evidence lockers. Different commanders have advised, he said,
that they are using alternative storage for items already in
storage, and the Bethel State Troopers are using one of their
holding cells to store firearms. He opined that it probably
would not take many weapons for the division to look at some
sort of alternative storage capacity in handling the weapons.
1:16:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that it would depend on the number of gun
violence protective orders which were served in one year
statewide, as to the different management problems it would
create.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN replied that Chair Claman was correct, it is
based on the number of protective orders received and the number
of weapons a particular person may possess. He opined that many
folks in Alaska probably own dozens or scores of weapons.
1:16:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the provision allowing custody of the
weapons by a court approved third-party would provide some
relief for the potential storage use issues.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that court approved third-party
possession of the weapons could possibly assist, except it would
be difficult for a person to obtain court approved third-party
possession within the 48-hour time period, or the instantaneous
seizure under the ex parte order. Although, he acknowledged, it
would still be helpful for a court approved third-party to come
forward and take the weapons into their custody within a week or
two weeks of the seizure.
1:18:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested information as to whether the state
troopers or VPSOs are involved in the warrantless seizure of
weapons from individuals.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN responded that weapons are seized without a
warrant under several conditions and exemptions, such as:
whether there are existent circumstances to the search warrant
rules; a weapon in plain sight, such that the state troopers
make contact with someone and a weapon is sitting on the coffee
table; weapons visible via gun racks in pickup trucks would be
seized; and a pat down search revealing a weapon. Under current
law, a person must notify the police officer during contact that
they are carrying a concealed weapon and allow the officer to
secure the weapon if they so desire during the contact, in the
event something arose that caused the police officer concern or
the person was arrested, the weapon would not be returned under
this legislation. Normally, on routine contacts, the weapon
would be given right back to the person at the scene. He
reiterated that there are several ways within which the state
troopers seize weapons without a warrant.
1:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario where the state
troopers encountered an individual who had not committed a crime
but was in possession of a weapon and it was not advisable for
that person to continue possessing that weapon. He requested
the authority or justification used to secure that weapon and
keep it for a period of time after making contact with the
person and the call was over.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN opined that there is not a lot of statute
authority to keep weapons under that description. He noted that
"very narrowly" if there was concern about that person's
wellbeing to the point of a Title 47 commitment and were
hospitalized for a 72-hour observation, the situation might be
such that the state troopers would secure the weapon for
safekeeping at the scene, "because there's no one there to hand
it off to."
1:22:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested a description of why receipts
are sometimes given or not given to the person, and whether it
is difficult to return the seized weapon back to the owner.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN replied that when receipts are given or not given
to folks depends upon the situation, and at some point, a person
would most likely be given a receipt. There may be a situation,
he offered, where a person and their weapons were taken into
custody, and the state trooper would book the person into jail
before the person would receive a receipt for the weapon. In
the event a search warrant is served on a house, the state
troopers are required to leave a receipt for all of the removed
items at that time. He reiterated that the receipt is
situationally dependent and it is not a question of choosing not
to give someone a receipt, it simply depends upon the
circumstances.
1:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern that not giving a person
a receipt for their guns depends upon the situation, especially
in warrantless cases under this bill. She noted that no one
wants guns in the wrong hands, but the constitution clearly
states that people have the right to bear arms. She asked
Captain Lowden's opinion as to how state troopers can justify
confiscating those guns after swearing to uphold the
constitution.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Captain Lowden, explained that
Representative Reinbold's question is about Second Amendment
rights and how Captain Lowden addresses that issue when making a
decision to seize weapons.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that the constitutionality of any law is
decided by the courts. The state troopers receive direction
through the attorney general, and at this time he is not in a
position to advise Representative Reinbold what those opinions
might be regarding this legislation. He commented that he knows
the Department of Law reviewed this bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Reinbold's question
was not specific to this bill, but broadly related to
warrantless seizures and taking possession of a firearm in
general.
1:26:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Captain Lowden takes an
oath to defend and uphold the constitution.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that Captain Lowden does take an oath to
defend and uphold the constitution, and he could respond to the
question about seizing weapons without a warrant.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN reiterated that there are exceptions to the
search warrant requirement, and circumstances where the state
troopers might remove a weapon from a person without a search
warrant. For example, he further reiterated, when locating a
weapon on a person during a pat down; at the time of arrest; or
when the weapon is in plain view; the state troopers are allowed
to seize the weapon at that time.
1:27:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Captain Lowden to explain the process
of entering a weapon into (indisc.) for safekeeping or as
evidence, what forms are used, whether the forms are in
triplicate, and whether the state troopers can always get a
receipt back to someone after the fact.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN responded that it has been a long time since he
worked the street and the state troopers now have a computerized
RMS, but he would attempt to answer Representative Kopp's
question. In his day, he said, physical paper forms with carbon
paper were used to document the seizure. Currently, he pointed
out, there are computer systems and some, if not most, of the
troopers have printers in their cars to print out documents.
Unfortunately for many troopers, especially those in rural
Alaska, they do not have instant access to that sort of portable
technology and the ability to print a receipt at that moment.
He explained that the data would be entered through the computer
system with the serial number, make, model, barrel length, and
so forth, and the paper is copied at that point for the person
to use as a receipt, or for the use of any number of people who
would receive that copy.
1:29:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the rural areas of Alaska where
technology is more limited, and he asked whether those areas are
more likely to have the previously described property forms that
list the barrel length, serial number, caliber, and all of the
identifying blocks listed on the property forms to fill out in
pen. He asked whether Captain Lowden was saying that those have
been done away with entirely
CAPTAIN LOWDEN responded that he was unaware whether the folks
in rural Alaska are using paper as a backup and deferred to
Captain Andrew Merrill.
1:30:18 PM
CAPTAIN ANDREW MERRILL, Division of Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSO), Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, responded that currently, VPSOs and state troopers in
Western Alaska have access to the records management system
(RMS) and that information is input directly into the system.
As to the issue of receipts, he related that it depends upon the
officer at the scene who views the firearm and whether they have
access to any hard-copy forms. Although, he is not aware of
troopers carrying hard-copy triplicate forms or other forms to
give to a person. Many times, he explained, it is simply a note
in their notebook describing the property seized, and some
troopers will rip a notebook page out, describe the property
seized, and the trooper and individual will sign the document.
He related that a receipt depends upon the availability of
computers, of paper, and the time of day or night, as there are
many variables impacting how a receipt is provided to an
individual.
1:31:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the warrantless seizure of
firearms and offered a scenario where the state troopers
responded to a residence or business where a crime had not been
committed, but the state troopers encounter an angry or upset
individual with a weapon under their immediate control. He
asked Captain Lowden to describe circumstances where the weapon
may be seized for safekeeping until that situation is, at least,
stabilized.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that there may be circumstances where
the state troopers receive a call that someone was threatening
to cause harm to self, or they were distraught and in possession
of a weapon, the weapon would be seized for safekeeping for the
safety of everyone at the time. Although, he said, the state
troopers try to keep that situation to a minimum and they would
look for a possible family member [to take possession of the
weapon] or some other way to keep everyone safe.
1:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario of someone writing on
Facebook, "I am really mad at the world. I think I'm going to
go into a school and start shooting people." She asked whether
that person would be taken into custody and their guns seized,
or move for an involuntary commitment, or what, if anything,
would Captain Lowden do currently.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN reiterated that it has been a long time since he
worked the street, but he wants to make clear that the state
troopers are not out there monitoring people's Facebook pages at
random. In the event someone brought this post to the attention
of the state troopers, they would make an effort to make contact
the person and through interviewing the person, their family,
their friends, and so forth, gather an understanding of what was
going on with that person and why they made that post.
Currently, in the event the situation was such that the troopers
believed someone was a danger to self or others, and may suffer
from some mental difficulties, the troopers would move for a
Title 47 commitment to have that person taken to a facility for
evaluation. As to whether the weapons would be seized at that
point would depend upon the circumstances and the situation. In
the event the situation was such that the person was living with
other family members and those family members convinced the
troopers that they could properly secure the firearms, the
troopers may very well look at all of the options and possibly
leave the firearms with a family member. The first thing the
troopers would do is find the person and try to determine what
was actually taking place, he reiterated.
1:36:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX described that not all people who shoot
other people necessarily have a mental illness, they are quite
sane and are simply bad people. She asked Captain Lowden to
describe the process for someone who the troopers believe will
probably shoot someone except they are not mentally ill and they
have not yet committed a crime.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN said that he believes he understands
Representative LeDoux's question, but where he might depart from
Representative LeDoux is that most likely a crime would have
been committed. He paraphrased an Alaska law, as follows:
A prohibited act of threatening bodily harm to people
with dangerous instruments.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN explained that "You don't actually have to hurt
them, you don't have to shoot at them, or those sorts of
things," but there is the ability to make an arrest and charge
someone for making threats to harm other people.
1:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she assumes the threat to harm
someone is that if she wrote on her Facebook page, for example,
"I'm going to shoot Representative Eastman," and Representative
Eastman saw that Facebook post, and it was a threat to someone
specifically. She then offered that there is a generalized
post, "I don't like the world. I'm just going to out and kill a
few people" which is not a threat to shoot anyone in particular,
and the person they shoot may not even see this threat. She
asked whether those scenarios would come under this statute.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN opined that it probably would [come under this
statute] depending upon what the words were and the other
actions the person took to communicate that threat. He said
that he does not believe it has a requirement that the threat be
made against a specific person, but rather the circumstances.
He related that he is not suggesting that the people who make
these threats are posting in a light manner, such as the people
who make stupid comments in the TSA line and are pulled out of
line immediately and questioned about their comments. The
threat needs to be to a specific person, he stated, but the
state troopers would have to look at the totality of the whole
situation and, as in many cases, the troopers would have to make
a judgement call on whether that behavior was criminal.
1:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Chair Claman whether someone from
the criminal division of the attorney general's office could
address that question.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that her request could not be addressed
today because the committee was moving to other bills, and
suggested that the following cites may address many of the
issues Captain Lowden addressed, as follows:
AS 11.56.807. Terroristic Threatening in the First
Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of terroristic
threatening in the first degree if the person
knowingly sends or delivers a bacteriological,
biological, chemical, or radiological substance or an
imitation bacteriological, biological, chemical, or
radiological substance and, as a result,
(1) places a person in reasonable fear of
physical injury to any person;
(2) causes evacuation of a building, public
place or area, business premises, or mode of public
transportation; or
(3) causes serious public inconvenience.
(b) In this section,
(1) "bacteriological, biological, chemical,
or radiological substance" means a material that is
capable of causing serious physical injury;
(2) "imitation bacteriological, biological,
chemical, or radiological substance" means a material
that by its appearance would lead a reasonable person
to believe that it is capable of causing serious
physical injury.
(c) Terroristic threatening in the first degree
is a class B felony.
AS 11.56.810. Terroristic Threatening in the Second
Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of terroristic
threatening in the second degree if the person
knowingly makes a false report that a circumstance
(1) dangerous to human life exists or is
about to exist and
(A) a person is placed in reasonable
fear of physical injury to any person;
(B) causes evacuation of a building,
public place or area, business premises, or mode of
public transportation;
(C) causes serious public
inconvenience; or
(D) the report claims that a
bacteriological, biological, chemical, or radiological
substance that is capable of causing serious physical
injury has been sent or is present in a building,
public place or area, business premises, or mode of
public transportation; or
(2) exists or is about to exist that is
dangerous to the proper or safe functioning of an oil
or gas pipeline or supporting facility, utility, or
transportation or cargo facility; in this paragraph,
"oil or gas pipeline and supporting facility" and
"utility" have the meanings given in AS 11.46.495 .
(b) Terrorist threatening in the second degree is
a class C felony.
[HB 75 was held over.]
SB 93-CREDIT REPORT SECURITY FREEZE
1:41:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to security freezes on the
credit reports or records of incapacitated persons and certain
minors."
1:42:39 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that SB 121 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth
Alaska State Legislature] was enacted into law [9/17/16] and it
provided a subsection in existing statutes for security freezes
for minors. Although, she explained, the legislation did not
set up a process for creating a security freeze, hence SB 93
creates that system. Ms. Moss paraphrased the sectional
analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. Distinguishes difference between security
freezes for adults and security freezes for a
"protected customer" AND Defines a "protected
customer" as a person who is incapacitated or under 16
years of age.
1:43:37 PM
MS. MOSS explained that an incapacitated person is a person who
is unable to receive and evaluate information and communicate
decisions, and they need assistance from someone, usually with a
court order, such as a legal guardian or legal representative.
MS. MOSS offered that the age of 16 was chosen because Senate
Bill 121 covered minors up to the age of 18 years. However, 26
other states have reduced the age to 16 with the rationale that
consumers at the age of 16 years typically begin working, own a
cell phone, have a bank account and; therefore, they have
established some type of credit.
MS. MOSS advised that Sec. 2 is the meat of the bill which
creates a system for security freeze for protected consumers.
She noted that a credit freeze for a minor and an adult, while
similar in name, in practice operate in very different manners.
A credit freeze for an adult is placed to temporarily turn off
the availability of an already established credit for that
individual. The request could be due to identity theft and
because a credit report was previously created by a lending
agency, the credit report simply needs to be frozen and the
process is immediate, she explained.
1:45:12 PM
MS. MOSS continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis as
follows:
Sec. 2. Creates Article 2A (Security Freeze for
Protected Consumer)
*45.48.300. Placement of security freeze. A consumer
credit reporting agency is mandated to place a freeze
on a protected consumer's report if:
(1) A protected consumer's representative
requests one.
(2) The protected consumer's representative
(a) Submits the request in a manner
specified by the agency
(b) Submits proof of identification of the
protected consumer
(c) Submits proof of identification of the
representative and proof of authority
(d) Pay the fee of not more than $5.00.
*45.48.310. Record. If a protected consumer does not
have a credit report with the agency, the agency will
create a record for the protected consumer and place a
freeze on it.
*45.48.320. Proof of identification and authority.
Proof of identification includes:
Social security number or copy of SS card
Certified or official birth certificate
A driver's license or identification card issued
by Division of Motor Vehicles
Other identification issued by a government
agency
Proof of authority Includes:
A court order
A written, notarized statement expressly
describing the authority that the representative has
signed.
*45.48.330. Time of Placement of security freeze. The
agency shall place the freeze on the credit report or
record no later than 30 days after receiving the
request.
*45.48.340. Operation of security freeze. Once a
freeze is placed on the report or record, the agency
cannot release information about the record without
permission from the representative or consumer unless
the freeze was placed based on misrepresentation of
fact or the agency has received a request for removal
of the security freeze.
*45.48.350. Duration of security freeze. A security
freeze remains in effect until
the representative requests the freeze be removed or
if the agency determines the freeze
occurred because of misrepresentation of facts.
*45.48.360. Removal of security freeze.
(a) The protected consumer or his or her
representative can have a freeze removed by:
(1) Submitting a request in the manner
prescribed by the agency
(2) Providing sufficient proof of:
(a) ID of protected consumer
(b) ID of representative
(c) authority for the representative
(3) Pay the agency a fee of not more than
$5.00
(b) The agency has not more than 30 days to
remove the freeze
*45.48.370. Effect of material misrepresentation of
fact. The agency may remove a security freeze or
delete the record is the security freeze was obtained
using a material misrepresentation of fact.
*45.48.380. Charges.
(1) A consumer credit reporting agency may not
charge a fee more than $5.00
(b) The agency has not more than 30 days to
remove the freeze
*45.48.370. Effect of material misrepresentation of
fact. The agency may remove a security freeze or
delete the record is the security freeze was obtained
using a material misrepresentation of fact.
*45.48.380. Charges.
(1) A consumer credit reporting agency may not
charge a fee more than $5.00
(2) The agency may not (shall not) charge a fee
when:
the protected consumer's representative submits a
police report, investigative report of complaint
involving criminal impersonation in the 1st degree
the protected consumer is under the age of 16 and
the agency has created a credit record for that
consumer
*45.48.390. Exemptions. Under the following conditions
a frozen report of a protected consumer will be made
available to the requestor:
a person with a court order, warrant, or subpoena
a government agency establishing and enforcing
child support orders
Dept. of Health & Social Services and its agents
in investigating fraud
Dept. of Revenue and its agents when
investigating or collecting delinquent taxes, unpaid
court orders, or other statutory responsibilities
a credit file monitoring service the protected
consumer is a subscriber to
the protected consumer or representative has
requested a report
if the report of the agency consists entirely of
information used solely for one or more of the
following:
Criminal records information
Personal loss information
Fraud prevention or detection
Tenant screening
Employment screening
A person preparing a credit report for an
inquiring bank or financial institution regarding
account closures because of fraud, substantial
overdrafts, automated teller machine abuse, or similar
information regarding a protected consumer
*45.48.395. Definitions.
"consumer" an individual who is the subject of a
credit report or credit score.
consumer credit reporting agency" - a person who, for
monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit
basis, regularly engages, in whole or part, in the
practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit
information or other information on consumers for the
purpose of furnishing credit reports to third parties,
but does not include a person who issues reports.
incapacitated person" - means a person whose ability
to receive and evaluate information or to communicate
decisions is impaired to the extent that the person
lacks the ability to provide or arrange for the
essential requirements for the person's physical
health or safety without court-ordered assistance.
"proof of authority and identification" - proof of
authority and identification required for a protected
consumer's representative by the credit reporting
agency to place a security freeze on the credit record
or report.
"protected consumer" - a person who is an
incapacitated person or under 16 years of age.
"record" - the record credit in AS 45.48.310, a record
created by the agency and frozen.
"representative" - a person who has authority to act
on behalf of a protected consumer.
"security freeze" - the restriction on access to a
protected consumer's credit report or record.
Sec. 3. Transition.
This provision provides that security freezes put
in place prior to the effective date of this Act, will
remain enforced under the same statutes as they did
when the freeze was placed on the record.
1:50:16 PM
MS. MOSS explained that every year in the United States, 1.3
million children's identities are stolen, and 50 percent of
those children are under the age of six years. Thieves can
obtain social security numbers in numerous ways wherein 26 other
states recognized that something must be done, and this
legislation is Alaska's attempt to protect children and their
parents from identity theft and fraud, she offered.
1:51:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that if there was no credit report
in the first place, how is a freeze established on something
that does not exist.
MS. MOSS answered that this legislation creates a process
whereby a parent can ask a credit reporting agency to create a
credit report (indisc.). The reason being, she explained, if
there is no credit report and no freeze, there is no way to know
that someone had taken another person's social security number
to have credit cards, loans, or other indebtedness in that
person's name.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised, "If there is no credit report."
MS. MOSS answered in the affirmative.
1:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what happens logistically when a
credit report is frozen and someone tries to obtain a credit
card in the name of the person with a frozen credit report, and
whether all sorts of lights and whistles go off.
MS. MOSS answered that that action sends a signal to the credit
card company that a freeze is on this credit report. The credit
companies probably read between the lines that someone is
applying for a credit card in other person's name and social
security number.
1:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario where a father with a
two-year old son filed for this credit report and froze his
son's credit report. Except, the father forgot about it and
when his son is 17 years of age, he [applies for credit] and all
of the bells and whistles apply because the father forgot to
inform his son of the credit freeze. He asked, in that
scenario, whether it would make it harder for the son to "go
about the normal things that 17 years olds do?"
MS. MOSS answered that the son was above the age of 16 years, so
he has authority to lift the credit report freeze.
1:53:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered the same scenario, except he
changed it from a 17-year-old to a 15-year-old son.
MS. MOSS responded that with the approval of his parents, he
could lift the credit report freeze. In the event of a family
squabble, the son could apply to be emancipated, she opined.
1:54:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there is language in the
bill that allows emancipated minors to either freeze or lift the
credit report freeze.
MS. MOSS explained that an emancipated person is considered an
adult.
1:54:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.
1:55:13 PM
MS. MOSS continued her response to Representative LeDoux that
once a person is considered an emancipated adult, he/she goes by
the provisions of state law that address credit freezes for
adults. She then referred the committee to AS [45.]48.100
through 45.48.210.
1:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to [Section 1. Sec.
45.48.380(b)(2)(A)], page 5, line 9, which read as follows:
(A) the protected consumer is under 16
years of age; and
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that rather than an adult with the
definition of adult, the above cite does not appear to address
the emancipated minor.
1:56:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the credit agencies are busy collecting
people's data from all kinds of different sources, and in the
event a person decides they do not like that data collection,
adults can send out this notice advising credit agencies to put
a freeze on their credit history, and the credit card companies
can no longer research that person's credit. In theory, he
said, those companies are collecting data on minors even though
"we wished they weren't," and this bill essentially gives
individuals and families the option of advising that they want
to protect their child and put a freeze on their credit. This
information basically advises credit agencies that their child
is a minor and to not collect information. The purpose of this
legislation is to primarily give families and parents the
ability to protect their youth or someone who is disabled, he
said.
MS. MOSS replied that Chair Claman was correct, and explained
that once a person is emancipated, they are no longer defined as
a protected consumer, they are an adult.
1:57:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the bill handles the
potentially delicate situation where the mother or father do not
agree to the freeze at the time of the two-year old son's
scenario, or one parent wants to unfreeze their child's credit
report
MS. MOSS answered that there probably is not a clear answer, it
may end up with a judge making that decision in a child support
order.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that in cases where the one parent freezes
their child's credit on one day and pays the $5.00 fee, and the
next day the other parent unfreezes the child's credit and pays
the $5.00 fee. He suggested that if these actions occurred
often enough, there may be a point in which the $5.00 fee would
cause them to try to find a compromise.
1:58:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 93. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony
on SB 93.
[SB 93 was held over.]
HB 367-NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION
1:59:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the liability of a
Native corporation for the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances present on certain lands."
1:59:45 PM
HANS RODVICK, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, advised that HB 367 deals with issues going
back to the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
At that time, he explained, as those lands were beginning to be
conveyed to Native Corporations throughout the state, folks
realized that portions of certain conveyed lands contained
contamination prior to that conveyance. These issues began to
be discussed by the Alaska Native communities in 1990s. In
1998, the United States Congress directed the Secretary of the
Interior [Donald P. Hodel] to review the issue and report. That
report found that approximately 650 sites were known to have
been conveyed to Alaska Native Corporations under ANCSA, except
the outcome of that report "didn't produce much, other than it
surveyed the issue well, but no action was really taken."
Approximately one decade went by and in 2014, the United States
Congress mandated that the United States Department of the
Interior update that inventory of contaminated lands. He
explained that in 2016, the United States Department of the
Interior completed its report and found that 500-plus sites
required remediation and cleanup in order to truly resolve the
issue. The largest party of those pre-transferred contaminated
lands was found to be the United States Department of Defense.
Subsequent to the 2016 report, he advised, and work with
organizations, such as the Alaska Native Village Corporation
Association (ANVCA) drafted this bill and also a bill at the
federal level. He explained that HB 367 will not solve the
problem of cleaning up the lands, but it will help bring Alaska
Native Corporations into a place where they are able to actually
begin addressing these matters. Essentially, the intent is to
remove liability from the Alaska Native Corporations which were
transferred contaminated lands and, he stressed that the Alaska
Native Corporations were unaware of those contaminations during
the process of the conveyance of lands. The issue, he
explained, is that under current state law, the Alaska Native
Corporations would be liable for the cleanup, cost, and damages
that may arise from those contaminated lands of which is
addressed in this legislation to remove that level of liability.
2:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered sympathy for this issue and asked
why it is strictly limited to Alaska Native Corporation lands.
She noted that Alaska has strict liability laws wherein someone
can be completely innocent when something was conveyed to them,
and they had absolutely no idea it was contaminated. In the
event this legislature addresses this issue for one category of
folks, she suggested possibly revisiting the entire law.
MR. RODVICK described the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) as a monumental piece of legislation in Alaska's history
that involved 44 million acres of conveyed lands. He pointed
out that it is not just the Alaska Native Corporations who are
affected with contaminated lands, many of the villages and
smaller corporations that, under the current liability state
statutes, "could be honestly decimated" if found liable and had
to deal with the contamination. Possibly, he offered, there is
a conversation to be had in looking at other parties who are
responsible for contamination, but the scope of this bill
focuses on the Alaska Native Corporations.
2:04:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how it would work under this bill
if, for instance, an Alaska Native Corporation received conveyed
land through ANCSA and it then conveyed some of that land to a
second party, and that party found that the land was
contaminated. She asked whether this legislation would also
immunize the second party.
MR. RODVICK related that he would have to get back to the
committee with legal opinions in terms of Alaska Native
Corporations passing on conveyed lands, selling lands, or
conveying it to other parties, if that second party would be
relieved from liability. The intent of this legislation, he
explained, is to focus on the corporations with contamination on
their lands because those corporations want to help remediate
these environmental disasters so they can move forward with
their communities with responsible resource development or the
use of their lands.
2:06:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she would like to receive
an answer to her question.
2:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked when the last land grant was
conveyed under ANCSA.
MR. RODVICK answered that he would have to research that
question.
2:06:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the conveyance of the last
land grant and asked whether there are any circumstances where
an Alaska Native Corporation or someone else would be in
possession, control, or have some administrative
responsibilities over the land, prior to it formally,
officially, and legally, granted to them. He opined that if
that is the case, rather than having the immunization start or
the trigger begin when the land was granted, possibly a more
appropriate trigger would be when the person received the land
grant and came to possess or control or administer or manage the
land.
MR. RODVICK opined that the process of conveying lands under
ANCSA is ongoing because there is still land that has not been
fully conveyed to the Alaska Native Corporations by particular
parties. In terms of the word "grant" versus "convey," that
issue was discussed in the House Resources Standing Committee,
and he asked Representative Eastman whether that is what he is
considering in terms of the actual timeframe for the removal of
liability.
2:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to [Section 3, AS 46.03.822(n),
page 3, line 1, which read as follows:
substance was present on the land at the time the land
was granted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was asking whether the
last three words of the bill, "land was granted," are
appropriate and meet the intent of this legislation. He
commented that if this only deals with "at the time the land was
granted" and there is still land that has not yet been granted,
"maybe it's not right to absolve someone of responsibility
because they haven't been granted the land yet, if they are the
ones who may already be aware or maybe contributed to some type
of contaminants or something like that." In the event those
folks are responsible in some manner, he said, he did not know
whether what "we are trying to do" is remove them from liability
simply because they have not yet been granted the land.
MR. RODVICK answered that it comes back to the difference
between the definitions of "grant" and "convey." The lands were
granted to the Alaska Native Corporations under ANCSA, but they
have not yet been conveyed. He pointed out that those granted
lands containing contamination before being actually conveyed
are the lands this legislation addresses in removing liability,
and the sponsor's office worked in conjunction with the Alaska
Native Village Corporation Association when crafting this
legislation, he said.
2:09:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony on HB 367.
2:10:16 PM
HALLIE BISSETT, Executive Director, Alaska Native Village
Corporation Association (ANVCA), described her background, and
advised that she has served on the board of directors for Cook
Inlet Region Incorporated since 2010 and she is clearly aware of
the various contaminated lands. She described that one bit of
contaminated land is located between the two major population
centers of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat-Su, with
Camp Mohawk in Eklutna that is currently contaminating Cook
Inlet with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). This is a real
problem "right in our backyard" she described, and it cannot be
ignored any longer. On 12/18/1971, the United States Congress
passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) into law
and agreed to convey to 12 Alaska Native Regional Corporations
and more than 200 village corporations, 44 million acres of
land. To be clear, she expressed, the Alaska Native people gave
up 88 percent of their traditional lands through ANCSA. The
United States Congress directed that the United States
Department of the Interior oversee the transfer of these lands
(coughing) late 1980s it was realized that the transfer was of
contaminated lands. The Alaska Native people did not know those
lands were contaminated and the federal government did not hand
over the documentation "letting us know what was out there.
And, what is out there? We're talking about arsenic, unexploded
ordinances, PCBs, among many other things."
2:12:14 PM
MS. BISSET, in response to Representative LeDoux's question as
to why this legislation is limited to ANCSA, opined that it is
limited to ANCSA "for the very fact that we gave up 88 percent
of our traditional lands" in exchange for this settlement. The
Alaska Native people were supposed to receive economically
viable lands in exchange, and not lands that they were legally
liable to cleanup. She stressed that a huge disservice was done
to the Alaska Native people over these many years and this
legislation is trying to remedy the situation by putting the
legal liability shield in place to complete the inventory of the
total sites out there. As was noted in the report, she offered,
there are approximately 650 sites currently, but there are about
100 more sites that need to be evaluated to determine the exact
condition of the land. She commented that if these events had
taken place 20-30 times, she might think it was a mistake, but
this has happened over 900 times. Therefore, something must be
done about this and she offered that some of the effects of the
contaminations as follows: people living on one side of the
river are dying of a certain type of cancer and the people
living on the other side of the river are not dying of this
cancer; people are hanging glow-in-the-dark fish at their fish
camps; and the people living in Unalakleet believe they are
getting Parkinson's Disease from all of the PCBs being dumped
into their water. This is a very real problem that needs to be
cleaned up, the report identifies 94 "orphan sites," an orphan
site means there is no intention to clean up the contamination.
She stressed that the Alaska Native Village Corporation
Association (ANVCA) would like to put the liability shield in
place and begin cleaning up these lands.
2:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how this bill assists in the clean
up of contaminated lands because it absolves liability, at least
in some situations, from corporations. He noted that he was
unsure how that would help the owners of the land to cleaning up
the contaminations, and asked that, if anything, doesn't it make
it so the Alaska Native Corporations do not have to clean it up
because the contamination is not their fault.
MS. BISSETT responded that because the Alaska Native
Corporations are potentially responsible parties, they are
unable to apply for, for EPA ground fill development grants, for
example, which is one of the reasons for this legislation. This
bill lifts the liability problem in order to receive access to
federal funds for cleanup, she advised.
2:15:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public on HB 367. After ascertaining that
no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 367.
[HB 367 was held over.]
2:15:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.
HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
2:50:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee would return to discussions regarding HOUSE BILL NO.
75, "An Act relating to gun violence protective orders; relating
to the crime of violating a protective order; relating to a
central registry for protective orders; relating to the powers
of district judges and magistrates; requiring physicians,
psychologists, psychological associates, social workers, marital
and family therapists, and licensed professional counselors to
report annually threats of gun violence; and amending Rules 4
and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska
Rules of Administration."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Representative LeDoux had requested that
a representative from the Department of Law (DOL) answer
questions related to someone posting on Facebook that they are
angry and wants to cause serious harm, and then goes to a school
and shoots some folks, wherein for purposes of this question,
there was no basis for a Title 47 hold. In that regard, he
asked Kaci Schroeder, DOL, to come forward and explain the
options the police or the state troopers would have, and what
crimes they might be able to arrest someone for in that setting.
2:51:55 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Legal Services Section, Department of Law, responded that there
are several statutes the DOL can look at when dealing with
someone making threatening types of statements, as follows:
assault, wherein someone makes, by words or other conduct,
threatens someone and they are potentially in fear of an
assault, which is assault in the fourth degree; and harassment
in the second degree is probably most applicable to the above-
hypothetical circumstances offered wherein someone posts
something on line about perhaps shooting up a school or causing
other damage. Recently, she advised, the DOL prosecuted someone
for posting on another person's Facebook page, "You are going to
get assassinated." She explained that the person was prosecuted
under the harassment in the second-degree statute.
2:53:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she was discussing a more
generalized post that did not list the school, and instead
posted that they were mad at the world and were going to blow up
some people.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the DOL would look at that type of
posting on a sliding scale type of analysis. The more
generalized the statement, the harder it would be for the DOL to
prosecute as a crime. The more specific it is and the more
imminent it reads to be, the better chance there is of
prosecuting it as a crime.
2:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that under her scenario, the DOL
"would not do anything."
MS. SCHROEDER described Representative LeDoux scenario as "very
general," and that is not to say the DOL would not do anything.
The department may use that scenario as a reason to begin an
investigation into the person to determine whether the person
plans to take steps in furtherance of their statement. In the
event the discussion is about a student in a school situation,
the schools can also take steps, such as suspension and so
forth, that are short of criminal actions, she explained. A
wide range of steps can be taken, short of criminal action, when
someone is making threatening statements, she offered.
2:54:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stressed that her previous comment was not
meant as a criticism. Representative LeDoux explained that she
was trying to determine whether this bill was necessary, or
whether, under current law, when someone is angry and threatens
to "go and murder ten people," they can be arrested and their
weapons removed.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that based on that statement alone and
nothing else took place, it would be difficult to prosecute.
2:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that under this bill, weapons can
be seized, and asked what the process would be if the owner of
the weapons dies while those weapons are held by law
enforcement.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that she could not answer the question
because she has not thought through to the death of someone,
which gets into disposal of property.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that it sounds like an estate matter.
2:56:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he became familiar with the
terroristic threatening statutes in the early 1990s while
involved in a criminal case wherein someone was charged for the
direct threat of words or conduct. Subsequent to his citing the
terroristic threatening statutes to the committee today and a
conversation with Ms. Schroeder regarding the current version of
the terroristic threatening statutes, he said that he realized
the defendant, while speaking to another person on the telephone
and clicking their pen next to the telephone to replicate a gun
being opened and closed, would not be charged today under the
terroristic threatening statutes.
[HB 75 was held over.]
2:59:40 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:59 p.m.