04/03/2008 08:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB65 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB359 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2008
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 65(FIN)
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, credit report and credit score security freezes,
protection of social security numbers, care of records, disposal
of records, identity theft, credit cards, and debit cards, and
to the jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
amending Rules 60 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 65(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 307(FIN)
"An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor domestic
violence assaults as felonies."
MOVED SCS CSHB 307(JUD)
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 88(FIN)
"An Act relating to televisions, monitors, portable computers,
and similar devices in motor vehicles; relating to the
definition of physical injury for the Alaska Uniform Vehicle
Code; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 88(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 359(FIN)
"An Act relating to the term of probation for persons convicted
of minor consuming or in possession or control of alcohol or
repeat minor consuming or in possession or control of alcohol;
and relating to termination of probation for certain persons
convicted of minor consuming or in possession or control of
alcohol or repeat minor consuming or in possession or control of
alcohol."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL, GARA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/31/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) L&C AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
04/16/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/23/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/23/07 (H) Moved CSHB 65(L&C) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/07 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 3NR 1AM
04/24/07 (H) DP: GATTO, NEUMAN
04/24/07 (H) NR: BUCH, LEDOUX, OLSON
04/24/07 (H) AM: GARDNER
05/02/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/07 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
05/05/07 (H) Moved CSHB 65(JUD) Out of Committee
05/05/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/07/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 2AM
05/07/07 (H) DP: HOLMES, LYNN, COGHILL, RAMRAS
05/07/07 (H) AM: DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS
01/23/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/23/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/13/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/13/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/18/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/19/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/08 (H) Moved CSHB 65(FIN) Out of Committee
02/19/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/21/08 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 5NR
02/21/08 (H) DP: HAWKER, CRAWFORD, GARA, NELSON
02/21/08 (H) NR: KELLY, THOMAS, STOLTZE, MEYER,
CHENAULT
02/27/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/27/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN)
02/29/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/29/08 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/04/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/13/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/13/08 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (S) L&C AT 4:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/15/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/18/08 (S) Moved CSHB 65(L&C) Out of Committee
03/18/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/19/08 (S) L&C RPT SCS 4DP SAME TITLE
03/19/08 (S) DP: ELLIS, BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS
03/29/08 (S) JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/08 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 307
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOLMES, GARA, DAHLSTROM,
FAIRCLOUGH, JOHNSON, BUCH, HARRIS, DOLL
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/08/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/08/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/08 (H) JUD RPT 5DP 1AM
02/11/08 (H) DP: DOOGAN, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS, HOLMES,
RAMRAS
02/11/08 (H) AM: COGHILL
02/20/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/20/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/28/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/14/08 (H) Moved CSHB 307(FIN) Out of Committee
03/14/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/18/08 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 5NR 1AM
03/18/08 (H) DP: GARA, NELSON
03/18/08 (H) NR: CRAWFORD, JOULE, THOMAS, STOLTZE,
MEYER
03/18/08 (H) AM: HAWKER
03/26/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/26/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 307(FIN)
03/27/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/08 (S) JUD, FIN
04/02/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/02/08 (S) PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
04/03/08 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 88
SHORT TITLE: TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/29/07 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/29/07
02/08/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) Moved CSHB 88(STA) Out of Committee
02/20/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP 1NR
02/21/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, ROSES,
GRUENBERG, DOLL, LYNN
02/21/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
02/28/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/07 (H) Moved CSHB 88(JUD) Out of Committee
02/28/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 4NR
03/01/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN
03/01/07 (H) NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS, RAMRAS
04/18/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/18/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/20/07>
04/20/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/23/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/23/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/25/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/25/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/04/07 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/04/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/05/07 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 5NR
05/05/07 (H) DP: GARA, NELSON, FOSTER, CRAWFORD
05/05/07 (H) NR: KELLY, JOULE, HAWKER, STOLTZE,
MEYER
05/05/07 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/05/07 (H) Moved CSHB 88(FIN) Out of Committee
05/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/12/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/12/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 88(FIN)
05/12/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/12/07 (S) STA, JUD
03/13/08 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/13/08 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/19/08 (S) STA RPT 3NR 1AM
03/19/08 (S) NR: MCGUIRE, STEVENS, GREEN
03/19/08 (S) AM: FRENCH
03/19/08 (S) STA AT 9:30 AM BELTZ 211
03/19/08 (S) -- Continued from 03/18/08 --
03/31/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/08 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/03/08 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/08/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/20/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/08 (H) Moved CSHB 359(JUD) Out of Committee
02/20/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/08 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 3NR
02/21/08 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, RAMRAS
02/21/08 (H) NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS
03/04/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/04/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/05/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/13/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/13/08 (H) Moved CSHB 359(FIN) Out of Committee
03/13/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/17/08 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 6DP 2NR
03/17/08 (H) DP: HAWKER, GARA, CRAWFORD, THOMAS,
MEYER, CHENAULT
03/17/08 (H) NR: KELLY, HARRIS
03/26/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/26/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 359(FIN)
03/27/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/08 (S) JUD, FIN
04/02/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/02/08 (S) Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled
04/03/08 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 307.
RICK SVOBODNY Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 307.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Highlighted problems associated with HB 307
and provided information on HB 359.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided fiscal information related to HB
307.
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB 307 and
HB 359.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concern with HB 307 and support for
HB 88.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08:29 AM. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Huggins, Therriault, Wielechowski,
and McGuire.
HB 65-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 65 and asked for
a motion to adopt Version \W.
8:09:06 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute
(CS) for CSHB 65, 25-LS0311\W, Bannister, as the working
document.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection Version \W is
before the committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for a brief explanation of the changes.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that Version \W incorporates only the
changes the committee made during the previous hearing. There
are four proposed amendments.
8:10:07 AM
SENATOR McGUIRE joined the meeting.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 25-
LS0311\T.9, Bannister.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved Amendment 1.
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(L&C)
Page 5, line 30, following "computer":
Insert "or a radio frequency identification
device"
Page 5, line 31, following "form;":
Insert "in this subparagraph, "radio frequency
identification device" means an electronic tagging and
tracking technology that wirelessly transmits
identifying information to a remote reader;"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR McGUIRE explained that radio frequency identification
devices (RFID) transmit and store personal information. She has
conferred with the sponsor and this clarifies in the definitions
that RFID would be covered. This is a rather new technology and
as with other technology, there is potential for abuse. She
noted that this committee passed her more comprehensive RFID
bill, but she has decided to hold that bill for now due to the
considerable, and she feels unjustified, concern about how it
might impact legitimate commerce. She explained that the kinds
of RFID chips used to move commerce and be part of the supply
chain weren't meant to be impacted. She doesn't believe that
they were, and she'll work to clarify that over the Interim. She
is interested in protecting information containing social
security numbers, names, and other personal information.
Amendment 1 defines RFID in a way that is consistent with the
rubric of the bill.
8:12:54 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor his view of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of HB 65, agreed with
Senator McGuire; the amendment clarifies, under the definition
and breach of security sections, that RFID is included. It
alerts industry that when they begin to handle personal
information, it will be safeguarded under the RFID issue.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this disallows acquisition of
personal information on RFID chips.
SENATOR McGUIRE explained that the amendment clarifies that if
there is a breach of security on consumer data, the penalties
and disclosure would be the same as under this bill.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI posed the hypothetical example of someone
using a Fred Meyers card that has an RFID chip, and asked if the
inappropriate release of that data is what would fall under this
amendment.
SENATOR McGUIRE replied that's correct.
CHAIR FRENCH withdrew his objection and finding no further
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 2, 25-LS0311\W.1, Bannister, and
explained that it follows up on the discussion about what to do
when an information collector decides to not disclose. This
essentially says that before someone makes that decision, they
must make an investigation and send written notification to Mr.
Sniffen or his successor [Commercial/Fair Business Section,
Department of Law].
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "consultation with relevant federal,
state, or local agencies responsible for law
enforcement"
Insert "written notification to the attorney
general of this state"
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this would significantly increase
the fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH replied he doesn't know but his sense is that it
would reduce the fiscal note because all costs fall on someone
outside government. He understands the point that all the
information will be funneled to a state employee, but Mr.
Sniffen indicated that the burden would be light. The bill next
goes before the finance committee.
8:16:50 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he supports the amendment and reporting
to a central location. "I think this is a very good move," he
said.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, Amendment 2 is
adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 3, 25-LS0311\W.2, Banister, and
objected for discussion purposes.
A M E N D M E N T 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 18, line 4, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 7, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 21, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 24, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 19, line 20, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 19, line 24, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that this deals with industry
issues related to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and how to
craft a means for legitimate business to operate. This talks
about a person subject to GLBA in Sections .410, .420, and .430
with regard to those who can legitimately use social security
numbers. The idea is to make it so that business can operate
freely, but when there is a breach there are significant
requirements. The concern centered on being able to deal with
people who are subject to GLBA. He thought that was answered,
but this makes it more explicit.
8:18:51 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if his intention is for each clause to say,
"to a person subject to or a transaction regulated by the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act for a purpose
authorized by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization
Act."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that's correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT observed that it ties everything very closely
to GLBA.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed. The aim is to allow commerce to
operate freely, but when someone is operating outside the law
there are clear rules of accountability.
8:20:16 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whose problem this take care of.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied this addresses the concerns
ChoicePoint and LexisNexis articulated in the last hearing. They
pointed out that although they are regulated by GLBA, their
customers may not be. He tends to agree and this provides them
room to operate.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that what GLBA says about obligations with
respect to personal information is that the subsection shall not
prevent a financial institution, which is what ChoicePoint and
LexisNexis are, from providing non public personal information
to a non affiliated third party. ChoicePoint and LexisNexis are
concerned that the bill might undermine their freedom to operate
in the financial world.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that GLBA and the FCRA are somewhat
different in that one has express language and the other has
permitted language. This seeks to include those laws in their
disparate approach and still allow a good framework to work in
Alaska. The addition of the phrase "subject to" smoothes it out
a bit.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he's comfortable with the amendment and if
he believes industry is as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said yes.
8:23:19 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the word "person" refers to the data
brokerage company.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that it applies to the financial
institution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that it's the corporate definition
of person.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, Amendment 3 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 4, 25-LS0311\W.3, Bannister, and
objected for discussion purposes.
A M E N D M E N T 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 20, line 20, following "information.":
Insert "In this subsection, "independent
contractor" includes a debt collector."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that he asked for the phrase
"debt collection" to be removed [from .410(b)(5)] because the
exemption under disclosure of social security numbers was too
broad. But this allows it for legitimate business-to-business
transactions where there's need for identification. Debt
collection is one such example. This allows that to happen under
exemptions for employees, agents, and independent contractors.
He didn't intend for it not to be used for debt collection; he
didn't want it to be the general rule so that everyone could
demand collection of social security numbers for nearly any
purpose under the guise of debt collection.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without further objection, Amendment
4 is adopted.
8:25:58 AM
CHAIR FRENCH found no further amendments or discussion and asked
for a motion.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report Senate CS for CSHB 65, as
amended, and attached fiscal note(s) from committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SCS CSHB 65(JUD)
is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
At ease 8:26:19 AM.
HB 307-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES
8:27:36 AM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 307 and asked for
a motion to adopt Version \O as the working document.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved the Senate CS for CSHB 307, 25-LS1236\O,
Luckhaupt, as the working document.
8:27:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, Sponsor of HB 307, said this bill
is known colloquially as a three strikes domestic violence bill.
It responds to the fact that Alaska ranks at the top on nearly
every indicator for violence against women and first in the
nation for rape of female victims killed by male perpetrators.
In 2005 there were 6,000 reported cases of domestic violence. HB
307 is not a one-stop solution; it tries to chip away at the
problem, but education and a change in attitude are also vital
components.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that HB 307 seeks an increased
penalty for an offender convicted of a fourth degree physical
assault involving domestic violence, who has two prior
convictions in the last ten years. The predicate priors can be
either a fourth degree assault or a list of felonies including
sexual assault, stalking, and manslaughter. Upon a third
conviction, a class A misdemeanor crime is increased to a class
C felony. The bill is prospective so all three strikes would
have to occur after the effective date and within ten years of
each other. She noted the letters of support.
8:30:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that the Senate CS [Version \O]
makes two changes. The first is the intent language in Section
1. The intent is that the bill is aimed at perpetrators and not
innocent victims. It was brought to the sponsors' attention that
the old intent language required the court to make a particular
finding that would interfere with plea agreements. The sponsors
understand that this new intent language fixes that problem.
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned the need for the intent section.
"With any of our laws we want to get the bad guys, not the
innocent victims so we don't need to say that."
CHAIR FRENCH welcomed the sponsor to the judiciary committee
where Senator Therriault sits and patiently waits for intent
language to come along.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed that it's not as important as the
rest of the bill. She explained that it was inserted at the
request of provider communities and serves as a reminder.
8:32:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that the second change addresses
proof of the domestic violence element. Originally it had to be
proved on all three strikes, but she has been convinced that
that would be too unwieldy. Now the domestic violence element
needs only be proved on the third strike.
CHAIR FRENCH characterized the change as wise.
8:33:10 AM
RICK SVOBODNY Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law , said he is here to speak in opposition to HB
307. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already heard and passed
SB 234, and DOL views it as a better approach for dealing with
repeat assaultive domestic violence offenders. This bill creates
unforeseen consequences that can be detrimental to the
prosecution of domestic violence cases and the entire scheme of
domestic violence protective laws in this state. He agreed with
the sponsor that this is a special problem in the state. And, he
said, it's a particular problem because of its prevalent and the
inherent difficulties in prosecuting domestic violence assaults
that don't exist in other crimes. Special problems involved
include: emotions, relationships, the prevalence of recanting by
the victim, and the need to give immunity. A huge problem is
that domestic violence is intergenerational; kids learn this
behavior. He understands the sponsor's commitment to the issue
and he agrees completely, but in his view SB 234 is a better
approach for a number of reasons.
8:35:50 AM
MR. SVOBODNY relayed that this body has created a system of
intentional laws. Title 18 has protective orders that aren't
very expensive to the victim of domestic violence, they occur
fast, and lawyers generally aren't involved. You've made arrests
mandatory and you've required the DOL to look at the primary and
the initial aggressor and you've dealt with sentencing laws, he
said. You've made it a mandatory minimum for a second time
misdemeanor offense of 60 days in jail, and for felony matters
you've made two aggravating factors to allow for enhanced
sentencing if the case is domestic violence. If HB 307 passes,
those felony aggravators go away because the law doesn't allow
two bites at the apple. If a crime is enhanced because it's
domestic violence, the fact that domestic violence was involved
won't allow, in a felony sentence, an enhanced sentence.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that you never get to use an aggravator
on a misdemeanor assault.
MR. SVOBODNY clarified that he's talking about felonies.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that he understands that, but HB 307
talks about just one kind of felony, a fourth degree assault
that will become a felony.
Absent that aggravation, absent that elevation, it's a
fourth degree assault. It's recklessly causing
physical injury and you're stuck in misdemeanor court.
We frequently use the aggravators--we'll talk about
the aggravators in misdemeanor court as a way to get
the judge to impose a little more time--but legally
you've got nothing on the fourth degree assault with
an aggravator.
8:38:07 AM
MR. SVOBODNY said that's correct, but this bill makes that
fourth degree assault, if it's the third time, a felony.
CHAIR FRENCH said he understands his point. If domestic violence
isn't an element of the crime, if it's just three strikes you
can use it. It's made a felony by the fact that it's an assault,
but then this says that it's the aggravator.
MR. SVOBODNY agreed. For repeat domestic violence offenders we
want to be able to go above the zero to two year [sentencing]
range, but under this bill we won't have the aggravating factor
that it was a domestic violence case because it was an element,
he said. That wasn't an issue in SB 234.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many aggravators potentially apply and
Mr. Svobodny said there are two.
MR. SVOBODNY continued to articulate his concern with HB 307
explaining that the legislature has also dealt with the criminal
laws related to assaultive behavior, violating a protective
order, and interfering with a report of domestic violence. But
no Title 11 law requires the state to prove that any of those
are a domestic violence offense. This is a new element for
prosecutors and there is an unintended consequence. When the
legislature created the definition of domestic violence the
intention was to make it as broad as possible because it's a
civil matter dealing with emergency situations and protecting a
person.
8:40:40 AM
MR. SVOBODNY highlighted that his concern is that the state has
never had to deal with that broad definition of domestic
violence in criminal cases because it isn't an element. Twice
it's come up in the court of appeals and two of the three
justices clearly signaled there is a constitutional problem with
using that definition in criminal cases. Either it's void for
vagueness or it's over broad. If HB 307 passes it will be an
element of the offense and those judges will have to decide the
constitutionality of that definition. "I am concerned that an
unintended consequence is that the definition of domestic
violence is going to be declared unconstitutional and that
really has a huge problem for the issues of obtaining protective
orders," he said. That unintended consequence doesn't arise in
the approach taken in SB 234., because it's not necessary to
prove the element of domestic violence.
8:43:09 AM
MR. SVOBODNY expressed concern with the core drafting of the
definition of domestic violence. Under Section 3 it will be
necessary to prove: two or more predicate offenses; that a
person recklessly caused physical injury or with criminal
negligence they caused physical injury by means of a dangerous
instrument; and domestic violence. The definition of domestic
violence is: arson, criminal trespass, criminal mischief,
murder, and assaults so the elements will be that the state has
to prove there was reckless physical injury. Now the state has
to again prove recklessly caused physical injury and then the
household relationship. The point is that it's repetitious and
doesn't make logical sense, he said.
8:45:00 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it isn't a question of a prosecutor having
to prove that a husband beat his wife or a boyfriend beat his
girlfriend.
MR. SVOBODNY replied he absolutely believes that.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that it may be a bit fuzzy when it's written
down, but when a prosecutor says it's a case involving domestic
violence that is a phrase that jurors understand.
MR. SVOBODNY agreed. He understands that the actual proof of
domestic violence isn't going to be that difficult, but he has
some concern with things like what is a dating relationship.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that's something the prosecutor makes in
every case. You don't, for example, bring a case between two
guys on a crab boat and try to make it a felony, he said. You'll
bring a case that looks like a husband, again, beat up his wife.
MR. SVOBODNY said that's correct.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL) said it wouldn't be difficult to prove domestic violence
in the case of a husband beating his wife, but the irony of HB
307 is that in the fringe cases it doesn't help victims of
domestic violence as much as SB 234. It will be much more
difficult to prove domestic violence in cases of recanting
victims in a dating or sexual relationship because there won't
be a victim, there won't be a defendant and nobody will testify
that they had a physical or dating relationship.
8:47:03 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the administration views domestic
violence abuse as worse from a societal standpoint than other
assaults, such as a bar fight.
MR. SVOBODNY said you can't make that societal distinction. If
you're the victim you're hurting just like any other victim, but
domestic violence is a greater problem for other reasons.
Domestic violence is done in front of children and it teaches
that behavior. That isn't the case in a barroom fight. Domestic
violence cases aren't public so they're more difficult to
prosecute; barroom fights generally have witnesses. Domestic
violence victims recant, barroom fight victim are less likely to
later say their black eye was the result of running into the
door.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed that the victim won't care about the
type of relationship they have with the abuser. Unfortunately
though, he said, ours is a system that has great cost attached
to putting people in jail. He asked the amount of the fiscal
note on SB 234.
MR. SVOBODNY deferred to Mr. Peeples.
8:49:28 AM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said the last cost that was projected to 2014 was $20.8
million. It builds up over a period of 5 years because it's
prospective.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if DOC had accounted for the latest changes
in HB 307.
MR. PEEPLES replied that based on the most recent numbers
supplied the court system, implementation at 2014 would be $8.9
million, rounded up.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that that was taking into account only
domestic violence priors and this version takes into account
nearly all assaults.
8:50:54 AM
MR. PEEPLES said he'd have to wait for an updated court analysis
before he could give new numbers.
8:51:07 AM
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
relayed that the court has been running numbers for all the
various versions of both bills. He received the current draft CS
yesterday and expects to have new numbers sometime today.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that the legislature could make
the policy choice to spend $20 million or it could make the
policy choice to spend $8.9 million to target a different set of
offenders. You understand that policy call, she said.
MS. CARPENETI referred to the comment about bar fights and
explained that when those are prosecuted it's a mutual combat
disorderly conduct prosecution. It's a class B misdemeanor that
carries a maximum sentence of 10 days. We're not talking about
bar fights here; we're talking about people who aggressively
hurt other people, she said. Bar fights don't get class A
misdemeanors.
DOL continues to believe that SB 234 is a better protection for
domestic violence victims in areas where the domestic violence
relationship isn't as clear. Also, once it's an element of the
offense, it's lost as an aggravating factor in sentencing at the
felony level. If cost is part of the concern, DOL suggests
limiting the look-back or limiting the predicate offences to
assault and stalking. As a practical matter homicide and sexual
offenses tend to have very long sentences anyway, so it's less
likely that somebody in 10 years would have two predicates that
would include sex offenses or homicide offenses. She reiterated
that once you take away the proof of domestic violence, domestic
violence victims have a lot more protection.
8:54:29 AM
SENATOR McGUIRE asked what the policy was when the governor's
bill was first introduced.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that the policy in SB 234 is to address
bullies who repeatedly beat up people. She reminded members
about the crime summit testimony that highlighted that there are
people in Anchorage who have 12 to 15 convictions for fourth
degree assault. Those crimes are repeatedly charged and
prosecuted at the class A misdemeanor level. SB 234 seeks to
stop that chain of violence at a felony level. The tools are
better; there's a five year maximum sentence and felony
probation, which is actual supervised probation. DOL's intent
was to get perpetrators of domestic violence and other people,
too, who are dangerous and hurt people on a basis that is
consistent enough to qualify for the three convictions and ten-
year look-back. Bar fights don't get class A misdemeanors.
8:56:51 AM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), echoed the concerns expressed by DOL with
respect to HB 307. DPS has a goal to put the worst offenders
away for as long as possible. We appreciate the intent of HB 307
and see the need for enhanced penalties, but we believe that it
could make prosecutions and longer sentences more difficult, he
said. We instead encourage support of SB 234.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if DOL made this same presentation to the
other body.
MR. SVOBODNY replied yes and no. The argument he did not make to
that body was about the unintended consequences. He noted that
Peggy Brown with the Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault testified that the domestic violence community wasn't
united in support or opposition to the bill because of the
unintended consequences.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he has a major concern about having to
prove domestic violence with each predicate prior.
MR. SVOBODNY said yes; that becomes a huge problem.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that Version \O represents a tremendous
change from the original bill. It gives up all those domestic
violence priors and makes the district attorney's job easier.
9:00:22 AM
MR. SVOBODNY concluded his comments first by restating the
suggestion about potential cost savings in SB 234 by limiting
the predicate crimes and reducing the look back. Second, he
agreed with the sponsor that it's time-consuming for judges to
make a factual finding in each case. Removing that requirement
improves the bill.
9:01:58 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if DOL was asked to hold its concerns
until the bill was heard in this body.
MS. CARPENETI replied that is correct. She added that DOL has
worked cooperatively with the sponsor so its opposition isn't a
surprise to anyone. The concern about importing civil language
into criminal prosecution language hasn't been stated because
DOL, too, is evolving in its understanding of the bill.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that if the Network has concerns with
the bill and the potential for unintended consequences, he wants
to know about that.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that no one from the Network signed up to
testify, but there's another chance this afternoon.
9:03:20 AM
CHAIR FRENCH recessed the meeting until 1:30.
1:44:01 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and asked the sponsor her
view of the testimony she heard this morning.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she took exception to a number of
things that were said this morning, but in light of the
testimony and subsequent discussion there is an amendment.
1:45:08 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE moved to adopt Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MCGUIRE
TO: SCS CSHB 307(JUD)(25-LS1236\O)
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "domestic violence"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete: "involving domestic violence"
Page 3, line 2-12:
Delete all material
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR McGUIRE explained that the amendment deletes reference
to domestic violence because it has been shown to be problematic
in this bill. DOL and DPS have committed to support the bill
with this amendment.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and finding no further
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted. Finding no one
else who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. He noted
that a title change may be required.
1:47:04 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report the amended Version \O Senate
CS for CSHB 107 and attached forthcoming fiscal note(s) from
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection SCS CSHB 107(JUD)
is moved from committee.
At ease from 1:47:28 PM to 1:48:23 PM.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to forward a conforming title change
resolution along with HB 307. There being no objection it was so
ordered.
HB 359-PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 359. [Before the
committee was CSHB 359 (FIN).]
1:48:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, Sponsor of HB 359, said this bill seeks
to take advantage of the greatest vocational rehabilitation
program in the nation by helping minors on probation to join the
armed services. Current Alaska law requires the court to place a
minor who is convicted of consuming on probation until age 21.
"As long as the State of Alaska has its thumb on you, Uncle Sam
can't own you, which is their expectation when you join the
armed services," he said.
1:50:19 PM
EMILY BEATLEY, Staff to Representative Ramras, explained that
under the current minor consuming statute, the court is required
to place a convicted person on probation for one year from the
date of conviction or until the person reaches the age of 21,
whichever is later. For a 16 year old that can mean a probation
term of 5 years with no possibility for it to be lifted. HB 359
adds a subsection to AS 04.16.050 giving courts the authority to
terminate the probation with the exception of habitual minor
consuming. The bill also amends the current statute establishing
new probation terms of up to one year for first and second
violations. No change is made to the habitual minor consuming
probation term. HB 359 offers good young Alaskans who have made
mistakes the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to work toward
becoming more disciplined and law-abiding individuals.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that alcohol crimes are different than
others. It's possible to be convicted of DWI at age 16 even
though for other crimes that same person would be processed
through the juvenile system. He asked how this crime is treated.
MS. BEATLEY deferred to Ms. Carpeneti with the Department of Law
(DOL).
1:52:35 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), explained that Title 47 provides that
minor consuming is a crime that is not subject to juvenile
jurisdiction. The legislature made that change in 1994. Before
that it was considered a delinquent act over which the
Department of Health and Social Services had jurisdiction.
CHAIR FRENCH added that it's a charging decision the officer
makes about whether to write a minor consuming citation. But
once the citation is written, it's an adult offense.
MS. CARPENETI agreed; officers do use discretion and sometimes
take the minor home. Sometimes, though, it's better to write the
citation and have a consequence for the young person.
CHAIR FRENCH said he imagines that 13-15 year olds often get
charged with minor consuming and get caught up under the
probation provisions.
MS. CARPENETI agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH said he understands that for the last few years a
15-year-old, for example, who is convicted of minor consuming
stays on probation until age 21.
MS. CARPENETI explained that that was a well-intended but
unsuccessful effort in 2001 to deal with the huge problem of
underage drinking in this state. The unintended consequence was
that young people can't join military service while on
probation, and this bill intends to address that.
1:54:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the state can hold over a youth who is
on probation.
MS. CARPENETI said there's no probation supervision for
misdemeanors in our state, but the statute mandates certain
things that kids have to do under these circumstances. Probation
would at least allow enforcement of conditions, like going to an
alcohol information class.
CHAIR FRENCH asked the maximum penalty for minor consuming.
MS. CARPENETI said that for the first and second violation it's
a violation and there's no jail time. A third violation is a
class B misdemeanor.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that page 2, line 9, provides a $200-$600
fine for the first violation.
MS. CARPENETI added that for a second or repeat violation
there's a $1,000 fine, but the court has the ability to suspend
half of the fine. The third violation is a B misdemeanor and as
such has many more options.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the cumulative penalties still apply.
MS. BEATLEY relayed that subsection (e) on page 3, says that
persons convicted under subsections (b)(2), (c), or (d) shall be
placed on probation. Each is an individual violation and the
probation periods are listed separately.
CHAIR FRENCH asked the maximum probation period for a first
offense, it this bill passes.
MS. BEATLEY said for the first and second offense it's up to one
year. She agreed with Chair French that habitual consuming
hasn't been adjusted because it's a separate criminal violation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an explanation of Section 5.
1:58:27 PM
MS. BEATLEY relayed that that was added because there was no
ability to make a motion to the court to lift probation
conditions. This section allows someone who has met the
conditions of their probation to make a motion to the court to
have the balance of their probation period terminated.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if this section models any other statute.
MS. BEATLEY said no, it comes from legislative drafters.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked the definition of the phrase "good faith
effort" on page 4, lines 1 and 7.
MS. BEATLEY said the House Judiciary Committee added that
phrase; it was to be at the court's discretion.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if "good faith effort" is meant to be
something beyond entering into the repayment plan that's
mentioned on line 2.
MS. BEATLEY relayed her understanding that the repayment plan
would be entered into after probation is lifted so the state
could continue to recover the fines after the probation term was
lifted.
2:01:13 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this section applies prospectively or also
to those currently on probation.
MS. BEATLEY said she understands it would apply to those
currently under probation. The fiscal note decreases over time
reflecting the 3,500 folks that would be able to motion to the
court for their probation to be lifted. Responding to a
question, she explained that 3,500 folks would come under the
bill and the court assumes that about 2,500 would be 17 years of
age or older and actually motion to the court for their
probation to be lifted.
2:02:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that this should have a positive
impact on the state treasury, but the fiscal note doesn't
reflect that.
MS. BEATLEY deferred to Mr. Wooliver.
CHAIR FRENCH asked why petitioning the court shouldn't be the
approach for all the probation terms.
MS. BEATLEY explained that some House Finance Committee members
thought the probation periods were excessive and this was a way
to address that.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that the wise members of that committee
picked a year of probation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he gladly accommodated that point of
view to maintain the momentum, but he shares the Chair's
interest in this particular provision. There was some thoughtful
debate about how to deal with young people who did "not really
doing anything that bad." The conversation was tactful and there
were varying degrees of tolerance for the one-time offender who
gets caught in the legal system for up to four years. We tried
to bring some balance there knowing that if the Senate members
thought otherwise, there would be an opportunity to remedy it,
he said.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that it seems like a good idea.
2:05:55 PM
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
explained that the fiscal note is based on the number of people
under age 21 who are currently on probation under the existing
law. There are about 3,500 people. He assumed that those most
likely to petition the court would be age 17-21 and there are
about 2,500 people in that category today. He further assumed
that 25 percent of those would petition the court. If 25 percent
of the 3,500 people petition in year one, another 1,000 will
likely petition in the second year and thereafter the number of
people coming to the court doesn't warrant a fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that you expect a flurry of activity the
first year and a reduction thereafter. Mr. Wooliver agreed.
2:07:29 PM
THOMAS CAPSAN, Brigadier General, Army National Guard, said this
is an important bill and he appreciates it more all the time. He
retired from the Anchorage Police Department after 21 years and
during that time he had to enforce a similar law for juveniles
drinking. When he retired he joined the National Guard full time
and was in charge of the counter-drug unit. Now he's in charge
of recruiting and retention with the Alaska Army National Guard
and he sees kids trying to make good choices, but they can't
enter the military because they are screened out due to their
probation status. This bill is critical to provide a pool of
people options so they can continue on the path of making good
choices.
2:11:07 PM
CHAIR FRENCH, finding no one else who wished to testify, closed
public testimony and announced he would hold HB 359 overnight to
think about the policy choice in Section 5.
HB 88-TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
2:11:33 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 88. [Before the
committee was CSHB 88(FIN).]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, Sponsor or HB 88, said that as a
result of the comments in the last committee, there is a
proposed amendment. This legislation deals with the distraction
of watching a video display while driving. This distraction may
have caused several fiery deaths on Alaska highways. If it's
shown that the driver was watching a video display, or that it
is on and in a position to be watch while the vehicle is
underway, the punishment is negligent homicide if a death
results. It's a class A misdemeanor if the device is on and no
wreck occurred. He has no objection to proposed amendment V.1.
2:14:09 PM at ease.2:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a news article about
watching movies on cell phones and said that, too, would be
prohibited under the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to page 2, line 8, that exempts audio
equipment information, functions, and controls and asked if, in
addition to radios, this is meant to also exempt IPods.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands that you listen to
an IPod and that would be exempt. "I don't have any problem with
people listening," he said.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that they're now being used as portable car
stereos, but you have to look at the IPod to select the music.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that's okay; it's the same as a
radio.
2:17:17 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 1, 25-:LS0312\V.1, Luckhaupt, and
objected for discussion purposes. The idea is to exempt cell
phones, such as an iphone, that display a picture of the person
calling. He doesn't think that looking at a picture of the
person calling should be a crime. He acknowledged there are
people who want to ban the use of cell phones while driving, but
this bill doesn't do that.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 88(FIN)
Page 2, line 6, following "communication":
Insert "or displaying caller identification
information"
CHAIR FRENCH withdrew his objection and finding no further
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor to describe the core activity
he's targeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied he's targeting those who watch
movies or something similar while driving.
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to explain the elevated penalty
structure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that 13 AAC 04.260 currently
makes it an infraction for a motor vehicle driven in Alaska to
be equipped with television-type receiving equipment that is in
view of the driver's seat. The punishment is a small fine. This
bill raises the penalty: to a class A misdemeanor if no injury
occurs, a class C felony if physical injury to another person
occurs, a class B felony if serious physical injury occurs, and
a class A felony if a death occurs. Serious physical injury is
defined in Title 11.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his staff pointed out
that he previously was reading from subsection (a) of 13 AAC
04.260 and subsection (b) reads as follows:
(b) A driver of a motor vehicle may not wear a
headset, headphones, or other headgear designed for
receiving sound and transmitting sound to the driver,
or wear ear plugs or a similar device which reduces
the driver's hearing ability while driving a vehicle.
The bill doesn't deal with that, it will remain an infraction,
he said. Subsection (c) provides the following exemption:
(c) This section does not prohibit the use of
television-type or headgear-receiving equipment used
exclusively for safety or law enforcement purposes,
used for and designed to improve a driver's hearing
ability, or navigational devices such as Global
Positioning System (GPS) or Loran.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that's a good point because GPS
screens are popular. He asked if he's saying that a GPS located
in the driver's view would not fall under this.
2:21:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes; page 2, subsections (c)(2)(C)
and (c)(2)(D), exempt navigation or global positioning equipment
and maps. That's essential, he said.
SENATOR McGUIRE commented that her GPS displays a warning to
drivers that are using the equipment while operating a vehicle.
2:22:00 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said DPS supports HB 88 because it helps
keep Alaska driving laws current with changes in technology. To
cite someone now, troopers must prove two elements: that a
qualifying device is installed, and that it's in the driver's
view. The statute doesn't say the equipment has to be turned on.
Under this bill four elements must be proved: that the person is
driving, that the qualifying device is present, that the device
is in full view of the driver, and that the display is operating
while the vehicle is in motion. An alternative element is that
someone has illegally installed or altered a device so that it
can be viewed by the driver while the vehicle is going down the
road. DPS sees this as a good change in law, he said.
TROOPER DIAL described the accident mentioned previously: two
occupants were killed, a vehicle did cross the center line, it
was alleged that the driver was watching a movie at the time, a
unit was installed such that it could be viewed by the driver
while the vehicle was moving. "Had this bill been in effect,
that person could have been charged with a class A misdemeanor,
at a very minimum."
2:24:14 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said this is an interesting bill because of the
convergence of communication, entertainment, and scheduling
devices. Soon devices like the Blackberry and the iPhone will be
all-in-one. In some instances they're safe to use while driving,
but in other instances they wouldn't be safe at all. His view is
that this law will be tough to enforce, but it's a good policy
to hammer people that are doing things that aren't safe.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said there will be mitigating instances, but
this will help in certain situations.
2:26:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH found no one else who wished to testify and closed
public testimony.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report CS for HB 88 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection SCS CSHB 88(JUD)
is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:26:33 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|