HB 255-PROHIBIT DIALING OR TEXTING WHILE DRIVING  1:06:46 PM CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor vehicle from reading or typing a text message or other nonvoice message or communication on a cellular telephone, computer, or personal data assistant while driving a motor vehicle." 1:07:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 255 on behalf of the six co-prime sponsors: Representatives Thomas, P. Wilson, Gruenberg, Tuck, Gatto, and himself. He stated, as many of you know, the legislature thought it had passed a bill a few years ago that prohibited watching videos and texting while driving. The aforementioned bill was not written as clearly as the courts would have liked and a number of judges have taken the position that the previous bill had not been intended to apply to texting. He reported that this case is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals and the matter may go to the Alaska Supreme Court. He said the reason for the bill is to reinforce to the public that texting while driving is dangerous. 1:08:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized that members only need one fact. He said according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), drivers who text while driving are 20 more times likely to have an accident than those who do not text. He informed members the woman who co-founded the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), has now taken the issue of "texting while driving" on as seriously as she did the issue of drunk driving. He characterized this issue as the "new drunk driving" issue. He was unsure of the correlation between the dangers of drunk driving and driving while texting - whether it would be 20 times or 30 times riskier - but he assumed that texting presented a similar risk since the driver endangers the lives of other while engaging in this type of behavior. He said this is why he introduced HB 255 four other legislators decided to add on as co-prime sponsors of the bill. 1:09:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA described the drafting process taken and his intent to stay as true to the original bill as possible. He emphasized that numerous policy calls have been incorporated into the bill, which the co-prime sponsors do not want to see changed. He reported a previous law already addresses other driver activities, such that drivers may not watch or operate a video screen while their vehicle is in motion. He acknowledged several approaches could have been taken when drafting this bill. The bill could have been modeled after the language used in current statutes for a person who is driving while intoxicated (DWI). Those statutes assume that a person sitting in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition [demonstrates the intent to drive]. However, he admitted he did not really have a problem with drivers viewing text messages while they are sitting in their vehicles in a parking lot. He also admitted it was impossible to draft the bill perfectly. He suggested the bill could be drafted in a way to cover almost all of the bad circumstances, or it could be drafted to cover all the bad circumstances, but in doing so might affect a few innocent people. Since 2009, the statutory language prohibiting texting refers to texting while the driver's vehicle is in motion. He described a scenario in which a driver may decide to check his phone while stopped at the beginning of a red light. The driver may just have received a text from his wife regarding child pick up arrangements. The driver [hears the phone beep], and since the light just changed knows he has another 30 seconds before the light will change to view the text message, and then look back at the light. He offered his belief this type of activity would not warrant jail time. He pointed out an exemption in the bill allows law enforcement, public safety officers, and firefighters to use equipment installed in their vehicles such as video screens, laptops, and communication devices necessary for their work. He said that the bill sponsors will work in the coming weeks to determine whether public safety agencies will need any additional exemptions. 1:11:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA reported that 35 states currently ban texting for all drivers. He said," It's dangerous. It should be addressed." The Department of Public Safety (DPS) has always had [public service announcements] informing drivers they are not allowed to text while they drive. He expressed concern about sending the public mixed messages. He said the co-prime sponsors are hoping this bill will pass. He related his understanding that some contention may exist with respect to cell phone use in bills currently before the legislature so his intention is to let those bills proceed separately. He advised members of the desire to limit HB 255 to texting, which is something his original co-prime sponsor, Representative Thomas, and he had agreed to early on. 1:11:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is only aware of one case that was held to the contrary. He asked whether the sponsor was aware of any other cases. REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that a magistrate in Kenai has held the [2008] law does not cover texting. Additionally, a supervising judge in Fairbanks has indicated she would direct her magistrates to also issue the same ruling; however, her directive may be pending. He was unsure if any other cases have had favorable rulings, but he was aware that some drivers have signed plea agreements admitting to texting while driving. He said the district attorney's office has taken the position that the activity was intended to be illegal. He advised members that the cases are currently on appeal, and the Department of Law and Legislative Legal and Research Services ("Legislative Legal") is comfortable with the language. 1:12:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked to place on the record that under this bill a driver could pull over and park in a parking lot or driveway and legally text; however, texting by the driver is illegal activity when the vehicle is in motion on the roadway. 1:13:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT also wanted to ensure the record is clear on HB 255 since issues have arisen with respect to a previous bill that passed the legislature [2008], but the legislative intent could not be determined. He asked for clarification that HB 255 would not apply to a person unlocking his/her cell phone. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that this bill is very specific and does not regulate talking on cell phones so if HB 255 were to pass it would not be illegal for people to unlock their cell phone to make a phone call. He cautioned members of other bills currently before the legislature may apply to cell phone use and could impose restrictions if any of them passes the legislature. 1:14:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding HB 255 would not apply to a driver dialing a number on a cell phone. REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed. He said that a driver could dial a number, press the answer button, and do anything else a person normally would do to talk on his/her cell phone. He reiterated that various proposals are before the legislature, but restricting phone use is not in HB 255. 1:15:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out that many smart phones have a global positioning system (GPS), such as MapQuest. He inquired as to whether people would be prohibited from using these types of systems. REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed MapQuest and GPS mapping would be allowed in HB 255, noting that the use of these types of systems was covered when the original bill, sponsored by Representatives Gruenberg and Gatto passed the legislature [in 2008.] 1:15:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned he has questions on the fiscal note. 1:16:13 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), introduced herself. 1:16:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the fiscal notes from the Department of Law (DOL) and from the Public Defender Agency (PDA). He noted the fiscal note from the PDA was prepared by Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender. He referred to page 2, paragraph 2, of the fiscal note analysis and read, "In some communities where judicial officers have concluded that texting and driving is not covered by the current statute, District Attorneys are no longer pursuing charges for texting and driving". He stated he was not aware of the DOL's position. Instead, he understood that cases were being dismissed so they could be appealed. He further understood the DOL was pursuing this since the department's position is that the magistrate's decision in this instance is "wrong on the law." He inquired as to whether she was aware of any communities in which cases were not being pursued. MS. CARPENETI answered she was unaware of any cases not being pursued. She related her understanding the DOL has been petitioning decisions by the magistrates and while the appeals are not automatic the DOL has asked that the matter of legality of the matter to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. She agreed that the DOL's position has been that this conduct is covered by the statute originally passed in 2008. 1:18:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he simply has not been aware of this situation. He agreed that any decision not to prosecute would impact the fiscal note. Although the finance committee will considered fiscal impact, but he stated that he would appreciate confirmation as to whether the prosecutorial activity is happening. He said he strongly hoped that the DOL was pursuing these cases. MS. CARPENETI offered to research this and respond to the committee. 1:20:55 PM QUINLAN STEINER Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency, offered to respond to questions about the fiscal note. He related his understanding that Representative Gruenberg had questions on whether district attorneys were prosecuting cases in all communities. He reported that he obtained his information for the fiscal note analysis from the DOL's Deputy Attorney General Rick Svobodny. He advised committee members that the cases have not been pursued in all jurisdictions. He concluded that passing HB 255 would impact full prosecutions in all communities in the state with a district attorney's office. 1:22:07 PM CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the impact of prosecution on the fiscal note. MR. STEINER responded that as long as the cases involving texting while driving were being fully pursued and drivers were being arrested it wouldn't have a fiscal impact; however, it just depends on the assumptions. He described the assumptions, such as whether police were arresting for the texting while driving activity, if the district attorneys' offices were pursuing all cases, and also if the parties were being fully prosecuted. He said when he prepared the fiscal note that he assumed the cases were not being prosecuted in all communities. CHAIR P. WILSON said she would like a definite answer by the next committee. MR. STEINER was unsure if he could provide that information definitively, but he offered to follow up with the DOL. 1:23:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that this is a policy question. He related his understanding that the cases involving texting while driving were being pursued until a decision had been issued by one judge. He surmised this has led to a hiatus, in which some communities may not be pursuing texting while driving cases. He acknowledged that the fiscal note is a matter for the finance committee to review; however, he wondered whether this situation was temporary, and if so, and how that may affect the fiscal impact. 1:24:43 PM MR. STEINER offered to clarify with the Department of Law to be certain of the historical prosecution of these cases. He acknowledged the ambiguity this has created and agreed to follow up on it. 1:25:16 PM KATE SAKEGAK, a Denali Montessori student, provided testimony on HB 255. She stated that driver distraction is biggest reason for vehicle accidents. She explained that drivers become distracted by their phone screen at the same time as the crash. She identified the reason that texting while driving causes distraction is that drivers can't focus on a small screen and at traffic while their vehicle is moving. She compared this to her own experience. She stated that her mother will not allow her to watch television while she is doing her homework since the television creates a distraction. Finally, she pointed out the safety of all is worth a small limit on personal freedom. CHAIR P. WILSON thanked Ms. Sakegak for her testimony. 1:27:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report HB 255 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purpose of discussion. He suggested the committee make a recommendation rather than individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated his motion, including the recommendation of "do pass," as follows: Representative Pruitt moved to report HB 255 out of committee with the recommendation of "do pass" and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no further objection, HB 255 was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.