Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/13/2015 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 9-PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS/AGENCIES
3:38:45 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 9, "An Act providing for the licensing and
regulation of private investigators and private investigator
agencies; and providing for an effective date."
3:39:25 PM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor,
Representative Shelley Hughes, offered to review the original
version of the bill and highlight any changes that were
incorporated into the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
9, Version H. This bill would establish licensing and
regulation of private investigators and private investigator
agencies.
MS. BLAISDELL indicated that a similar bill came before the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee last year and the
committee recommended changes, which were incorporated into the
original version of HB 9 this legislative session. She provided
a section-by-section analysis of HB 9. Section 1 would require
the private investigator job class to be added to the list of
professional licenses the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development oversees. The private investigator license
requirements would add requirements beyond the current standard
business license for private investigators. The initial bill,
HB 9, established two classifications: a private investigator
and a private investigator agency. The scope of practice
identified the types of tasks a private investigator could
perform such as investigating criminal offenses, considering the
identity and habits of individuals, or basically conducting
general surveillance activities. Private investigators could
work for a variety of people, not just one entity, noting that
private investigator services can be contracted by the public or
by other companies.
MS. BLAISDELL reviewed the general requirements for licensure,
including that a private investigator must be a US citizen, not
be convicted of a felony within the past ten years, or have been
convicted by another jurisdiction of a crime of moral turpitude
or sexual misconduct. She stated that moral turpitude was
defined in statute to include crimes such as murder or rape.
Applicants cannot be on probation or parole or be declared by
the court as incompetent, be currently employed as a peace
officer or as an agent of the US conducting investigative work,
nor could they have a conflict of interest as determined by the
[Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development].
3:44:27 PM
MS. BLAISDELL related that the bill, HB 9, originally
contemplated two different classes of licenses: the professional
private investigator and a paraprofessional class, with each
class requiring slightly different levels of education. The
license application process outlined that applicants must submit
to fingerprinting and an investigation, in which the department
would conduct an investigation to identify and "weed out"
applicants who should not be awarded a license. In addition,
private investigators who held private investigator licenses in
another jurisdiction could apply for reciprocity in Alaska, she
said. Under the bill, the department would issue a professional
license identification and an agency certificate plus it would
require bonding and liability provisions. The license renewal
would be non-transferable, which is a provision that will be
retained in the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 9,
Version H [not yet before the committee], since licenses should
not be transferable. She noted that firearms training was added
last year in a hearing on a similar bill for private
investigator licensure. Although anyone in Alaska can have a
"concealed carry" weapon permit, due to the nature of the work,
it was felt that private investigators should be subject to a
firearms training course. She stated that confidentiality of a
licensee's personal identifying information was initially
included, but the provisions have proven difficult for the
division, so the language [Sec. 08.85.250] was removed in
proposed Version H.
3:47:12 PM
MS. BLAISDELL turned to [Sec. 08.85.260] to prohibited
practices, which would allow the department to impose
disciplinary sanctions, including revoking a license or imposing
a fine for inappropriate activity. This section would clearly
identify the types of circumstances for which the department
could impose fines on licensees. She directed attention to the
immunity for complainants, [under Sec. 08.85.270] which was
added due to a lawsuit. She related that the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) provisions would allow the department to
adopt regulations for private investigators. She directed
attention to the long list of exemptions, which includes people
who would not need to comply with private investigator
licensure.
3:48:23 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to definitions for the
commissioner and department that would oversee the private
investigator program. The transitional provisions would provide
"grandfathering in" of current private investigators until their
licenses were renewed. She stated that the original bill, [HB
9], had an effective date of July 2015.
3:49:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version H, labeled 29-LS0056\H,
Strasbaugh, 3/12/15 as the working document.
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:50:41 PM
MS. BLAISDELL pointed out that she "redlined" a copy of the
original version of the bill, [HB 9], and offered to highlight
the changes included in the proposed committee substitute for HB
9, Version H.
CHAIR OLSON asked whether she could provide the committee with a
side-by-side comparison outlining the changes in Version H for
the committee.
MS. BLAISDELL agreed to do so.
3:51:31 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 1 of Version H, which
has a slight change in the title to reflect changes made in the
bill. Section 1 would remain the same, but would add regulation
of private investigators to the professional licensure class of
jobs. On page 1, line 9, references to private investigator
agencies were removed, so even if a person owned an agency, the
license would be limited solely to the private investigator who
conducts the private investigator's duties. On page 2, line 18
[Sec. 08.85.110] the scope of practice added language, which
read, "A license entitles an individual to operate a private
investigator agency as an individual, a partner, or chief
executive officer of a corporation."
3:53:08 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 2, line 20, of Version
H, which would establish general requirements for private
investigators. She clarified that the language in the original
bill appeared to allow the DCCED to make the determination on
"moral turpitude," however, moral turpitude was defined in
statute. This provision was removed in Version H, since most of
the crimes of this type fall under Section 2 to those convicted
of a felony. She clarified that language was left to prohibit
persons convicted of sexual offenses from becoming private
investigators.
3:54:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on whether
this language would only apply to felonies. She asked whether
some misdemeanors, such as crimes of dishonesty should also be
included.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that she was not sure whether dishonesty
would be classified as a misdemeanor or a felony. She suggested
that was part of the reason "moral turpitude" was placed in the
original bill; however, due to significant public opposition,
the provision was removed. She suggested this could be
something the committee could further consider.
3:55:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he was concerned with the bill
from the outset since it was "just too much in just about every
respect." He acknowledged that Representative LeDoux made a
good point, since crimes of dishonesty are impeachable in court,
but a client may wish to know if the private investigator who
acted as a witness in court was impeachable. He suggested that
fact could be an important point.
3:56:07 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 2, lines 29-30, to paragraph (5)
of Version H, which would preclude applicants who may have been
declared by a court to be mentally incompetent. One item
removed from the original bill was that a person dishonorably
discharged from the armed forces of the United States could not
serve as a private investigator. After further review, it was
suggested that the meaning of "dishonorable discharge" has
changed over time. She said that dishonorable discharges issued
during the Vietnam War related to fairly egregious crimes that
were committed; however, more recently some of the dishonorable
discharges issued are related to such things as military members
who suffered from alcohol addiction or post-traumatic stress
syndrome, which may not necessarily be disqualifying reasons to
work in this professional job class. Another paragraph [(7)]
was removed that disqualified applicants who were employed in
other jobs, such as peace officers or those who work in other
state or federal law enforcement positions. This provision was
removed because it was likely that the employee would have
signed a waiver with respect to employment. [On page 3, lines
13-14, subparagraph (C), of Version A] language was also
removed, which read, "in a position the department determines to
represent a conflict of interest for the prospective licensee."
This language was removed since it appeared to leave significant
discretion to the department with respect to determining any
conflicts of interest.
3:58:43 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to the private investigator
license [AS 08.85.130, Version H] on page 3, beginning on line
1, which read, "Applicants must be at least 21 years of age and
pay the required fee." She suggested that the committee also
consider removing language on page 3, lines 5-20, which would
require minimum educational requirements for the two classes of
private investigator licenses. This language was inadvertently
not removed during the development of Version H, she said.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention on page 3, lines 21-31, of
Version H, to the license application process. Instead of
listing every single piece of identifying information, the
applicant can now choose the appropriate application form, she
said.
4:00:25 PM
CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that three political
jurisdictions, including Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau
currently offer private investigator licenses.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that the City of Fairbanks and the
[Municipality] of Anchorage offer private investigator licenses,
but Juneau does not currently do so.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER in the audience interjected that "it was on
the books in Kenai, but it hasn't been enforced."
4:01:07 PM
MS. BLAISDELL stated that applicants must sign their
application, attesting that the information is true, rather than
necessitating that the department verify that the information on
the application is true and accurate. If an applicant submits
false information, the applicant could be prosecuted for the
offense, she said, plus, the applicant must submit fingerprints
and fees for a national criminal history background check.
4:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the applicant would sign
under penalty of perjury that everything on the application was
true.
MS. BLAISDELL was unsure, but suggested that additional language
could be added.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON pointed out that the language was also on
page 5, line 22 of the marked-up redline version of [HB 9].
4:02:27 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to the language that removed
the requirement for a notarized signature [page 5, lines 24-25,
of HB 9]. The sponsor initially wanted applicants to show their
identification in order to verify who they were, but changed it
to allow applicants to sign that the information was accurate,
so the requirement for the notarized signature was also removed.
4:03:14 PM
MS. BLAISDELL turned to the requirement for fingerprints. She
said she reviewed the screening process for fingerprinting
requirements, noting the reason to submit fingerprints for each
application was to recognize that the criminal history for the
person submitting the information could change. Fingerprints
remain as the only source of identifying a person, since the
bill does not recognize DNA [Deoxyribonucleic acid] or
biometrics since the national identification index holds
fingerprints, but does not retain DNA or iris scans or other
types of biometrics. Fingerprints can help identify other alias
an applicant has used, plus it is part of the interstate
compact, she said.
4:04:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether fingerprint requirements are
required for license renewal.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that another section in the bill requires
fingerprints be submitted once every 10 years to update the
private investigator's criminal history; however, applicants can
have multiple renewals within that 10-year period.
4:04:49 PM
CHAIR OLSON said he did not think that was standard procedure,
since he holds several professional licenses. He recalled he
was able to use one set of fingerprints to apply for reciprocity
in several other states.
MS. BLAISDELL didn't specifically recall the source of this
language, but suggested it was derived from another state's
requirements. She further recalled that the program she used as
a model required a background check every third application
renewal.
CHAIR OLSON also did not think the Alaska Bar Association
required that type of requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that she submitted one
set of fingerprints when she was initially licensed in Alaska
for the bar, but wasn't required to submit to subsequent
fingerprinting.
4:06:02 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 4 of Version H to the
requirement of two photographs for the applicant. She suggested
the department might decide to issue private investigator
identification cards at a later date.
4:06:43 PM
MS. BLAISDELL said that on page 4, line 5, [subsection (d) of
Version H], the department shall require that an application for
a license issued under this chapter be submitted with notice
that false statements are punishable as unsworn falsification in
the second degree under AS 11.56.210. She was unsure if that
language would help satisfy Representative LeDoux's earlier
concern about perjury on applications.
CHAIR OLSON asked that the record reflect that Representative
LeDoux agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she was curious about the
provision, but not necessarily concerned.
4:07:38 PM
MS. BLAISDELL related some time consuming provisions were
removed from the application process, including the need for
letters of recommendations, documentation to substantiate that
the applicant met the requirements, and the need for the
department to conduct an investigation. Instead, the
application process relies on the applicant's word that the
information is true, rather than require a notarized signature
on the application form, which should simplify the application
process.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 4, line 8 [of Version
H] to [proposed AS 08.85.150] to the unlawful practices for
private investigator agencies. She said a private investigator
may operate a private investigator agency if the person holds a
private investigator license and carries an insurance policy, a
surety bond or other form of security for not less than $15,000,
which was fairly standard practice for many businesses. She
pointed out that initially the bill established a class A
misdemeanor for anyone who knowingly violated this provision,
but due to adverse public comment, the penalty was changed to a
violation under AS 12.55.
4:09:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone operating an agency
without a license or a policy of insurance would constitute a
violation.
MS. BLAISDELL answered yes; that it would similar to failure to
obtain requirements for being licensed and bonded.
4:10:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a person who doesn't hold a
private investigator license but operates as a private
investigator would be guilty of a violation. She asked for
further clarification on the punishment under AS 12.55.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that AS 12.55 relates to the code of
criminal procedure, with a wide variety of punishments,
sentencing and probation. She suggested that the level of
punishment would likely be decided in regulation by the
department. She added that the public felt that misdemeanors
and criminal fines did not seem warranted.
4:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the highest fine could be under
AS 12.55 for a violation.
MS. BLAISDELL suggested that it would be left to the discretion
of the department to establish by regulation.
4:11:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his belief that a violation was
considered an infraction, with a maximum fine of a few hundred
dollars.
MS. BLAISDELL pointed out in members' packets was a five-page
list from the Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing (DCBPL) entitled "Criminal Prosecution
[Authority]," which lists criminal misdemeanors and felonies for
every profession. However, at this point, the bill would limit
the maximum offense to violation and the process to develop
regulations would set the penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that this list was useful to him
since he had concerns about the penalties.
4:13:24 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 4, line 15 of Version H
to the license renewal and nontransferability in [proposed AS
08.85.160]. This language was also included in the original
bill, with the exception of line 27, in which the department may
require a new set of fingerprints within 10 years. She
suggested that the committee may wish to review proposed
subsection (d).
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 5, line 3, to,
prohibited practices [proposed AS 08.85.170]. This language
mirrored the language in the original bill, and would allow the
department to sanction a private investigator. Since the
private investigator structure was established without a board,
the department will assume the responsibility that a board might
otherwise undertake.
4:15:11 PM
MS. BLAISDELL advised members that Version H also removed
firearms training requirements [in proposed AS 08.85.240 and AS
08.85.250 on page 9 of the original bill and confidentiality of
licensee's personal identifying information]. In addition,
immunity for complainants [on page 10, proposed AS 08.85.270 of
Version A] was also removed.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 6, lines 9-10, to the
Administrative Procedure Act reference, which would allow the
department to implement regulations that was also in the
original bill.
4:15:52 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 6, lines 11-31 through
page 8, line 5, of Version H to exemptions, [which mirror
provisions in HB 9]. She reviewed the exemptions and the
rationale used for them. She directed attention to paragraph
(1), which refers to investigations conducted by a human
resources department, who investigate prospective employees and
conduct background checks within the affairs of the employer.
Thus the internal staff would obtain information on prospective
employees, but those activities do not extend to the public, she
said.
MS. BLAISDELL said paragraph (2) relates to an officer or
employee of the US, such as police officer, who have the
statutory duty to perform investigations in the course of
performing his/her official duties. Paragraph (3) would relate
to a person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining
financial information, such as companies who offer loans or
credit services that are restricted to financial services only.
She said that paragraph (4) related to investigations by an
attorney, while performing duties as an attorney, noting these
professionals are licensed and subject to ethics. Paragraph (5)
relates to investigations conducted by a licensed collection
agency, who perform investigations for the specific purpose of
soliciting collections.
4:18:06 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to additional exemptions,
including paragraph (6) for claim adjustors, who investigate the
facts of an incident and do not investigate the general public;
and paragraph (7) for an employee of a bank, who conduct duties
within the scope of his/her employment, noting there activities
do not extend to the general public, but are limited to the
scope of employment to the bank. She stated that paragraph (8)
relates to activities of a licensed insurance adjuster who
performs duties within the scope of the adjuster's license; and
paragraph (9), relates to "repo" work, by the owner of the debt
if the debtor does not pay, which is covered under uniform
commercial code (UCC). She said that paragraph (10) relates to
a forensic scientist, who basically assembles facts to support
an opinion, but does not investigate behavior; and paragraph
(11) relates to those gathering information from other records,
such as using Alaska's CourtView [public access website] or
Google, but were not offering services beyond what the public
can access. She stated that (12) related to a person solely
engaged in pre-employment or human resources background
screening, which does not include surveillance, but might be
someone performing lie detector screenings or fingerprints;
while paragraph (13) exempted news media, who conduct
journalistic investigations.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to paragraph (14), which would
exempt a person from another jurisdiction who holds a private
investigator license, who might be conducting a specific
incident review. She specifically pointed out that subparagraph
(B), would allow private investigators reciprocity in the state
for less than 30 days in a calendar year, but beyond that the
out-of-state investigator would need to obtain licensure in
Alaska.
4:20:53 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to paragraph (15), which would
exempt process servers, who are licensed to perform duties under
the Alaska Rules of Court; and to paragraph (16), which would
exempt a paralegal in the employ of an attorney or law firm.
She stated that paragraph (17) would allow a person to conduct
genealogical research; and paragraph (18) would exempt a person
who conducts fact-finding investigations in order to determine
the cause of a fire, explosion, or accident.
4:21:28 PM
MS. BLAISDELL indicated a significant number of people assess
information for businesses and agencies, but two key elements
specifically apply to private investigators: that the private
investigator can work for multiple entities rather than just one
employer; and the private investigator was authorized to conduct
surveillance.
4:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version H, was vastly improved over
the original bill; however, he still has several questions.
With respect to the right to surveil, he was unsure of the
extent that these rights encroach on AS 18.66, which relates to
restraining orders. He suggested that the sponsor may wish to
give some thought to those provisions. In addition, he pointed
out that paragraph (15) would exempt process servers, who
perform surveillance activities, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled earlier testimony, that the
public can perform these investigative task themselves; however,
he questioned whether that identifies the correct test, since a
lot of what private investigators can do, a person can also do
themselves. For example, a person can record a conversation
unless it is law enforcement doing the recording, he said.
CHAIR OLSON clarified that one party must be aware of the
recording.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed that the aforementioned
exemptions were necessary.
4:23:39 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 8, line 6, of Version H, noting
the definition section did not change. She referred to page 8,
line 13, licensing of private investigators, which would reserve
the authority to license private investigators except as
specifically provided in statute. Under this provision,
municipalities cannot enforce the licensure of private
investigators since it will allow licensees to conduct business
in any part of the state. Currently, if a private investigator
was operating in a city without a licensure program, the private
investigator wouldn't need any license [other than a business
license], but if the private investigator was working in
Anchorage, he/she would go through the process to obtain
municipal licensure, including paying fees. She described this
section as creating a "one license fits all."
4:24:54 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to the last change made in the
transitional provisions, which would change the date from July
1, 2015 to July 1, 2016 to allow the department sufficient time
to implement regulations and allow time for applicants to go
through the process to obtain licensure.
4:25:20 PM
MS. BLAISDELL noted that currently a person who obtains a
business license may indicate investigative services as the job
class, which would allow them access private information in 70
to 80 databases without undergoing a background check, by paying
a $50 fee for a business license and a small fee, such as a $10
fee to access a database. Thus private investigators can
currently gain access to the Division of Motor Vehicles' (DMV)
information, including obtaining information on license holders,
such as driving infractions, insurance carriers, vehicle
lienholders, and their physical addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for further clarification that
this can be currently be done.
MS. BLAISDELL answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether this bill would change
this ability.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that this bill will provide protections,
since a person working as a private investigator must submit to
a background check and pay a professional license fee. Although
she was uncertain of the amount of private investigator
licensing fees, she hoped instituting fees would deter some
people from applying.
4:27:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for further clarification on
which bill section would preclude him from accessing CourtView.
He expressed concern over disallowing 700,000 Alaskans from
accessing information that they currently can access. He asked
whether that was something the bill would do.
MS. BLAISDELL answered no; that the general public would not be
precluded from accessing public databases. Instead, this bill
would establish licensure requirements for private
investigators, which would be the access point to private
databases. She stated that private investigators can currently
obtain a business license and access databases to obtain
information.
4:28:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if the bill were to pass, whether
it would prevent people from paying a $50 fee for a business
license to access databases containing private information.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that under HB 9, [Version H], a person
would need to go through a background check, submit a completed
application, and be awarded a private investigator's
professional license in order to have access to databases
containing confidential information. She said that under the
bill if a person was interested in accessing private databases,
the person would need to go through the private investigator
licensing process to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON thought he heard the answer was yes.
MS. BLAISDELL agreed.
4:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what private databases people can
access with a business license.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that people can access the DMV's database
by paying a $10 fee. She said the access criteria requires a
business license by the state that indicates the person provides
investigative services.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said it sounded like the DMV database in
question was a state database and not a private database.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that the general public cannot query DMV
and obtain the same information.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested she would like to speak to the
DMV to get further information.
4:31:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested that "private" in this context
referred access to personal information not otherwise available.
She said the public can search the DMV database, but this bill
would reach into another layer of information. In response to a
question by Representative Josephson, she replied that people
would need to become licensed as a private investigator;
however, they do not need to operate a practice in order to have
access to personal information. She explained that as sponsor,
her primary concern was about protection of personal
information, which is very important during this electronic age.
She has discovered instances in which a person's privacy was
invaded and this protection for Alaskans is important. This
bill has evolved as a result of input she has received.
Certainly, a significant number of private investigators are
doing good work, helping Alaskans and she does not want to
hinder the private investigators practicing in Alaska, but to
"shore up the profession," allow it to be more credible, and to
enhance the respect the field should have, while providing
Alaskans with the comfort that they are also protected.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said this hearing may have identified a
problem beyond this bill if the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
has been giving out private information.
4:33:55 PM
MS. BLAISDELL said she researched investigators licensed in
Anchorage and Fairbanks. She noted that 46 licensed private
investigators operate in Anchorage. She further asked the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) to project the financial impact
if the MOA was no longer licensing private investigators. The
MOA anticipated a reduction in revenue of $4,600 if HB 9 passed.
She reported that Fairbanks currently licenses 17 private
investigators, and charges $400 for a biennial license. The
City of Fairbanks estimated an anticipated reduction in revenue
of $2,000 per year. She indicated that Fairbanks has not had
any complaints against private investigators, but the
Municipality of Anchorage recalled one complaint, although that
case was referred to the police.
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Representative Josephson's concern
about stalking, said that the aforementioned complaint related
to that type of activity, which was turned over to the police.
She stated that the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development had 96 business licenses that listed investigative
services as the services offered. She estimated approximately
50 private investigators in the state currently provide
investigative work, with an additional 50 out-of-state licensees
offering services, although many of the out-of-state- licenses
likely were "state stacking" in order to add Alaska to the
number of states in which the person was licensed, but the
private investigator did not actually practice in Alaska. She
said the private investigators are a small, but important group
of professionals.
4:35:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether this bill was introduced
due to a kidnapped barista case.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that the aforementioned case was
certainly an eye opener, but other reasons exist in terms of
licensing private investigators in Alaska. She offered her
belief that this bill will improve public safety for Alaskans.
4:36:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Version H was before the committee.
4:36:56 PM
CHAIR OLSON opened public testimony on HB 9, Version H.
4:37:18 PM
STEVE CHRISTOPHER, Owner, Investigative Services of Alaska, LLC,
with respect to the public safety aspect, indicated that current
laws protect the public from private investigators and other
individuals. For example, he said the situation with the
barista constituted fraud so the public had other criminal and
civil penalties available to provide protection. Secondly, the
state prosecutes offenses, such as impersonation of a police
officer, so the current statutes protect the public from that
type of activity. As far as private investigators having access
to databases, he offered his belief that a private person can
access the same information. For example, Motznik Information
Services provides Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV) information
and anyone can pay fees to obtain access to that data, which
does not require a private investigator license; however, the
information provided is limited to the name of the individual,
the vehicle, and the lienholder, but not personal information.
In terms of exemptions, he directed attention to paragraph (14),
which he said promotes out-of-state hire since the average rate
in Alaska is significantly higher than the Lower 48. He offered
his belief that the Lower 48 investigative rates are $15-20 per
hour as compared to Alaska's rates of $50 to $100 per hour. He
expressed concern that the insurance companies could hire Lower
48 private investigators since it will be cheaper to fly them to
Alaska, yet the Lower 48 investigator can avoid the licensure
process.
4:40:29 PM
MR. CHRISTOPHER said that if he travels to the Lower 48, he must
pay a fee to practice, which is not how it happens in Alaska.
He said that many of the background sites simply require a
person to pay a fee to obtain any information a private
investigator can currently access, except for a few sites such
as the LexisNexis Group data that requires special clearance;
therefore private investigators cannot access the information.
He said that databases have safeguards in place to prevent
people from obtaining personal information. He pointed out he
has addressed other issues, such as fingerprints, in letters of
opposition he has previously sent in. He related his
understanding that "violations" typically relate to fish and
game offenses; however, he has not found any occupations subject
to class A misdemeanor or felony charges.
4:41:34 PM
WILLIAM PARLIER, Owner, McHenry Detective Agency, stated that he
owns the McHenry Detective Agency, which was established in
1975. He said he purchased the company in 1993 and has been
actively engaged as a private investigator for 22 years. He
offered his belief that most of the people involved as private
investigators work as part-time investigators. He said he
agreed with Mr. Christopher's testimony. He explained his
issues relate to what constitutes a private investigator. He
stated that he reviewed the ACS [Alaska Communications Group,
Inc.] June 2014 yellow pages and found 29 listings for private
investigators or detectives. He telephoned each of them and
found that 13 of 29 listings for private investigators were not
functioning numbers and had been disconnected. He identified
seven private investigators currently operating in Anchorage,
although only two were working as fulltime investigators. He
suggested the state should look at the classification term for
"employee" since many attorney firms hire private investigators,
but by definition they should fall under "employee" rather than
private investigators or private contractors. He explained that
the Department of Labor & Workforce Development's (DLWD) laws
distinguish between private contractors and employees. He asked
to read a paragraph from DLWD's website, which read, "Control is
exercised when workers are totally dependent upon the employer
economically. The employer exercises the necessary control of
the employee through monetary means. For example, a worker who
performs services primarily for one company would be
economically dependent upon that company." Therefore, any
private investigators who call themselves private investigators,
but work for one or two law firms technically are not private
investigators or independent contractors, but are actually
employees. He characterized that this [bill] was a "tempest in
a teapot." He suggested that in Anchorage there were literally
5-6 people working fulltime.
CHAIR OLSON surmised that Mr. Parlier did not like the new
version of the bill.
MR. PARLIER suggested that there are less than 10 fulltime
private investigators who currently work in Alaska.
4:46:13 PM
ROBERT SHAW, Owner, Robert Shaw Agency, stated that he has been
licensed in Alaska and by the Municipality of Anchorage since
1996, and prior to that he has worked in the field for 20 years
in the Lower 48 and overseas. While it has taken significant
time and energy to put together the background for the bill, he
did not understand why the state would make such a "big
production" for the few people involved in the private
investigator industry. He expressed concern about the
investigative services being billed out by law firms, but he
doubted any investigative services occurred, which he
characterized as fraudulent. He directed attention to the
audience in the [legislative information office] hearing room,
noting only a half dozen people showed up. He asked members to
reconsider the bill in its current format.
4:49:01 PM
JAMES HOFERER, Owner, JPH Enterprises, stated he runs a private
investigative agency in Anchorage. He grew up in California,
but he has resided in Alaska for 13 years. He studied criminal
justice and psychology at the University of California, Irvine.
After doing some work in Alaska, he decided to start his own
business since he has an interest in the law and in
investigations. He has operated a licensed private detective
agency for the last three and one-half years and has another
year remaining on his biennial license. He expressed concern
about the bill because he prides himself on the work he performs
for attorneys and private citizens. This bill makes it sound
like there has been some type of taint on the type of work
private investigators perform. He recalled Ms. Blaisdell's
testimony that 17 licensed investigators in Fairbanks have
operating without any complaints and 46 licensed private
investigators operate in Anchorage, but one complaint was filed
in the past 10 years and that complaint was referred to the
police department. He said that it does not sound like a lot of
public safety concerns about the profession exist. He offered
his belief that private investigators are doing a good job by
helping attorneys and the defense, in helping private citizens
locate relatives, or working on civil cases, such as infidelity
or workers' compensation, but these private investigators are
not getting a "fair shake." He said he thought this bill
represented an "overkill." He acknowledged that the sponsor and
committee have put in significant time and effort, but this time
and effort could be used on something more important than trying
to regulate private investigators when there have not been
complaints filed against them. In conclusion, he said the whole
premise in bringing this bill forward was a mistake, including
last year's bill that this committee heard.
4:51:36 PM
FRANK WAKE, Private Investigator, Frank Wake Private
Investigative Services, LLC, recalled reading an opinion piece a
few days ago written by Senator MacKinnon. The opinion
suggested that a bill is an "idea" or a "policy consideration"
to engage Alaskans in a discussion about their government and
how the proposed idea would affect people. Therefore he
characterized this bill, HB 9, as being a discussion. He said
that [private investigators] have offered their opinions, mostly
negative, about this bill. He has not seen any letters other
than several brief and uninspired e-mails regarding the bill,
and there are no other comments to support the proposed
legislation.
MR. WAKE wondered which committee members favored HB 9 since
significant issues have been raised about the projected costs by
the Division [of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing]. He acknowledged that he considers the projected
costs to be a big issue. In fact, this bill represents an
unknown cost based on an unknown number of potential licensees.
He trusted that members have read the letters and are aware of
[private investigators'] opposition to the bill. He considered
HB 9 to be a waste of time. As far as he was concerned other
remedies exist for any transgressions rather than licensing
private investigators. For example, people can file civil
lawsuits or criminal charges and fraud and theft can be handled
by local law enforcement. He asked members to engage in a
dialogue with private investigators since they are the ones who
will be regulated under HB 9. He asked what other concerns
exist that necessitate private investigator licensing, other
than public safety concerns, which have been found lacking. He
said that private investigators are willing to answer any
questions. In conclusion, he said he did not understand the
"burning need" for this proposed legislation. For example, he
asked whether the state has been overrun by private
investigators who are running around causing problems that
necessitate licensing the entire profession. "I haven't seen it
in my 28 years. In my opinion, there isn't a need, there isn't
a good reason, and this bill should stay right where it is as a
policy consideration to engage Alaskans in a discussion with
their government," he said.
4:54:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON said that the committee is willing to listen to the
concerns. He also expressed concern about the cost of the
program, based on the size of fiscal note.
4:54:56 PM
DENA BOUGHTON, Owner, Justice Investigations, stated that she
has been a professional investigator in Anchorage for 10 years
and her Fairbanks license is pending. She did not think the
figures presented today were accurate. She failed to see how
this bill will protect the public, given that private
investigators are licensed in Anchorage, yet an event in
Anchorage happened to the Koenig family and licensure did not
protect them. She did not see how this bill would prevent
anyone from coming into the state and conning a family.
Instead, this bill will place a burden on the people living and
working in the community. She said she lives in Alaska where
people know her and what she does for a living. She found it
difficult to imagine how she could con anyone since she has a
public business. The aforementioned databases that she can
access are also ones committee members and the public can also
access. She thanked members for considering the private
investigator profession, but she did not think it was being
considered in the right light. She has basically heard that the
bill will provide the public with protection from private
investigators, but she would like to support her colleagues who
testified today.
4:56:40 PM
ANTHONY COZZETTI, Owner, Paladin Investigations, stated that he
primarily works on legal investigations, which requires him to
go to the prisons to interview prisoners. The Department of
Corrections has been deliberately interdicting the services of a
private investigator, he said, and he hoped that the committee
will consider that once a person is licensed as a private
investigator that the state shouldn't interfere with his/her
investigations. He viewed this interference as being a
constitutional issue, in particular, when a prisoner hires
his/her own private investigator. He hoped the committee would
address this issue in the bill. Further, investigators for the
state and attorneys have been getting "a free ride," which
should be examined. Also, every paralegal works as an
investigator, but not every investigator is a paralegal, he
said, which should also be taken into consideration.
4:59:11 PM
LINK FANNON, Owner, Oracle Investigations, expressed concern
that he did not have much of an opportunity to review the
proposed committee substitute; however, some of the issues the
committee has heard today are absolutely 100 percent inaccurate.
He preferred not use the word "lie," but said the information is
simply not true. He referred to a document in members' packets,
which he thought was considered a sponsor statement, and read,
"With this credential an individual can now access 70 to 80
percent of restricted national databases that provide access to
personal information." He said, "That's not true." He recalled
an earlier question that Representative LeDoux had about the DMV
records. He replied that anyone can go through Motznik
Information Services [Motznik] to obtain the Division of Motor
Vehicle (DMV) records. He questioned the "70 to 80 percent of
restricted national databases," that private investigators can
access. He said that private investigators are private citizens
without law enforcement status or anything else that a private
citizen doesn't have. Thus the tasks that private investigators
can perform under this bill are ones private citizens can do
themselves. He further recalled that Representative Josephson
raised the idea that individuals can surveil, in fact, anyone
can watch someone, but not stalk them, since stalking raises a
different issue.
MR. FANNON emphasized that he has other problems with the bill.
He said the fiscal impact was extensive. He read from the
sponsor statement for HB 9, which read, "HB 9 is not a new
concept for Alaska nor the profession." It goes on to talk
about the Municipality of Anchorage and the City of Fairbanks
licensing of private investigators. He suggested that those
licenses were basically a background check process to weed out
people who are felons. He said that HB 9 contains extensive
restrictions. The bill attempts to protect the public from
private investigators, but then exempts most of them. He
highlighted that he previously worked as an adjustor, handling
personal injury protection cases. As a personal injury
protection adjuster, the adjuster ensures that treatment is
reasonable and necessary and related to an accident. In fact,
under the bill, adjusters work would be considered conducting an
investigation so the public doesn't need be protected against
them. He simply did not think the bill made any sense, he said.
He characterized HB 9 as "legislation looking for a problem."
MR. FANNON offered his belief that this bill was not well
thought out and included numerous ambiguities. For example, he
referred to page 6, line 8, [under prohibited practices] to
paragraph, which read "(8) failed to comply with an order issued
by the department." He said that he was unsure what that meant,
who in the department it referred to, and what order was being
referenced. He emphasized that this bill was far reaching in
terms of government overreach and with the current $50 per
barrel oil prices, he suggested that the state has a lot of
other things to worry about. He appreciated members' time today
since he knows legislators have a lot of pressing issues.
Unfortunately, this bill would affect the lives and professions
of private investigators, he said. In conclusion, he stated
that he strongly opposes HB 9 since this bill is not well
thought out, has a lot of problems, and doesn't solve anything
that has been "proposed as a problem."
5:03:08 PM
CHAIR OLSON noted that the biggest stumbling block at this point
was the fiscal note.
[HB 9 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB9 Draft Proposed Blank CS ver H.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Summary of Changes ver A to ver H.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Opposing Documents-Letter Link Fannon 3-10-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Opposing Documents-Email Sean Eichrodt 3-09-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Supporting Documents-Email Peggy Sullivan 2-25-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Supporting Documents-Email Thomas Remaley 2-24-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Supporting Documents-Pros and Cons-Rep Hughes 2-28-2015.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Title 8 Criminal Statutes 3-05-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Supporting Documents-CBPLfees FY06-FY15-(with surplus-deficit) 3-02-15 .pdf |
HL&C 3/13/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |