Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/1999 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed
for violations of municipal ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS commented that the Police Training
Fund was established to provide training for the law
enforcement and corrections community of the State.
Appropriations to this fund may be made from income derived
from the imposition of surcharges on criminal convictions.
Last year, legislation was passed expanding the types of
crimes for which a surcharge is imposed and increasing the
amount of the surcharge applied. The surcharge would be
imposed on both state and municipal law violations.
Representative G. Davis noted that recently, concern was
raised that the phrasing used in the legislation could be
interpreted as requiring surcharges to be imposed on civil
as well as criminal violations of the law. Additionally, it
was argued that if a local government did not authorize the
imposition of a surcharge, an entire ordinance could be
found invalid rather than just the section imposing the
fine.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that HB 43 is a
housecleaning measure to address two concerns. First, the
legislation clarifies that the surcharge will be imposed on
a violation of a municipal ordinance that imposes a criminal
penalty for its violation. Second, the legislation
specifies that the municipality can not enforce a penalty
for a violation unless the municipality also authorizes the
imposition of a surcharge on the violation.
Representative J. Davies asked the difference between
enforcing a penalty for the ordinance and enforcing the
ordinance. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the problem
results from the fact that the ordinance addresses an array
of conditions, and the overall ordinance creates a
possibility of imposing a penalty. The bill stipulates that
if the penalty is not imposed, none of the ordinance can be
enforced.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH
SERVICES explained that the issue is that some
municipalities are concerned that their ordinances offer a
broad range of activities which could include penalties
which differ from the statutes. A municipality could adopt
an ordinance which contains the entire code. The
municipalities were concerned that this meant that they
could not enforce their entire ordinance if the surcharge
was not imposed on the penalty.
Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that there are two ways that the
ordinances could be enforced, either through a criminal
process or through a civil process, both of which are
available to municipalities. The proposed legislation only
applies to the criminal process. The municipalities could
still choose to use a civil enforcement mechanism to file
suit and get an injunction.
Additionally, Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the ordinance could
include other concerns and that one should not enforce a
penalty for which a surcharge is required on a municipal
ordinance that is enforced through the criminal process.
That understanding addresses the enforcement concern.
Co-Chair Therriault discussed that the collected surcharges
would be placed into the Police Training Fund.
Representative G. Davis added that those funds would be
available to municipal police forces, VPSO's, correctional
officers and troopers. Representative G. Davis explained
those funds would not be used for training of animal control
officers.
Mr. Luckhaupt stated that the bill addresses two very narrow
concerns. He noted that Representative G. Davis wanted to
assuage any municipal concerns with regards to this act.
This would apply to both civil and criminal enforcement
mechanisms within a municipality, which he disagreed with.
Additional language was added to Page 2, Lines 4 & 5,
imposing a penalty authorized by AS 29.25.070(a), the
statute which clarifies municipalities adopt criminal
penalties for violations of ordinances applying to the
entire ordinance.
Representative Foster asked if a "municipality" would
include a village. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that a
municipality is a borough or city organized under present
statutes and that an unincorporated village would not be
included.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that if an area were a
village, that village would not be paying into the
surcharge, however, their VPSO's would be able to access the
training funds.
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that VPSO's are peace officers. The
Peace Officer Training Fund is basically designed for peace
officer training. VPSO's are considered peace officers for
purposes of Title 1; however, there is a question if they
are actually peace officers in that they don't have the
power to enforce laws. That information makes this section
a bit "fuzzy". If the municipality was incorporated and had
their own police force, they would clearly be entitled to
money from the fund. Grants for VPSO's are made
independently to Native Corporations in order to set up
programs.
Representative G. Davis MOVED to report HB 43 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 43 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Department
of Community and Regional Affairs dated 3/5/99 and
Department of Public Safety dated 3/5/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|