Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/16/2022 10:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| State Board of Parole|| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| SB182 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB256 | |
| SB156 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 256-LAW ENFORCEMENT: REGISTRY; USE OF FORCE
11:36:48 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Police Standards Council; relating to municipal correctional
officers and municipal correctional employees; making municipal
police officers subject to police standards; requiring the
Department of Public Safety to submit a yearly use-of-force
report to the legislature; requiring a municipality that employs
a person as a municipal police officer or in a municipal
correctional facility, the Department of Corrections, or the
Department of Public Safety to report to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation incidents of use of force by state and municipal
police, probation, parole, and correctional officers and
municipal correctional facility employees; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 256(CRA).]
11:37:03 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
11:38:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, prime sponsor, introduced CSHB 256(CRA).
She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 256 establishes a use-of-force database
under AS 44.41.055 that will be overseen by the
Department of Public Safety which will collect reports
of use of force by a municipal police officer,
municipal correctional facility employee, a probation
officer, parole officer, correctional officer, state
trooper, village public safety officer, or regional
officer. This report will be submitted by the
Department of Public Safety under AS 44.41.020(h). The
Alaska Police Standards Council shall maintain a
central registry with information that the Council
obtains from the Department of Public Safety, the
Department of Corrections, or a municipality.
This bill also requires the Alaska Police Standards
Council to adopt regulations that require a police
officer, probation officer, parole officer, municipal
officer, or correctional officer to report to a
supervisor when an incident of force or deadly force
occurred or in a situation in which an officer was
prepared to use deadly force. This report will also
include demographic information such as the person
whom the force was used, age, gender identity, and
sexual orientation if freely given by the individual.
Additionally, the officer who used the force and the
borough or census area in which the use of force
occurred.
Currently, there is no database that tracks instances
of use-of-force within the State of Alaska. While this
database will not be open to the public, it will be
shared for employment purposes amongst departments and
agencies who may be hiring an officer or employee as
well as the Alaska State Legislature. This will allow
for transparency among agencies and will close
loopholes that allow officers to be hired on to
another agency after being fired for use-of-force
incidents or certificate denial or revocation.
11:47:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what kind of feedback the bill
sponsor had received from smaller law enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said much of the conversation had been
around implementation and what information would be gathered
from each incident of force or deadly force. She acknowledged
that all of the large agencies in Alaska approximately 80
percent of police officers - were already participating in the
use-of-force database, and that capturing the last 20 percent
would come from the smaller agencies.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Howell to comment from the
perspective of the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
11:50:59 AM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
DPS, stated that DPS already collected data from law enforcement
agencies and reported portions to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), such as uniform crime reporting (UCR)
statistics, which was similar to the proposed use-of-force
database. She explained that DPS staff was reaching out to
agencies to encourage participation in information submittal,
which was currently voluntary. She noted that additional
federal grant funds were being pursued to assist in creating an
easier method for agencies to submit information to the FBI.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that 80 percent of public
safety officers were already reporting the data.
MS. HOWELL deferred to Ms. Purinton.
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, DPS, reported that 20
agencies were registered to report, of which 5 had less than 20
officers in the department.
11:54:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the requirement in [Section
11] stating that all municipal correction officers or municipal
police officers must complete the requirements of AS 18.65.240
was necessary given the recruiting and retention issues.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that the officers would be given a
two-year timeframe to complete that requirement, per CSHB
256(CRA). She explained that the two-year timeframe was added
in response to the concern voiced by Representative Eastman.
She believed that the representative had referenced an old
version of the bill. Additionally, she noted that a "good
portion" of municipal correction officers were already receiving
the training, which was being provided at no cost to the state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected to share his understanding that
the committee was looking at Version A of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that a committee substitute was
adopted in the Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee
(CRA).
11:57:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:57 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
12:00:19 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the current version of the bill,
CSHB 256(CRA), had been distributed. He requested a summary of
changes in the current version of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR provided a brief summary of changes, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Following feedback from our partners, we have included
several changes to HB 256:
? Section 7 in Version 32-LS1341\A, referring to DOC
reporting use of force from probation officers, parole
officers, or correctional officers to the FBI, is
removed. All subsequent sections are renumbered in
Version [I].
? Section 8*: References to village public safety
officers and regional public safety officers are
removed.
? Section 9*: A reference to the Department of
Corrections is removed.
? Section 12*: Increases the one-year compliance
timeline to two years in order to allow for more
training academy cycles.
? Section 13*: References to the Department of
Corrections and correctional facilities are removed.
12:02:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether 12 hours of training on
domestic violence or sexual assault could be covered in a
standalone program. He shared his understanding that currently,
it was included in the academy's curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said there was no desire to change the
academy's current training.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to a question from
Representative Eastman, clarified that the municipal correction
officers had their own academy.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which an officer
attended an out-of-state academy, came in as a lateral hire, or
graduated from the academy years ago. He asked whether they
would be required to undergo the new training outlined in
Section 11.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that the provisions in the bill
would only apply to those hired after the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed confusion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Goode to speak to the issue.
12:07:11 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, DOC, conveyed that all but two
communities used the DOC academy. She explained that the two-
year requirement would allow the officers to complete the
training on a more flexible timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his concern that the language
on page 4, lines 8-9, suggested that all employees including
those that had already graduated from the academy would have
to meet the training requirement outlined in Section 11 within
two years, which was not the bill sponsor's intent. He
suggested changing the language.
MS. GOODE agreed that it would be a policy call. She said she
had understood the language to indicate that the two remaining
communities - Bristol Bay and Craig would be brought into the
DOC correctional officer academy, suggesting that those officers
would be required to attend the academy training within two
years.
12:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the language in Section 1,
"an incident in which an officer used deadly force or prepared
to use deadly force against a person" was broad. He inquired
about the meaning of that phrase.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR indicated that the federal definition was
highlighted in a document [included in the committee packet],
titled "National Use-of-Force Data Collection Flyer," from the
U.S. Department of Justice. She deferred to Ms. Howell to
provide the statutory definition.
MS. HOWELL, citing DPS policy, defined "prepares to use" as
follows:
unholstering a weapon with the intention of preparing
to use it against a specific individual or group.
Unholstering a weapon and directing it towards a
specific person or group even if that person is not
aware this action requires a use-of-force report;
however, conducting a building search or similar
operation with an unholstered weapon where no person
or group is encountered would not be reportable. It
is not the mere unholstering of a weapon that triggers
the reporting requirement, but the directing of that
weapon against a particular person or group.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the department's policy
would be incorporated into statute.
MS. HOWELL could not speak to other agencies' policies.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "use of force" was defined
in statute or whether the definition would be drawn from DPS
policy.
MS. HOWELL stated that both "force" and "deadly force" were
defined in statute under AS 11.81.900.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the agency had a formal
position on the proposed legislation.
MS. HOWELL read a prepared statement, which suggested that DPS
had existing measures in place for reporting use of force
incidents. She opined that the bill would reinforce current DPS
policies and practices. She stated that the department
supported such efforts to increase transparency and build trust
with the public.
12:16:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 256(CRA) was held over.