04/30/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB193 | |
| SB208 | |
| HB316 | |
| SB229 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 2024
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Chair
Senator Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to sexual assault examination kits;
establishing the sexual assault examination kit tracking system;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 193(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to the registration and titling of vehicles;
relating to electronic registration and titling; relating to the
powers of the commissioner of administration with respect to
motor vehicles; relating to the transfer of vehicles; relating
to motor vehicle liability insurance; relating to non-domiciled
commercial driver's licenses and non-domiciled commercial
learner's permits; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 208(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 316(STA) AM
"An Act relating to law enforcement requests for wireless device
location information in emergencies; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to gun violence protective orders; relating to
the crime of violating a protective order; relating to a central
registry for protective orders; relating to the powers of
district judges and magistrates; amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 265
"An Act changing the term 'child pornography' to 'child sexual
abuse material.'"
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 193
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS/TRACKING
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/24 (S) STA, FIN
03/12/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/24 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 208
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES:REGISTER;TRANSFER; INS.; LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/24 (S) STA, FIN
02/22/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/22/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/24 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: EMERG WIRELESS DEVICE LOCATION DISCLOSURE
SPONSOR(s): C.JOHNSON
02/09/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/24 (H) STA
02/27/24 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/24 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/24 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/24 (H) Moved CSHB 316(STA) Out of Committee
03/05/24 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/24 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 7DP
03/06/24 (H) DP: WRIGHT, CARPENTER, C.JOHNSON,
ALLARD, CARRICK, STORY, SHAW
03/20/24 (H) BEFORE HOUSE IN SECOND READING
03/21/24 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/21/24 (H) VERSION: CSHB 316(STA) AM
03/22/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/24 (S) STA
04/30/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 229
SHORT TITLE: GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): TOBIN
02/14/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/24 (S) STA, JUD
04/30/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE HAYES, Staff
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the explanation of changes from
Version A to B of SB 193
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Alaska Center on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 193.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, District 10
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSHB 316.
PORTIA SAMUELS, Staff
Representative Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 316.
GREG SMITH, Executive Director
The Kelsey Smith Foundation
Overland Park, Kansas
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on HB 316.
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, District I
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 229.
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Senator Löki Tobin
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 229.
CHRISTOPHER CARITA, representing self
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on SB 229.
KRYSTAL LOPILATO, Senior Policy Counsel
Every Town for Gun Safety
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on SB 229.
AOIBHEANN CLINE, State Director
National Rifle Association (NRA)
Fairfax, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 229.
DIANE DESLOOVER, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
MARIAN CLOUGH, representing self
Auke Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
JAN CAULFIELD, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
LAURA FLEMING, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
PATRICK MARTIN, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 229.
RICK MCCLURE, President
Alaska Gun Rights
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 229.
KITRA CHASYAH, representing self
South Carolina
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 229.
ODETTE EDGAR, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
LUANN MCVEY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 229.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:49 PM
CHAIR SCOTT KAWASAKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, Bjorkman, Merrick, and Chair
Kawasaki. Senator Claman arrived thereafter.
SB 193-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS/TRACKING
3:36:05 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
193, "An Act relating to sexual assault examination kits;
establishing the sexual assault examination kit tracking system;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KAWASAKI noted there was a committee substitute (CS) for
the committee to consider.
3:36:19 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited a motion.
3:36:22 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 193, work order 33-GS2317\B, as the working document.
3:36:33 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI objected for purposes of discussion.
3:36:58 PM
JOE HAYES, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the explanation of changes
from Version A to B of SB 193:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 193 - Sexual Assault Examination Kits/Tracking
Summary of Changes From
Version A to Version 33-GH2317\B
"An Act relating to sexual assault examination kits;
establishing the sexual assault examination kit
tracking system; and providing for an effective date."
Section 1:
Amendment A.5 added a new section 1 and renumbered the
subsequent sections accordingly. The new section 1 on
page 1 following line 3 of Version B amends Alaska
Statute (AS) 12.61.010(a) to add a new section to the
crime victim's right statute to include the right to
be notified of the location and testing date of a
sexual assault examination kit collected from the
victim.
Section 2:
Page 3, line 4 and requires law enforcement to send
the sexual assault examination kits to an accredited
laboratory with DPS within 20 days of receiving notice
from the healthcare provider, reducing the current
time frame of 30 days.
Page 3, line 22 requires the laboratory receiving the
completed sexual assault examination kits to complete
a DNA test on the kit within 120 days, reducing the
current time frame of six months.
Page 3, line 26 changes 7 to 14 days for healthcare
providers to gather evidence and notify appropriate
law enforcement agencies that the sexual assault kit
is available to be sent to an accredited laboratory
operated by the Department of Public Safety.
3:38:31 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN joined the meeting.
3:38:43 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI removed his objection. He found no further
objection and CSSB 193 was adopted as the working document.
3:39:05 PM
At ease
3:39:25 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting.
3:39:48 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on SB 193.
3:40:10 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Center on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 193. She opined that rape is one of the worst
things that can happen to a woman (second only to murder). She
said that rape is a life altering experience. She commented that
SB 193 offers victims a sense of control by allowing them to
track their rape kit as it moves through the investigatory
process. She added that SB 193 would shorten the timeframe for
investigations and processing. She emphasized the efforts that
have been made to shorten the timeframe. She expressed concern
about the nurse's 14-day timeframe but acknowledged that this
would provide them the time they need to adequately fill out and
turn in the necessary paperwork. She expressed appreciation for
this legislation.
3:41:54 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on SB 193.
3:41:59 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited the will of the committee.
3:42:02 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to report CSSB 193, work order 33-
GS2317\B, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
3:42:16 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no objection and CSSB 193(STA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
3:42:32 PM
At ease
SB 208-VEHICLES:REGISTER;TRANSFER; INS.; LICENSE
3:44:18 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 208, "An Act relating to the
registration and titling of vehicles; relating to electronic
registration and titling; relating to the powers of the
commissioner of administration with respect to motor vehicles;
relating to the transfer of vehicles; relating to motor vehicle
liability insurance; relating to non-domiciled commercial
driver's licenses and non-domiciled commercial learner's
permits; and providing for an effective date."
3:44:46 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited a motion.
3:44:50 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 208, work order 33-GS2373\B, as the working document.
3:45:01 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI objected for purposes of discussion.
3:45:14 PM
MR. HAYES offered the following explanation of changes from
Version A to B of SB 208:
Page 3, line 4 adds "mobile electronic devices".
Page 4, line 20, adds a requirement for drivers to
carry a physical, electronic certificate or
registration in the vehicle.
Page 8 adds "electronic" to AS 28.15.131.
Page 9, lines 24-26 adds the definition that "every
application for an electronic driver's license or
permit and the electronic drivers' licenses and
permits issued by the department."
Page 12, Section 37 amends AS 28.15.271, adding new
fees for licenses and registration as well as a new
fee for electronic driver's license or permit.
Page 13, Section 39 adds the following safeguard:
"A peace officer or other authorized representative of
the Department of Public Safety presented proof of
motor vehicle liability insurance on a mobile
electronic device shall promptly return the device to
the person once the peace officer or representative
verifies that the person possesses proof of motor
vehicle liability insurance."
Page 16, Section 49, lines 14-21 adds the following:
"A person's display of an electronic certificate of
registration on a mobile electronic device under this
subsection does not constitute consent for a peace
officer or officer or employee of the department to
access other contents of the mobile electronic device.
A peace officer presented with a mobile electronic
device under this subsection is immune from liability
resulting from damage to the device, except that a
peace officer may be liable for civil damages as a
result of the peace officer's intentional misconduct."
3:48:04 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI withdrew his objection. He found no further
objection and CSSB 208 was adopted.
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited the will of the committee.
3:48:39 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to report CSSB 208, work order 33-
GS2373\B, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
3:48:52 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no objection and CSSB 208(STA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
3:49:08 PM
At ease
HB 316-EMERG WIRELESS DEVICE LOCATION DISCLOSURE
3:51:16 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 316(STA) am, "An Act
relating to law enforcement requests for wireless device
location information in emergencies; and providing for an
effective date."
3:51:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, District 10, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of CSHB 316, said that the
intention of this legislation is to help victims and to save
lives. He stated that HB 316 would codify current practices of
law enforcement and telecommunications companies while
clarifying that the law enforcement agency determines an
investigation's emergency status. He explained that, currently,
telecommunications companies can declare that the situation is
not an emergency. In addition, HB 316 would provide liability
for telecommunications companies who, acting in good faith,
provide access to data at the request of law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged previous miscommunications
during discussions of HB 316. He clarified that this legislation
would not change current standards or requirements for doctors
providing emergency aid. He said that State v Gibson (2012)
remains the standard for emergency aid. He added that HB 316 is
intentionally limited in scope. He explained that
telecommunications companies would be required to provide the
current location of an individual's phone - and this information
must be requested by a law enforcement agency in an ongoing
emergency that involves the risk of death or serious illness. He
said that the need for this change was brought to his attention
by the Kelsey Smith Foundation. He briefly described the case
involving the abduction and death of Kelsey Smith and emphasized
that Ms. Smith could have been saved if the location of her
phone been provided to law enforcement. He shared his hope that
the provisions in HB 316 would not be needed and reiterated the
importance of having access to this information in a life-or-
death situation.
3:55:07 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked why the telecommunications company did not
provide the location information to law enforcement in the
Kelsey Smith case.
3:55:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON deferred the question.
3:55:41 PM
PORTIA SAMUELS, Staff, Representative Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said in this case, although there
was video evidence of the abduction and the parents called law
enforcement immediately, the telephone company representative
was uncertain how to address the issue. There were delays due to
checking with the company's legal representative and the
information was finally released 3.5 days later. She said that
31 states have passed "Kelsey Smith Act" legislation since Ms.
Smith's abduction in 2007. She reiterated that the telephone
company representative did not know how to handle this issue.
She emphasized that Ms. Smith was only 20 miles away; however,
by the time her body was found (3.5 days later), she had been
raped and murdered.
3:56:59 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if requiring the telecommunications company
to provide location information would conflict with any privacy
protections that exist within the phone itself.
3:57:43 PM
MS. SAMUELS replied that currently, the wireless provider
decides whether to release information. She explained that most
companies now have a process in place. She pointed out that the
narrow scope of HB 316 would only require this information to be
released to law enforcement in an ongoing emergency
investigation that meets the standard for exigency - i.e. when
someone's life is in danger and/or there is risk of bodily harm.
She added that law enforcement can obtain a search warrant if
this information is needed in other circumstances.
3:59:12 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN provided an example of a phone manufacturer that
may be concerned with issues of privacy related to the release
of this information. He asked for clarification that the
telecommunications company can override the phone manufacturer
in this instance.
3:59:30 PM
MS. SAMUELS confirmed that this is correct.
3:59:35 PM
REPRESENATIVE JOHNSON emphasized that law enforcement would not
be able to track the phone. He stated that only the last known
location of the cell phone would be provided - which narrows the
search to a 2 to 3-mile area.
4:00:00 PM
SENATOR MERRICK said that she has heard concerns from
telecommunication companies regarding how to verify if the law
enforcement is legitimate and pointed out that there have been
situations in which law enforcement was impersonated.
4:00:23 PM
MS. SAMUELS replied that HB 316 was amended to include a written
request from a law enforcement agency that is in line with
official duties. She reiterated that the request must also meet
the exigency requirement. Someone who impersonates law
enforcement is in violation and this is a class A misdemeanor.
She suggested that this change would make impersonations less
likely to occur.
4:01:19 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if it is relatively easy to request and
release this information.
4:01:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that the request and release of
this information is already in practice. He briefly described
his understanding of the process used by telecommunications
companies and law enforcement and surmised that there is
familiarity between the two that allows for a more
straightforward process. He added that his office has not
received negative feedback from any of the telecommunications
companies in the state.
4:02:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to page 1 and the
requirements for the law enforcement agency to lawfully request
this information. Moving to page 2, he pointed out the
consequences for violating these requirements. He asked if,
according to this, a police officer without a reasonable basis
to believe that someone's life is in danger would be subject to
a class A misdemeanor.
4:03:29 PM
MS. SAMUELS replied yes. She said that this section was added in
to alleviate concerns regarding potential misuse of this
process.
4:03:59 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification that a law
enforcement agent who did not have a reasonable basis to believe
there is an ongoing emergency would be subject to a class A
misdemeanor.
MS. SAMUELS replied yes.
4:04:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed concern regarding the labeling of
the related subsections and questioned whether these should be
renamed for clarity.
4:04:52 PM
MS. SAMUELS replied that she is unsure. She said it may need
clarification of the section.
4:05:06 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested that deleting "sub" from
"subsection" may provide the necessary clarification.
4:05:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that they are not bill
drafters.
4:05:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that the wording is not clear.
4:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON returned to the question of law
enforcement acting in bad faith and surmised that an officer
acting in bad faith would likely lose their job and be barred
from working in law enforcement in the future. He added that an
individual who impersonates an officer would suffer the
penalties related to this crime. These safeguards are already in
statute.
4:05:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if location information gathered
without probable cause would be admissible evidence in a trial.
4:06:09 PM
MS. SAMUELS replied that it would be the same as in any
emergency situation or exigent circumstance. She shared her
understanding that - as long as the emergency aid exception is
met - any evidence retrieved during an investigation becomes
part of the case file and can be used in court (unless a warrant
would have been required to lawfully obtain the evidence in
question). She added that the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
may be able to clarify.
4:07:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened invited and public testimony on HB 316.
4:08:08 PM
At ease
4:13:47 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting.
4:14:02 PM
GREG SMITH, Executive Director, The Kelsey Smith Foundation,
Overland Park, Kansas, testified by invitation on HB 316. He
said the Kelsey Smith Act was named after his daughter, Kelsey
Smith, who was abducted from a department store and was missing
for four days. He explained that - while it took a while for law
enforcement to receive information on the location of Ms.
Smith's phone - her body was recovered in just 45 minutes. He
pointed out that technology has changed drastically since his
daughter's kidnapping in 2007. He asserted that this technology
is a necessary tool for law enforcement that enables them to
save lives.
4:15:25 PM
MR. SMITH emphasized that HB 316 would not provide a way to
obtain evidence of crimes but would enable law enforcement to
find someone in need of help. He pointed out that 31 states have
enacted similar laws. He said that he travels the country
training law enforcement on wireless devices and exigent
circumstances. He shared that he has heard many stories about
individuals who have been saved as a result of law enforcement
accessing the location of a device without need of a warrant
when someone is in danger of physical harm or death. He
emphasized that the only information that can be released is the
device location (all other information, including text messages
and photos, remains private). He shared a story about a man who
suffered a stroke and was unable to speak and was found by law
enforcement with geolocation. He noted that there are many other
stories like this across the country.
4:17:00 PM
MR. SMITH said that this change in state law is necessary
because federal law makes it optional for telecommunications
companies to provide this information. He explained that
according to federal law, when law enforcement agencies request
a phone's location information, wireless providers can decide
whether the situation is "life or death" - and proceed
accordingly. He opined that, with all the training law
enforcement receives, it makes sense for them to determine
whether a situation constitutes an emergency. He explained that
the Kelsey Smith Act makes it mandatory for the wireless
provider to give the location information to law enforcement
when the necessary conditions are met. He added that, according
to federal law, any government entity can make a request for
wireless device location information. The Kelsey Smith Act
narrows this down to law enforcement.
4:19:04 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked what an "exigent circumstance" entails and
questioned how this compares to "emergency" as it is utilized in
HB 316.
4:19:36 PM
MR. SMITH replied that an "exigent circumstance" is an
emergency. He said that the definition that is most often used
came from a federal court case. He briefly explained the wording
of the federal definition and how it relates to emergency
situations where there is no time to obtain a warrant.
4:20:21 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed invited and public testimony on HB 316.
4:20:57 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held HB 316 in committee.
SB 229-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
4:21:09 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
229, "An Act relating to gun violence protective orders;
relating to the crime of violating a protective order; relating
to a central registry for protective orders; relating to the
powers of district judges and magistrates; amending Rules 4 and
65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
4:22:15 PM
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, District I, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 229, acknowledged that this
legislation is contentious and raises questions around second
amendment rights. She emphasized that infringing on Alaskans'
second amendment rights is not her intention. However, she is
interested in considering the way second amendment rights
interact with public safety.
4:23:03 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said SB 229 is concerned with health and public
safety issues that need to be addressed with policy changes. She
pointed out that Alaska has the highest rate of youth suicide
and domestic violence. She said that extreme risk protection
orders have been proven to help reduce the impacts of these -
and hopefully save lives. She acknowledged that this is not a
silver solution; however, extreme risk protection orders have
been used in 21 others states to keep citizens safe. In one
state, the extreme risk protection legislation has been in place
for over a decade and has not been ruled unconstitutional or
enjoined - and has kept people from hurting themselves and/or
others. She shared her personal experience living in rural
Alaska and losing classmates to suicide by gun. She pointed out
that in states that have passed similar legislation, there has
been an up to 13.5 percent reduction in suicide, which is equal
to 9-16 Alaskans. She said that while this may not seem like a
lot, this number equals the number of classmates that she lost.
4:24:58 PM
SENTOR TOBIN opined that SB 229 is a reasonable pathway forward
that provides protections, stipulations, and guardrails - and
would prevent people from utilizing these protective orders in
an abusive manner. She surmised that there is ample opportunity
for someone to petition the courts if they are at risk of having
their firearms taken - and there are pathways to have firearms
returned after a period of time. She noted that the timeframes
are outlined in SB 229. She stated that, while some legislation
is directed toward helping victims, this legislation would help
prevent people from becoming victims. She shared that she has
family in law enforcement in Alaska and briefly discussed their
role in public safety - as well as the importance of her role as
a legislator in crafting legislation to aid and protect law
enforcement. She noted that the 2022 bipartisan safer community
act set aside $750 million for state and local implementation of
extreme risk protective orders, which would provide funding for
the changes made by SB 229. She said that, across the country,
extreme risk protection orders prevent 50-100 people from
accessing firearms that would potentially be used to harm
themselves or others.
4:27:45 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Löki Tobin, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 229. He explained that Section 6 creates "ex parte gun
violence protective orders," which would allow a police officer
to request an ex parte gun violence protective order. If the
court finds that the petition establishes probable cause to
believe the respondent is dangerous, the court can issue a
protective order without notice. He added that this section
defines how the order would be created. He said that SB 229
creates a new section for gun violence protective orders (AS
18.65.815) - this allows a police officer to file a petition for
a protective order.
MR. FLORA said that AS 18.65.825 applies to the modification of
a gun violence protective order and allows police officers or
the respondent to request changes to the order. AS 18.65.830
addresses the surrender of firearms and ammunition and allows
the court to order the respondent to temporarily surrender or
sell all firearms and/or ammunition within 48 hours of receipt
of the protective order. When the protective order is terminated
or expires, law enforcement shall inform the respondent that
their firearms and ammunition are available. AS 18.65.835 and AS
18.65.840 describe the service of process and enforcement for
the protective order.
4:29:48 PM
MR. FLORA continued his sectional analysis of SB 229. He said
that AS 18.65.845 defines "household member" for the purposes of
establishing a gun violence protective order. Section 7 adds a
conforming amendment to the existing powers of district judges
and magistrates allowing them to administer the gun violence
emergency protective order. The remaining sections include
indirect court rule amendments and conditional effects and
effective date.
4:30:50 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked for clarification regarding the court
ordering the respondent sell their firearms. He asked how this
works with the court ordering the respondent to surrender their
firearms.
4:31:49 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that the respondent has two options: to
surrender their firearms or to sell their firearms.
4:32:11 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony on SB 229.
4:32:58 PM
CHRISTOPHER CARITA, representing self, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
testified by invitation on SB 229. He gave a brief overview of
his career in law enforcement and said that, for the past five
years, he has been utilizing gun violence restraining orders
(GVRO) successfully to intervene in crises by temporarily
removing firearms from dangerous situations. This has prevented
potential shootings and gun suicides. He said that while working
as a detective, he received his master's degree in public health
with a focus on violence prevention.
MR. CARITA shared a story to illustrate the potential lifesaving
benefits of GVROs. He reiterated that he has used GVROs to
prevent gun suicides and to remove firearms from violent
domestic situations. He said that this has provided time for
families to heal and for victims to reach safety. He stated that
he has utilized GVROs at schools, workplaces, and in the
community.
4:35:59 PM
MR. CARITA said that most of the cases are not contentious. He
added that respondents and their families are ultimately
grateful for the intervention. He stated that GVROs have
significantly decreased the number of gun violence tragedies
that he has attended as law enforcement officer. He encouraged
passage of SB 229 which would prevent gun violence deaths in
Alaska.
4:37:13 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI said there are concerns about the due process
with respect to GVROs. He pointed out that in SB 229, "household
members" could include ex-partners and offered an example in
which someone uses a GVRO to take their ex-partner's guns. He
asked how the GVRO process works in Florida.
4:38:04 PM
MR. CARITA replied that typically, law enforcement responds as
the crisis is unfolding. He briefly explained the process for
acquiring a GVRO in Florida, which includes a sworn affidavit
accompanied by any supporting evidence, and testimony before a
judge (under oath) in order to obtain the order. He emphasized
that anyone giving false evidence (including law enforcement)
would result in jail time (and loss of employment). He went on
to explain that a hearing is held within two weeks of the
emergency GVRO being granted and firearms relinquished -
respondent and law enforcement present evidence to the judge,
who decides whether to implement the full protection order.
MR. CARITA explained that GVRO lasts for up to one year, during
which time the respondent can contest the order. He reiterated
that the majority of cases are not contentious; rather, the
respondent has cooperated, acknowledging that they are in
crisis. He noted that Florida has a process in place to connect
those individuals with agencies to provide additional
assistance. He stated that a family member (or ex-partner) would
also be required to provide evidence and a sworn affidavit - the
standard and consequence remain the same. He pointed out that
this is not something that has been an issue in Florida - with
domestic violence restraining orders or GVROs. He opined that
there are more efficient ways to get back at one's partner.
4:42:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how long Florida has had risk protection
orders (RPO) and if there have been occasions when law
enforcement determined RPO was not warranted.
4:42:55 PM
MR. CARITA replied that the agency uses RPOs judiciously and
added that in Florida an RPO violation is a felony. He explained
that Florida's RPO law was created in the wake of the Parkland
school shooting and thus has a high consequence. As a result, it
is used less often, with law enforcement turning to other
interventions before seeking RPO (which are seen as a last
resort). He said that law enforcement has begun investigations
and determined that there are more effective ways to mitigate a
problem - and in some cases discovered that the threat was not
as it initially appeared.
4:45:01 PM
KRYSTAL LOPILATO, Senior Policy Counsel, Every Town for Gun
Safety, New York, New York, testified by invitation on SB 229.
She gave a brief overview of her organization. She stated that
when someone is in crisis and is a risk to themselves or others,
they often exhibit warning signs; however, there are not always
tools available to take preventative action based on these
signs. She stated that extreme risk laws empower law enforcement
and loved ones to intervene, by asking a court to temporarily
prevent someone in crisis from accessing firearms. She said that
these laws can help deescalate emergency situations and are a
critical tool for preventing tragedies before they occur. SB 229
provides several steps in support, preceding each with due
process protections commensurate with the potential order that a
judge could issue. She pointed out that 21 states and the
District of Columbia have similar extreme risk laws in place.
She added that these have been routinely upheld by the courts
(including newer second amendment analysis).
MS. LOPILATO stated that extreme risk laws are not new or
radical - and federal funding is available for states to
implement these kinds of crisis intervention tools. A national
extreme risk protection order resource center was recently
launched. Many states are focusing on extreme risk laws - which
are proven to save lives. She stated that SB 229 includes both
law enforcement and family members as potential petitioners and
opined that this provides a balance, as both are uniquely
situated. Some families may not want to involve law enforcement
(or may be in rural areas where access to law enforcement is
limited) and this empowers them to seek help from the court. She
explained that this is one reason many states include this
pathway for families to petition the court. She stated that GVRO
laws save lives. She pointed to the high rate of gun suicides in
Alaska and said that research has shown a decrease in gun
suicides in states with similar laws in place.
4:49:40 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on SB 229.
4:50:18 PM
AOIBHEANN CLINE, State Director, National Rifle Association
(NRA), Fairfax, Virginia, testified in opposition to SB 229.
She said that gun confiscation orders strip an individual's
constitutional rights - and their firearms - without due process
of law. She briefly described how the United States constitution
conflicts with SB 229. She expressed concern about the ex parte
protection order. She asserted that this legislation is
unnecessary and directed attention to Alaska's civil commitment
laws. She opined that SB 229 is improperly focused on firearms
rather than the dangerous individual. She asserted that this
legislation is a red herring with no supporting evidence. She
offered data to support this argument. She argued that SB 229
creates dangerous confrontation situations and invites abuse.
She asserted that this is groundwork for further gun control in
Alaska incentivized by federal funding and overreach.
4:53:31 PM
DIANE DESLOOVER, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She said that this legislation is vital and
aimed at preventing gun violence in Alaska. She said she is
advocating on behalf of her five grandchildren. She shared that
she was happy to raise her children in a safe community;
however, an increase in mass shootings means her grandchildren
are not safe. She stated that many mass shooters exhibit red
flag behavior leading up to their deadly crimes. SB 229 would
give law enforcement and family members a tool to address these
red flags before it is too late. She added that SB 229 would
protect due process rights while providing a legal means to
deescalate and deter tragedy. She pointed out that 21 states
have similar laws. She questioned why protecting Alaskans is not
the obvious choice. She offered reflections on the Sandy Hook
school shooting and shared a poem she wrote from the perspective
of a Sandy Hook first grader.
4:56:13 PM
MARIAN CLOUGH, representing self, Auke Bay, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She said she has children and grandchildren
living in Alaska and emphasized the importance of finding ways
to save lives in light of the epidemic of gun violence in the
United States. She commented that Florida is a Republican-led
state that has adopted red flag laws. She indicated that SB 229
would be a positive step to addressing gun violence in Alaska.
4:58:27 PM
JAN CAULFIELD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She expressed disappointment that Senators
Wielechowski and Claman had to leave during the only hearing on
this important topic. She stated that SB 229 would give family
and law enforcement a due process tool to temporarily remove
firearms from a person in crisis who is showing signs of harming
themself or others. She noted that many organizations (including
the Office of Veterans Affairs and Suicide prevention
organizations) recognize the need to ensure that guns cannot be
readily accessed by someone experiencing a mental health crisis.
She said 21 states have adopted similar legislation, recognizing
that extreme risk laws can mitigate the risk of gun violence
toward oneself and others. She encouraged further discussion on
the broader topics of gun safety and gun harm in Alaska and an
openness to developing solutions that would save lives. She
shared several statistics on gun-related violence in Alaska. She
emphasized the importance of addressing these statistics and
acknowledged the concerns regarding gun rights. She stated that
this issue should not be ignored. She pointed out that there is
additional gun-related legislation being considered.
5:02:17 PM
LAURA FLEMING, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She said that she is a former legislative
staffer. She is also a parent and grandparent. She urged members
to add Alaska to the long list of states that have enacted
extreme risk protective orders. She stated that Alaska is
currently second in the rate of suicide deaths and fourth for
gun related deaths. She asserted that Alaska does not want to be
first in either of these statistics. She stated that losing 7.5
percent of Alaskans to death by suicide does not sound like much
until you are directly impacted by this loss. She listed states
that have enacted GVPO laws and opined that Alaska does not want
to be last in enacting these lifesaving laws - and first in the
number of deaths by gun.
5:04:34 PM
PATRICK MARTIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 229. He expressed concern with the assertion
that this is a way to help those suffering from mental health
crises. He stated that these claims are unqualified, as are
claims that SB 229 would help high suicide, domestic violence,
and sexual assault rates. He added that these claims are being
used to justify infringing on Alaskans' second amendment rights.
He asserted that there is no evidence of a mental health crisis
in the state. He stated that there is no proven connection
between lawful gun ownership and suicide, domestic violence, and
sexual assault. He added that there is no link between violating
Alaskan's second amendment rights and a reduction in suicide,
domestic violence, and sexual assault rates. He questioned the
data provided as supporting documentation for SB 229, including
a study referenced in the sponsor statement. He expressed doubt
of the stated intention behind this legislation and suggested
that the true intention is to infringe on Alaskans'
constitutional rights.
5:08:00 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI noted that the aforementioned study will be made
available online.
5:08:13 PM
At ease
5:08:25 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting. He clarified that the
study in question is the Princeton Study (1991-2016). He
reiterated that this would be made available to the public.
5:08:58 PM
RICK MCCLURE, President, Alaska Gun Rights, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 229. He asserted that SB 229 is a
violation of the second and fourth amendments of Constitution of
the United States and is also in violation of the Alaska state
constitution. He said that thousands of petitions were submitted
against the red flag law.
5:09:58 PM
KITRA CHASYAH, representing self, South Carolina, testified in
opposition to SB 229. She stated that she is planning on moving
to Alaska. She shared her story as a domestic violence and
mental abuse survivor. She opined that if someone is going to
commit a crime, GVPO will not stop them. She asserted that SB
229 would merely disarm law-abiding citizens. She shared that
she has trained to use a firearm for self-protection. She stated
that the best way to protect victims is to teach them to protect
themselves. She added that SB 229 is not a safe option for
herself or for others in similar situations.t
5:13:03 PM
At ease
5:13:51 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting.
5:15:58 PM
ODETTE EDGAR, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She said that suicides leave a gaping hole
for family members that ripples through the community. She
shared her belief that this legislation is a reasonable way to
save lives.
5:16:41 PM
LUANN MCVEY, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 229. She said she is a retired schoolteacher from
Douglas, Alaska. She shared a brief history of her experience
working with children and their families. She stated that
children experience depression, anger, and frustration - which
can escalate into the taking of a life. She said that everyone
experiences strong negative emotions - and they may choose to
take up a firearm and act on these emotions. SB 229 would
provide a tool to avoid gun violence in situations where certain
behaviors cause concern. She pointed out that Alaska does not
currently have any way to protect against gun violence toward
self and/or others.
5:19:33 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI offered apologies to those waiting online to
testify. He held public testimony on SB 229 open.
5:20:12 PM
SENATOR TOBIN thanked the committee for hearing SB 229. She
added that this legislation is reasonable and protects due
process. She reiterated that she grew up in rural Alaska, with
firearms in the home. She also has firearms in her home in
Anchorage. She emphasized that SB 229 is not about infringement
upon second amendment rights; rather, it is about protecting the
lives of Alaskans and empowering courts and law enforcement to
take preventive action. She said that at any given time, someone
is thinking about hurting themselves or someone else with a gun
- and this is an opportunity to discuss what can be done to
prevent this.
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 229 in committee.
5:22:38 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kawasaki adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:23 p.m.