Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/30/2024 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB193 | |
| SB208 | |
| HB316 | |
| SB229 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ 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 | |
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.