Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/17/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB338 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB338 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 338 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 386-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
2:57:38 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 386, "An Act relating to the obstruction of
airports and runways; relating to the obstruction of highways;
establishing the crime of obstruction of free passage in public
places; relating to the obstruction of public places; relating
to the crime of trespassing; relating to the obstruction of
navigable waters; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 386.
2:58:17 PM
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager, Planned Parenthood
Alliance Advocates, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said
the language is so broad that it renders constitutionally
protected speech illegal and so vague that those who wish to
follow or enforce the law are unclear as to the legislation's
scope. He added that there is no way for the state to neutrally
apply this bill, which could be used to target politically
disfavored speech, and raises more questions than answers as to
what conduct is permissible in public. He opined that the new
crime appears to criminalize homelessness in public places and
could be weaponized by law enforcement to target marginalized
groups.
2:59:40 PM
JARED SOLOMAN, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 386. He characterized the bill as a fruitless attempt at
squelching public participation. He opined that people no
longer have a voice when it comes to influencing legislation,
and the last resort is public protest.
3:02:28 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said it it's not right for [the legislature] to
decide to take away federal rights.
3:03:45 PM
KEVIN MCGEE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386, which, he said, would suppress Alaskans' free speech in
violation of their constitutional rights. He added that HB 386
would attempt to eliminate the intrinsic rights of free speech
and peaceful assembly, not just through government action, but
by enabling private companies to take individual Alaskans to
court.
3:05:12 PM
MICHAEL PATTERSON, Party for Socialism and Liberation,
Anchorage, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said the bill
is an attack on free speech and the freedom to assemble. He
shared that he is a disabled Iraq war veteran and did not
imagine that he would come home to testify against a bill
limiting his freedom of expression and free speech.
3:06:22 PM
JOSH SMITH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said he is adamantly against the bill because it's
constitutionally problematic and vague. He added that leaving
its application to the discretion up to law enforcement could
result in unequal application of the law. He concluded that
these changes would actively sequester the participation of
Alaskans' First Amendment rights.
3:07:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:07 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
3:11:25 PM
STEPHANIE UZZELL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill is vague and broad, and blatantly
goes against First Amendment rights. She opined that the bill
is intended to silence dissent and would use money to
disincentivize protesting; further, it would label all
protestors at the state's discretion as felony offenders, which
would then remove their voting power in the future.
3:13:18 PM
JESSE SAIKI, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is a terrifying overstep by Governor
Dunleavy and an attempt at controlling freedom of speech and the
ability to rise up against oppressive systems. She urged the
committee not to let [Alaskans'] rights be stripped away like
the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
3:14:43 PM
DAVID LESLIE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill would be unequally applied and
characterized it as an attempt at reinforcing white supremacy
and [suppressing] marginalized communities.
3:15:58 PM
AUSTEN COULSON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill represents a clear and present violation
of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to make no law
abridging the freedom of speech or the right to peacefully
assemble. He added that the bill is a clear attempt at
intimidating working class activists and organizers from
exercising their rights.
3:16:56 PM
JASON LAND, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill is a waste of time and money, and an
attempt to scare protestors. He opined that others would be
looped in too, because of the bill's vague language.
3:18:13 PM
ROSE HART, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 386.
She said HB 386 is merely an attempt at criminalizing citizens
who are exercising their First Amendment rights. She opined
that the bill could not be governed fairly.
3:19:26 PM
AYESHA NALIK, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She expressed alarm that the bill would make it so anyone
who protests Governor Dunleavy or displays any political dissent
that was not preapproved beforehand would be labeled as a class
C felon.
3:20:45 PM
CARLY JENSEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is too broad and would criminalize
individuals for engaging in their civic duty while demonizing
the police force by forcing them to enforce vague laws.
3:21:36 PM
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said it "boggles [her] mind" that the bill is coming
from the same people whose party taught her to defend First
Amendment rights at all costs. shared a personal anecdote and
said the bill would lead to many arrests of marginalized people.
3:23:00 PM
CYNTHIA GACHUPIN, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill violates First Amendment rights and
would criminalize protestors and organizers in Alaska. She
urged a "no" vote on the bill because it's unconstitutional and
unnecessary.
3:24:38 PM
MICHAEL GARVEY, Advocacy Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said the
ACLU of Alaska is opposed to the bill because it's an
unconstitutional and over broad bill that would chill Alaskans'
rights of free speech and assembly. He opined that HB 386 could
apply to a broad range of behavior and relies on the state's
discretion, adding that whoever is in power could apply the bill
in a discriminatory way.
3:25:55 PM
KC CASORT, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 386
because she does not believe in creating more reasons to arrest
Alaskans for exercising their fundamental right to protest. She
concluded that the bill would crack down on open conversations
and public gatherings and is deeply undemocratic and
unacceptable.
3:27:20 PM
KACEY HOPSON, Interim Director of the Alaska Native Policy
Center, First Alaskans Institute, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill would stifle and silence people from
speaking out on important issues for fear of being criminalized
with a felony offense. Further, the language is vague and
broad, and risks being used to target disfavored speech, she
said, and expressed concern that provisions could be extended to
target those experiencing homelessness.
3:28:39 PM
EMILY COHEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is an unconstitutional attempt at
removing First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly and
protests and urged the committee not to pass it.
3:29:07 PM
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 386. She pointed out that blocking a major roadway or
port is already an arrestable offense, adding that the bill is
really an attempt at further entrenching bias and power. She
added that the bill cannot be agnostic because the very
definitions are left up to the officer or the court. She opined
that the bill would be weaponized against populations and
characterized it as a power grab to give officers more leverage
to punish those they disagree with.
3:30:20 PM
ANEL COLLINS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill would give anyone with authority and
animus the ability to cause problems and charge protestors with
a felony.
3:31:31 PM
CAROLINA SAAVEDRA, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill is designed to have a chilling effect
on freedom of speech and freedom to assembly and seeks to give
insider discretion to the police to decide when and whom to
apply the law. She added that the over broad bill would expose
Alaskans to felony charges and private lawsuits and urged the
committee to reject it.
3:32:47 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, testified in support of HB 386.
He said the bill would give law enforcement an additional tool
to stop terrorists from blocking access. He opined that tossing
these terrorists into jail for violating [Alaskans'] rights is
what must be done.
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 386.
3:34:32 PM
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was recessed at 3:34
p.m., to be continued at 5:30 p.m.
5:45:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 5:45 p.m. Representatives Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance were present
at the call back to order.
5:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.5, C. Radford, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "waters;":
Insert "relating to the unlawful obstruction or
blocking of traffic;"
Page 5, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 28.35.140(a) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "July 1."
Insert "July 1,"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
5:46:25 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General (Civil Division), Office of
the Attorney General, Department of Law, explained that
Amendment 1 is a cleanup amendment. She deferred to Ms.
Schroeder.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
(Legal Services Section), Department of Law, stated that
Amendment 1 would repeal AS 28.35.140(a) to avoid a rule of
lenity argument. In addition, the proposed amendment would fix
a typo by removing the period after "July 1" and replacing it
with a comma.
5:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Amendment 1 would increase the
penalty for the obstruction of navigable waters.
MS. MILLS said it would not touch the navigable waters statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:49:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.2, C. Radford, 4/15/24, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "waters;":
Insert "relating to the duties of the attorney
general"
Page 5, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 44.23.020 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(l) The attorney general shall
(1) develop and make available an online
tool the public may use to report an obstruction that
violates AS 02.20.050, AS 11.61.150, 11.61.155, or
AS 38.05.128; the reporting tool must include a
function that allows for the taking and attaching of
photographs relating to the alleged obstruction;
(2) in consultation with the commissioner
of public safety, determine which obstructions
reported under (1) of this subsection require the
filing of criminal charges; and
(3) develop regulations and procedures to
implement the requirements established under this
subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
5:49:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 2 would make it
easier for the public to report an obstruction with an online
reporting tool.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that Amendment 2 would
offer an online tool to take pictures of obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the system would allow photographs to
be forwarded to make it easier for the law to achieve its
intended ends.
5:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the photo could be used
to charge someone who is no longer obstructing or whether the
individual would have to be caught physically in the act.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the tool would create a centralized
system.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON restated the question and asked how
the tool would be used.
5:54:05 PM
MS. MILLS explained that first, the photo would need to be
verified. If it met evidentiary requirements and could be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the photo could be used as
evidence against someone even if the police didn't see it or
intervene in the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked, "Does this subject this to
artificial intelligence if you could create a picture?"
MS. MILLS reiterated that the photo would need to be verified to
be used as evidentiary proof.
5:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER stated that the proposed amendment may
have a significant fiscal impact. He asked whether Amendment 2
is so important that it's worth endangering the bill's ability
to advance by adding more committee referrals.
5:56:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked from a law enforcement
perspective, whether the online tool is necessary.
MS. MILLS said DOL does not see Amendment 2 as necessary because
law enforcement already has a good process for investigations.
5:57:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that Amendment 2 would offer a more
efficient way to make the bill work.
5:57:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Groh voted in favor
of Amendment 2. Representatives Gray, Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-6.
5:58:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.3, C. Radford, 4/15/24, which read:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 09.50.250 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a
person may bring an action against the state for a
claim arising under AS 09.65.360.
* Sec. 5. AS 09.65.070 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) Notwithstanding (d) of this section, a
person may bring an action against a municipality for
a claim arising under AS 09.65.360."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 10, following "AS 38.05.128":
Insert ", or the state or a municipality that
fails to remove a substance in violation of
AS 11.61.150(a)(3),"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "of a person"
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 3, line 25, following "hazard":
Insert "; or
(3) fails to remove a substance that the
person has a duty to remove from a highway and the
substance creates a substantial risk of physical
injury to others or renders the highway impassable or
passable only with unreasonable inconvenience or
hazard"
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
5:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 3 would allow
citizens to bring civil action against the state or municipality
for failure to remove from a highway a substance that creates
substantial risk of physical injury or renders the highway
impassable, such as snow.
6:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON opined that members are going "off the
rails" by comparing knowing obstruction to massive snowfall. He
added that he could not support [Amendment 3].
6:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether the state or municipality
has a legal duty to remove snow.
6:03:16 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said she did not know the answer.
6:03:46 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, stated that
the obstructions created by snow removal are to increase access
on primary [roadways] until sidewalks can be cleared, or the
snow can be hauled.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that Amendment 3 addresses real
problems for his constituents and other Alaskans, as opposed to
the far-fetched problems that the legislation seeks to address.
6:05:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Sumner, Allard,
Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
6:06:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.4, C. Radford, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 4, line 9, following "knowingly":
Insert "(1)"
Page 4, line 11, following "hazard":
Insert "; or
(2) carries an unconcealed firearm in a
manner that impedes another person's access to a
public place"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete the second occurrence of "or"
Page 4, line 15, following "conduct":
Insert ", other than carrying an unconcealed
firearm, that is"
Page 4, line 16, following "premises":
Insert ";
(3) a peace officer carrying an unconcealed
firearm within the scope and authority of the
officer's employment; or
(4) a person carrying a firearm while
hunting in an area where hunting is authorized by law"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
6:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Amendment 4 would make it a
crime of obstruction of free passage in a public place if
someone were obviously carrying an unconcealed firearm. The
amendment would not apply to law enforcement or someone hunting.
He expressed his fear that given the current political climate,
Alaska is at risk of folks openly displaying firearms in front
of polling places to discourage people certain from voting.
Amendment 4 would prevent that threat to democracy, he said.
6:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER referenced the constitutional right to
bear arms and expressed his objection to the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that Amendment 4 would
violate the Second Amendment.
6:10:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, Carpenter, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
CHAIR CARPENTER referenced the legal memorandum ("memo") dated
4/15/24 from Claire Radford [hard copy included in the committee
packet].
6:11:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:12:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed attention to lines 10-11 on
page 4 of the bill and pointed out that there is wide room for
disagreement on what is considered an unreasonable
inconvenience.
6:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved Conceptual Amendment [5] to
strike the words "or passable only with unreasonable
inconvenience or hazard" on page 4, lines 10-11.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER objected.
6:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that the aforementioned legal
memo states that such vague statutory language would likely be
unconstitutional. He added that he offered Conceptual Amendment
[5] for that reason.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER contended that a "reasonableness finding"
is not overly vague; further, he opined that to allow only for
total impassability would narrow the bill more than [the
committee] would want.
6:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Conceptual Amendment 5 would
satisfy the constitutional concerns about the bill.
MS. RADFORD said it's difficult to say with certainty what the
courts would deem unconstitutional in relation to the bill.
Nonetheless, she acknowledged that the proposed conceptual
amendment would alleviate some of the risk related to a court
finding the provision unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness.
6:17:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether Conceptual Amendment [5] would
address the constitutional concerns referenced in the legal
memo, dated April 15, 2024.
MS. RADFORD said there is a risk that even with Conceptual
Amendment [5], the bill could be found to be unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Ms. Radford to elaborate on that.
MS. RADFORD explained that a court would consider certain
factors, such as the forum where the speech takes place, whether
the government restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a
significant government interest, and whether there are alternate
channels for the communication of information, when determining
whether a free speech violation occurred either as the statute
is written or as it is applied to certain conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he did not see the need to delete
language that, he believes, is not vague, as similar ordinances
were upheld by the Eight Circuit in Langford.
CHAIR VANCE recalled a scenario in which individuals chained
themselves to the door of a building that was being used to
convene a special session of the Alaska State Legislature in
Wasilla. She asked whether that situation could be deemed an
unreasonable inconvenience.
MS. MILLS said the law is based on a reasonableness standard,
which is an objective standard that already exists in state law
and therefore, could be easily implemented by law enforcement.
6:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that as written, the bill
would make it so a person's First Amendment right is subjected
to law enforcement's opinion on what is considered inconvenient,
which he deemed "wide open for vagueness" and completely
unreasonable.
MS. MILLS, in response to a question from Representative Groh,
said she found no Alaska Supreme Court Cases that would indicate
that this case would be treated differently than the cases cited
in the legal memo.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court
considers itself governed in its interpretation of the Alaska
Constitution by federal courts rulings on the similar provisions
in the U.S. Constitution.
MS. RADFORD said it was more efficient to look at the federal
record on these issues.
6:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he strongly objects to Conceptual
Amendment [5] because the bill clearly states that a reasonable
person must think that they're causing these issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reiterated that what's inconvenient to
one person may not be inconvenient to another.
6:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD pointed out that discretion is left up to
law enforcement on many issues. She shared an example.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER opined that what constitutes total
impassability is vaguer than the language in the bill.
6:33:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, Gray,
and Groh voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5.
Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner, Allard, and Vance voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 5 failed by a vote
of 3-4.
6:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical scenario and shared his
understanding that a person who created a Facebook post
encouraging people to protest could be held liable to a minimum
fine of $10,000.
MS. RADFORD said the civil liability provision in AS 09.65.360,
subsection (c) could expose a person to liability for sharing
information about a protest that results in the obstruction of
free passage regardless of whether the person attended
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY suggested that this section could inhibit a
person's free speech on social media.
MS. RADFORD acknowledged that there is a risk that exposing a
person to liability under this section for the sharing of
information could be considered an unconstitutional infringement
on free speech.
6:37:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shared his understanding that to be held
liable under this section, a person would need to instruct
protesters to block a highway, for example, and that a person
would not be liable for simply advertising a protest.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY read the following statement from the legal
memo: "without any requirement that the person know that an
obstruction is a likely or even possible result". He emphasized
that the person would not need to know whether obstruction is
possible.
6:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether a disclaimer on the Facebook
post would help.
MS. RADFORD said is unsure whether a disclaimer on a post that
shares information would be sufficient in preventing liability.
6:39:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Ms. Mills to speak to this section.
MS. MILLS read subsection (a) on page 2 of the bill, emphasizing
that conduct referred to in subsection (b) is the obstruction,
not the protest. She indicated that the Facebook post would
need to specifically encourage obstruction.
6:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH suggested that subsection (e) would appear
to allow any person anywhere in the world to be hailed into
court in Alaska for little more than encouraging speech or
activity in Alaska. He asked whether the provision would meet
constitutional requirements in terms of jurisdiction.
MS. MILLS reiterated that the conduct is obstruction, not
speech. She explained that the provision is a long-arm statute
that allows outsiders to be held liable inside the state for
actions that have a nexus to the state. She added that DOL has
no constitutional concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed the question to Ms. Radford.
MS. RADFORD did not know the answer and offered to follow up
with the requested information.
6:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that bill speaks to
unreasonable inconveniences, in addition to obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Mills to define "jointly and
severally liable."
MS. MILLS said it's a way to apply one set of damages to a group
of defendant parties.
6:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical example involving the
obstruction of a neighborhood park. He remarked, "I just don't
see how saying on Facebook that there's ... going to be this
protest at this park ... how that person has not encouraged
someone to engage in that conduct, even though they didn't know
that so many people were going to show up and that the park was
going to be completely unusable to that family."
MS. MILLS highlighted the importance of the word "knowingly,"
and reiterated that the Facebook post would need to encourage
the conduct of making something impassable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Radford whether she made a mistake
in her legal memo by stating that the person doesn't have to
know that his/her encouragement of this protest would result in
obstruction.
MS. RADFORD said she did not make a mistake. She shared her
understanding that the knowing component would be for the person
who obstructs access in violation of statute.
6:49:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reiterated his concern that by his reading
of subsection (b) on page 2, the person posting on Facebook
could be held liable.
MS. MILLS emphasized that the intent was never to hold someone
civilly liable for supporting a protest. She agreed that the
"knowingly" lies on the entities that are obstructing; however,
she reiterated that [the Facebook post] would need to be
encouraging the behavior of obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY recalled that during the previous bill
hearing, the attorney general stated that a homeless person
sleeping on a sidewalk could be guilty of this crime.
MS. MILLS pointed out that with regard to homeless individuals,
the components of the crime would still need to be met.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Mills to show the committee where
"knowingly" is in the bill.
MS. MILLS directed attention to page 4, line 10 of the bill.
6:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that the law would not pertain to
social media if it's not referenced in the bill.
MS. MILLS said no, not under the circumstances that [the
committee] has been talking about.
6:54:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked how fire laws intersect with the obstruction
of free passage of public places.
MS. MILLS said it's never possible to name all the circumstances
or specificity in criminal law, which is why checks and balances
are important.
6:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked if someone is found civilly liable, it
also means that person committed the crime.
MS. MILLS answered yes, with one slight difference. In a
criminal case, allegations must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, whereas in a civil case, it's a preponderance of the
evidence. She added that just because a person is found
criminally liable, he/she may not necessarily be criminally
liable.
6:57:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to subsection (b) on page
2 and sought to confirm that a person who indirectly encourages
people to participate in an event that results in obstruction
would be protected because they didn't "knowingly know it."
MS. MILLS responded, "Correct." She reiterated that "conduct"
is the operative word [in subsection (b)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Ms. Radford agrees with Ms.
Mills' interpretation.
MS. RADFORD said ultimately, DOL would be the one bringing these
cases; however, she opined that the provision could be better
worded to negate any possible issues.
6:59:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed attention to Section 4 and asked
Ms. Mills whether she agrees that this new framework for civil
action is different than existing Alaska law.
MS. MILLS answered yes, these specific damages provisions are a
unique construct.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Ms. Mills to describe the relationship
between the interplay of the following mental states: knowingly
and strict liability.
MS. MILLS contended that this is not a unique component of the
bill. She explained that if the elements of the crime are met
in a civil context, strict liability would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked for a more specific example.
7:02:17 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Attorney, Legislation, Regulations &
Legislative Research Section, Department of Law, described the
strict liability standard and explained that if the law was
violated, the plaintiff would not need to show that it was
negligently violated.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed the question to Ms. Radford.
MS. RADFORD said she had nothing to add.
CHAIR VANCE sought final comments from committee members.
7:06:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his belief that there are real
constitutional concerns with this bill. Ultimately, he said he
worries about people's freedom of speech and ability to protest,
and that the law could be implemented against some people and
not others. He characterized the bill as a solution looking for
a problem.
7:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he objected to the bill moving
from committee today. He explained that there are parts of the
bill that he wholeheartedly supports; however, because the bill
deals with constitutional rights and a situation that is ripe
for abuse under certain circumstances, he said he would err on
the side of caution, adding that he was not willing to support
it in its current fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he associated himself with the comments
made by both Representative Gray and Representative Carpenter.
He stated that he has substantial constitutional and practical
concerns about the provisions in the legislation regarding both
criminal and civil liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she disagrees with some members'
interpretations. She expressed her support for the bill and its
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out the term "inconvenient" is
used elsewhere in Alaska Statutes.
CHAIR VANCE agreed that certain words are concerning; however,
one person's constitutional right does not supersede another's.
She pointed out that it is the government's job to provide for
public safety and prevent obstruction that can cause harm to
individuals. She shared her belief that when people are
intentionally disregarding the rights of other citizens, the
government needs to step in.
7:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report HB 386, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. She gave Legislative Legal Services permission to
make technical and conforming changes as necessary.
[An inaudible objection was made by a committee member.]
7:16:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, and Vance voted in favor of reporting HB 386, as
amended, from committee. Representatives Carpenter, Gray, and
Groh voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 386(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.