Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/12/2024 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
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 | |
| HB386 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 386-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
1:04:11 PM
CHAIR MCCABE announced that the only 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."
1:04:43 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General, Department of Law, introduced HB
386 on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor. He provided an overview of the bill and stated that
it is an attempt to balance constitutional rights for those who
have a right to "move about the state freely" and access public
places, and those who have a right to peacefully assemble or
protest. He began a PowerPoint, titled "Obstruction of Access
to Public Places," [hard copy included in the committee packet]
on slide 3, titled "Freedom of Movement," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• Alaskans' right to freely move within the state is
violated when their access to public places and
facilities are unlawfully obstructed
• Unlawful obstruction presents a threat to public
safety - emergency vehicles are unable to respond when
a crucial roadway is obstructed
• Unlawful obstruction poses a threat to Alaska's
economy - businesses cannot operate normally;
Alaskans may be unable to get to work
• HB 386 imposes additional criminal penalties for
obstruction of public places and creates a civil cause
of action for a private citizen whose access is
unlawfully obstructed
• Penalties imposed by the bill discourage and deter
unlawful obstruction of public places
MR. TAYLOR drew attention to slide 4, titled "Freedom of
Assembly," and noted the first point needed to be corrected to
read "AS 28.34.140." The slide read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Conduct that includes blocking access to public places
and blocking traffic is already codified as a criminal
act under AS 28.35.140
• Freedom of expression is already subject to time,
place, and manner restrictions to prevent interference
with the rights of others
• Proposed bill targets the conduct of blocking access
to public places not Alaskans' right to peaceably
and lawfully assemble
• Provides Alaskans an avenue to remedy against unlawful
obstruction
• Helps prevent Alaskans from engaging in self help and
keeps these situations from dangerous escalations
1:07:29 PM
MR. TAYLOR proceeded to slide 5, titled "Around the U.S," which
featured pictures of protestors blocking traffic on the East
Coast. He moved to slide 6, which featured the highways Seward,
Dalton, Glenn, and Highway 2 in Alaska. He explained that in
other places, there are multiple ways to get from "point A to
point B" but in Alaska that is limited, oftentimes having only
one road available. Possible obstructions associated with each
highway were expounded on by Mr. Taylor.
1:09:45 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department
of Law, gave the sectional analysis for HB 386 on behalf of the
bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor. He went
through slides 7 through 10, titled "Sectional." The sectional
analysis [included in the committee packet] read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. This section amends obstruction of airports
to prohibit a person from obstructing a runway in ways
other than placing an object on the runway.
Section 2. This section adds a new penalty provision
to the crime of obstruction of airports and runways.
The amendment makes it a class C felony for a person
to place an object on the runway and a class A
misdemeanor for a person to otherwise obstruct a
runway, dig a hole on a runway, or do any kind of
excavation on a runway.
Section 3. This section makes a conforming change to
account for the amendments in section 2.
Section 4. This section creates a new provision that
establishes strict liability for violation of any of
the criminal statutes created or amended in the bill.
There is no requirement that a defendant in a civil
case be convicted of a crime under this new section;
however, the elements of the criminal offense would
need to be established by a preponderance of the
evidence in a civil action to establish liability.
Subsection (a) extends standing to bring a lawsuit to
any person whose passage is obstructed, regardless of
whether the person was physically injured. This
subsection provides for a schedule of statutory
damages in addition to compensatory and punitive
damages available to a successful plaintiff. This
subsection also provides for "strict liability" so
that a plaintiff should not be required to prove that
the defendant negligently, recklessly, or
intentionally damaged the plaintiff.
Subsection (b) extends liability beyond specific
individuals who physically obstruct access to include
any person who instigated, planned, encouraged, or
conspired with the obstructor or obstructors.
Liability for collaborators under this subsection is
"joint and several" and does not divide the
responsibility for paying damages between the
defendants. Any one defendant is responsible for the
full measure of damages awarded to a plaintiff and the
defendant is responsible for seeking reimbursement
from the other tortfeasors. Joint and HB 386
Obstruction of Public Places; Trespassing February 28,
2024 Sectional Analysis Page 2 of 3 several liability
under this subsection includes corporations and other
legal entities as well as natural persons.
Subsections (c) and (d) explicitly permit a plaintiff
to obtain a temporary or permanent restraining order
to stop ongoing obstruction and to be awarded costs
and fees if successful.
Subsection (e) is a "long-arm" provision that extends
the court's jurisdiction to persons outside of the
state who plan and encourage obstruction within the
state.
Subsection (f) defines "nominal damages," which are
awarded to a plaintiff who proves that their passage
was obstructed but suffered no injury to person or
property.
Section 5. This section amends the crime of criminal
trespass in the first degree (entering or remaining
unlawfully upon land with intent to commit a crime or
in a dwelling) to be a class C felony if the person
commits criminal trespass in the first degree and the
conduct creates a substantial risk of physical injury
to a person or interferes with an emergency response.
Section 6. This section amends the crime of criminal
trespass in the second degree (entering or remaining
unlawfully upon premises or in a vehicle) to be a
class A misdemeanor if the person commits criminal
trespass in the second degree and the conduct creates
a substantial risk of physical injury to a person or
interferes with an emergency response.
Section 7. This section makes a conforming change to
account for the changes in section 8 that make
obstruction of highways a crime rather than a
violation.
Section 8. This section makes it a class C felony for
a person to obstruct a highway, by dropping a
substance on the highway or otherwise, that creates a
substantial risk of physical injury to another person
or interferes with an emergency response. Other types
of obstruction would be a class A misdemeanor.
Section 9. This section creates the new crime of
obstruction of free passage in public places. A person
commits the crime of obstruction of free passage in
public places by knowingly rendering a public place
impassable or passable only with unreasonable
convenience or hazard. Obstruction of free passage in
public places is a class A misdemeanor if the
obstruction creates a substantial risk of physical
injury to another person, substantially interferes
with a person's ability to access public places that
render governmental services, or interferes with an
emergency response. This statute does not apply to
permitted conduct by the state or a municipal
government or conduct that is otherwise authorized by
law or by the person in charge of the premises. HB 386
Obstruction of Public Places; Trespassing February 28,
2024 Sectional Analysis Page 3 of 3
Section 10. This section amends the crime of
obstruction to navigable water to be a class A
misdemeanor if the person obstructs a navigable
waterway and the conduct creates a substantial risk of
physical injury to a person or interferes with an
emergency response. Other obstructions to navigable
water are a class B misdemeanor.
Section 11. This section provides prospective
application of the criminal offenses amended in the
bill.
Section 12. This section establishes the effective
date as July 1, 2024.
1:13:00 PM
MR. TAYLOR concluded the presentation on slide 11, titled
"Summary," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The proposed bill is both content and viewpoint
neutral. It aims to:
• Allow Alaskans to seek remedy when their
right to access public places is violated
• Deter and discourage unlawful conduct
through stronger criminal penalties
• Uphold Alaskans' constitutional right to
assembly and demonstration
1:15:33 PM
CHAIR MCCABE invited questions from committee members.
1:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked Mr. Taylor to elaborate on the
definition of obstruction.
MR. TAYLOR replied that obstruction is defined as knowingly
rendering a highway impassible and creating an unreasonable
inconvenience or hazard. He added that often, it is a judgement
call by the responding officer and prosecuting attorney.
1:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Taylor if he could offer a clear
definition of "unreasonable inconvenience." She further stated
that on the Kenai Peninsula there are slow moving vehicles which
can be deemed "unreasonable."
MR. TAYLOR reiterated it is a judgement call by responding
officers and further explained that it falls to "knowingly"
where the person is aware of the circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered an example of a truck parked at the
owner's favorite fishing spot and asked whether it would fall
under the crime of obstruction to public places.
MR. TAYLOR clarified the difference of an area with a "no
parking" sign versus if the individual parked there
intentionally to keep people from fishing in the favorite spot.
1:20:27 PM
CHAIR MCCABE referred to guides who hunt and may build tents in
various places, including public use airports. He expressed his
concern for a clearer understanding of "public use."
MR. TAYLOR confirmed that the obstruction of airports is already
against the law. He added that if it were on public land, it
would likely fall under the definition of public use.
1:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed curiosity regarding
emergency response vehicles being blocked.
MR. TAYLOR said the two elements are: knowingly creates a risk
of physical injury or interferes. He added it can quickly
happen if someone blocks a roadway and prevents an ambulance
from getting through and therefore delays it.
1:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether there was a durational
period a vehicle causes blockage, or the instant it blocks it
has committed the crime.
MR. TAYLOR explained it is up to the discretion of the
responding officer and, if applicable, the prosecutor. He
reiterated that if one knowingly created a risk and caused
blockage it would be more than momentary blockage. Obstruction
could be charged if it interfered with an emergency vehicle, he
reiterated.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER alluded to obstructions by the railroad.
MR. TAYLOR responded if the railroad did it intentionally, for
example, to keep people from accessing a reservoir on the other
side of the road, there could potentially be a charge of
obstruction; however, it would not be a person but a company or
corporation charged.
1:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA offered her understanding that the bill
seeks to balance public safety and transportation with First
Amendment rights but does not apply to a permit for a rally or
protest. She questioned how Mr. Taylor saw the role of a
permit.
MR. TAYLOR replied that it is largely a decision from
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA requested Mr. Taylor to speak to situations
where permits are denied. She further inquired Mr. Taylor to
speak to First Amendment conduct that does not require a permit.
MR. TAYLOR stated he could not speak to the denial of permits
and reiterated that it is a municipal level policy call. In
response to a follow-up question, he said that an example of
permitted activity would be protesters making their policy views
clear right outside the Alaska State Capitol [building].
1:29:51 PM
CHAIR MCCABE offered a scenario where traffic is obstructed and
an hour after the perpetrators are gone, traffic is still
"snarled." He questioned the repercussion if the obstruction
resulted in an ambulance not getting through and someone dying
because of the snarl.
MR. TAYLOR replied he thought that would qualify if it were
knowingly caused, and the penalty could be a Class E felony in
such a case.
CHAIR MCCABE reflected on the topic of self-help and asked for
further definition.
MR. TAYLOR replied that the self-help the proposed legislation
is trying to prevent is individuals' rising frustrations, and he
gave examples of scenarios where tensions can rise. The idea
behind the bill, he said, is to prevent that from happening. He
explained that if a trooper pulled up upon a situation, the
option would be to write a ticket; however, with the bill, the
officer would have an arrestable offense and could remove the
violator from the site.
CHAIR MCCABE noted that he had been involved in strikes and
having to get a permit from the city, and each time the permit
had restrictions, such as to set time limits, and although
citizens are free to exercise their First Amendment rights, they
are not free from some of the consequences of doing so. He
opined that in terms of self-help, it is to prevent the
consequences to the people protesting or to the public.
MR. TAYLOR confirmed that was exactly right and acknowledged how
easy it is for things to escalate.
1:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she appreciated the intent of the
bill, but reflected on Section 9, and spoke of a situation when
an emergency vehicle was not able to gain access to the beach in
Kasilof due to random parking along the roads. She asked how
the law would apply and whether ill intent would have to be
proven.
MR. TAYLOR clarified what must be proven is that the person
knowingly caused the situation that created a substantial risk
of injury or interferes with the emergency response.
1:39:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked Mr. Taylor to speak to how often the
current fines for obstructing highways are enforced.
MR. TAYLOR said he did not have the information in front of him,
but he could research the numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how often obstructions on highways
happen.
MR. TAYLOR said he was aware of occurrences on the North Slope
and, in other areas, people blocking remote roads. He added
what is being seen in the Lower 48 is what he wished to be
preventable in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA sought clarity that the intent of the bill
would be to deter potential escalations of violence that could
happen at an event.
MR. TAYLOR confirmed that is part of the reasoning behind the
bill and for Alaskans to be prevented from taking matters into
their own hands.
1:42:50 PM
CHAIR MCCABE recognized law enforcement online to answer any
further questions from committee members.
1:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked Lieutenant French how often there are
obstructions on state roads.
1:43:56 PM
LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRENCH, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), replied that he was not aware
of exact numbers in those cases, but he could find the
information.
CHAIR MCCABE suggested Lieutenant French email the information
to the committee and provided the address. He directed a
comment to Mr. Taylor in reference to Alaskans going fishing and
not thinking about obstructing traffic and clarified that the
bill is designed for people who knowingly have an objective to
block or stop traffic to make a point.
MR. TAYLOR replied that that was exactly right.
1:45:07 PM
CHAIR MCCABE announced that HB 386 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 386 Transmittal Letter version A.3.8.24.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Version A.3.8.24.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Highlights version A.3.8.24.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Sectional Analysis version A 3.8.24..pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Dept. of Law PowerPoint Presentation 3.11.24.pptx |
HTRA 3/12/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |