Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/05/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB182 | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 182-INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES
4:06:48 PM
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 182(JUD), "An Act establishing
the crime of interference with emergency communications."
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSSB 182(JUD),
labeled 32-LS1103\O.3, Radford, 4/25/22, which read:
Page 3, lines 5 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(d) Interference with emergency communications
is a class A misdemeanor."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:07:34 PM
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN explained that Amendment 1 would remove the
felony provisions in the proposed legislation and instead make
[interference with emergency communications] a class A
misdemeanor. He expressed concern that elevating the conduct to
a felony crime may have a significant impact on people who were
suffering from a mental health issue.
4:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE disagreed. She shared her understanding
that an "unknowing person" was already considered in the bill
and would be protected under the law.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged that a judge could take that into
consideration during sentencing; however, he maintained his
hesitation to elevating the criminal offense to a felony until
it was proven that criminalizing the conduct on any level
reduced the number of interfering calls.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reiterated her understanding that the
intent of the bill was to create a "big stick" for bad actors
who continually abuse the system. She opined that a misdemeanor
was not enough of a deterrent and respectfully opposed Amendment
1.
4:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that a felony charge was
excessive for many reasons; further, he opined that threatening
people that were suffering from a mental health crisis with a
felony charge would not be effective in changing their behavior.
He suggested further reducing the class A misdemeanor to a class
B misdemeanor.
4:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether there was a history of serious
physical injury or death as a result of interference with
emergency communications.
JASMINE MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Wilson, prime sponsor, said
she was not aware of any instances. She conveyed that the bill
sponsor was not opposed to Amendment 1. She deferred to Mr.
Butcher for additional comment.
4:12:45 PM
JACOB BUTCHER, Communications Manager, Mat-Com Dispatch,
reported that in his 16 years in a 911 communications center, he
was not aware of any direct injury or death related to
interference with emergency communications. Nonetheless, he
said there was an "open road" to the possibility of it happening
in the future. He shared a personal anecdote.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she would be more inclined to leave the
bill in its current form if there had been incidents of injury
or death associated with the behavior. She cautioned against
elevating the criminal offense to a felony, adding that she felt
comfortable with the language in Amendment 1.
4:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his support for Amendment
1. He asserted that turning people into felons was not the
answer to all problems. He opined that criminalizing conduct
should come with a reminder of the punishable amount of
jailtime, as well as the difficulties that accompany the
lifelong label of "felon."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.
4:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected for clarification. She sought to
confirm that a person would not be charged with a class C felony
unless the interference resulted in serious physical injury or
death of a person.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN said, "That's correct as I read the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that per Amendment 1,
interference that resulted in injury or death would be penalized
with a class A misdemeanor.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that under the statute [AS 11.56],
the criminal offense would be classified as a misdemeanor;
however, there were circumstances relating to serious injury or
death in which other crimes could be charged depending on the
scenario.
4:17:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that that if
someone died, there would be an element of culpability. He
indicated that there were other civil and criminal charges that
could be brought against the offender if the behavior resulted
in death.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the Senate's perspective on
the bill.
MS. MARTIN explained that the original version of the bill
included an escalating factor, such that multiple convictions
would result in a felony after two or three occurrences. She
stated that the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee removed that
provision, changing it to a class A felony if the behavior
resulted in serious injury or death.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN cited AS 11.41.130 [criminally negligent
homicide] and asked whether the adoption of Amendment 1 could
impact the charge of criminally negligent homicide.
4:20:27 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), agreed that it would be fact dependent,
as causation would need to be proven. She explained that a
direct link between the behavior and the death of another person
would need to be identified.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN sought to confirm that the issue of causation
still existed for the criminal offense created under CSSB
182(JUD).
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed. She explained that the underlying
offense would still need to be proven and directly linked to the
death of another person, should that scenario occur. She
suspected that it would be difficult to prove.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that when considering the mental
state, criminally negligent homicide may be easier to prove than
a homicide related to interference with emergency
communications.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that when considering the mental state
only, that may be true; however, causation was also an issue.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN, referencing AS 11.41.210 [assault in the
second degree], sought to confirm that the same issues would
arise in regard to recklessness as a mental state; however, the
issue of causation would still need to be proven, suggesting
that one "might be able to prove assault."
MS. SCHROEDER said she was far less comfortable with that.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE [removed her objection] to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment
1 to CSSB 182(JUD) was adopted.
4:24:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSSB
182(JUD), labeled 32-LS1103\O.5, Radford, 4/28/22, which read:
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "A"
Insert "B"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:24:34 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska state Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, explained that Amendment 2 would modify the bill, such
that interference with emergency communications resulted in a
class B misdemeanor, rather than a class A misdemeanor. For
reference, he said, a class A misdemeanor in Alaska is
punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to
$10,000. In contrast, a class B misdemeanor is punishable by up
to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
4:26:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 to CSSB 182(JUD) was adopted.
4:26:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to CSSB
182(JUD), labeled 32-LS1103\O.6, Radford, 5/3/22, which read:
Page 1, line 6, following "knowingly":
Insert ","
Page 1, lines 7 - 15:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "(4)"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "(A)"
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "(B)"
Insert "(2)"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "(a)(4)"
Insert "(a)"
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:26:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that the substantive language
of Amendment 3 was on page 1, lines 4-5, which deleted all
material on lines 7-15 of CSSB 182(JUD).
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN asked for the bill sponsor's perspective on
Amendment 3.
4:28:36 PM
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that the proposed amendment would
delete operative language in the underlying bill, as it related
to repeated emergency communications. He shared his belief that
Amendment 3 would eliminate the original intent of the bill.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 3.
4:29:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3 to CSSB 182(JUD).
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-
Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 1-6.
4:30:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4 to CSSB
182(JUD), labeled 32-LS1103\O.7, Radford, 5/3/22, which read:
Page 2, lines 20 - 26:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 2, line 27, following "personnel;"
Insert "and"
Page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 2:
Delete all material.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:30:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that the operative language of
Amendment 4 was on page 1, lines 1-2, which deleted the
qualifying details in the definition of "emergency
communications center." He opined that although the definition
in the bill was comprehensive, it expanded beyond the
traditional understanding of a dispatch center.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN asked for the bill sponsor's perspective on
Amendment 4.
MS. MARTIN stated that the definitions of "emergency
communications center," which Amendment 4 sought to delete, were
pulled from the National Emergency Number Association (NENA).
She deferred to the will of the committee.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4.
4:35:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 4 to CSSB 182(JUD).
Representatives Kaufman, Tarr, Story, Claman, Vance, and Kreiss-
Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a
vote of 1-6.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN invited final comments on the underlying bill.
4:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his apprehension to the broad
scope of the bill, given the criminalization of conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his support for the bill, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her support for the legislation;
nonetheless, she opined that there was a need for stiffer
penalties in the justice system when it came to crimes against
people. She asserted that her consideration of the bill would
have been different if there had been any evidence of harm.
4:37:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the committee for lowering the
criminal offense to a misdemeanor. She highlighted that many
young adults were functioning with undeveloped brains, as
executive functions were established later in life; therefore,
she preferred the lesser charges.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged the concerns about escalating the
punishment. He pointed out that there was plenty of opportunity
to penalize improper behavior. He stated his support for the
bill.
4:38:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report CSSB 182(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
182(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.