Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/02/2022 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB182 | |
| SB189 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 182-INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES
1:33:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 182
"An Act establishing the crime of interference with emergency
communications."
He noted that this was the third hearing and there was a
committee substitute (CS) for the committee to consider.
1:34:01 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for SB 182, work order 32-LS1103\O, Version O, as the
working document.
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:34:23 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, directed attention to the Explanation of Changes
for the committee substitute (CS) for SB 182, from Version G to
Version O.
EXPLANATION OF CHANGES
(VERSION G TO VERSION O)
The Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute makes the
following changes:
Page 1, lines 14-15:
(3)threatens [USES OBSCENE LANGUAGE DURING] an
emergency communication with the intent to
intimidate or harass an emergency communications
worker
Page 2, lines 1-12:
(4) with the intent to cause a disruption in service,
interferes with, blocks, or otherwise disrupts an
emergency communication [COMMUNICATIONS] the takes
place by telephone, radio or other electronic means
between
(A) an emergency communications worker and
police, fire, or medical service personnel;
(B) between police, fire, or medical service
personnel, [WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE A DISRUPTION
IN SERVICE];or
(C) an emergency communications worker and a
person reporting an emergency or otherwise
assisting the emergency communication worker
during the emergency communication.
(b) Interference with emergency communications under
(a)(4) of this section does not apply to in-person
communications or [THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO]
routine maintenance conducted by authorized personnel.
Page 2, lines 14-16:
"emergency communications" means a communication made
to or from an emergency communications center or
between police, fire, or medical service personnel in
response to an emergency:
(c) Interference with emergency communications is
(1) a class C felony if
[(A) WITHIN THE PRECEDING 10 YEARS, THE
PERSON WAS CONVICTED ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE
OCCASIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS JURISDICTION OR A SIMILAR
CRIME IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR
(B)] the interference results in serious
physical injury to or the death of a person;
1:34:35 PM
MR. KING referred to page 1, lines 14-15 of SB 182, Version O,
adds "threatens" and removes "uses obscene language during".
1:34:42 PM
MR. KING said the language on page 2, lines 1-12 of the
committee substitute (CS) for SB 189 Version O makes several
changes. First, it would address the concern about in-person
communications by clarifying that the communications must be by
telephone, radio, or other electronic means.
1:35:15 PM
At ease
1:35:44 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
MR. KING explained that the provisions in subparagraph (C) would
cover communications with a civilian interacting with an
emergency communications worker.
MR. KING further explained that subsection (b) would further the
point that in-person communications are exempted from the new
provisions in law.
MR. KING referred to page 2, lines 14-16 of Version O. He
explained that the definition of "emergency communications" was
amended to include communications to and from a communications
center or between police, fire, or medical service personnel in
response to an emergency. This change was to address the
committee's concerns.
MR. KING said the last change is on page 2, line 30 through page
3, line 2. That provision made it a class C felony to have more
than one offense of interference with emergency communications
within ten years. Under Version O, the penalty would be a class
A misdemeanor regardless of the number of offenses.
1:37:14 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection. He heard no further
objection, and Version O was before the committee.
1:37:25 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS1103\O.2.
32-LS1103\O.2
Radford
3/1/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 182(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A person may not be charged with an offense
under (a)(1) of this section if the person, acting in
good faith and in a manner the person reasonably
believed to be in the best interests of the person
experiencing an emergency, made an effort to assist
another person experiencing an emergency and made
repeated emergency communications relating to the
emergency."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:37:39 PM
SENATOR SHOWER read Amendment 1. He explained that this would
protect a person who was under duress during an emergency and
was frantically trying to get assistance from being penalized
under the harassment statute, although their behavior may have
been construed as disruptive. He highlighted that this would
apply to someone acting in good faith with no intent to cause
problems for the communications center.
1:39:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL wondered how someone acting in good faith would be
making threats during an emergency with the intention of
helping.
SENATOR SHOWER replied that the communications could be between
people in the field during an emergency. He related that a
person could be supercharged with adrenaline and emotion in
those situations. Suppose the person was trying to help the
officers or firefighters, but the emergency responders told the
person to step back or be arrested. He stated the intent of
Amendment 1 was to recognize that the person was trying to help,
so they shouldn't be charged.
1:41:48 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the sponsor intended for Amendment 1 to
apply to a person at the emergency scene or if it would apply to
someone who calls the dispatcher.
SENATOR SHOWER answered that the intent was to apply to people
on the scene who were trying to assist someone but were
disruptive. He acknowledged that someone might interpret the
language in Amendment 1 to apply to callers.
1:43:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES suggested language could be added to clarify it
was at the emergency location. She referred to the language on
line 4 of Amendment 1, "in a manner the person reasonably
believed" since people would always think their actions were
reasonable. She further suggested that there might be a legal
term for someone else believing that the person's actions on
scene were reasonable.
1:44:01 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that a person being charged might make that
argument in front of a judge or a court.
1:44:13 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related that his staff worked with Legislative
Legal Services on Amendment 1, so he may have comments.
1:44:46 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Shower, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, related his personal experience with emergency
services when a piece of equipment ran over a neighbor. At the
time, he was working for a volunteer fire department that
responded to the accident. He recalled that he repeatedly called
911 to get the status of the medical personnel because he was
concerned that the injured person would bleed to death. He
emphasized that it was important to capture the committee's
discussion for the record. He offered his belief that Amendment
1 could apply to a person on the scene or someone who called
911.
SENATOR SHOWER said that wasn't his intent, but someone might
interpret the language to mean people making repetitive calls to
the call center. He stated the intent was to add language that
showed they would not be criminally charged if they were acting
"in good faith."
1:47:45 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related her understanding that the language "in a
manner the person reasonably believed" should apply to what an
ordinary person would believe was reasonable. She suggested that
Mr. Skidmore might weigh in on that language.
1:48:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he thought the committee substitute (CS)
would address it. He offered his belief that the only way
someone would be committing a crime at the scene would be by
unplugging or jamming radios or telephones. The person would
need to intend to disrupt service and block or disrupt
communication by electronic means. He stated that the trigger in
the bill for calls would be that the emergency dispatchers told
the person to stop calling. He suggested that this language
would cover the situation Mr. Ogan described. He wondered if "in
a manner, the person reasonably believed" really refers to
third-party assessments of the person's behavior.
1:50:02 PM
At ease
1:51:22 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
1:51:26 PM
JASMIN MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, answered
that Amendment 1 would only apply to [Sec. 11.56.785](a)(i), for
those who make repeated emergency communications to report a
previously reported incident. She explained that under Amendment
1, an "emergency communication" means a communication made to or
from an emergency communications center. Thus, it is not in-
person communication but repeated calls to the emergency
communications center. In order to be charged under [Sec.
11.56.785](a)(i), a person would need to make repeated calls
with no change in circumstance. For example, if someone was hurt
or their condition worsens or improves, it would mean a change
in their circumstance. In order for the person to be charged,
there would have to be no change in circumstance, and the 911
operator would need to have told the person to stop calling
because it was tying up lines and someone had already reported
the incident. She offered her view that this clarifies the
matter.
1:53:21 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, stated that he had not previously reviewed Amendment 1
but offered his short analysis. He noted that Amendment 1 was
drafted to say a person may not be charged. However, that manner
of drafting is inconsistent with criminal law, which would draft
the language as a defense. For example, AS 11.41.432 lists the
defenses for offenses against a person by indicating what
conduct applies. However, stating that a person cannot be
charged creates other problems. Second, the amendment addresses
AS 11.56.785(a)(1), which says that it is a crime if a person
makes repeated calls after being told to stop. Amendment 1 would
add a caveat when the person believes they were acting in good
faith and in a manner the person reasonably believes was in the
best interest and continues to make calls. He viewed Amendment 1
as basically gutting subsection (a)(1). Someone will always say
they were acting in good faith, and they thought it was in the
best interests of the person facing the emergency, even though
the 911 operator told them to stop. He deferred to the committee
to decide. He suggested that if the committee intends to stop
callers or criminalize their conduct when the operator tells
them to stop making calls, it should not adopt Amendment 1.
1:56:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that Amendment 1 did not seem to
match the intent, which was to recognize that some people are
acting in good faith.
SENATOR SHOWER withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
1:57:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked for closing comments, and there were none.
1:57:26 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 182, work order 32-LS1103\O,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and CSSB 182(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:57:46 PM
At ease
2:00:11 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 182 Summary of Changes (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 3/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| CS for SB 182 (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 3/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| CSSB 182 amendment 1 (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 3/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |