Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/09/2018 09:00 AM FINANCE
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.
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 129 "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution; adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an effective date." 10:34:19 AM Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill had been heard before in committee and public testimony was CLOSED. 10:35:01 AM AT EASE 10:35:33 AM RECONVENED BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), deferred questions to the Department of Public Safety. STEVE HALL, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), did not have additional comments. Co-Chair Foster listed additional individuals available for questions. 10:37:07 AM Representative Kawasaki noted that several sections of the bill changed the consequence for violations from a misdemeanor, upon conviction punishable by a fine, to a Class A misdemeanor and punishable by a fine. He wondered about the impact of the change in language. AARON PETERSON, ATTORNEY IV, CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), responded that the original language in the bill would have changed all the non-classified misdemeanors in Title 16 to Class A misdemeanors with standard Class A misdemeanor penalties laid out in AS 12.55. He said that the amended version made them Class A misdemeanors with maximum fine amounts. Representative Kawasaki understood that under the current bill a charge for violation could be appealed in court. Mr. Peterson answered in the affirmative. 10:39:43 AM Representative Pruitt referenced Page 2, section 3: (h) A peace officer presented with an electronic device under (g) of this section is immune from any liability resulting from damage to the device. Representative Pruitt asked what would happen if the electronic device was damaged in the presentation of said device to a peace officer. He thought that utilizing the electronic device was a good idea but expressed concern about the meaning of "liability" in the subsection. Mr. Hall answered that the provision was intended to protect the department from liability. If a person chose to store their fishing license on their phone, rather than have a paper copy the department would not be held liable for any damage to the phone or other device. Representative Pruitt offered an anecdote where a person was asked to show their license even though they had not committed a violation. He worried that the public would have no recourse if they were asked to present their license and then something happened to their device. He thought that the department should claim some liability for damage. He threatened to offer a conceptual amendment to have the language removed. 10:44:28 AM Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was precedent for Representative Pruitt's concern. Mr. Peterson replied that the reason that the section was in the bill was based on situations in other states. He offered an example of a person fishing in the rain using their phone to show their license to an officer. He said that if the device got wet and was damaged while the trooper was performing their duties, the state would not be liable for damages to the device. He said that if the officer was grossly negligent it could be an issue for the civil division of law. 10:47:07 AM Representative Guttenberg understood it was a civil law issue. Mr. Peterson explained that there was a duty of care that law enforcement was required to exhibit when taking possession of belongings, an impounded vehicle, for example. He said that "due care" would be used by law enforcement and the liability would depend on the facts of the interaction. 10:48:39 AM Representative Ortiz understood the concern; however, there was a certain amount of acceptance of the risk of having the only copy of the licenses in an electronic format. He thought an individual had to calculate that risk when deciding whether to carry a paper or electronic license. He would oppose the conceptual amendment if offered. Representative Wilson asked to hear from someone from the Civil Division of the Department of Law. The language stated, "immune from any damage to a device." She did not think proper care had anything to do with it. She did not think anyone should be completely immune to possible damage of property. Co-Chair Foster held the bill until the afternoon meeting. Representative Wilson requested more information on the issue. She thought the bill could be written in a better way. HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster discussed housekeeping.