04/26/1995 01:17 PM House JUD

 HB 292 - FISH & GAME ENFORCEMENT                                          
                                                                               
 LT. TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public                  
 Safety, introduced CSHB 292(JUD).  He said the department                     
 recommends the CS, after reviewing the bill and discussing it with            
 the Department of Law.                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER entertained a motion to adopt the work draft,                 
 Version G, as the committee's working draft.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the CSHB 292(JUD).                
 Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                                      
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN described the CS.  The first section remains the same             
 as it was previously.  It removes the unusual requirement for Fish            
 and Wildlife Protection to serve an additional piece of paper when            
 they are doing a consent search.  Sections 2 and 3 of the bill                
 create a strict liability violation for making false statements in            
 applications for licenses, tabs, and permits.  This previously was            
 a misdemeanor, and created some problems in practice that the                 
 district Attorneys were somewhat reluctant to give resources to               
 attempt to prove in court that the `knowingly' requirement that was           
 previously attached to this section.  This removes that `knowingly'           
 requirement, making it a strict liability violation, and raises the           
 possible maximum fine from $500 to $1,000.  The present bail amount           
 for this is $200, he believed, but thought they were going to                 
 attempt to raise it slightly.                                                 
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN stated that Section 3 in the CS has a small problem.              
 On line 13, the present statute contains the citation AS                      
 16.05.420(b), and the previous version of the bill removed that as            
 an exception, however, that was in error, and we want to keep that            
 as an exception.  He did not know whether there was a reason for it           
 or if the drafter removed it by retaining brackets around that                
 section, and then added it back in again by underlining it                    
 previously, so essentially it is a wash.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN mentioned that is just because it does             
 not need to have AS in front of it again.                                     
                                                                               
 A couple of people agreed that was correct.                                   
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN said that is perfectly acceptable.  The other thing he            
 wanted to say is that the Department of Fish and Game has reviewed            
 this and agrees with it.  The Fish and Wildlife Protection Division           
 also agrees with it.  This is what they wanted and asked for, and             
 it accomplishes what they recommended to begin with.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not understand the difference                  
 between the old and the new categories for these falsifications.              
 He asked if there currently is one standard, and if so, what is it?           
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN answered that the standard now requires a culpable                
 mental state of `knowingly' in order to be charged under this                 
 section.  The problem is a resource problem.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 700                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the penalty for a violation             
 is under current law.                                                         
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN believed it is a maximum of six months imprisonment,              
 and a maximum of $500 fine.                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that is as a misdemeanor crime, not a               
 violation.                                                                    
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN corrected himself saying it may be a $1000 fine.                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there would be two categories             
 if this bill were to take effect.                                             
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN said what we have now is one strict liability violation           
 for making a false statement that does not require a culpable                 
 mental state.  What the last sentence of Section 2 allows for is              
 that if there is a situation in which there is some sort of gross             
 act, it could bump up to an actual criminal violation under unsworn           
 falsification.  For just making a false statement or omission of a            
 material fact, without any requirement for any culpable mental                
 state, it would be just a violation.                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the category he is thinking of                
 includes people who try to say they are residents and are really              
 not.  He asked if it is the department's conclusion that they are             
 going to get a lot more people with this standard, even though the            
 fine is smaller?                                                              
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN said yes, it is the thought that we are going to get              
 more convictions.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the conclusion is that it is              
 the higher number of convictions that will deter people, rather               
 than the law.                                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the situation described is a                   
 culpable state and would fall under the misdemeanor category, so we           
 are not lessening the penalty for a person who is an "out-of-                 
 stater" who knows he lives out of state when he comes up here to              
 sign up for a resident license.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not doubt this to be true, but in              
 order to achieve our goals, we are going to be out enforcing this             
 fine section because that seems to be the way to achieve the goal,            
 even though the other one is on the books.  We are not really going           
 to be doing anything about it.  We will go after this one.                    
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN said the hardest thing for a district attorney to prove           
 in the past, was that the violation was committed `knowingly.'                
 Under this bill, they would not have to do that, so it will result            
 in more convictions, and therefore, be a greater deterrent.  People           
 will know the responsibility is upon them to make sure that what              
 they put on that application is true.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that on page 2, line 12,               
 there are two more exceptions other than the one they just talked             
 about for the current standard.  He is trying to figure out what              
 those two are:  AS 16.05.47(b) and (d), and AS 16.05.48(b).                   
                                                                               
 LT. BACHMAN believed those to be essentially housekeeping.  Those             
 two particular statutes are guiding statutes which directly refer             
 to the criminal provisions in the statutes, so rather than bringing           
 them into the realm of this restrictive misdemeanor, it allows them           
 to refer directly to the misdemeanors in the criminal statutes that           
 are referred to within those statutes.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 800                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. CARPENETI stated that those sections have their own criminal              
 penalties which are higher.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 292(JUD) out of               
 committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal                 
 notes.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.