Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/19/1996 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 433 - POLICE CAN INTERCEPT SOME COMMUNICATIONS Number 2337 CHAIRMAN PORTER then introduced HB 433, for testimony purposes and called on Lieutenant Dennis Casanovas who testified by teleconference from Anchorage. LT. DENNIS CASANOVAS, Commander, Criminal Investigations Bureau, stated that the Department of Public Safety supports this bill which adds an exemption to AS 42.23.20. This exemption would grant Alaska law enforcement officers additional resources to deal with crisis situations such as, barricaded suspects and hostage incidences. LT. CASANOVAS stated that currently, law enforcement officers respond to such crisis situations many times without a clear understanding of the number of participants, the identity of the perpetrators involved, the types of weapons or explosives which may be available, the number of hostages which have been put in harms way and the extent of injuries to those people involved. These crisis situations involve rapidly changing circumstances and rely heavily on what information law enforcement negotiators can quickly learn from near-by witnesses and or from the suspect, should the suspect wish to communicate with the police. LT. CASANOVAS stressed that this bill would allow law enforcement officers the ability to intercept, listen or record communications which a hostage taker may have with their hostages or a barricaded suspect would have with themselves. Such communications may identify what the hostage taker is planning to do to their victims or allow law enforcement personnel to know in advance if the suspect is planning increasing acts of violence or escape. Such communications may also identify whether the negotiator is being effective in their efforts, or need to change their tactics to resolve the crisis situation safely and without further injury to the suspect, hostages, the general public, as well as, to emergency response personnel and law enforcement officers who may have to make a forced entry to the structure to make arrests, free hostages or render aid. LT. CASANOVAS noted that the Alaska state troopers respond to approximately four incidents per year, where a suspect refuses to exit or surrender at the direction of a police officer, holds another person hostage or threatens the illegal use of an explosive. With passage of this legislation the Alaska law enforcement agencies would be better equipped to resolve crisis situations in a more efficient and safe manner than they are today. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked about the significance of the term barricaded. He said he didn't understand, would they not be able to gain this information if they didn't erect a barricade. LT. CASANOVAS said that a barricaded situation is what police officers usually become involved with, a person has made some efforts to prevent them from making forced entry into a structure. This is why this language was included. TAPE 96-23, SIDE B Number 001 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said maybe he doesn't understand AS 42.20.300 very well. He asked if these acts are specifically outlawed at this time. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this is just an exception to when you have to get a warrant. Number 036 MS. CARPENETI outlined for the committee that AS 42.20 deals with circumstances which someone is not allowed to eavesdrop on conversations without these exemptions, this legislation adds this particular exemption to a list of others exemptions which are allowed for eavesdropping. There are circumstances where a police officer could get a warrant to intercept or to listen to conversations. Generally, under emergency situations, the warrant concept would be too time consuming. LT. CASANOVAS stated that the main issue in these emergency situations is that they unfold very quickly. There are not a lot of known details, such as who the perpetrator is or what they have actually done. This makes it very difficult to make an application to the court, both logistically during any 24 hour day and to provide an ample amount of facts for the court to evaluate in order to allow for law enforcement to intercept these communications. It's been described that if these exemptions were not on the books, consequently, if law enforcement were to do these things then they could be charged with a misdemeanor offense. It was their intent to add this exemption, which would make it legal for a law enforcement agency to try to safely resolve these crisis situations. Number 147 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if there was not a 24 hour on-call system, such as with hospital personnel, in the court system to provide a warrant under these circumstances. LT. CASANOVAS again pointed out that some of these incidences take place in very rural areas and a police officer is not always able to obtain enough information regarding a particular incident to determine the need for a warrant as under the usual circumstances. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if the void was big enough to warrant this exemption. Number 221 MS. CARPENETI said that this issue arose when a question was asked of a D.A. in Anchorage and it was made clear that an exemption needed to exist to take care of this situation. It was assumed that of course a law enforcement official could surreptitiously record a suspect. After examination of the statute it was clear that an exemption was needed so that under an emergency situation, someone is able to immediately defuse a dangerous situation which could get out of hand. Number 321 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this exemption could be drafted without listing it into the already existing list of exemptions to basically say that a law enforcement official has the right under an emergency situation to do certain things. MS. CARPENETI stated they had tried to be very specific so as not to make too broad of an exemption to the basic rule that surreptitious eavesdropping is generally not allowed in the state of Alaska. She supposed that a more general exemption could be considered. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN was concerned that if an amendment is drafted for an individual who is barricaded, but say for example, a person who was in a hallway they might not come under the same exemption because of a language interpretation. Number 350 MS. CARPENETI noted that these were situations which the law enforcement department brought to them as problem areas. LT. CASANOVAS added that the term "barricaded" could mean that there is simply a wall between the suspect and a law enforcement official. This issue came up because these barricaded individuals would be the most problematic and in order to get close enough to possibly record conversations or to hear what they're doing or talking about, this is why the barricade term came up. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there might be a more flexible term used, rather than barricade. He also suggested that the phrase "firearms" be added to another clause which addressed explosives. LT. CASANOVAS said he would not have any objections to this addition of the term "firearms" to the section Representative Vezey had referenced. Number 457 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the use of the term "deadly weapon." MS. CARPENETI requested that she be able to review this amendment regarding the barricade terminology, as well as deadly weapon term, since they might open up these clauses farther beyond what is permissible. Number 500 CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that these changes could make it too restrictive and noted that the word barricaded is more a term of art used by law enforcement individuals. He requested that the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety revise this language as suggested and then the committee could take the bill up again. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN cautioned that they shouldn't try to expand the language too far, since it could make the clause too restrictive. Number 639 GENE OTTENSTROER testified from Delta Junction by teleconference. He said he took offense with the term "Peace Officer" used in this legislation. He stated that this should be rephrased to allow for the term Law Enforcement Officers instead, because they're not Peace Officers. Mr. Ottenstroer also didn't agree with this bill because it goes against the constitution under the Privacy Act. He said it should require a court order with no exceptions. The individual should be protected. Number 754 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated, for the record, that if he was ever held hostage in a dangerous situation he didn't want the police officer to have a momentary pause in attempting to rescue him.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|