Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/19/2001 01:15 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 102 - THEFT OF PROPELLED VEHICLES Number 0522 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to the theft of propelled vehicles." Number 0488 ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 102 on behalf of Representative Kott, Sponsor. He explained that HB 102 focused on the crime of vehicle theft, with equal penalties associated with the taking of a propelled vehicle. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snow machines were used in many parts of the state of Alaska as the sole means of preferred transportation for some Alaskans, and, therefore, were more than merely recreational vehicles for those owners. Equal protection under the law demanded that the theft of such vehicles be accorded the same treatment as provided for the principal transportation vehicles [of] other Alaskans. He went on to say that HB 102 provided a new element in the commission [of the crime] of taking the propelled vehicle of another when the owner was deprived of the use of that vehicle for a specific period of time and had incurred expenses as a result of the loss of the vehicle. It amended the definition for "all-terrain vehicles" as well as the definition for "watercraft". Number 0338 MR. WORTMAN specified for Chair Rokeberg that HB 102 was introduced because of a concern brought forth regarding the inequities between the [levels of crimes of] theft of an ATV, a snow machine, a water ski, and a personal water craft. A personal water craft is currently defined under "watercraft", and the theft of a watercraft is a class C felony. The theft of an ATV (if damage to it is under $500 and it is not a police/emergency vehicle) is a class A misdemeanor. He felt HB 102 would provide equal protection under the law, regardless of the season, for people who relied on these types of vehicles as their sole means of transportation. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that some personal water craft, referred to in Section 3, were very expensive and he wondered why they were exempted. Number 0188 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health & and Social Services, said that he came in support of HB 102. He said that HB 102 accomplishes two significant objectives of interest to the Division of Juvenile Justice, in particular. One, it gives deference to victims by addressing the disparity in the current vehicle theft statute. Some Alaskans depend on the use of their snow machines and ATVs in much the same way that urban Alaskans might depend on their truck or car as a primary means of transportation. Under the current statutes, theft of an ATV or snow machine constitutes a class A misdemeanor, while theft of a vehicle constitutes a class C felony. Yet the impact on victims in some cases is really quite the same. In HB 102, the threshold by which severity of impact could be determined is the provision regarding a seven-day loss of a vehicle. The theft of an ATV would not automatically be classified as a felony; [the theft] only did so after a certain period of impact and inconvenience. In a restorative justice system that strives to make victims whole, HB 102 gives deference to victims and recognizes the severity of that [criminal] behavior. Second, by classifying that [criminal] behavior as a felony, it assists the Division of Juvenile Justice in holding young offenders accountable for offenses that are viewed as serious with regard to impact on victims. TAPE 01-20, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. BUTTCANE, in response to Representative Ogan, explained that the division did not anticipate any increased cost for incarceration. [The division] already received these cases as misdemeanors; the change proposed by HB 102 would reclassify some of the existing referrals as felonies, some of which would be petitioned into superior court at a slightly higher rate. He again offered the reasons he had listed earlier as significant motivation to change current statute. He added that although more young offenders might not be detained, HB 102 would give the division the ability to impose "additional intrusive responses" for felony offenses, such as additional hours of community work service, additional dollars of restitution, and additional periods of controlled supervision. Number 0270 STEVE DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference in support of HB 102. He said equalized protection for vehicles of people who lived in rural Alaska was viewed as a good thing by the department. He added that the department did not anticipate any fiscal impact because current enforcement efforts would absorb the changes wrought by HB 102. He expressed, however, a concern about the language regarding personal water craft being excluded from the category of watercraft. He pointed out that statutory definitions of these items were infrequently placed, and [the department] did not want any terminology, or lack of definition, to carry from one statute to another. He pointed out that driving while intoxicated specifically covered operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated. He warned that the exception in [HB 102] might allow a person, arrested for intoxication while operating a personal water craft, a loophole if he or she claimed it was not a watercraft by definition. Number 0493 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Dunagan if he believed [the theft of] a jet ski should be considered in the same realm of offense as [the theft of] an ATV or snow machine. MR. DUNAGAN replied that he did not. Further, he believed the sponsor's intent was that a personal water craft would not necessarily be considered a primary source of transportation for somebody living in rural Alaska. He said he thought [a jet ski] could be excluded from that principal type of vehicle or transportation. He suggested adding an amendment which specified that the definition regarding the personal water craft exception only applied to AS 11.46 and did not affect any other statute. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ observed that all-terrain vehicle was defined in Section 2 but not mentioned at all in the text of Section 1. Number 0618 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that [AS 11.81.900] already included ATV under the definition of a propelled vehicle. She agreed with Representative Berkowitz that perhaps the Revisor [of Statutes] should be notified so that the definition [in HB 102] could be moved to the definitional section of [AS 11.81]. Number 0680 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the intent of Section 2 was to further define an ATV for the purposes of HB 102 only, so that other types of propelled vehicles, such as "hummers" and 4-wheel-drive vehicles would not be included. He added that because the only place where that particular definition of all-terrain vehicle applied was in HB 102, the definition needed to be kept as Section 2 of HB 102. Everywhere else in Title 11, that specific definition of all-terrain vehicle was not relevant to the definition of propelled vehicle. The goal was to prevent the theft of such a vehicle from automatically becoming a felony, unless any of the provisions of Section 1, subsection (a), paragraph (2), applied. Number 0847 CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the concerns about the definition of "personal water craft" being separated from the term "watercraft" warranted another look at HB 102. He asked Mr. Wortman, Mr. Luckhaupt, and Ms. Nobrega to work on this issue and bring [a proposed CS] back to the committee. Number 0927 MR. LUCKHAUPT commented that the language in HB 102 specified that the definition of watercraft only applied to that section; therefore, it did not apply to the definition in Title 28, which has its own definition under "operate a watercraft" [AS 28.35.030]. [HB 102 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|