Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
04/27/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB163 | |
| HB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 194 - FINES AND OFFENSES 2:46:12 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to fines for certain offenses involving aeronautics, alcoholic beverages, boats, fish and game, health care records and public health, medical review organizations, public restroom facilities, smoking, shelter cabins, refrigerators and similar equipment, radiation sources, high voltage lines, child labor, employment in underground mines, marriage licenses, motor vehicles and driver's licenses, ignition interlock devices, pipelines, use of the state seal, and emissions requirements; relating to the maximum fine provided for violations and infractions and to the definition of 'minor offenses'; redesignating certain fish and game misdemeanor offenses as class A misdemeanors; relating to violations and offenses that are committed on state land, water, and land and water or that are related to water management or dam and reservoir safety; amending Rule 8(b), Alaska District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [Included in members' packets was CSHB 194(RES).] 2:46:27 PM HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Gatto, co-chair of the House Resources Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 194, commented that the bill was a carry over from the prior legislative session, with one additional proposed change. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) requested an update of the fine level for non-criminal violations. The fine level had not been increased in approximately 30 years, and so the concern was that the fine structure was not currently robust enough to act as a deterrent. There were also some misdemeanor fines associated with fish and game violations, which the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) said had not been increased, although similar violations from other departments had been increased. He continued that this lead to discussions with Department of Law (DOL) which resulted in a request to review and update all sections of statute that had these similar fine structures. He referred to the sectional statute index included in the members' packets, which outlined the basic component of each statute the various sections of the bill propose to change. MR. HILYARD mentioned that the greatest amount of discussion had been on Section 37 -the aforementioned additional proposed change- which refers to the penalties and enforcement authority of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR asked for an extension of its penalty and enforcement authority to now cover all the lands over which the DNR has oversight and management. He also offered to comment on some proposed amendments in members' packets pertaining to the powers of police officers. CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether it is fair to say the bill deals with updating penalties and enforcement. MR. HILYARD responded this was correct. 2:51:10 PM DICK MYLIUS, Acting Director, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that the main reason for Section 37 is that the primary means of enforcement of regulations on state land is a civil procedure. If a violation is detected, the offender is asked to stop and if they do not comply, then the officer has to have the attorney general send the offender a letter because there is no statutory provision for field citation; this bill would give the DNR the authority to issue such citations. The Division of Alaska State Troopers has also commented that it does not have the authority to issue citations on DNR land. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that a Knik Arm public recreation bill was passed last year, and mentioned that the commissioner of the DPS recently met with Representative Stoltze to address the lawlessness that is now going on in that public recreation area. Chair Ramras suggested that the biggest weapon that law enforcement now had is, "stop or I'll send you a letter." MR. MYLIUS stated that this is correct with regard to the enforcement authority for a division employee. The aforementioned legislation for the Knik Public Use area provided for stronger enforcement authority, but this was only 230,000 acres out of 93 million acres that was state owned. The Knik Public Use legislation triggered the discussion with Representative Gatto regarding the lack of enforcement authority in the field and so Representative Gatto proposed to add this change. Mr. Mylius mentioned there was one change made in the House Resources Standing Committee because members did not want division staff to have the authority to arrest people, but instead only wanted police officers to have that authority. The problem, however, was that a previous draft of the bill from House Resources Standing Committee had agreed for both police officers and state park rangers to have that authority on other state lands. When HB 194 returned from legislative drafting, however, the bill limited this authority to police officers. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the statutes to be repealed, via Section 43, and said he was concerned about repealing AS 41.23.220(b), which states: (b) The supreme court shall establish by order or rule a schedule of bail amounts for violations under (a) of this section that allow the disposition of a citation without a court appearance. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether this will repeal the Alaska Supreme Court's authority generally, and why AS 41.23.220(b) is being repealed, given that it now allows the court to set the bail amounts. 2:57:26 PM JOHN BAKER, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), responded that the intent is to "have a more comprehensive bail forfeiture schedule statutory provision that would make AS 41.23.220(b) unnecessary." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG raised a concern that Section 37 would define as peace officers people who are currently not defined as peace officers under Title 1. He asked, therefore, whether the language in Section 37 would invest people who are currently simply employees of the department with more authority than would be desirable. MR. BAKER offered his understanding that the generic definition of peace officer is already very broad, much broader than the definition of police officer, as has been noted in prior attorney general opinions. He said he did not believe [Section 37] would be broadening that definition of peace officer. He surmised that the question would be which individual has arrest authority versus citation authority. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for an example of the type of problem that the DNR is attempting to address. MR. MYLIUS responded this could be someone blocking a trail, or squatting on state land. [Section 37] would give [division staff] the ability to give a citation in the field. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if the department is speaking about park rangers or maintenance employees, and who would be able to issue a citation. He continued, wanting to know if this would be addressed in regulations. MR. MYLIUS allowed that it would be addressed through regulations, and it would be an employee who is trained to do enforcement. The department would adopt regulations that describe the specific violations that could receive citations, and doesn't envision having armed employees; furthermore, only certain employees would be trained to do enforcement. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS commented that the division already had the ability to call on the troopers. He asked if training is addressed in the bill. MR. MYLIUS answered that the bill does not expressly address training, but he does envision that there would be training. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the "qualification" provision, the "authorized by the commissioner" provision, and the definition of police officer all troubled him. MR. HILYARD provided that the statute which Mr. Baker referred to was for a peace officer, which had a different meaning than police officer. He said he understood that park rangers could be considered peace officers. He further commented that the DNR's concern is that the park rangers' authority not be compromised, and that park rangers qualify as peace officers. 3:06:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a proposed conceptual amendment he had written and distributed, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 9, lines 25-26 Delete Page 10, line 3 Insert after "AS 46.17," and execute a warrant or other process issued by an officer or officer of competent jurisdiction and MR. MYLIUS responded that this proposed amendment would clarify that issue. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued and noted that he has the same concerns as Representative Coghill with regard to benefits for peace officers, and the corresponding definition of designated DNR employees as peace officers under HB 194. Representative Gruenberg pointed out that Section 37 on page 9, line 27, authorized individuals mentioned on page 9, lines 18-20 to "administer or take an oath, affirmation, or affidavit;" however, AS 09.63.010 only lists certain people who were authorized to give those oaths. He opined that to have DNR employees authorized to give these oaths, it would be necessary to have a conforming amendment in that other statute. He asked that the bill be held over to allow him time to review this issue. MR. MYLIUS offered that state park rangers are currently not included in the 20-year benefits programs, which is only available for state troopers and police officers. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioning that an advisory committee would be via language on page 10, lines 14-17, noted a legal issue he would like to explore. MR. MYLIUS responded this language was taken from the current procedures for state parks for doing the exact same thing. MR. BAKER added that the language was taken verbatim from existing AS 41.21.960, which includes the procedure for establishing the bail forfeiture schedule. This is boilerplate language that exists in other statutes and has been the procedure the legislature has chosen; it has been a workable system. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for a history of the workability of such advisory committees, how many times they have convened, and whether there has been any tension within such groups. MR. BAKER relayed that he would research that issue adding that the bail forfeiture schedules are set on regular committee schedules; he offered his understanding that such meetings have not been difficult or contentious. 3:12:29 PM WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that park rangers, with the authority of going through the "bail schedule set up," convened every year, made some readjustments [to the bail schedule], and took these readjustments to the Alaska Supreme Court. This system has been very workable for the state park rangers, who have the authority to make arrests and issue citations and warrants, because they are trained and certified to that level. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL sought confirmation that these park rangers convened, set bail amounts at the outset, and then have the bail amounts adjusted without convening after that. MR. MENEFEE offered his understanding that they did go before the Alaska Supreme Court every year, but they did not necessarily convene the committee every year when they made an adjustment. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the language on page 10, line 15, said "shall appoint and consult" when establishing and amending the schedule of bail. MR. MENEFEE offered that this might be performed via correspondence. 3:15:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented it is his own feeling to triple check that the [bill] title covers every provision of the bill. CHAIR RAMRAS reflected there would obviously be a few questions with this issue. He noted that he also had a few amendments to offer. MR. HILYARD asked whether the sponsor should prepare a CS for the committee, or whether the committee would prefer to address concerns via amendments. CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that simply altering CSHB 194 (RES) via amendment should be workable, unless there are title changes. In conclusion, he recapped that the primary concerns expressed thus far were the nature of the training, and the method of selection for these new DNR enforcement employees. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added a request of accountability measures for the enforcement employees. CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on HB 194. [HB 194 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|