03/19/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

HB 15 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:04:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 15, "An  Act relating  to prohibiting the  use of                                                               
cellular telephones by  minors when driving a  motor vehicle; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  explained that  left pending  from 3/18/09  was the                                                               
motion to  adopt Amendment  2, labeled  26-LS0110\E.1, Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/18/09, which read:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 10-11:                                                                                                       
          Delete "has probable cause"                                                                                           
          Insert "is authorized by law"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:05:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section, Criminal  Division, Department  of Law  (DOL), explained                                                               
that  the DOL  both likes  and suggested  Amendment 2  because it                                                               
would make the bill more  effective in curbing distracted driving                                                               
by  [minors] using  cellular ("cell")  phones  while they  drive,                                                               
indicating that any term other  than "is authorized by law" would                                                               
not be  sufficient given that  the behavior the bill  is intended                                                               
to address would only be a secondary offense.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  questioned why it's necessary  to have that                                                               
language  in  the  bill,  given that  the  term  "peace  officer"                                                               
includes uniformed police officers.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI surmised  that this standard for  stopping a person                                                               
has been included in order  to preclude a law enforcement officer                                                               
from stopping someone  without any legal basis for doing  so.  In                                                               
response  to another  question, she  pointed out  that under  the                                                               
bill,  a minor  cannot be  stopped just  for using  a cell  phone                                                               
while driving;  the police officer  would have to stop  the minor                                                               
for a  reason other than  using a  cell phone while  driving, and                                                               
would have  to have a legal  basis for making that  stop to begin                                                               
with, and  then, in addition  to any other citations  or arrests,                                                               
the officer  could cite the minor  with using a cell  phone while                                                               
driving.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO indicated  that  he  is simply  questioning                                                               
whether  the  term  "is  authorized  by  law"  is  repetitive  or                                                               
unnecessary.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said that including  that term would simply clarify                                                               
that the officer  has to have a legal reason  for making the stop                                                               
to begin with.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether Amendment  2 lowers what he termed the                                                               
"probable cause standard as applied under Coleman."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI explained  that  the 1976  Coleman  v. State  case                                                             
adopts the  "reasonable suspicion" standard, which  is lower than                                                               
the  probable  cause  standard; the  court  decision  in  Coleman                                                             
recognizes [reasonable suspicion]  as a legal basis  for making a                                                               
stop in Alaska.   Such is the standard used  in every other state                                                               
she is familiar  with, she relayed, as well as  the standard used                                                               
under federal law.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG surmised  that  the  bill must  include                                                               
either  the current  language or  the suggested  language -  that                                                               
having neither language would not be a workable option.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 1:11 p.m. to 1:13 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  relayed that HB 15  and the question of  whether to                                                               
adopt Amendment 2 would be set aside until later in the meeting.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 15 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:17:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  announced that as  the next order of  business, the                                                               
committee would return  to the hearing on HOUSE BILL  NO. 15, "An                                                               
Act relating  to prohibiting  the use  of cellular  telephones by                                                               
minors  when  driving  a  motor vehicle;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."   [The question of whether to  adopt Amendment 2                                                               
was left pending from earlier in the meeting.]                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her  objection to Amendment 2 [text                                                               
provided  previously].     There  being  no   further  objection,                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:18:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  moved to report  HB 15, as  amended via                                                               
Amendment  2, out  of committee  with individual  recommendations                                                               
and  the  accompanying   zero  fiscal  note.     There  being  no                                                               
objection,  CSHB 15(JUD)  was reported  from the  House Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.