Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/08/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB253 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 255 - READING OR TYPING MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING
1:57:14 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor
vehicle from reading or typing a text message or other nonvoice
message or communication on a cellular telephone, computer, or
personal data assistant while driving a motor vehicle."
[Included in members' packets was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 255, Version 27-LS1165\D, Gardner,
2/2/12.]
CHAIR GATTO mentioned that members' packets contain forthcoming
amendments.
1:57:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 255, Version 27-LS1165\D, Gardner,
2/2/12, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version D was before the committee.
1:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
one of the bill's joint prime sponsors, explained that HB 255
was engendered by a recent court decision that the state's
current statute prohibiting the use of screen devices while
driving does not cover the behavior of "texting" while driving
regardless that many members of the legislature thought that it
did. He said he anticipates that this issue will eventually be
addressed by the Alaska Supreme Court, but meanwhile, HB 255
would clarify the legislature's intention that texting while
driving be illegal. Statistics indicate that people who text
while driving are 20 times more likely to get into an accident
than those who don't text while driving. Also, if one "texts" a
"normal-sized" text message while driving, one can drive the
length of a football field before being done - the length of a
football field full of potential victims. Other states - 35 of
them - have already banned texting while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that in Alaska, there have already
been severe and even fatal accidents attributed to texting while
driving. Texting while driving is dangerous. A person who
texts while driving is not paying attention to what he/she ought
to be paying attention to while driving a 2,000 pound vehicle,
and this can result in somebody being killed. One of the main
reasons for making it illegal to text while driving is to start
educating people with regard to how fatal texting while driving
can be, similar to what occurred with regard to educating people
about the dangers of drunk driving. Because a lot of people
view texting as just a social phenomenon, it must be reinforced
that it can be a fatal phenomenon - a person texting while
driving can kill someone. A recently-conducted poll indicates
that over a third of people text while driving, illustrating the
need for an outright ban on texting while driving. Attempting
to prosecute someone for this behavior under the state's
existing distracted-driving or negligent-driving laws, however,
simply won't work, he predicted, because in such cases, there
must be a unanimous jury verdict, and it is unlikely at this
point in time that jurors who themselves text while driving will
see anything wrong with such behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited that HB 255 has been drafted broadly
enough to address possible future forms of [text-capable]
technology. Simply rewriting Alaska's distracted-driving law to
address the behavior of texting while driving would result in
the behavior being a mere violation rather than a crime, and
simply adding the word, "texting" to the state's existing
prohibition against using a screen device while driving, as the
court has suggested the legislature do, won't suffice because
the term, "texting" doesn't cover all the forms of technology
that [either already, or might in the future,] enable a person
to type and/or read text. It is for this latter reason, he
relayed, that many legislators think that the court was wrong in
its aforementioned decision. Again, HB 255 is intended to
clarify for the court that texting, or using other technology
for that purpose, is improper while driving a moving vehicle.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [Version D's proposed AS
28.35.161(a)(2) in part] specifies that a crime is committed if
a person, while driving a moving vehicle, reads or types a text
message or other "non-voice" message or communication. In other
words, he elaborated, no texting, no "facebooking," no
"tweeting," no typing on a "laptop" computer - "we don't want
you typing while you're driving, we don't want you reading a
text message while you're driving, we don't want you reading a
computer screen while you're driving, we don't want you reading
a facebook message while you're driving." To get into a car
"knowing you're going to engage in this dangerous conduct" is
almost premeditated behavior, he opined. Under the bill, if one
types on or reads a screen device while driving, it would be a
[class A] misdemeanor; however, if one engages in that behavior
and causes physical injury to another person, causes serious
physical injury to another person, or causes the death of
another person, it would be [a class C felony, a class B felony,
or a class A felony, respectively].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA mentioned that existing AS 28.35.161
provides for the aforementioned differing penalties, and that
HB 255 would not change that. The behavior addressed by the
bill is dangerous - a person shouldn't be shocked when he/she
runs into someone while texting. This means, he relayed, any
sort of typing or reading, whether on/from a cellular telephone
("cell phone"), a laptop, an "iPad", or whatever new technology
that comes along which lets a person view messages or type them.
He assured the committee that under both existing law and the
bill, the vehicle must be moving in order for the crime to be
committed; this stipulation will ensure that the behavior, when
conducted in a stationary vehicle, isn't criminalized. He
offered his belief that as currently written, HB 255 is going to
address 90 percent of the perceived problem.
2:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [Version D's proposed
28.35.161(d)] would provide an additional exemption for the
viewing of authorized screen devices by law enforcement
personnel or other emergency responders when such persons
reasonably believe that the information on such devices is
necessary to respond to health, safety, or criminal matters;
existing AS 28.35.161(d) currently provides an exemption for
devises/equipment installed in emergency vehicles, which are
defined as police, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles.
Subsection (d)'s proposed language, he indicated, covers
"wireless" technology, and has met with the approval of law
enforcement personnel, emergency responders, the Department of
Law (DOL), and Legislative Legal and Research Services. In
conclusion, he offered his belief that HB 255 would protect
people from fatal accidents without compromising the efforts of
the state's law enforcement and emergency response personnel,
and that the aforementioned forthcoming amendments in members'
packets seem consistent with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to questions and comments, said
he thinks that existing law already makes texting while driving
illegal; assured members that HB 255 does not address the
behavior of talking on a cell phone, which includes "dialing" a
phone number, that existing law - as a matter of public policy -
already provides exemptions for [among other things] mapping and
global positioning system (GPS) equipment, and dispatching
equipment [used in certain industries], and that HB 255 is
proposing to broaden only the existing exemption addressing law
enforcement and emergency responders; and concurred that HB 255
only pertains to motor vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions and comments,
noted that AS 28.90.990(a)(16) defines the term "motor vehicle"
as a vehicle which is self-propelled except a vehicle moved by
human or animal power.
2:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to other questions, explained
that the bill is not specific with regard to where a motor
vehicle is being driven when the proscribed behavior takes
place. If a person runs into someone while texting, for
example, it should be a crime regardless of where it happens,
whether on a public roadway, on private property, or in a
parking lot. He acknowledged, though, that one would first have
to be caught doing the proscribed behavior, and thus enforcement
of HB 255's provisions could be difficult. Regardless, the bill
should be passed because it's going to act as a deterrent, he
predicted, sending the message that texting while driving is
dangerous.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to further questions,
reiterated that the state's existing ban on texting while
driving isn't always being enforced because of court
interpretations, and that until the Alaska Supreme Court has a
chance to rule on the issue - which could take some time yet -
HB 255 would clarify [for the court and the public] that the
behavior of texting while driving is illegal. To merely wait
until the Alaska Supreme Court has a chance to rule on the issue
could result in lives being lost during the intervening time.
CHAIR GATTO expressed a preference for having the issue
addressed sooner via passage of HB 255, rather than later as a
result of waiting for a possible favorable ruling by the Alaska
Supreme Court.
2:25:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.1, Gardner, 2/7/12, which read:
Page 1, lines 6 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is
to conform and clarify that the use of a cellular
telephone, computer, personal data assistant, or any
other similar means for texting or communicating in a
manner prohibited by AS 28.35.161 has been illegal
since AS 28.35.161 was enacted and that the
December 1, 2011, magistrate's decision in State v.
Adams, 3KN-11-719 CR, is legally incorrect."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the existing law
prohibiting the use of screen devices while driving was intended
to cover the behavior of texting while driving, and that its
language was intentionally left broad on that point in order to
address the fact that [texting technology] is rapidly advancing;
and indicated that Amendment 1's proposed change to the bill's
statement of purpose - found in Section 1 of Version D - would
better clarify the point that the court has incorrectly
interpreted existing law as not applying to texting. It
wouldn't have made any sense, he opined, to have prohibited the
act of watching a screen device while driving without also
prohibiting the act of typing on a screen device while driving -
one can't do either and still drive properly - and to have done
so would have led to an absurd result, he asserted, and the
court, in State v. Adams, neglected to recognize that legal
point. He also offered his understanding that when the court
reviews this issue further, it would be giving additional weight
to the fact that the legislature had taken specific steps - via
passage of HB 255 - to clarify existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, explained that the
drafter has recommended that it would be better to include in
the proposed statement of purpose both the specific case and the
assertion that an incorrect decision was made in that case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the phrasing
used in Amendment 1 is proper - containing the correct terms of
art - and would simply clarify that the legislature believes
that a legal error was made in that court decision.
CHAIR GATTO announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.4, Gardner, 2/8/12, which read:
Page 2, line 11, following "driving":
Insert "or takes an affirmative act to access
such data"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that Amendment 2 would make
it easier to prosecute someone for the behavior of reading or
typing a text message while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, offering his belief that it's already
implied under the bill's existing language, said "we don't want
you fiddling around with your cell phone, while you're driving
and moving, to access your text messages," and surmised that
Amendment 2 would simply clarify that point further.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said that she objects to Amendment 2, both
because of its proposed placement and use of the word, "or",
seeming to indicate that one could either be driving or taking
an affirmative action in order for the bill to apply, and
because its language is overbroad and ambiguous, remaining
unclear with regard to what would constitute an applicable
affirmative action under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, acknowledging those points, withdrew
Amendment 2.
2:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 27-LS1165\D.5, Gardner, 2/8/12, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "and"
Page 1, line 4, following "vehicle":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 3, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 3 would
provide for an immediate effective date, which he characterized
as an important thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion,
and then removed his objection.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:45:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that passage of HB 255 -
specifically Version D - is now also necessary in order to
address the use of wireless technology by law enforcement and
emergency response personnel; again, Version D's proposed
28.35.161(d) would provide an additional exemption for the
viewing of authorized screen devices by law enforcement and
other emergency response personnel when such persons reasonably
believe that the information on such devices is necessary to
respond to health, safety, or criminal matters.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that to address a concern
expressed by the court regarding the meaning of the word
"verbal" [as it's used in the existing statutory exemption for
certain equipment], the bill would also, via its proposed
AS 28.35.161(c), change the term, "verbal communication" to the
term, "voice communication".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in conclusion, said, "I'm very serious
about this bill - I think texting is dangerous - I think we
should pass the bill this year."
2:48:31 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said that the DPS supports HB 255, and has no concerns
with the proposed exemption for the authorized viewing of screen
devices for emergency vehicles. Currently, he relayed, some DPS
vehicles have "in-car video camera systems" and monitors that
display some text information, and some DPS vehicles are being
equipped with computers, which will display suspect and wanted-
vehicle information, and occasionally dispatch sends photos of
suspects or suspect vehicles to law enforcement officers via
their cell phones. In response to questions, he acknowledged
that failures of [installed equipment] have occasionally
resulted in law enforcement officers having to use their cell
phones or other forms of communication to speak with dispatch
and other officers; and that it can be difficult for law
enforcement officers to observe the proscribed behavior - it's
more common to discover during the course of investigating a
traffic accident that the proscribed behavior had occurred.
Unless there is probable cause to believe that someone is
texting while driving, law enforcement officers won't take any
enforcement action, and if there is such probable cause, then it
would be up to the individual law enforcement officer to
determine whether the person actually was texting.
2:52:38 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
questions regarding the PDA's fiscal note, indicated that its
analysis includes information he'd received from the DOL that
the state's existing crime of texting while driving isn't always
being prosecuted because of court interpretations, and offered,
"my expectation is that with the explicit criminalization of
texting and driving, you will see more enforcement, prosecution
- and, of course, successful prosecution - which will have some
fiscal impact on our agency, though it's impossible for me to
determine what that would be."
2:54:54 PM
MARK S. HALL, Chief, Anchorage Fire Department, Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), said simply that the Anchorage Fire Department
supports HB 255.
2:55:18 PM
RICHARD ALLEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that
the OPA is not anticipating that there will be a significant
impact on its caseload as a result of passage of HB 255, and has
therefore submitted a zero fiscal note. Speaking, then, as the
parent of two young children who have to be driven around on
Alaska's roads, he said he supports a ban on texting.
2:56:16 PM
BOB GRIFFITHS, Chief, Cordova Police Department, City of
Cordova; Executive Director, Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police, Inc. (AACOP), relayed that he and the AACOP extend their
unqualified support for HB 255.
2:56:50 PM
PATRICIA GRISWOLD, [characterizing HB 255's proposed changes as
a start,] said she would prefer to see a complete ban on cell
phone use while driving, considering such use to be more
dangerous than driving under the influence because of the
prevalence of cell phones, and mentioned that one of her sons
was involved in a motor vehicle accident after which the driver
of the other vehicle was heard speaking on a cell phone.
2:59:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, relayed
that he'd been involved in a hit and run accident - while he was
stopped at a stop sign, his car was struck from behind by
another vehicle - and after the accident occurred he saw the
driver of the other vehicle texting and continuing to text as
she drove away. In conclusion, he offered his belief that
texting while driving is an issue that needs to be addressed,
and his hope that such behavior could be modified.
3:02:52 PM
ALBERT JUDSON said he would like to speak in favor of HB 255 and
any bill that would ban the use of cell phones and any other
devices while driving. Mentioning that he was run over in 2007,
and recounting some the details of that accident and the
injuries he suffered as a result, he raised the issue of non-
reporting/under-reporting; for example, when he was run over,
there was no mention of it in the paper, but the day after he
was run over, his dog was run over, and the paper ran a story
about that. Statewide, he opined, there is lack of reporting
about people being injured and/or killed, and he suggested that
there should be an investigation to determine why. Other issues
that need to be addressed, he opined, are the issue of
accountability, particularly accountability [for causing] long-
term injuries, and the issue of possibly expanding the statutory
penalties for causing injury and/or death. In conclusion, he
thanked the joint prime sponsors for introducing and promoting
HB 255, characterizing it as being long overdue - a matter of
life and death - and said he would like to see HB 255 pass,
along with other bills addressing the issue of cell phone use
while driving, adding that he did not know whether the driver
who ran him over was texting at the time or merely talking on
the cell phone.
[HB 255, Version D as amended, was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 255 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB 255 version I.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| NCSL Texting Law by State.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-ACS-TRC-01-20-12 (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-LAW-CRIM-01-22-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-DOA-OPA-1-20-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB 253 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB0253A.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB253-DPS-LAB-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB253-LAW-CRIM-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| HB0299A.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 Letter of Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 ALSC general handout(Jan2012) (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299 SPONSORS STATEMENT.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299-LAW-CIV-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB299-LAW-CIV-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 303 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB0303A.PDF |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HJR 303 Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB303-LAW-CRIM-02-03-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| Legal Memo 02.01.12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 255 CS D version 2 2 12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |