Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/26/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB194 | |
| HB248 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 248 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 248-PUBLIC RECORDS & POLICE/CORRECT. OFFICERS VICE CHAIR GATTO announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 248, "An Act relating to the exemption from public inspection of certain records and information of public agencies that are compiled in connection with peace or correctional officers." 9:21:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 248, Version 24-LS0768\Y, Bannister, 4/11/05, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version Y was before the committee. 9:22:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 248, as sponsor. He explained the purpose of the bill by paraphrasing a portion of the sponsor statement, which read: House Bill 248 will protect law enforcement officers from being targeted for frivolous lawsuits. Currently, a person can request a copy of a peace officer's Internal Affairs (IA) files through the Freedom of Information Act. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER directed attention to page 1, [beginning on] line 6 of Version Y, which read: (a) Every person has a right to inspect a public record in the state, including public records in recorders' offices, except REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted there are a list of exceptions following that sentence, and the sixth exception read: (6) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of the law enforcement records or information REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER pointed out that after the sixth exception, there is a list "which puts a moderator on the blanket exemption for law enforcement restrictions." Version Y would add a moderator with [subparagraph (H)], which read as follows: (H) would disclose the contents of an internal investigation or proceeding of a public agency, except to the extent a court orders otherwise; 9:25:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated that the change to the language would not in any way impede the right of citizens to charge individual officers if they have truly been mistreated. He said, "If there is an issue, an officer of the court ... can review the internal records and determine if they are relevant and appropriate." 9:26:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed his appreciation to Representative Hawker for bringing forward the bill. He said he would like to hear about the pressure that law enforcement officers find themselves under "from the less savory characters that attack them and some of the defense attorney's that go after them." 9:27:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKERS deferred to a police officer whose testimony is forthcoming. 9:27:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "There's a body of law that's growing up under the Legislative Ethics Act, and I'm wondering if this will overturn any of that body of law." 9:28:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he doesn't know, but he suggested that the question would be: "To what degree would ethics information be compiled for law enforcement, rather than ... legislative compliance?" 9:29:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that he does not think that "this amendment" is intended to apply to the Legislative Ethics Act. 9:30:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question from Vice Chair Gatto, said [HB 248] "would not apply to those of us running for public office," but he said he believes there is similar legislation surfacing that would address that issue. 9:31:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what the mechanism would be by which somebody would find out if a member of the public had a legitimate concern. 9:31:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded, "We're carving out, specifically, the exception in this statute that these internal investigations and (indisc. - overlapping voices) agency proceedings are protecting, except to the extent that a court orders otherwise." 9:32:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't see a definition of "law enforcement purposes" in AS 40.25.100-220. He said he would like to work with Representative Hawker to determine if a definition is necessary. 9:33:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he would argue that the House State Affairs Standing Committee role is to get to a public interest finding, and the House Judiciary Standing Committee can "craft the best language in the legal context." 9:35:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from Vice Chair Gatto regarding the language on page 2, line 5, explained that "production of document" is a term of art in law, and the method of discovery is called, "a motion to produce." 9:36:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question from Vice Chair Gatto, said he is not prepared to address paragraphs in the bill other than paragraph (6); they are only listed as existing statute in order to propose the amendment to the bill. 9:38:05 AM EVERETT ROBBINS, testifying on behalf of the Anchorage Police Department Employees' Association, noted that he is a police officer in Anchorage, Alaska. He said [Version Y] would prevent opportunists from getting into police records to figure out "whether or not there's a lawsuit there." He noted that a traffic officer, over the course of a year, will probably generate a number of complaints, most of which are going to be unsubstantiated. However, there will be a trail of written documentation of those complaints that someone could follow. He said, "We're not trying to prevent those files from ever being opened." He added that if a person thinks he/she has been wrongly arrested or detained and sues the police department, a judge can look at the records "in camera" to "see if those records are pertinent to move over to trial basis." He concluded, "We don't want to take away anybody's rights." 9:42:03 AM JULI LUCKY, Staff to Representative Mike Hawker, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hawker, sponsor, explained that "in camera" means in [the judge's] chambers. 9:43:52 AM MR. ROBINS, in response to a question from Representative Gardner, offered his understanding that there are three conclusions possible: sustained, "unsustained," or unfounded. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Gardner, he said an "unsustained" complaint is one that is dropped, while an unfounded complaint is one that is baseless or false. He reviewed the process by which a judge would make a decision in camera. 9:46:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "So, essentially what you're trying to do is avoid fishing expeditions which might result in a suit." 9:46:28 AM MR. ROBINS answered in the affirmative. 9:46:54 AM VICE CHAIR GATTO closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated, "We have an obligation to do what we can to protect the officers who try to protect us." REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she is glad to see that there is recourse for those individuals who may truly be wronged and have grounds for a lawsuit. 9:47:09 AM [HB 248 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|