Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/13/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB86 | |
| HB127 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 127-OMNIBUS CRIME BILL
1:39:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 127 and asked for
a motion to adopt the version E committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt version E [SCS CSHB 127,
labeled 27-GH1840\E,] as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
1:40:40 PM
CINDY SMITH, Staff to Senator French, said version E makes the
following changes: It deleted Section 3 of the previous version
I, which increased the penalty for enticement of a minor on the
first offense.
CHAIR FRENCH said the deleted section basically stepped up the
penalty for the crime of online enticement; a class C felony
became a B felony and a class B felony became an A felony.
Anyone who has committed a sex offense in the past and commits
online enticement would be charged with a class A felony. He
said he initially had qualms about increasing the class C felony
to the B felony level, but he changed his mind after
Commissioner Masters and Attorney General Burns brought
narratives of recent cases that have been charged under the C
felony. These are serious crimes and it's an area of problem in
the state. He added that he continues to have concern that
increasing the penalty might not result in more offenders being
caught, but in this instance it's worthwhile to increase the
penalty.
1:42:58 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Conceptual Amendment 1 as follows:
Reinsert Section 3 of version I SCS for CSHB 127 and
make other conforming changes throughout the bill as
necessary. This would increase the penalty for online
enticement from a class C felony to a class B felony.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for confirmation that this adds a
section to version E.
CHAIR FRENCH replied that's the idea.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the amendment reinserts from version I
the language on page 2, lines 23-24.
CHAIR FRENCH answered yes, as a new section.
MS. SMITH added that there would be conforming changes in the
sentencing section.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
MS. SMITH said the second change deleted Sections 5 and 19 of
version I, pertaining to unlawful exploitation of a minor. This
was done because of the strong sense that the provisions in
exploitation of a minor had become overly broad. She noted that
the idea is to rework that section over the Interim to ensure
that the increased penalties actually comport with the level of
the particular crime.
CHAIR FRENCH added that AS 11.41.455 relating to unlawful
exploitation of a minor has been on the books for a long time
and he's found it difficult to work with. This statute covers a
broad range of conduct and it needs to be reshaped from time to
time to reflect new provisions that have been put on the books.
He said he decided to work on this over the summer and DOL has
agreed to collaborate.
MS. SMITH said the third change added language in Sections 3-6
to create penalties for police officers that engage in sex with
a person that is in custody. It follows the existing provisions
for correctional officers. There are also conforming changes in
the sentencing section of the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH added that Sections 3, 4, and 5 of version E tell
police officers that having sex with people who are in their
custody is not allowed. There is no question of consent. This is
in reaction to a recent case in Anchorage and it lets police
officers know that this behavior is absolutely out of bounds.
The language was crafted in conjunction with the DOL and it's
meant to pick up police officers who are on duty and have people
in custody or apparent custody or in the police station. It's a
new provision.
1:47:58 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN directed attention to page 3, line 11, and asked
the thought process for using the terminology "reckless
disregard."
CHAIR FRENCH asked the DOL to describe the mental element.
1:48:16 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL) said she assumes that the drafter meant
that the offender is acting recklessly with regard to the fact
that the person is in custody. That means the police officer
knows the risk that the person is in custody and he or she
consciously disregards that fact.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the reason for putting in the word
"disregard" is because the police officer is essentially pushing
aside the knowledge that he or she would otherwise have.
MS. CARPENETI said the phrase "knowing in custody" would work
but the phrase "reckless disregard" is a tic under "knowing."
It's that the offender is aware of the risk that the person is
in custody and puts aside or disregards that risk, essentially
saying they don't care.
1:49:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this is customary language for
prosecutors.
MS. CARPENETI replied it's a very common culpable mental state
that is used all the time.
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned why it isn't a simple negligence
standard because [reckless disregard] seems to require greater
proof that the officer knows that the person is in custody. If
the officer has the person confined and is negligent as to
whether the person is in custody or apparent custody [a simple
negligence standard] would seem to be sufficient.
MS. CARPENETI said simple negligence generally is not used in
criminal statutes, but criminal negligence could be used.
SENATOR PASKVAN wondered why it would have to be a gross
deviation as opposed to an absolute prohibition.
MS. CARPENETI suggested the drafter answer that question. She
then stated for the record that when DOL was talking about
custody or apparent custody of the offender, the intent was that
the courts would interpret these terms as similar to the state
of custody for a person who may or may not be under arrest and
he or she feels unable to leave the presence of the police
officer.
1:51:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that page 2, line 27, uses a knowing
standard for the first prong of this violation; page 3, line 2,
uses a knowing standard for the second prong of this violation;
and [page 3], line 6, uses a knowing standard for having sex
with someone who has been committed to the custody of the
Department of Health and [Social] Services. Reckless disregard
makes it easier for the prosecution because it's an easier
mental element to prove.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if in the recent case in Anchorage
the women would have been considered to be in custody or
apparent custody of the offender.
MS. CARPENETI recalled that in one instance the offender offered
the victim a ride home from a shelter and instead took her to a
police station. Under those circumstances the victim would feel
she was in custody and unable to leave.
CHAIR FRENCH said the others were DWI processings and the
victims were clearly in custody.
SENATOR PASKVAN stated a preference for an absolute prohibition
as opposed to allowing an officer the discretion to say the
person wasn't in custody or apparent custody.
MS. CARPENETI said she appreciates the point but she agrees with
the chair; this is a lesser standard than the other crimes in
third degree sexual assault.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he would hope that a higher standard would
be imposed on law enforcement officers and the prohibition
should therefore be absolute.
1:55:35 PM
MS. CARPENETI said this is more likely to come up when an
officer is off duty and for that reason there probably should be
a culpable mental state in regard to that circumstance.
Senator McGuire joined the committee.
SENATOR PASKVAN cited an example of an officer engaging in
unacceptable behavior after helping a female and clearly
establishing that she wasn't in custody and opined that this
language seems to say that the officer is engaged in acceptable
behavior on the job.
CHAIR FRENCH disagreed. He said he understands and respects the
nuance in regard to the mental element, but this language
absolutely does not suggest that it's okay to have sex with
someone who is in custody. This language makes it a crime for
police officers to engage in that behavior.
1:58:20 PM
SENATOR COGHILL suggested members keep in mind that in addition
to the criminal aspect there is also a Police Standards Council
that considers conduct and other issues that can bring a
person's entire career into question.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that if there haven't already been
briefings statewide in this regard, they will be forthcoming.
Officers will be directed to walk clearly on the right side of
the line.
SENATOR PASKVAN said if the intent is to send a clear social
message that law enforcement officers, in the course and scope
of their employment, do not engage in sexual behavior, then it
should be said that way. It's irrespective of whether or not the
officer invites someone into the vehicle for outwardly innocent
purposes.
MS. CARPENETI said her recollection is that the [former police
officer] was on duty when he picked up one victim. She added
that she believes that this language covers both on-duty police
officers and police officers who are not on duty and are
behaving in a certain way toward individuals in the custody of
the agency.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he's trying to understand the extent of the
prohibition.
2:00:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that page 3, line 9, says "while
employed in the state" and he reads that to mean even if the
person is not on duty.
SENATOR MCGUIRE stated agreement.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's right; a police officer is an officer
around the clock. Although, he added, there has to be the
element of custody or apparent custody. The last clause is meant
pick up the instance where one officer brought a person to a
police station and another officer found the person there.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested the committee move on but continue to
consider whether or not to refine the mental element.
2:01:54 PM
MS. SMITH said the fifth change that's reflected in version E is
the addition of new Section 24. It directs the DOL to submit a
report by April 1, 2012, to the Legislature concerning the
number of arraignments that were heard within 24 hours of arrest
and the number that took longer.
CHAIR FRENCH added that this acknowledges the unease about
moving to the 48-hour window for arraignments. The report will
let the Legislature know within a year whether 48 hours has
become the de facto rule or if it's working as expected and the
majority take place within 24 hours.
MS. CARPENETI said the DOL believes this is a good idea but
would like an additional sentence asking the Department of
Corrections and the Court System to cooperate in this report
because that's where a lot of the information resides.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Conceptual Amendment 2.
Add language to Section 24 saying that the Department
of Corrections (DOC) and the Court System shall assist
the Department of Law (DOL) in compiling the report.
2:05:04 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected to suggest it say the governor.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that the governor isn't in charge of
the Court System.
SENATOR COGHILL stated a preference for naming the three.
CHAIR FRENCH restated the motion for Conceptual Amendment 2.
Finding no objection, he announced that [Conceptual] Amendment 2
was adopted.
2:06:02 PM
MS. SMITH added that additional small conforming amendments
appear throughout the sentencing section.
CHAIR FRENCH directed attention to Section 21 relating to the
provision that the Legislature adopted last year giving
administrative subpoena power to the attorney general to obtain
identifying records from an Internet service provider (ISP).
Page 11, lines 15-18, set out the identifying information that
the ISP will provide. DOL issued about 25 of these subpoenas
last year and the expectation is that that number will climb to
100 this year. The bill that came to the committee this year
extended the administrative subpoena power to an attorney
general designee. Today both the attorney general and the
commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) advocated
strongly in favor of extending that subpoena power only to the
deputy attorney general of the criminal division of DOL. He said
he agreed to bring the idea to the committee.
2:09:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recalled that when this power was given to
the attorney general concern, there was concern about granting
this power to a political appointee who is in the executive
branch. As part of an independent judiciary, judges typically
issue these subpoenas so this was done in a very limited and
deliberate manner. "I see no reason to change that," he stated.
This might not rise to the level of search and seizure, but
Article 1, Section 14, is informative. It says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses and other property, papers and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated. No warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said this is close to a warrantless search
and it's a slippery slope to extend this authority to anyone
other than the attorney general.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she'd like to hear from the DOL as to the
basis for making the change. Last year she supported the
provision as part of cracking down on Internet child predation,
but it was a compromise for the attorney general to oversee the
subpoena because it's something that would typically go before a
judge. It would be a big step for this committee to erode that
further, she stated.
2:12:26 PM
MS. CARPENETI said the bill that passed last year didn't address
some of the concerns that DOL initially brought forward. She
explained that the reason that DOL asked for the
[administrative] subpoena power for the attorney general was to
speed the process for collecting account information from the
ISP. She clarified that a person's house is not searched based
on the information from the ISP; the account information is
presented to a judge in order to obtain a search warrant for the
account holder's house. The provision last year provided two
ways to serve the subpoena; one method of service was by
certified mail and the other was delivery by a uniformed police
officer. That isn't expedient in a fast moving area of the law
where people move computers and addresses very quickly.
The other concern that wasn't adequately addressed last year was
delegation. Having just one individual who can sign these
administrative subpoenas slows the process because the attorney
general travels a lot and even when he's in town and in the same
office building it can be difficult to track him down. Signing
authority for these subpoenas should fall to the most
responsible person within the DOL, but the deputy attorney
general for the criminal division is also extremely responsible
and probably knows more about criminal law and subpoenas and
search warrants and probable cause issues than the attorney
general himself.
2:15:29 PM
RICK SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL) said he came forward to clarify the
question of search and seizure. He explained that the identity
information that an Internet service provider (ISP) holds is not
the type of confidential information that the Alaska
Constitution set out for search warrants, although it is
information that people don't generally think is available to
the public. Information from an ISP is in the same area as
cashing a check and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a
person gives up any right of privacy once they pass a check and
it becomes part of the public record. If there is a criminal
case, there will be a requirement to get a search warrant. The
information obtained from the ISP only identifies where the
particular computer is located. It's the information on that
computer that will be needed for a prosecution. The police will
need to go to a judicial officer and show probable cause before
they can get a search warrant to actually enter somebody's
property or take a piece of property like a hard drive on a
computer. He said he wanted to make sure the committee
understood that issue.
2:17:45 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many ISP searches did not result in a
search warrant being issued by a judge.
MR. SVOBODNY said he didn't have an answer, but the real issue
is timeliness. That was the basis for DOL initially saying the
administrative subpoena authority should extend to an attorney
general designee. He added that the DOL would like to use
technology like faxes and emails which would be ahead of where
the court is as far as the issuance of search warrants.
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned whether there would be any timesaving
whatsoever if the officer still had to do the work to establish
probable cause before getting a search warrant from a judge. In
any event, there are more judges than an attorney general and a
deputy attorney general so it seems that the numbers problem
would be solved by looking to the judiciary, he stated.
MR. SVOBODNY said that's a question for Commissioner Masters,
but his experience in getting search warrants is that they take
a lot of time. In part that's because judges are used to a
presentation that is different than this type of subpoena. He
noted that when he was a DA he always preferred for an officer
to go to the court to testify under oath. That's not necessary,
he said, but affidavits take time too.
2:21:56 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the accountability would be
under this provision if an attorney general or their designee
issued subpoenas without good reason. For example, the attorney
general issuing subpoenas for an IP address because he didn't
like certain emails going to the governor.
MR. SVOBODNY said in order for an action to get to court a
search warrant is needed to do the investigation. The subpoena
to get the IP address would be part of the process of the
application for the search warrant and would therefore always be
available for review by the person charged with the crime.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified for the record that the subpoena is being
issued in connection with a violation of AS 11.41.452,
11.41.455, or AS 11.61.125 - 128. He added that these subpoenas
were first authorized last year and he wants to keep them
tightly focused because criminal cases are built on them.
2:24:47 PM
JOE MASTERS, Commissioner Department of Public Safety (DPS),
explained that the current process requires two search warrants.
The first search warrant is to discover the location of the
computer where the activity took place. That information is used
to apply for a second search warrant that authorizes the actual
search of the property or computer. The new system authorizes an
administrative subpoena for the first step.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked about the potential for a one-step
judicial process; the judge authorizes getting the location from
the ISP and subsequent search of the computer.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied it's often more complicated. For
example, the ISP location could be an Internet café and it could
belong to the owner of the Internet café or someone who is
frequenting the Internet café.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that the public defenders would have a
field day with a search warrant that asked to know who owns an
account and permission to search wherever they might be found.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS noted that Sergeant DeGraaf and Sergeant
Wilson were available online to answer specific questions.
SENATOR COGHILL said he'd like to hear from Sergeant DeGraaf on
how often it would work to get a single search warrant for the
two elements.
2:29:28 PM
SERGEANT DEREK DEGRAAF, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said he didn't believe that approach would
work and warned that in most circumstances it would cause legal
issues.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if other proof is needed to establish
probable cause to get the first search warrant for an ISP.
SERGEANT DEGRAAF explained that the initial probable cause is
based on an investigator connecting to the suspect through his
IP address and downloading child pornography from that computer.
Once law enforcement connects to the suspect's computer they
download some of the files and verify that those meet the Alaska
statutes for the possession and or distribution of child
pornography. The police approach the court with that
information.
SENATOR COGHILL asked about working with the courts to make the
probable cause process for these Internet cases a little more
straightforward. The proposed attorney general solution appears
to further complicate the process.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that it's not supposed to be easy to get
a search warrant, but he believes that the administrative
subpoena strikes a balance to help nail down who the child
pornography belongs to. He asked the members if anyone wanted to
propose an amendment.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if DOL was asking for a specific designee.
CHAIR FRENCH replied they'd like to insert "or deputy attorney
general for the criminal division" following "attorney general"
on page 11, line 9. Conforming language would be necessary. He
asked if any member wanted to offer the amendment.
2:35:31 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved Amendment 3.
Page 11, line 9, following "general"
Insert "or deputy attorney general for the
criminal division"
[Make conforming changes accordingly.]
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she has a healthy respect for the right to
privacy and she believes this process upholds that right. It
doesn't change the important step of demonstrating probable
cause before a judge in order to get a search warrant. The
reason for the administrative subpoena is timeliness; in these
cases in particular the evidence can disappear quickly. She
expressed confidence in delegating this authority to the deputy
attorney general for the criminal division. That is a licensed
attorney who has sworn an oath and is accountable to the public,
the Legislature, and the attorney general.
2:39:03 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it was a big step last year to grant
administrative subpoena authority to the attorney general and to
extend that authority further is to head down the proverbial
slippery slope. "We're already very close to the border, if not
having crossed it already, on violating Article I Section 14 of
the constitution," he stated.
2:40:25 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN said part of the debate is whether to abandon
the two-branch concept and have just one branch of government do
both the search warrant and the prosecution. Acknowledging that
there would be anomalies, he said he wasn't convinced at this
point that a judge couldn't, with sufficient evidence, execute
just one search warrant for everything that needs to be done.
The concept of cloaking an attorney general, who is in a
prosecutorial role, in a judge's role is troubling, he stated.
2:42:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he has some of the same discomfort, but he
would support the amendment. There is still the requirement to
go before a court, but the information that is gathered from
these administrative subpoenas is more a law enforcement issue
than a court issue, he stated.
2:43:50 PM
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 3. Senators
McGuire and Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 3 and Senators
Wielechowski, Paskvan and French voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-3.
2:44:26 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that proposed Amendment 4 was by Senator
Wielechowski.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved [Conceptual] Amendment 4, labeled 27-
LS8004\A.1. He explained that this gives judges statutory
authority to prohibit a sex offender from living within 500 feet
of school grounds as a condition of parole or probation. This
troubling issue came up in Anchorage this past summer and the
reflex reaction was to ban all sex offenders from living near
schools regardless of circumstances. Other states have done that
and the evidence indicates that it hasn't worked very well.
Blanket prohibitions can worsened the situation because it
confines sex offenders to certain areas of a community. Giving
judges the authority to make individual determinations is a
reasonable balanced approach to resolve this issue.
[CONCEPTUAL] AMENDMENT 4
Page ___, line ___:
Insert "and relating to conditions of probation in
criminal cases involving sex offenses;"
Page ___, line ___:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. ___. AS 12.55.100(e) is amended to read:
(e) In addition to other conditions imposed on the
defendant, while on probation and as a condition of
probation
(1) for a sex offense, as described in
AS 12.63.100, the defendant
(A) shall be required to submit to regular
periodic polygraph examinations;
(B) may be required to provide each electronic
mail address, instant messaging address, and other Internet
communication identifier that the defendant uses to the
defendant's probation officer; the probation officer shall
forward those addresses and identifiers to the Alaska state
troopers and to the local law enforcement agency;
(2) if the defendant was convicted of a
violation of AS 11.41.434 - 11.41.455, AS 11.61.125 -
11.61.128, or a similar offense in another jurisdiction,
the defendant may be required to refrain from
(A) using or creating an Internet site;
(B) communicating with children under 16 years
of age; [OR]
(C) possessing or using a computer; or
(D) residing within 500 feet of school grounds;
in this subparagraph, "school grounds" has the meaning
given in AS 11.71.900."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes and stated that he
appreciates the amendment and the fact that it doesn't make a blanket
prohibition. It strikes a nice balance.
SENATOR MCGUIRE echoed support for the amendment. The judge is
able to craft the right balance as he or she puts the sex
offender back into society. The list of discretionary tools that
a judge might use for sex offenders could be added to in the
future, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:48:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Brenner to explain the proposed Amendment
5.
2:49:08 PM
DAVID BRENNER, Staff to Representative Pete Peterson, said the
proposed amendment makes the installation of a keystroke logger
or using wireless means to log keystrokes on a computer illegal
when there is no right to access. It's currently illegal to
obtain personal information via software or spyware but it's not
illegal to obtain information as it's entered into the computer.
It shouldn't matter how information is stolen from the computer
because the victim's privacy is violated in any case. The law
should recognize this.
2:50:08 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved proposed Amendment 5, labeled 27-LS8004\A.2,
and objected for discussion purposes.
[CONCEPTUAL] AMENDMENT 5
Page ___, line ___, following "information;":
Insert "making the installation, enabling, or use
of keystroke loggers or other devices criminal use of
a computer;"
Page ___, following line ___:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. ___. AS 11.46.740(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal use
of a computer if, having no right to do so or any
reasonable ground to believe the person has such a
right, the person knowingly
(1) accesses, causes to be accessed, or
exceeds the person's authorized access to a computer,
computer system, computer program, computer network,
or any part of a computer system or network, and, as a
result of or in the course of that access,
(A) [(1)] obtains information
concerning a person;
(B) [(2)] introduces false information
into a computer, computer system, computer
program, or computer network with the intent to
damage or enhance the data record or the
financial reputation of a person;
(C) [(3)] introduces false information
into a computer, computer system, computer
program, or computer network and, with criminal
negligence, damages or enhances the data record
or the financial reputation of a person;
(D) [(4)] obtains proprietary
information of another person;
(E) [(5)] obtains information that is only
available to the public for a fee;
(F) [(6)] introduces instructions, a
computer program, or other information that tampers
with, disrupts, disables, or destroys a computer,
computer system, computer program, computer network,
or any part of a computer system or network; or
(G) [(7)] encrypts or decrypts data; or
(2) installs, enables, or uses a keystroke
logger or other device or program that has the ability
to record another person's keystrokes or entries on a
computer; or
(3) uses a keystroke logger or other device or
program to intercept or record another person's
keystrokes or entries on a computer when those entries
are transmitted wirelessly or by other non-wired
means."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was a definition for
computer and if it would include a smart phone.
MR. BRENNER said he wasn't sure, but it's under the criminal use
of a computer in current statute.
CHAIR FRENCH said this adds a new provision to the existing AS
11.46.740(a) relating to the variety of ways for using a
computer for criminal purposes. He asked Mr. Brenner if he knew
of any recent prosecutions involving keystroke loggers.
MR. BRENNER replied the Anchorage Police Department (APD) has
had some complaints about keystroke loggers, but it isn't a
crime so it wasn't pursued. He noted that law enforcement and
Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailer's Association
(CHARR) sent letters of support. The business community
recognizes that this is a growing problem.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the DOL had seen this language.
MR. BRENNER replied he worked with Ms. Carpeneti on the language
and to his knowledge the DOL had no objection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI related that he found the definition of
"computer" in AS 11.46.990 and it seems fairly broad.
2:52:44 PM
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection Amendment 5 was adopted.
2:53:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony on HB 127 and announced the
committee would stand in recess to the call of the chair
awaiting a CS that incorporated the foregoing amendments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|