Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
04/10/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB258 | |
| SB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2024
1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 258
"An Act relating to a permanent fund dividend for an individual
whose conviction has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed; and
relating to the calculation of the value of the permanent fund
dividend by including payment to individuals eligible for a
permanent fund dividend because of a conviction that has been
vacated, reversed, or dismissed."
- MOVED SB 258 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 255
"An Act relating to the obstruction of airports and runways;
relating to the obstruction of highways; establishing the crime
of obstruction of free passage in public places; relating to the
obstruction of public places; relating to the crime of
trespassing; relating to the obstruction of navigable waters;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 258
SHORT TITLE: CRIM. CONV. OVERTURNED: RECEIVE PAST PFD
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/06/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/24 (S) JUD, FIN
03/25/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/25/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/25/24 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 255
SHORT TITLE: OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/21/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/24 (S) TRA, JUD
03/14/24 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/24 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/21/24 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/21/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/24 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/26/24 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/24 (S) Moved SB 255 Out of Committee
03/26/24 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/27/24 (S) TRA RPT 1DNP 1NR 2AM
03/27/24 (S) AM: KAUFMAN, WILSON
03/27/24 (S) DNP: TOBIN
03/27/24 (S) NR: MYERS
04/10/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 255 on behalf of the
administration.
LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRENCH
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions during the
discussion on SB 255.
PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Civil Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the sectional analysis during the
slideshow presentation on SB 255.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to criminal
law during the discussion of SB 255.
AMANDA PINEDA, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
MENEKA THIRU, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
NITHYA THIRU, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
KC CASORT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, Alaska State Director
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
ALMA ABAZA, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
SALIM HOUCK, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
SONIA KUMAR, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 258.
THOMAS PATRICK O'CONNOR, representing self
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
LAURA BONNER, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 255.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:45:41 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Kaufman, Tobin, and Chair Claman.
SB 258-CRIM. CONV. OVERTURNED: RECEIVE PAST PFD
1:46:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 258
"An Act relating to a permanent fund dividend for an individual
whose conviction has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed; and
relating to the calculation of the value of the permanent fund
dividend by including payment to individuals eligible for a
permanent fund dividend because of a conviction that has been
vacated, reversed, or dismissed."
CHAIR CLAMAN solicited the will of the committee.
1:46:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to report SB 258, work order 33-LS1477\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note(s).
1:47:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN found no objection and SB 258 was reported from the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 255-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
1:47:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 255
"An Act relating to the obstruction of airports and runways;
relating to the obstruction of highways; establishing the crime
of obstruction of free passage in public places; relating to the
obstruction of public places; relating to the crime of
trespassing; relating to the obstruction of navigable waters;
and providing for an effective date."
1:48:21 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General, Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, introduced SB 255 on behalf of the administration.
1:48:43 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR moved to slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Overview
SB 255
Alaskans have a constitutional right to freedom of
movement within the state and to have free access to
public places.
Alaskans also have a constitutional right to peaceably
and lawfully assemble.
SB 255 is an Act to protect Alaskans' constitutional
rights.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR stated that SB 255 seeks to balance
these constitutional rights. He said that, to address this,
Department of Law has considered events that have occurred
worldwide and in the Lower 48.
1:49:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any of the events being referenced
have occurred in Alaska.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that events in Alaska have not
matched the scale of those in the Lower 48. He said that he is
uncertain whether it is a new phenomenon (or simply receiving
more press attention); however, these types of protests - and
the potential for destruction and economic harm - are at the
forefront of people's minds.
1:49:45 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR moved to slide 3:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Freedom of Movement
• Alaskans' right to freely move within the state is
violated when their access to public places and
facilities are unlawfully obstructed
• Unlawful obstruction presents a threat to public
safety -emergency vehicles are unable to respond
when a crucial roadway is obstructed
• Unlawful obstruction poses a threat to Alaska's
economy -businesses cannot operate normally;
Alaskans may be unable to get to work
• SB 255 imposes additional criminal penalties for
obstruction of public places and creates a civil
cause of action for a private citizen whose access
is unlawfully obstructed
• Penalties imposed by the bill discourage and deter
unlawful obstruction of public places
1:51:00 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR moved to slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Freedom of Assembly
• Conduct that includes rendering highways, roadways
inaccessible or impassible is already illegal.
• Freedom of expression is already subject to time,
place, and manner restrictions to prevent
interference with the rights of others
• Proposed bill targets the conduct of blocking access
to public places not Alaskans' right to peaceably
and lawfully assemble
• Provides Alaskans an avenue to remedy against
unlawful obstruction
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR explained that SB 255 would increase the
penalty for rendering highways and roadways inaccessible or
impassible. He said that providing a remedy against unlawful
obstruction would potentially keep those protests from
escalating into violence.
1:52:01 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR moved to slide 5, "Around the U.S.,"
which showed images of protestors bodily blocking traffic at the
State of the Union Address in Washington, D.C. and Trump
supporters using their cars to block access to a bridge in South
Nyack, NY. He noted that protests of this kind are becoming more
common. He stated that currently, this is not an arrestable
offence in Alaska. Instead, it is a violation that receives a
$1000 fine. SB 255 would make this an arrestable offence, thus
allowing police officers to remove the obstruction. He surmised
that, while protests of this magnitude have yet to occur in
Alaska, it is only a matter of time.
1:52:58 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR stated that Alaskans face unique
challenges with respect to travel within the state. He moved to
slide 6, which stated that Alaskans are vulnerable to economic
impacts, road safety concerns, and disruptions to daily life
that could result from obstructive protests. Slide 6 lists four
vulnerable highways of concern:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Seward Highway
Obstructing the Seward south of Anchorage blocks the
Kenai Peninsula from accessing the Port of Alaska and
the Ted Stevens Int'l Airport
Dalton Highway
Obstructing the Haul Road during mobilization season
could have devastating effects on the oil patch
Glenn Highway
Obstructing the Glenn north of Anchorage blocks every
community north of Anchorage from accessing the Port
of Alaska and the Ted Stevens Int'l Airport
Highway 2
Obstructing the road just inside the US/Canada border
blocks all traffic in and out of Alaska
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR stated that a blockage of several hours
can cause significant disruptions, including running out of fuel
and/or food.
1:54:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed attention to the Highway 2 example on
slide 6 and asked whether, at this time, Alaska State Troopers
(AST) are legally able to remove disruptions from the road.
1:55:08 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that this is currently a
violation and a $1000 fine. He explained that a violation does
not allow for an arrest. He said that this can create
difficulties for AST as they determine how to address these
types of issues. He deferred to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS).
1:55:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to DPS.
1:55:49 PM
LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRENCH, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), Anchorage, Alaska, deferred to the
Department of Law (DOL) to supply information regarding
specifically how this type of situation would play out. He said
that he would have to research this question and get back to the
committee.
1:56:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that from his experience, AST has asked the
person to move their car, and the person has moved. He shared
that he had been on the Seward Highway when there was an
accident. He described how this scenario played out. He noted
that there was no crime involved. He reiterated that he had
witnessed incidents where AST had to ask someone to move (and
they complied) and emphasized that he has not witnessed any
incidents where someone was intentionally blocking the highway
and refused to move.
1:57:17 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said that the United States Department of Justice
(USDOJ), Office of Justice Programs, issued a statement
indicating that "increasing the severity of the punishment does
little to deter the crime." She asked what evidence or research
Department of Law (DOL) can provide to show that increasing the
penalties will prevent obstructive protests from happening in
Alaska.
1:57:50 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that, across the country and
worldwide, law enforcement is faced with the inability to act in
response to these types of protests. He said that SB 255 is an
attempt to provide law enforcement with tools to deescalate
these situations and prevent disruptions. He opined that a
rational person would weigh the consequences before acting. He
indicated that a bigger consequence would act as a deterrent to
obstructive protests and protestors would be more likely to
apply for municipal permits to hold protests in locations that
do not obstruct traffic.
1:58:59 PM
SENATOR TOBIN acknowledged that there is no way for the state to
permit protests. She asked for clarification regarding whether
or not DOL has evidence to support the claim that increasing the
penalty would decrease the likelihood of these protests
occurring.
1:59:16 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that it is a matter of common
sense. He argued that a higher penalty would encourage groups to
think twice. He acknowledged that some groups may choose to pay
the higher fine and continue to protest; however, some would
choose to protest in a lawful manner.
1:59:37 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said that many individuals commit egregious,
white-collar crimes (including inciting riots) that have very
large fines - which have not deterred these behaviors. She
questioned whether "common sense" is an appropriate
consideration in this case.
1:59:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that while he appreciates the appeal to
"common sense," the evidence does not bear this out. He referred
to previous discussions related to the death penalty and shared
how a "common sense" argument has been used by proponents of the
death penalty - while the evidence suggests that this is not an
effective deterrent. He stated that a large body of
criminological data suggests that, while increased penalties may
appeal to a theory of "common sense," the statistical reality
does not support this statement.
2:00:50 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that globally organized protests
are often planned weeks in advance and are different than crimes
of passion and impulse. He opined that protest organizers are
more likely to be deterred by a higher penalty and expressed
hope that this would be the case.
2:01:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN shared that he grew up in the Southern United
States in the 1960s, when civil rights protestors knew they
would be arrested and intentionally filled jails. He reiterated
that he appreciates this perspective but stated that he does not
find it to be a convincing argument - particularly in light of
these historical protests.
2:02:19 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that a deterrent is not always
successful; however, the state can take action to keep these
protests from occurring. He opined that SB 255 accomplishes this
goal.
2:02:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that SB 255 applies to planned protests by
groups and asked which section contains these changes in
criminal law.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that SB 255 is agnostic to
cause. He stated that these changes would apply equally to
anyone who engages in obstructive protest, regardless of group
size or cause. He clarified that if individuals knowingly block
traffic, they would be subject to the penalties.
2:03:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that, in this case, SB 255 would also apply
to someone who does not plan their protest well in advance but
rather protests with a sense of immediacy.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied yes.
2:03:45 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said that in the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee it was pointed out that, as currently written, SB 255
would allow the state to sue the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOTPF) for blocking free and public
access to a state sidewalk, etc. At that time, Attorney General
Taylor stated that SB 255 would be interpreted with discretion.
She asked for clarification regarding the agnostic application
of SB 255.
2:04:10 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that SB 255 is agnostic with
respect to the reason for the protest, i.e. the law would apply
regardless of the reason for the protest. He emphasized that
police officers always act with discretion when responding to a
police call and this discretion continues as issues move through
the judicial process.
2:05:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Attorney General Taylor indicated
concern regarding international organizations organizing
protests in Alaska. He shared his understanding that SB 255
would apply to individual protestors obstructing roadways but
would not apply to the international organization responsible
for planning the protest. He asked if this is correct.
2:05:45 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that there is a long-arm
provision that would allow the State to hold out-of-state
organizations accountable. He acknowledged that this may not
apply to international organizations and indicated that more
research is needed to determine how this could be done. He said
that it would be possible to hold US organizations accountable.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered an example of someone in another state
planning a protest in Alaska. He asked for confirmation of his
understanding that the long-arm provision would, in theory,
allow Alaskan law enforcement to travel across state lines and
arrest that person, who would then face charges for planning an
obstructive protest in the state.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR confirmed that this an accurate
reflection of Alaska's criminal statutes. He explained that the
extradition process varies by state.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that he understood extradition to apply to
someone who committed a crime in Alaska but later left the
state. Extradition would allow the individual to be brought back
to Alaska to face charges for their crime. He asked if
extradition now allows Alaska law enforcement to charge someone
for committing a crime in Alaska - even though that person was
not physically in Alaska when the crime occurred.
2:07:12 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR acknowledged that this is moving beyond
the scope of his expertise. He referenced the 2019 murder of
Cynthia Hoffman that occurred in Thunderbird Falls, Alaska. He
explained that, in this case, one of the defendants was found
guilty of soliciting the crime while in another state.
2:07:49 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR moved to slide 7 and deferred to Mr.
Patterson.
2:08:01 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Civil Division, Juneau, Alaska, introduced the Sectional
Analysis during the slideshow presentation on SB 255. Slides 7
10 provided a sectional analysis of SB 255:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1
• Amends existing obstruction of airports statute to
prohibit general obstruction of runways
Section 2
• Adds new penalties to the crime of obstruction of
airports and classifies specific conduct as class C
felony or class A misdemeanor
Section 3
• Accounts for amendments in section 2 with a
conforming change
Section 4
• Establishes strict liability in a civil case for
violations of any criminal statutes created or
amended by the bill and sets out provisions for
civil cause of action
Section 5
• Amends the crime of criminal trespass in the first
degree to class C felony if the conduct creates a
substantial risk of physical injury or interferes
with an emergency response
Section 6
• Amends the crime of criminal trespass in the second
degree to class A misdemeanor if the conduct creates
a substantial risk of physical injury or interferes
with an emergency response
MR PATTERSON continued his presentation of the sectional
analysis of SB 255:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 7
• Accounts for amendments in section 8 with a
conforming change
Section 8
• Makes obstructing a highway by dropping a substance
on the highway a class C felony if it creates a
substantial risk of physical injury or interferes
with an emergency response
• Other highway obstruction class A misdemeanor
Section 9
• Creates crime of obstruction of free passage in
public places, a class A misdemeanor if conduct
creates a substantial risk of physical injury or
interferes with an emergency response
• Permitted conduct exempt
Section 10
• Amends the crime of obstruction to navigable waters to a
class A misdemeanor if the conduct creates a substantial
risk of injury or interferes with an emergency response
• Other obstructions class B misdemeanor
Section 11
• Provides prospective application of criminal offenses
amended in the bill
Section 12
• Provides for a July 1, 2024 effective date
2:10:47 PM
SENATOR TOBIN directed attention to page 5, line 7 and suggested
changing the period after "July 1" to a comma. She then directed
attention to page 4, line 29, and asked for a definition of
"substantial risk."
2:11:25 PM
MR. PATTERSON deferred to the Criminal Division of the
Department of Law.
2:11:47 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, said that "substantial risk"
is a phrase used throughout the Criminal Code and explained
that, ultimately, it is determined by the jury.
2:12:11 PM
SENATOR TOBIN shared her understanding that determining what
constitutes a "substantial risk" would be a matter of
discretion.
MS. SCHROEDER said that there has been litigation surrounding
the term "substantial risk" in other areas of law - and this
would be considered when deciding to bring charges and whether
to bring a case before a jury. She added that, ultimately, it is
up to the jury to decide.
2:12:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he has questions regarding the new crime
of obstruction of free passage.
2:12:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if there were additional questions regarding
Section 10 of SB 255 that could be addressed before moving on.
He expressed concern that the definition of "physical injury" in
the criminal code includes minor injuries and wondered why
"serious physical injury" (which is also defined in criminal
code) was not used instead.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that the highway obstruction statute uses
"physical injury", and this was carried through SB 255.
2:13:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether individuals taking part in a protest
for which no permit is available would be guilty of a crime
according to SB 255. He offered an example of protests that
utilize the sidewalk and pointed out that permits are available
for street protests but are not offered for sidewalk protests.
2:15:12 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that this points to an interesting
issue. He explained that Alaska's case law allows municipalities
to further limit the right to assemble. He said that
municipalities implement permitting to determine time, place,
manner, and location of allowable protests. He stated that
anywhere in the state where a protest intentionally, knowingly
blocks a "highway" (which carries a broad definition and
includes any pathway, sidewalk, etc.) - and where a municipal
law is not in place - this new law would apply. He offered an
example of a protest at the entrance to a state park and stated
that, in this case, blocking access to a trail would constitute
a crime under SB 255.
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern. He offered an example of city
workers picketing on the sidewalk in front of city hall - a form
of protest for which no permit is available - and pointed out
that this would constitute a crime under SB 255.
2:17:06 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that, in current statute, this
is a violation of the law and SB 255 does not change that.
2:17:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification that, while this is
currently a violation of law, SB 255 would increase the penalty.
2:17:31 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR agreed that SB 255 would heighten the
penalties.
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern that instead of a violation this
would now constitute a crime. He pointed out that the new crime
of obstructing free passage in public places would apply to any
municipal or state land where there happens to be a trail. He
asked what is needed for someone to authorize a protest on
private property in order to render it non-criminal.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that he is not sure what a
private person would do to allow a protest. He surmised that if
the owner of the property called law enforcement to report the
protest, this would indicate that the protest was not authorized
and would therefore be a crime. He added that, if the landowner
did not report the protest, there would be no reason for law
enforcement to become involved.
2:18:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL shared his understanding that, in this case, no
request to leave, notice to quit, or no trespass notice would be
necessary. He said that any protest occurring under a building
that is privately owned and generally open to the public - would
be guilty of a crime under SB 255.
2:19:18 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that the way the statute is
written, if a person enters and remains unlawfully on the land
(i.e. they are asked to leave and they refuse) they are in
violation of trespass laws. He noted that this pertains to both
premises and dwellings (with the latter carrying a higher
penalty).
2:19:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked where that language is found in Section 9 of
SB 255.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that is part of the current
criminal trespass code. He explained that this language is not
included in SB 255, which adds penalties to the existing code.
2:20:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that Senator Kiehl's question was related
to Section 9 of SB 255 and not Sections 5 and 6, which relate to
criminal trespass. He pointed out that Section 9 does not
contain any reference to criminal trespass.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that he understood the question
to refer to private property, which falls under criminal
trespass. He added that Section 9 deals with public places (e.g.
obstructing the entrance to the museum).
2:21:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed that this is what is being discussed. He
said that the definition of "public place" does not require it
to be public property. He pointed out that a plaza at a
commercial building would qualify as a public place to which the
crime of obstruction to public spaces would apply.
2:22:22 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied yes and added that an
obstruction of entry would be considered a violation. He said
that one aspect of the crime would apply to being present on the
premises without permission. A second aspect is found in Section
9 and applies to a protest that prevents entry to the premises
(e.g. blocking entrance to a store).
2:22:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that as he reads Section 9 in conjunction
with the definitions in AS 11, a protest could block the steps
to a plaza - not access to the building or entry into the
business. He pointed out that it is a misdemeanor to block
access to a place that renders government services. It is also a
misdemeanor to make it difficult to enter a public location. He
emphasized that the owner of the building is not required to
give notice to the protestors to leave - they are automatically
guilty of the crime. He asserted that the vagueness of the
language is very problematic and would make it difficult for
citizens to know when they are in violation of the proposed
criminal law.
2:23:43 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that SB 255 requires individuals
to "knowingly" block passage to prevent people access and/or
passage. This can be anything from passage on a trail or access
to a museum. He emphasized that the obstruction must be willful.
2:24:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he appreciates the discretion given to
law enforcement to ask a series of questions. He clarified that
the question currently being discussed is not whether the
protestors know they are blocking entrance or passage - but
whether the protestors know that they are not authorized to be
in a given location - when the general public is authorized to
be there. He said that he is unaware of a definition of what it
means to be authorized by the person in charge of the premises.
2:24:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a hypothetical scenario that relates to
Section 9. He asked whether a protest occurring in front of the
main store entrance (while still allowing patrons to pass and
enter the building) that caused some patrons to choose to
instead enter the premises via a side entrance would be a crime
according to SB 255.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that the passage must be considered
"unreasonable access". Therefore, if someone could easily pass
by the protest - yet chose to access via a different route -
this would not be a violation of the law.
2:26:25 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked where it is written in SB 255 that a crime
of obstruction is not committed if there is an alternate route
available.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said this is found in Section 9, page 4,
lines 7-11. He surmised that if there is a reasonable
alternative route, the protestors would not be in violation.
SENATOR TOBIN opined that this is unclear and suggested that an
amendment could clarify this. She argued that there is ambiguity
in the language as it relates to a variety of situations and
this results in a lack of clarity.
2:28:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed attention to Section 4(a) and asked
whether a criminal conviction is required prior to bringing
civil action.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR emphasized that the act must be
committed "knowingly." He referenced the civil case brought
against O.J. Simpson. He deferred to Ms. Schroeder.
2:29:27 PM
MS. SCHROEDER asked Chair Claman to repeat the question.
2:29:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed attention to Section 4 and offered a
hypothetical example. He wondered if an acquittal would have an
impact on the ability to bring a civil suit in response to the
violation.
2:30:30 PM
MS. SCHROEDER shared her understanding that a civil suit would
still be possible. She explained that civil cases carry a lower
burden of proof.
2:30:51 PM
MR. PATTERSON added that a conviction is not required. He
explained that a civil case requires proof by a preponderance of
the evidence.
2:31:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that there is no statutory definition
for "nominal damages." He offered an example of a clinic whose
patients cannot attend their appointments due to a protest
occurring outside the clinic. He asked whether every employee of
the clinic would individually have a claim to nominal damages of
$10,000 (i.e. $10,000 per employee).
2:31:56 PM
MR. PATTERSON answered yes and directed attention to the
definition of "nominal damages" on page 3, line 1 of SB 255. He
explained that each employee would have an individual cause of
action under this provision.
2:32:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL shared his understanding that this would be a
significant expansion of tort law and includes strict,
vicarious, and joint and several liabilities. He asked if this
also occurs in other areas of law.
2:32:49 PM
MR. PATTERSON said that this is common for a tort that is based
on a violation of criminal law, which is referred to as
"negligence per se." He explained that "negligence per se"
includes "strict liability" - and this is a well-known, common
law and tort law doctrine. He added that SB 255 follows the
general rule.
2:33:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if these provisions include a damage schedule
like the one in Section 4 - or if it is open-ended.
2:33:33 PM
MR. PATTERSON replied, no. He said that this provision is
unique. He explained that, normally, a tort law case has
compensatory and punitive damages; SB 255 creates a separate
schedule of statutory damages.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether individuals would owe statutory,
punitive, and compensatory damages.
MR. PATTERSON replied yes. He directed attention to page 2, line
8, which states that the statutory damages are in addition to
other civil damages and criminal penalties.
2:34:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to page 2, line 20 and asked
whether someone who walks by and says "way to go" would be
liable under this section for "encouraging" the protestors.
2:34:55 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied no and said that this type of
encouragement would not be a violation of this law. He said that
there is legal precedent (Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.)
requiring evidence that the individual encouraged the protestors
to break the law and offered examples.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what court rendered the decision in Rice v.
Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
MR. PATTERSON answered that it was a federal case heard by the
4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Alaska is not in the 4th Circuit.
MR. PATTERSON agreed and explained that he was not able to find
a 9th Circuit case that would directly apply to SB 255.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court had any
applicable cases.
MR. PATTERSON answered no, none that would apply to the narrow
question addressed by SB 255.
2:36:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 255.
2:36:51 PM
AMANDA PINEDA, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 255. She said that this legislation violates
Alaskans' First Amendment rights. She expressed concern about
terminology and definitions and indicated that there is a lack
of clarity that needs to be addressed. She urged the committee
not to pass or advance SB 255 to protect the fundamental rights
of Alaskans.
2:38:07 PM
MENEKA THIRU, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She drew attention to the civil
liabilities and felony classification and opined that the goal
of this legislation is to frighten protestors and discourage
expressions of dissent - or to require that protests occur in
ways that the governor has deemed appropriate. She stated that
protesting is a First Amendment right and has historically been
one of the only avenues by which individuals can ensure their
voices are heard. She said that she has participated in many
protests and will continue to do so. She opined that the
intention of SB 255 is to discourage Alaskans from exercising
their First Amendment rights.
2:39:17 PM
NITHYA THIRU, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She stated that this legislation would
infringe on the First Amendment right to assemble. She offered
the Selma Marches to illustrate instances in which blocking
roadways may be necessary. She said that blocking roadways is a
critical tool that has historically been used to push for
governmental change in times when the government will not
otherwise listen. She argued that SB 255 would harshly penalize
civil rights protestors and is a dangerous silencing of dissent.
2:40:26 PM
KC CASORT, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She opined that creating more reasons to
arrest Alaskans for exercising their right to protest is not the
correct choice. She said that she has participated in many
peaceful protest events. She stated that, while she has
experienced counter-protest during these events, she would not
want those individuals to be arrested or fined for speaking up.
She expressed concern about the intention behind SB 255. She
argued that protest, which is intended to disrupt, is a
legitimate part of the political process - and SB 255 would
criminalize this.
2:41:47 PM
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, Alaska State Director, Planned Parenthood
Alliance Advocates, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition
to SB 255. She stated that this legislation would criminalize
Alaskans who exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech and assembly. She said that the broad language in SB 255
would render constitutionally protected speech illegal, while
vague wording would create difficulties for those seeking to
follow and/or enforce the law. She asserted that the new crime
of obstruction of free passage in public places is
constitutionally problematic. She expressed concern that this
law would potentially stifle lawful speech and protests. She
asserted that the vague language in SB 255 is an attempt to stop
Alaskans from exercising their First Amendment rights. She
reiterated that the language is overly broad and offered
examples of potential consequences. She asserted that the
penalties and civil liabilities are unreasonable. She argued
that law enforcement can selectively apply vague and overly
broad laws and asserted that the state cannot neutrally apply SB
255. She said that laws against obstructing passage in public
places may criminalize homeless individuals - which could be
weaponized by law enforcement.
2:44:11 PM
ALMA ABAZA, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She opined that this legislation is an
attempt to suppress Alaskans' First Amendment rights. She stated
that there is no need for this legislation and asserted that it
is undemocratic.
2:44:49 PM
SALIM HOUCK, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. He said that standing up for what you
believe in is an Alaskan value that would be restricted if this
legislation were to pass. He said he is not aware of external
groups protesting in the state. He shared his experience
participating in protests and said that it is unclear whether
these protests would be criminalized by SB 255. He emphasized
that First Amendment rights are essential to democracy and
asserted that threatening these rights is counter to what it
means to be an American and an Alaskan.
2:46:27 PM
SONIA KUMAR, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She said that this legislation violates
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. She
expressed concern that criminalizing acts of protest would make
it difficult for Alaskans to exercise their First Amendment
right to petition the government for redress of grievances. She
pointed out that protests are a primary avenue by which this is
done. She indicated concern that this could lead to a fascist
state and questioned the reasoning and intent behind SB 255. She
stated that she has never experienced a roadblock due to
protests; however, she has experienced roads blocked due to
tourists, wildlife, etc.
2:47:43 PM
THOMAS PATRICK O'CONNOR, representing self, North Pole, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 255. He said that he is the former
mayor of North Pole, Alaska and briefly shared his work history,
including work with the New York City Police Department. He said
that SB 255 violates the First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech and assembly. He said that the new crime of obstruction
of free passage in public places is problematic, according to
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He detailed
additional concerns brought forward by ACLU, including broad
language that would potentially criminalize homelessness. He
emphasized the importance of the First Amendment, which is
protected from interference by state governments. He pointed out
that the Alaska Constitution also protects these rights.
2:49:34 PM
LAURA BONNER, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She said that this legislation would
violate Alaskans' First Amendment rights. She offered an example
of a sidewalk protest that would no longer be lawful. She
expressed concern that "public spaces" are not clearly defined
and questioned who would make that determination. She shared
that she has participated in many protests, marches, and
pickets, none of which impeded the movement of medical response
workers. She added that buildings could always be entered and
exited freely. She urged committee members not to move SB 255
out of committee.
2:51:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 255.
2:51:34 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the Constitution of the State of
Alaska (Alaska Constitution) protects Alaskans' right to
peaceably assemble. He directed attention to Section 9 of SB 255
and pointed out that violence or otherwise volatile behavior is
not required for an assembly to be considered unlawful. Instead,
the requirement is "unreasonable inconvenience". He asked how
this can be reconciled with the Alaska Constitution.
2:52:18 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR replied that Article 1 of the Alaska
Constitution states that Alaskans have a right to move freely
about the state and offered examples. He said that SB 255 does
not change the current laws related to the obstruction of
highways and airports. It increases the penalties for both. He
stated that the only new violation is the obstruction of public
places. He opined that those who presented public testimony
would likely agree that they have a right to freely access
public places; however, this is not currently protected by law.
SB 255 would ensure continued access. He acknowledged that law
enforcement can act in cases when protests escalate to violence
and added that SB 255 is an attempt to keep this escalation from
occurring.
SENATOR KIEHL said that the question of unreasonable convenience
is different than the question of a threatening mob or a mob
that prevents access. He opined that the civil portion of SB 255
creates the most chilling piece. He expressed surprise to hear
that Planned Parenthood of Alaska (PPA) opposes SB 255 and
opined that PPA could lawfully sue many protestors for blocking
entry to facilities, should this legislation pass. He indicated
that SB 255 could make it possible for those with different
views to sue individuals involved in protests that they disagree
with. He shared an example of a rally in front of the Capitol
building on February 23, 2013, during which protestors carried
chambered rifles - which caused his constituents to avoid the
building out of fear. He expressed concerns related to the
potential misuse of the new crime of obstruction of free passage
in public places.
2:55:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that the Planned Parenthood example
offered by Mr. Taylor is not an issue of protests but an issue
of safety. He stated that the Alaska Constitution gives Alaskans
the right to access safe medical treatment. He pointed out that
Planned Parenthood clinics often employ security personnel
because clinic patients are routinely threatened. He expressed
concern about this. He turned his attention to SB 255 and
commented that the administration is arguing that the threat of
obstructive protests in Alaska merits a change in the law and
increased penalties. He said that protests in the Lower 48 have
been used as evidence but expressed doubt that protests in
Alaska have reached a comparable intensity. He offered an
example of recent discussions about added security at the state
capitol to illustrate the ways Alaska differs from states in the
Lower 48 with respect to violent threats. He shared that he has
experienced uncomfortable interactions with protestors who
disagree with his positions on certain issues; however, he
expressed doubt that Alaska has reached the point where these
additional penalties are necessary.
2:58:51 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR said that it is an issue of balancing
rights. He stated that Alaska faces unique accessibility
challenges that could potentially be exacerbated by protests
that obstruct roadways. He said that the potential harm to
Alaskans was the impetus behind SB 255. He opined that this
legislation is an attempt to balance the interests of Alaskans.
He commented that there may be disagreement on how to address
this. He added that the legislature can determine the specifics
of how this balance is achieved and whether civil penalties are
necessary.
3:00:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 255 in committee.
3:00:27 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 255 Sectional Analysis version A 3.27.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |
| SB 255 Supporting Document- Highlights version A 3.27.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |
| SB 255 Transmittal Letter version A 2.20.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |
| SB 255 LAW Presentation 4.10.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |
| SB 255- Letters of Opposition received as of 4.10.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |
| SB 258 Letter of Support received as of 4.10.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 258 |
| SB 255 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 4.10.2024.pdf |
SJUD 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |