HB 256-LAW ENFORCEMENT: REGISTRY; USE OF FORCE  8:46:43 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the final of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to the Alaska Police Standards Council; relating to municipal correctional officers and municipal correctional employees; making municipal police officers subject to police standards; requiring the Department of Public Safety to submit a yearly use-of-force report to the legislature; requiring a municipality that employs a person as a municipal police officer or in a municipal correctional facility, the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Public Safety to report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation incidents of use of force by state and municipal police, probation, parole, and correctional officers and municipal correctional facility employees; and providing for an effective date." 8:47:05 AM CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 256, Version 32-LS1341\B, Ambrose/Radford, 3/11/22, as a working document. CO-CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 8:47:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, addressed the changes to HB 256 proposed in the committee substitute, as outlined in the explanation of changes [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Explanation of Changes CS for HB 256 Ver: 32-LS1341\B Following feedback from our partners, we have included several changes to HB 256: ? Section 7 in Version 32-LS1341\A, referring to DOC reporting use of force from probation officers, parole officers, or correctional officers to the FBI, is removed. All subsequent sections are renumbered in Version B. ? Section 8*: References to village public safety officers and regional public safety officers are removed. ? Section 9*: A reference to the Department of Corrections is removed. ? Section 12*: Increases the one-year compliance timeline to two years in order to allow for more training academy cycles. ? Section 13*: References to the Department of Corrections and correctional facilities are removed. REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned the term "law enforcement official killed and assaulted" (LEOKA). 8:49:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Representative Patkotak, reviewed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently began collecting "use of force" data and has asked states to submit information. The proposed legislation would bring Alaska in line with that process. She explained the reason some law enforcement was removed in Version B is because under LEOKA, law enforcement must have full arrest powers. 8:52:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY directed attention to the term "prepared to use deadly force", on page 1, line 13, and he recalled it was suggested that as soon as the officer puts on the belt, he/she is prepared. He questioned the ambiguity of that phrase. REPRESENTATIVE TARR deferred to Kelly Howell. 8:54:12 AM KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner; Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commission, Department of Public Safety, noted that the bill language points to the definition of deadly force under AS 11.81.900(b)(16), and that statute gives examples. She pointed to where HB 256 references the statute, on page 3, line 1. In response to a follow-up question, she offered her understanding that information compiled would be added to overall aggregate data regarding use of force among law enforcement professionals. 8:57:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND highlighted use of "against a person" following "prepared to use deadly force" and said she didn't think putting on a holster before leaving home equals intent to use deadly force against a person at that point. 8:58:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE talked about "color codes" related to carrying a weapon. He opined that a cop is always prepared to use deadly force. He maintained that the question is different and appears not to include the use of a taser, for example. 8:59:30 AM MS. HOWELL clarified that which would be reported under the FBI database. She said the use of force data collection program collects information related to where a fatality occurs, there is serious bodily injury, or in the absence of both those when a firearm is discharged by an officer "at or in the direction of a person." Further, there is a definition of "serious bodily injury," which is under U.S. Code. She stated that in context with HB 256, the mention of deadly force in Section 1 is in relation to a law enforcement officer reporting to a supervisor when the officer has observed another officer using or preparing to use deadly force against a person, "and then there's the information that's required to be reported out to the FBI for the use of force date collection effort." In response to a clarification of the question, she said there is a definition of "dangerous instrument" in statute, and she offered his understanding that "use of force" includes using a taser against someone. 9:02:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK asked Ms. Howell to speak to Section 5 as it relates to Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs). MS. HOWELL offered her understanding that the language to which Representative Patkotak referred was a conforming amendment based on what is being added in Section 1 related to training. She said HB 256 would complement other bills currently circulating to address the issue of VPSOs because it refers back to the training standards under the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC). 9:04:06 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN removed her objection to the motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 256, Version 32- LS1341\B, Ambrose/Radford, 3/11/22, as a working document. There being no further objection, Version B was before the committee. 9:04:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to a question from Representative Patkotak regarding municipal correction employees and mandates that they shall meet certain requirements, directed attention to page 4, to language regarding transition employment, and she mentioned the academy where municipal officers can receive training and the change from one year to two in order to give two full academy cycles to get all employees certified. This works out so that there is no fiscal note. 9:07:37 AM KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections, highlighted the use of the word "shall" and said the mandate "will have small implications," because the majority of communities currently have municipal officers attending the academy, including those in the North Slope Bureau. In response to a question from Co-Chair Hannan, she identified the two municipalities whose officers who currently get training, but not at the academy, as Bristol Bay and Craig, Alaska. 9:08:46 AM MS. GOODE, in response to Representative Prax, confirmed there are no new training requirements, just that they get the training of 120 hours, and the fiscal note will remain at zero. In response to a follow-up question, she explained that these communities get funding from the state for their jails, and they already have to train. She reiterated that the training dollars would be used for the academy. The department does not anticipate it will be a hardship for any of the communities. REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to another question from Representative Prax as to whether the same would apply to municipal police departments that may not run a jail, stated that "all of the individuals would already be required to go through the academy for certification" prior to being able to serve, and that would not change. To another question, she explained that there are seven bills that are part of a package from Senator Gray-Jackson, and Representative Tarr said she created companion bills. She advised that HB 256 is limited to use of force reporting. 9:14:19 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN opened public testimony on HB 256, Version B. 9:14:52 AM DON ETHERIDGE, representing self, testified that the various pieces of related legislation are tying the hands of law enforcement officers rather than giving them more strength to put those in jail that are breaking the law. He talked about the numerous robberies in his neighborhood prior to a volunteer neighborhood patrol. He encouraged giving support to law enforcement, not giving them more paperwork and regulations. 9:19:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND spoke about her experience with a neighborhood watch. MR. ETHERIDGE shared his methods for watching his neighborhood. 9:23:03 AM CRYSTAL BERWICK, representing self, testified in support of HB 256, stating that she is disturbed that "this is not already done." She expressed the need for consistent policies and the importance of recording use of force. 9:25:00 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN, after ascertaining there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 256, Version B. 9:25:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that it would be good to have input from local police agencies regarding HB 256, as well as to identify "more specific problems, targets, that we're trying to resolve." 9:25:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY concurred. He said this situation is not unique to Alaska. He spoke about reporting requirements preventing law enforcement officers from being able to be out patrolling. He talked about "community patrols" keeping communities safe. He expressed appreciation for the neighborhood watch in his own neighborhood. 9:28:57 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 256 was held over.