HOUSE BILL NO. 12 An Act relating to televisions and monitors in motor vehicles. *REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, noted that the purpose of the bill is to prevent operators of motor vehicles from watching television, video, and any other programming, making it a crime. Furthermore, the bill would make it a crime to install a device capable of being viewed while the vehicle was in operation. Representative Gruenberg provided a sectional analysis:   · Section 1 amends AS 28.35, adds a new section. · Paragraph (a) sets forth the general rule that a person shall not drive a motor vehicle while watching television or video. The elements of the crime of "driving with a screen operating" are enumerated. · Paragraph (b) prohibits installing or altering a video display in a motor vehicle that can be viewed by the driver while the vehicle is moving. The paragraph goes on to provide for specified means of disabling the equipment lawfully. · Paragraph (c) provides specific exemptions to the general rule including cell phones and equipment that are in the nature of aides to navigation or operation. · Paragraph (d) makes it clear that the bill is not intended to cover equipment installed in an emergency vehicle or motor vehicle providing emergency service or roadside assistance. · Paragraph (e) establishes an affirmative defense so long as proper equipment is installed. · Paragraph (f) prescribes the types of crimes that a person who is in violation of the law will face under various circumstances including injury and death of another. · A person who violates the law is guilty of - (1) Class A misdemeanor; (2) Class C felony if as a result of that violation another person suffers a physical injury; (3) Class B felony if as a result of that violation another person suffers a serious physical injury; (4) Class A felony if as a result of that violation another person suffers death. · Paragraph (g) prescribes the crime and punishment of a person who installs equipment in violation of the law. · Section 2 of the bill sets forth an effective date of September 1, 2005. Representative Gruenberg offered to answer questions of the Committee. 4:15:50 PM Representative Kelly worried about the future of utility trucks using screens in their vehicles. He cautioned that the legislation could be too restrictive. He anticipated that future cabs, police cars and utility trucks could have "stuff" blocked by the legislation. Representative Gruenberg pointed out that those types of concern would be exempted in language on Page 2, Lines 5-13, and was language specifically added at the request of the industry. Navigational and vehicle equipment must be legal. Representative Gruenberg emphasized that a lot of time had been taken to address those concerns adequately. 4:18:38 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze mentioned police "ride-a-longs" in cars with digital screens and computers, and was concerned that the legislation would affect that. Representative Gruenberg stated that there was nothing included regarding police and/or emergency printouts. Representative Croft thought that language on Page 2, Subsection (D), Lines 14-16, equipment installed in "authorized emergency vehicles" would address Vice Chair Stoltze concerns. 4:20:33 PM Representative Gruenberg offered new language for authorizing specific vehicle exemptions. Representative Kelly was worried about all the "common sense" being excluded through language in the bill. Representative Hawker agreed that the legislation could lead the State down a "dangerous road by restricting some common sense language". He asked if the prohibition makes it a crime to drive with a screen or "visible display", and about hand held devices. Representative Gruenberg responded that it would be any device installed and visible to the driver while operating. Representative Hawker thought a more dangerous device could be a handheld one. 4:24:16 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze indicated his concerned with the impact of the legislation on hand held devices. Representative Kelly asked if there was something in the bill that could address "basic speed". 4:25:48 PM Representative Gruenberg responded that the original bill would have made it illegal to watch a screen while driving, which would be difficult to prove. In the current version, it would be illegal to drive while on and in a position to be viewed. That could be negligent driving. The penalties recommended track the ones cited for traffic homicides. He hoped the legislation would save lives. 4:27:18 PM Co-Chair Chenault understood the intent. He referenced Section 1 (3), "monitor or visual display operating while a person is driving". He asked about driving maps located on car dashboards. Representative Gruenberg pointed out the exempted items listed on Page 2, which include navigation equipment. The legislation was based on model law drafted by the industry. Co-Chair Chenault thought the legislation would single out a small amount of equipment and as technology increases, there would be more accidents. Representative Kelly mentioned cameras for blind spots on huge trucks. He warned that the bill attempts to be modern, but submitted that because of the technological movement, it could be outdated soon. 4:32:25 PM Representative Gruenberg commented there would only be a few cases prosecuted under the proposed law. The situation could be difficult to prove, however, the legislation attempts to clarify that if proven, there is punishment. Representative Croft thought that the area mentioned by Representative Kelly was Section (E), Page 2, exceptions for providing visual information. He concurred with the question if the legislation was the correct approach and questioned if it was right to categorically define negligence with the use of equipment. He said that is what juries are for, to hear and listen to those concerns. He supported making it illegal to attach TVs in cars. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, acknowledged it was difficult to write the legislation. She interpreted a police vehicle as an emergency vehicle. The Department of Law does support the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti pointed out that the penalties track various ones already existing within the judicial system. She acknowledged that proof would be difficult and offered to answer questions. 4:38:15 PM Representative Kelly inquired what law currently covers these concerns. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the case in Kenai was prosecuted as manslaughter, which is any death caused intentionally or recklessly that amounts to murder. Representative Croft voiced concerned with categorizing recklessness. The device was installed and operating. If the driving caused the death of another, he asked the causal link between the conduct of concern and that which lead to the injury or death. 4:40:47 PM Representative Gruenberg noted that there could be unusual circumstances and if there were, he doubted that the person would be prosecuted. It would be impossible to prove the "watching". 4:42:06 PM Representative Holm asked about "altering the vehicle". Representative Gruenberg replied that would be indicated in Subsection (B), Page 1, Line 14, which is not currently a crime. Representative Holm commented on good common sense, pointing out how reckless endangerment and driving are already covered in law. 4:44:16 PM Representative Gruenberg agreed that the State could eliminate all laws except for the basic speed limit; however, the reason that there are other laws is to provide basic certainty. Not everyone has good common sense. Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if the Department of Law would have taken the approach proposed in the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti pointed out that Paragraph 2, Lines 9-11, does not close the door to similar means. It is difficult to specify different types of technology and that the proposed legislation includes other means of creating a visible display. She summarized that the Department would have crafted and does support the legislation. 4:46:54 PM HB 12 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. 4:47:35 PM