HOUSE BILL NO. 88 An Act relating to televisions, monitors, portable computers, and similar devices in motor vehicles; and providing for an effective date. REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, SPONSOR, referenced language on Page 1, Line 11, "in full view", the major change made to the work draft. He indicated that language was best used for television (T.V.) monitors. REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, reiterated that the \O version only made that one change. 9:43:37 AM Representative Foster wondered if it would cover the use of a telephone. Representative Gatto pointed out the exclusions, sub-Section (c). Primarily, it addresses a driver viewing, while driving. Representative Gara agreed that it is a problem. 9:46:48 AM Representative Kelly worried about how the legislation would affect utility workers, working with emergency response concerns. Representative Gruenberg replied that there is a regulation in place, making that a violation if the person is negligently driving. The bill clarifies that if a person is driving and the monitor is operating and in full view, it would be classified as negligence. The language clarifies it for the judge, jury & law enforcement. Representative Gatto added that the problem is the inadvertent distractions. 9:49:33 AM Representative Gara noted that the most important part of the bill is that it makes it a crime to install such devices, where someone could actually watch T.V. while driving. 9:50:16 AM Vice Chair Stoltze asked the range of penalties for installation of a Class A misdemeanor. RICK SVOBODNY, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, advised that the fine would be up to a year in jail and a $10 thousand dollar fine-fee. Vice Chair Stoltze questioned, if in a parked vehicle, equipment installed, could a person be sentenced with to that penalty. Representative Gruenberg responded that if the person could prove that someone had actually disabled it, they could be fined. Representative Gruenberg reference language on Page 2. Vice Chair Stoltze noted that the burden of proof of it being altered was not necessary. Representative Gruenberg argued it definitely is necessary. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Representative Gruenberg & Vice Chair Stoltze discussed the installation of the equipment and the disabling of it. Representative Gatto referenced language on Page 2, the "disabled equipment", Article (e). Representative Gruenberg corrected, meaning the disabling of the disable device. Co-Chair Meyer asked why there were no fiscal notes from all the agencies affected through the legislation. He pointed out the note from the Department of Law. Representative Gruenberg understood that there would be few prosecutions resulting from passage of the bill. Representative Gara advised that the legislation makes it a crime to install the device & worried about including "alter". Representative Gruenberg referenced Page 2, Line 2, "alters the equipment so that it allows the images to be viewed by the driver". Representative Gara emphasized that is not what the language suggests; he recommended the record reflect the intention. Representative Gruenberg agreed. 9:56:05 AM Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 88 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the zero note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 88 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of Law.