HB 15 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING 1:04:41 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones by minors when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR RAMRAS explained that left pending from 3/18/09 was the motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0110\E.1, Luckhaupt, 3/18/09, which read: Page 1, lines 10-11: Delete "has probable cause" Insert "is authorized by law" 1:05:24 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained that the DOL both likes and suggested Amendment 2 because it would make the bill more effective in curbing distracted driving by [minors] using cellular ("cell") phones while they drive, indicating that any term other than "is authorized by law" would not be sufficient given that the behavior the bill is intended to address would only be a secondary offense. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned why it's necessary to have that language in the bill, given that the term "peace officer" includes uniformed police officers. MS. CARPENETI surmised that this standard for stopping a person has been included in order to preclude a law enforcement officer from stopping someone without any legal basis for doing so. In response to another question, she pointed out that under the bill, a minor cannot be stopped just for using a cell phone while driving; the police officer would have to stop the minor for a reason other than using a cell phone while driving, and would have to have a legal basis for making that stop to begin with, and then, in addition to any other citations or arrests, the officer could cite the minor with using a cell phone while driving. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he is simply questioning whether the term "is authorized by law" is repetitive or unnecessary. MS. CARPENETI said that including that term would simply clarify that the officer has to have a legal reason for making the stop to begin with. CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether Amendment 2 lowers what he termed the "probable cause standard as applied under Coleman." MS. CARPENETI explained that the 1976 Coleman v. State case adopts the "reasonable suspicion" standard, which is lower than the probable cause standard; the court decision in Coleman recognizes [reasonable suspicion] as a legal basis for making a stop in Alaska. Such is the standard used in every other state she is familiar with, she relayed, as well as the standard used under federal law. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the bill must include either the current language or the suggested language - that having neither language would not be a workable option. The committee took an at-ease from 1:11 p.m. to 1:13 p.m. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 15 and the question of whether to adopt Amendment 2 would be set aside until later in the meeting. HB 15 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING 1:17:46 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that as the next order of business, the committee would return to the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones by minors when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective date." [The question of whether to adopt Amendment 2 was left pending from earlier in the meeting.] REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to Amendment 2 [text provided previously]. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 1:18:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 15, as amended via Amendment 2, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 15(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.