HB 171 - ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANORS 2:03:41 PM CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to arrests without warrants by peace officers for certain misdemeanors." 2:04:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 5 following "AS 11.41": Insert "and there is reasonable cause to believe arrest without warrant is a practical necessity to prevent imminent physical harm to the public" CHAIR GATTO objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES ventured that Conceptual Amendment 1 would address the concerns raised during HB 171's last hearing that the bill would allow warrantless arrests for all misdemeanor offenses against a person, even very low-level offenses such as reckless endangerment, and those wherein no additional danger to the public exists if someone isn't arrested. 2:07:30 PM KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Munoz, sponsor of HB 171 by request, in response to a question, indicated that many other states do allow, to some degree or another, warrantless arrests for certain misdemeanor offenses committed outside the presence of an officer. The sponsor, she relayed, feels that when a person [poses a danger to others,] he/she should be removed from the [vicinity]. Similar to the laws in some other states, HB 171 would only apply in situations involving a misdemeanor offense against a person. She noted that members' packets contain a memorandum by Legislative Legal and Research Services detailing the specifics of the warrantless-arrest authority granted in other states. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed concern that Conceptual Amendment 1 wouldn't actually narrow the bill much, and that insufficiently-trained law enforcement officers could still end up abusing the arrest authority granted by the bill. MS. KLOSTER relayed that the concept of HB 171 was brought forth by the Juneau Police Department (JPD), and that other law enforcement organizations throughout Alaska have also requested the type of warrantless-arrest authority the bill would provide for. The goal, however, is to sufficiently narrow the bill while still giving law enforcement officers an adequate tool with which to address situations that involve imminent danger to the public. She offered her understanding, and hope, that law enforcement officers already receive the training necessary to make determinations about whether there is probable cause to make an arrest and whether the behavior in question constitutes an offense against a person. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed concern that the warrantless- arrest authority being granted by the bill would still be abused regardless of the training law enforcement officers receive. 2:15:51 PM QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to a question, paraphrased portions of AS 11.41.250, AS 11.41.230, and AS 11.41.220 to illustrate what kinds of activities could constitutes the misdemeanor crime of reckless endangerment, what kinds of activities could constitute the misdemeanor crime of assault in the fourth degree, and what kinds of activities could constitute the felony crime of assault in the third degree. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN [speaking as a former law enforcement officer] opined that police officers are already cognizant of the substantial consequences of making a false arrest, particularly given that anytime they are called to a scene or come across a situation, they are faced with the decision of whether or not to arrest somebody - such decision-making is already part of their job. MR. STEINER, in response to a question, said that the language of Conceptual Amendment 1 does appear to "reduce the discretion in a definable way, to kind of mimic what the other parts of ... [AS 12.25.030(b)] are getting at, which is inferred exigency or some necessary reason for concluding that if something doesn't happen now, the public's at risk"; in so doing, Conceptual Amendment 1 somewhat targets one of the concerns he has with HB 171. He pointed out, however, that a police officer would still have to make a judgment call regarding whether, at that moment, there's a practical reason for trying to control the situation by making an arrest. Furthermore, because there is no statutory time limit by which the state must act to indict someone arrested for a misdemeanor offense, such cases tend to go on quite a bit longer without judicial or state review than what occurs with a felony case, which, by statute, must be acted upon within 10 days of the person being put in jail. Theoretically, therefore, adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1 would limit the proposed warrantless-arrest authority to only those situations in which there is a physical danger to the public if someone isn't arrested, thereby mitigating the bill's potential to further increase law enforcement's already- substantial misdemeanor workload. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - in response to questions/comments regarding Conceptual Amendment 1's use of the phrase, "imminent physical harm to the public" - indicated that she would be amenable to replacing that language with the phrase, "imminent physical harm to a person". 2:23:36 PM GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Assistant Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), as the drafter of HB 171, concurred that Conceptual Amendment 1 would narrow the [arrest] discretion that would be available under the bill, and acknowledged that in some situations involving misdemeanor offenses against a person, law enforcement officers simply aren't going to be able to show that physical harm would occur absent an immediate arrest. He added that he would be able to draft appropriate replacement language for Conceptual Amendment 1. In response to questions and comments, he offered his understanding that the fact of an arrest does stay on a person's record even if he/she isn't convicted; that for purposes of the criminal justice system, juveniles are treated differently than adults and by statute cannot be held in adult jails; that law enforcement officers must still have probable cause to make an arrest regardless of what the offense is and HB 171 wouldn't change that; and that with the other offenses for which law enforcement officers are already permitted to make a warrantless arrest without having witnessed the offense - whether felony or misdemeanor - officers are already making such probable-cause determinations. In conclusion, he surmised that law enforcement officers' responsibility to make good choices and apply their training would somewhat increase under the bill, which currently addresses seven misdemeanor offenses against a person. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that he'd been considering a conceptual amendment that would allow for a warrantless arrest for the crimes addressed by the bill [only] if the victim expressed or claimed fear of being in imminent danger absent an arrest of the alleged perpetrator. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, referring to testimony heard during HB 171's last hearing, offered his understanding that law enforcement officers are in favor of the bill because they believe that their current inability to make a warrantless arrest for certain misdemeanor offenses against a person committed outside their presence does put the public in imminent danger. CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, surmised that [having the warrantless-arrest authority proposed by the bill for the misdemeanor offenses outlined therein] would better allow law enforcement officers to put end to whatever crisis they are responding to. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT indicated disfavor with the bill's current language. CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 171 would be held over [with the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 left pending].