SB 201-NOTICE AGAINST TRESPASS  9:12:12 AM CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 201(JUD), "An Act relating to the crime of trespass." 9:12:45 AM DARWIN PETERSON, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman, Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Stedman, paraphrased from the following written sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]: Current state law gives a person who enters or remains on unimproved or apparently unused land the privilege to do so unless notice against trespass is given. There are two ways notice against trespass can be given: 1)if the landowner or an authorized representative personally communicates to the person that trespass is prohibited; or 2)if "no trespass" signs are posted. AS 11.46.350(c) specifies the requirements for posting "no trespass" signs which are: o It must be printed in English o It must be at least 144 square inches in size; o It must contain the name and address of the landlord or an authorized representative; o It must be posted at every roadway or access point to the property; o In the case of an island, it must be posted on the perimeter of each cardinal point of the island; o Furthermore, the sign must state what specific activities are prohibited such as "no hunting", "no fishing", or "no digging." [SB] 201 would repeal AS 11.46.350(c) from statute, thereby removing the excessive requirements for posting numerous no trespassing signs in order to protect access to private property. If we don't do this, intentional trespassers will continue to use this section of statute as a legal defense to enter and remain on private land. All they have to do is find an access point that isn't posted. Many Alaskans own private property in remote locations with severe weather. No trespassing signs can be blown down, removed by vandals, or covered by snow. The lack of visible signage at every access point to your property should not be a legitimate excuse for trespassers. It should be the responsibility of the individual to find out beforehand if the property they want to use is public or private. This won't result in a flood of criminal trespass charges against the average citizen who is out for a hike or wanders across someone's private land. In the 1987 case of Johnson v. State, the court established a prerequisite for conviction for the offense of criminal trespass. The state is obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly remained on the premises after personally being ordered to leave. Finally, this won't change the legal right of a person to use private property in an emergency. AS 11.46.340 provides an affirmative defense against prosecution if someone enters and uses private property in the case of immediate and dire need. 9:15:15 AM CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony on SB 201. 9:15:40 AM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, began by noting that the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) represents about 48 clubs and 10,000 Alaskans. Mr. Arno related his appreciation of the timeliness of this legislation since at least 12 percent of the state is private property much of which is undeveloped and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) land that has been transferred. Although the AOC does support private property rights, he expressed concern with having the availability of adequate mapping of what land is state, public domain land from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He suggested that at this point the state would be unable to provide coordinates for state public land to Alaskans. Mr. Arno said that at this point AOC doesn't oppose this legislation, but would like concerns addressed later. 9:17:35 AM AL BARRETTE echoed Mr. Arno's suggestion that the state begin mapping the state lands and make that information available for public technologies. He explained that without the boundaries, the currently available technologies won't work. He then related the following unintended consequences of posting or not posting property. In July 2009, he was dipnetting on the Chitna River and was approached by land officers of the local [Native] corporation who claimed he was trespassing on their property and demanded a $20 fine. He paid the $20 fine with the stipulation that he didn't believe he was trespassing and would research the matter. After researching the state maps, he determined he wasn't on the [Native] corporation's land. However, it took until December 1, 2009, to be reimbursed the $20 fine that was collected. The situation illustrates that the trespassing issue can go both ways in terms of claiming what is or is not private property. Mr. Barrette then noted that he uses a lot of the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, which aren't mapped or surveyed. The aforementioned could result in a troublesome situation in determining whether one is trespassing on private property or not. He encouraged the committee to approach this legislation cautiously as there are many pitfalls to it. 9:19:55 AM CHAIR JOHNSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 201. 9:20:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned that the House Judiciary Standing Committee heard the companion legislation and came to the same conclusion: that although the legislation is not a perfect solution, it is good legislation. He stated support for CSSB 201(JUD). 9:20:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the companion legislation to SB 201 is HB 375, both of which - in their original forms - repealed subsection AS 11.46.350(b). However, both SB 201 and HB 375 were amended to not repeal AS 11.46.350(b). 9:22:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report SB 201 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SB 201 was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee. 9:22:21 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:22 a.m. to 9:24 a.m. 9:24:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved that the committee rescind its action in reporting SB 201 from the House Rules Standing Committee. There being no objection, CSSB 201(JUD) was before the committee. 9:24:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON then moved to report CSSB 201(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 201(JUD) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee and is available for calendaring.