HB 256-LAW ENFORCEMENT: REGISTRY; USE OF FORCE  11:36:48 AM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to the Alaska Police Standards Council; relating to municipal correctional officers and municipal correctional employees; making municipal police officers subject to police standards; requiring the Department of Public Safety to submit a yearly use-of-force report to the legislature; requiring a municipality that employs a person as a municipal police officer or in a municipal correctional facility, the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Public Safety to report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation incidents of use of force by state and municipal police, probation, parole, and correctional officers and municipal correctional facility employees; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 256(CRA).] 11:37:03 AM The committee took a brief at-ease. 11:38:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR, prime sponsor, introduced CSHB 256(CRA). She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: House Bill 256 establishes a use-of-force database under AS 44.41.055 that will be overseen by the Department of Public Safety which will collect reports of use of force by a municipal police officer, municipal correctional facility employee, a probation officer, parole officer, correctional officer, state trooper, village public safety officer, or regional officer. This report will be submitted by the Department of Public Safety under AS 44.41.020(h). The Alaska Police Standards Council shall maintain a central registry with information that the Council obtains from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections, or a municipality. This bill also requires the Alaska Police Standards Council to adopt regulations that require a police officer, probation officer, parole officer, municipal officer, or correctional officer to report to a supervisor when an incident of force or deadly force occurred or in a situation in which an officer was prepared to use deadly force. This report will also include demographic information such as the person whom the force was used, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation if freely given by the individual. Additionally, the officer who used the force and the borough or census area in which the use of force occurred. Currently, there is no database that tracks instances of use-of-force within the State of Alaska. While this database will not be open to the public, it will be shared for employment purposes amongst departments and agencies who may be hiring an officer or employee as well as the Alaska State Legislature. This will allow for transparency among agencies and will close loopholes that allow officers to be hired on to another agency after being fired for use-of-force incidents or certificate denial or revocation. 11:47:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what kind of feedback the bill sponsor had received from smaller law enforcement agencies. REPRESENTATIVE TARR said much of the conversation had been around implementation and what information would be gathered from each incident of force or deadly force. She acknowledged that all of the large agencies in Alaska approximately 80 percent of police officers - were already participating in the use-of-force database, and that capturing the last 20 percent would come from the smaller agencies. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Howell to comment from the perspective of the Department of Public Safety (DPS). 11:50:59 AM KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, DPS, stated that DPS already collected data from law enforcement agencies and reported portions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such as uniform crime reporting (UCR) statistics, which was similar to the proposed use-of-force database. She explained that DPS staff was reaching out to agencies to encourage participation in information submittal, which was currently voluntary. She noted that additional federal grant funds were being pursued to assist in creating an easier method for agencies to submit information to the FBI. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that 80 percent of public safety officers were already reporting the data. MS. HOWELL deferred to Ms. Purinton. LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, DPS, reported that 20 agencies were registered to report, of which 5 had less than 20 officers in the department. 11:54:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the requirement in [Section 11] stating that all municipal correction officers or municipal police officers must complete the requirements of AS 18.65.240 was necessary given the recruiting and retention issues. REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that the officers would be given a two-year timeframe to complete that requirement, per CSHB 256(CRA). She explained that the two-year timeframe was added in response to the concern voiced by Representative Eastman. She believed that the representative had referenced an old version of the bill. Additionally, she noted that a "good portion" of municipal correction officers were already receiving the training, which was being provided at no cost to the state. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected to share his understanding that the committee was looking at Version A of the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that a committee substitute was adopted in the Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee (CRA). 11:57:46 AM The committee took an at-ease from 11:57 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 12:00:19 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the current version of the bill, CSHB 256(CRA), had been distributed. He requested a summary of changes in the current version of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE TARR provided a brief summary of changes, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Following feedback from our partners, we have included several changes to HB 256: ? Section 7 in Version 32-LS1341\A, referring to DOC reporting use of force from probation officers, parole officers, or correctional officers to the FBI, is removed. All subsequent sections are renumbered in Version [I]. ? Section 8*: References to village public safety officers and regional public safety officers are removed. ? Section 9*: A reference to the Department of Corrections is removed. ? Section 12*: Increases the one-year compliance timeline to two years in order to allow for more training academy cycles. ? Section 13*: References to the Department of Corrections and correctional facilities are removed. 12:02:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether 12 hours of training on domestic violence or sexual assault could be covered in a standalone program. He shared his understanding that currently, it was included in the academy's curriculum. REPRESENTATIVE TARR said there was no desire to change the academy's current training. REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to a question from Representative Eastman, clarified that the municipal correction officers had their own academy. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which an officer attended an out-of-state academy, came in as a lateral hire, or graduated from the academy years ago. He asked whether they would be required to undergo the new training outlined in Section 11. REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that the provisions in the bill would only apply to those hired after the effective date. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed confusion. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Goode to speak to the issue. 12:07:11 PM KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, DOC, conveyed that all but two communities used the DOC academy. She explained that the two- year requirement would allow the officers to complete the training on a more flexible timeline. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his concern that the language on page 4, lines 8-9, suggested that all employees including those that had already graduated from the academy would have to meet the training requirement outlined in Section 11 within two years, which was not the bill sponsor's intent. He suggested changing the language. MS. GOODE agreed that it would be a policy call. She said she had understood the language to indicate that the two remaining communities - Bristol Bay and Craig would be brought into the DOC correctional officer academy, suggesting that those officers would be required to attend the academy training within two years. 12:09:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the language in Section 1, "an incident in which an officer used deadly force or prepared to use deadly force against a person" was broad. He inquired about the meaning of that phrase. REPRESENTATIVE TARR indicated that the federal definition was highlighted in a document [included in the committee packet], titled "National Use-of-Force Data Collection Flyer," from the U.S. Department of Justice. She deferred to Ms. Howell to provide the statutory definition. MS. HOWELL, citing DPS policy, defined "prepares to use" as follows: unholstering a weapon with the intention of preparing to use it against a specific individual or group. Unholstering a weapon and directing it towards a specific person or group even if that person is not aware this action requires a use-of-force report; however, conducting a building search or similar operation with an unholstered weapon where no person or group is encountered would not be reportable. It is not the mere unholstering of a weapon that triggers the reporting requirement, but the directing of that weapon against a particular person or group. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the department's policy would be incorporated into statute. MS. HOWELL could not speak to other agencies' policies. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "use of force" was defined in statute or whether the definition would be drawn from DPS policy. MS. HOWELL stated that both "force" and "deadly force" were defined in statute under AS 11.81.900. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the agency had a formal position on the proposed legislation. MS. HOWELL read a prepared statement, which suggested that DPS had existing measures in place for reporting use of force incidents. She opined that the bill would reinforce current DPS policies and practices. She stated that the department supported such efforts to increase transparency and build trust with the public. 12:16:56 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 256(CRA) was held over.