SENATE BILL NO. 201 "An Act relating to the crime of trespass." 9:48:32 AM SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, introduced SB 201. He related that the bill gave some flexibility to private land owners, so that they did not have to put up "no trespassing" signs all over their property. He shared that as a landowner, you have the right to regulate activities on your property. However, in Alaska, current state law gives a person the privilege to enter and remain on unimproved or apparently unused land that isn't posted with "no trespassing" signs. Furthermore, a sign must be placed at each roadway or access point onto the property. Many Alaskans own private property in remote locations with inclement weather. No trespassing signs can be blown down, removed by vandals, or covered by snow. The lack of visible signage should not absolve trespassers of guilt. Senate Bill 201 would repeal Alaska Statute 11.46.350(c), thereby removing the requirement that no trespassing signs be posted at each roadway and at every way of access to private property in order for criminal trespass laws to be enforced. It should be the responsibility of the individual to know who owns the property that they want to access. Today's technology allows many options for individuals to identify public and private property boundaries such as topo maps that can be downloaded on a smart phone or GPS. In addition, the public can access maps showing property boundaries from the state Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as municipal plats available at city hall. Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered how the courts would perceive the actions of a person building a structure on private property. Senator Stedman responded that there was no intention to change a property owner rights. He stated that the landowner would be allowed to post "no trespassing" signs, but would not be required to post the signs. 9:54:30 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered why the current version of the bill was different than the original version. Senator Stedman stated that it was originally proposed that there would be no requirement to post a sign. He stated that the Judiciary Committee felt that the requirement of at least one posted sign was a better alternative to having no sign posted. Senator Hoffman remarked that 95 percent of land in Alaska was owned by native corporations. He wondered if there were any native or regional corporations that opposed the legislation. Senator Stedman replied that he was not aware of any issues with the regional corporations. Senator Dunleavy wondered if the legislation would affect recreationalists who might travel across private property. Senator Stedman responded that the law already prohibited someone to go on property without the property owner's permission. The legislation would not change that. 10:00:48 AM Senator Dunleavy wondered if the bill would change the existing law regarding hunting, trapping, and fishing. Senator Stedman responded that the legislation would empower landowners to prosecute trespassers, even without previously posting "no trespassing" signs. Co-Chair Meyer noted that there was an issue of squatting, so people decide to live on empty land. He wondered how private land owner would be affected by the legislation. Senator Stedman replied that the bill did not change the landowner's rights to prosecute squatters. Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the squatter could argue ignorance, because of the lack of sign. Senator Stedman responded that with or without signs, no one had the right to build on a property without the owner's permission. Co-Chair Meyer wondered if Senator Stedman had signs on his private property. Senator Stedman replied that he removed the "no trespassing" signs on his property, because he felt that they were offensive and invited vandalism. Senator Dunleavy wondered if the issue was transportation through private property or activities conducted on the private property Senator Stedman replied that the activity on the land was an issue, rather than crossing through the land. 10:06:17 AM Senator Dunleavy surmised that traversing was not the issue. Senator Stedman replied that there could be prosecution, but that was not a common issue. Senator Dunleavy noted that many there were large portions of private land that may be traversed, without the traveler knowing that they are moving through private property. Senator Stedman replied that the legislation did not change any of the rights of the property owner. 10:11:00 AM NICOLENE JORDAN, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. She stressed that the issue was the requirement of the signs. She pointed out that she was not against hunting and trapping, but she was against trespassing. She stressed that current technology allowed for people to determine if there was private property. She stressed that the current issue was the requirement to post "no trespassing" sign, and felt that the signs provided an excuse for law enforcement to not peruse action against trespassers. AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the current version of the legislation. He stated that his income relied on wildlife resources from his land. He pointed out that a global positioning system (GPS) did not display the owner of the land; rather it only showed where you are on the earth. 10:18:55 AM MARY NANUWAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), remarked that some people did not have the financial resources to pursue criminal action. She wondered if the bill addressed the issue of building roads on private property. Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she knew someone who was in support of the bill, and referred to a trooper who was facing an issue related to the trespassing on private property. Senator Stedman looked at AS 136.03.30 stated that in the prerequisites, the State was obligated to prove that someone had trespassed on the land. SB 201 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 10:25:23 AM AT EASE 10:34:00 AM RECONVENED