SENATE BILL NO. 201 "An Act relating to the crime of trespass." 10:04:07 AM Co-Chair Meyer noted that he had legal concerns with the bill regarding whether the landowner would be liable if a trespasser was injured on the owner's property. 10:04:36 AM ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, deferred the question to the Civil Division of the department. 10:05:12 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that Ms. Carpeneti was retiring. She acknowledged that Ms. Carpeneti had served the state well for many years. Co-Chair Meyer echoed her sentiments. 10:06:10 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough highlighted that the bill before the committee was in response to concerns from the general public that certain public law enforcement officers had violated the public trust by working under the assumption that trespass laws did not apply to them. She queried whether the bill decreased the state's ability to advocate for the rights for the property owner; conversely, could a person who trespasses unknowingly be penalized due to the passage of the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the current version of the bill repealed sub-section C in the definitions for criminal trespass. It would remove the requirement that in order to prosecute someone for criminal trespass a notice would have to be posted at every obvious entry onto the land. The bill version also removed the requirements for the size of the notice. She understood that by repealing the sub-section prosecution could be carried out more swiftly. 10:09:00 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough thought that the bill spoke to the issue of how property owners were expected to let the public know that the property was private. She believed that there was no way that a private property owner could post a no trespassing sign on every entry to the property. She offered her support for moving the bill out of committee. 10:10:41 AM Senator Dunleavy thought that the issue was regarding conducting activities on someone else's property and not with people simply passing through private property. He inquired how the bill could address this issue. Ms. Carpeneti replied that if only sub-section C were repealed people would still be allowed to pass through property that appeared unused, provided the property owner did not verbally tell the person not to enter. She believed that hunting on private land would still be against the law. 10:13:10 AM Senator Dunleavy hypothesized that if Section C was removed a person approaching a fence while hiking in the woods would have to assume they were coming upon private property. Ms. Carpeneti replied that a fence would indicate that the property was private. 10:13:36 AM Senator Dunleavy inquired if someone could trap on the land if the land looked like it had not been improved. Ms. Carpeneti replied that she would have to check with Department of Public Safety. 10:14:17 AM Senator Dunleavy wondered if the current law were not to change, people could access private property if a "no trespassing" sign were absent. Ms. Carpeneti replied that if the land was unimproved and apparently unused, a person could pass through the property. 10:14:55 AM Co-Chair Meyer noted that Co-Chair Kelly had joined the committee. 10:15:05 AM Co-Chair Meyer noted that the bill had a zero fiscal note. 10:15:28 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT CSSB 201(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSB 201 (JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note from the Department of Administration, a new zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections, a new zero fiscal note from Department of Law and with 3 previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN4(DPS), FN5(DPS). 10:15:45 AM AT EASE 10:20:28 AM RECONVENED