HOUSE BILL NO. 16 "An Act relating to training regarding disabilities for police officers, probation officers, parole officers, correctional officers, and village public safety officers; relating to guidelines for drivers when encountering or being stopped by a peace officer; relating to driver's license examinations; and relating to a voluntary disability designation on a state identification card and a driver's license." 9:24:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He introduced his staff. He detailed that the bill had come to him about five years earlier when the disability community had shared that individuals with nonapparent disabilities had encountered adverse outcomes with law enforcement. He detailed there had been circumstances where people with nonapparent disabilities had been misunderstood by officers. The bill would mandate training for officers on what to do if they encounter someone with a nonapparent disability. His office had worked with police departments and state troopers across the state. The training was now included in the state trooper training academy in Sitka and police departments and the Department of Corrections (DOC) had agreed they could do the training online. Representative Thompson provided a scenario where a person [driving] was stopped by a police officer and had red lights flashing in their rear window. He explained that the situation could exacerbate a person's disability. He considered how to solve the problem. He reported that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) agreed there should be a section in its driver's manual outlining what a driver should do when stopped by a police officer. He elaborated that many states (e.g. Pennsylvania, Montana, and California) included the information in their manuals. He shared that the bill had passed the House unanimously the previous year but had been held up in session-end politics. 9:28:40 AM Representative Thompson shared that the bill was nearly identical to its past form but included a couple of changes. He reported that some letters had come in from neuropaths where they were the only ones treating someone with a traumatic brain injury - subsequently, a provision had been added to the bill in the Senate. He continued that the original bill specified that the driver's test would include questions on what to do when pulled over by an officer. The current version of the bill removed that provision. Otherwise, the bill was essentially the same [as a bill offered the previous session]. The goal was to protect individuals with imperceptible disabilities. Officers would also be protected given their increased understanding of how to handle a situation. He emphasized that the designation on people's driver's license or identification was voluntary and needed to be requested and verified by a medical professional. He noted that many people did not want to be identified as having a disability and did not want the designation. He reiterated that the designation was voluntary. 9:30:06 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the sponsor had listed multiple medical or licensed professionals in the state who could identify a disability. She elaborated that the legislation specified the medical professionals would be responsible for approving a designation for a card. She wondered if there was any liability for the individuals who designated the disability. LYNETTE BERGH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, asked Co- Chair MacKinnon to repeat the question. Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was any liability for the individuals who designated the disability. Additionally, she asked what happened with the documentation at DMV to support the designation on a license or identification card. Ms. Bergh thought it was probably the same process that occurred when a person applied for a handicap placard or license plate. She detailed that a doctor had to verify the person had a disability. The voluntary designation would happen the same way. A person's disability would be verified by a doctor - the specific disability would not be named. There was not a liability to the state. She reasoned that if there was a liability to the state, the issue would have arisen with people getting handicap placards and plates. The disability designator would serve as notification to a police officer that a person had a disability; unless a person wanted to share information about their disability with a police officer, they would not have to divulge any information. The designation would operate as a red flag to indicate to the officer that perhaps something else was going on in the event that an interaction became unique. Co-Chair MacKinnon handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Bishop. 9:33:18 AM AT EASE 9:33:43 AM RECONVENED Ms. Bergh continued to answer the question by Co-Chair MacKinnon related to liability. She relayed that by statute, there were only several cases where a person could bring a suit against the state. The information was included in a legal memo from the Division of Legal and Research Services dated March 28, 2017 (copy on file). She detailed that if an issue came before a court, the court would have to determine whether the police officer was following training; it could be a liability to the state if it was determined the officer was not following training. The designator itself would not cause any liability. Senator Micciche highlighted a case in his district where an individual with an anxiety disorder experienced a negative outcome with law enforcement. He detailed that the person had a taillight out and had a panicked reaction to being pulled over. He supported the bill because of that. He asked why digestive issues had been included. He believed it was a catchall for hidden disabilities. He continued that about half of hidden disabilities were unlikely to have a negative outcome with an officer. He asked why the bill did not differentiate between the types of disabilities. Representative Thompson stated that his office had been provided with a lengthy list of disabilities that could be considered nonapparent. He agreed there were many on the list that should probably not be considered. He assumed that the DMV may reduce the list because the current list included disabilities that were not qualified or pertinent to the situation. 9:36:25 AM Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether DMV would have the ability to pick and choose from the list of hidden disabilities titled "Appendix A" in members' packets (copy on file). Alternatively, he wondered whether there would be firm rules on which disabilities would be included. Representative Thompson deferred to Ms. Bergh. Ms. Bergh replied that "hidden disabilities" was a new term set by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001. The organization had determined there were numerous disabilities, some were visible, and others were not. She elaborated that WHO had created a list of invisible disabilities that could cause individuals to have a medical issue. The list in Appendix A was derived from the WHO list, which continued to grow as the term hidden disability evolved. She explained that a medical physician would specify whether a person was eligible for a voluntary designator on their identification. She detailed that a physician be able to determine whether something did not qualify for the designation. She believed most physicians would be realistic about what disabilities would be eligible for a designator. 9:38:43 AM Senator von Imhof believed it was beneficial that the bill would provide sensitivity training for police officers, but she hoped it would not be used against a police officer who had to use force when they deemed it to be necessary. She spoke to a circumstance where an individual acted aggressively and force by the police officer was required. She hoped an officer would not be reprimanded unfairly for using the normal course of response. Representative Thompson thought the bill was something that would help officers communicate with people. He emphasized that the designation did not provide any privileges or extended rights. The purpose of the designation was to alert an officer that an individual had a disability. The officer could then ask the individual a question about their disability to work towards a good outcome. He stated that if a person acted physically or badly, they should not be treated any differently than another person. The purpose was to encourage communication and to avoid overreactions to situations. 9:40:37 AM Senator Olson wondered if other states had similar designations on driver's licenses. Ms. Bergh responded that other states had trainings on hidden disabilities and information was available for individuals to know what happens when a person is stopped by an officer. To her knowledge no other state had a designator. Senator Olson asked if the training used a list of disabilities. Ms. Bergh replied that they had not researched whether other states were using certain lists. 9:41:51 AM Ms. Bergh reviewed the sectional analysis for HB 16 (copy on file): Section 1. Amends AS 18.65.220 to include statutory language that expands the duties of the police standards council's training program to include training in recognizing and interacting with a person with disabilities, as well as familiarization with resources that are available to those with hidden disabilities. Section 2. Adds a new subsection to AS 18.65.310. Providing that a person may voluntarily designate on their state identification card that the person has a disability and the proof required for the designation. Section 3. Amends AS 18.65.670(c) to include disability training to village public safety officers. Section 4. Amends AS 28.05.011 by adding a new subsection to include the duties and responsibilities of drivers when encountering or being stopped by a peace officer and that this information be included in the driver's manual. Section 5. AS 28.15.111 is amended by adding a new subsection (d), providing that a person may voluntarily designate on their Alaska Driver's License a disability designation, proof required for the designation and fees that may be charged. Adds naturopath to the list of licensed individuals who can provide proof of a disability. 9:43:42 AM Senator Micciche asked if a $50 fee would be paid by the applicant requesting the designation on their license. Ms. Bergh answered in the affirmative. Senator Micciche wondered how the Department of Public Safety (DPS) could have a zero fiscal note if the bill would require training. He asked about the hourly training requirement. Ms. Bergh shared that the training had already taken place; therefore, the fiscal note was zero. The department had learned the benefits of the training while working with the bill sponsor's office over the past few years. Subsequently, the training created by the Alaska Police Standards Council had been implemented. 9:44:52 AM Vice-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony. JUANITA WEBB, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She relayed that Wallbusters was a local advocacy group in Fairbanks. She thanked the bill sponsors for bringing the bill forward. She referred to written testimony that she had sent to the committee sharing her personal story (copy on file). She detailed that for her, the bill was about safety and standardized education that would give new officers a more complete understanding of disabilities with standardized training about visible and hidden disabilities. Ms. Webb believed the bill would give officers another tool to help guide their interactions accordingly. A discrete, voluntary icon on a driver's license would give additional information to alert officers to potential communication needs for a better outcome. Throughout the bill process she had learned that people with disabilities and people in general were unsure of their responsibility when approached by an officer. She thought that adding additional information to the DMV manual would help support the need. She reasoned that the zero fiscal note was an added bonus, especially given the current economic climate. She was proud to be part of a bill that would help educate officers in their approach to Alaskan citizens and help their jobs become safer. She concluded that the bill would make Alaskans lives safer and more informed. She asked the committee to support the legislation. 9:47:23 AM ART DELAUNE, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He relayed that he worked at Access Alaska and was a member of the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education. He shared that he had two sons with hidden disabilities. He stated that the bill was about better communications, accommodations, and inclusion. The bill would reinforce individual choice, rights, and responsibilities. The primary focus of the legislation was on education and training. He stressed that training of law enforcement and correction officers was critical because often recognizing a nonapparent disability was challenging. The bill called for a minimum of an eight- hour training that would make officers more aware that some individuals may present with a behavior that was unintentional or may be viewed as noncompliant. Additionally, the training would teach officers to effectively and appropriately interact with people who experience an apparent or nonapparent disability. He underscored that the most important aspect of the bill was safety. The intent of the bill was for law enforcement officers to discuss information about a disability only when a situation was secure and diffused. Mr. Delaune relayed that Wallbusters and Representative Thompson had been working on the bill for over four years. He detailed that over the past few years they had met with many community members, organizations, and law enforcement and corrections academies. The goal was to create an effective bill at no cost that would improve the lives of all Alaskans. He believed the icon the driver's license would enhance communication. The bill would also educate the general public. He stressed the importance of Alaskans understanding their responsibilities for appropriately interacting with law enforcement. He thought the bill would reduce potential conflicts between Alaskans with or without disabilities. He relayed that an identical bill (HB 77) had passed the House the previous year unanimously. He explained that the bill had stalled in the Senate Rules Committee. He urged the committee to pass the bill. 9:50:25 AM LARRY JOHANSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the bill. He relayed that he had Parkinson's disease, which was often misinterpreted by people. He shared that when he walked by the building security it made him wonder if he would be intercepted because of a misinterpretation of his symptoms. He stressed that he lived with the issue every day. He thought the intent of a symbol [on a license or identification card] was extremely positive. He explained that the discussion about confrontation with officers was an escalated version of evaluation he received daily in particular situations. He believed a symbol on a license would provide a third-party indication that a person experienced a disability and it would prevent him from having to prove through articulating that he had a disability. He thought it would be helpful even beyond the original intent of the bill. For example, the symbol could be useful when entering the capitol building. Mr. Johanson shared a personal experience of being approached by security in a mall in Portland. He detailed prior to his condition he had been the director of operations for a cruise line and part of his responsibility had been administering Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regulations to over 50 buses and drivers. He was very familiar with the regulatory aspect. He stressed the importance of the bill and offered to answer any regulatory questions. He thanked the committee for considering the bill. Senator von Imhof thanked Mr. Johansen for his testimony. Vice-Chair Bishop returned the gavel to Co-Chair MacKinnon. 9:54:18 AM AT EASE 9:54:51 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Bishop highlighted existing zero fiscal notes including one from the Department of Administration, two from the Department of Corrections, and one from the Department of Public Safety. He noted that the training was already being completed, hence the zero fiscal notes. Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that amendments on the bill were due by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 9:56:19 AM AT EASE 9:57:05 AM RECONVENED