SB 182-INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES  2:42:16 PM CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 182 "An Act establishing the crime of interference with emergency communications." [SB 182 was previously heard on 2/16/22, and public testimony was heard and closed.] CHAIR HOLLAND noted that at the last hearing some members indicated they had questions for the Department of Law, Criminal Division. 2:43:00 PM SENATOR SHOWER asked if anything could be done to hold emergency service dispatchers harmless if they did not take a call. He noted that the call center sometimes receives numerous calls. He recalled testimony from a dispatcher that reported the Mat-Com Wasilla Center received 86 calls from one individual on July 4, 2021, which could have prevented them from responding to actual emergencies. He asked if the legislature could provide any protections for the 911 dispatchers. 2:45:00 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that his expertise was prosecuting crimes. He does not practice in torts. He acknowledged that some immunities apply to law enforcement or prosecutors acting in good faith. He was unsure whether it was possible to provide immunity in certain circumstances. He suggested consulting with attorneys who work in this area. 2:45:58 PM SENATOR SHOWER asked him to consult with the attorneys and report to the committee. MR. SKIDMORE agreed to do so. 2:46:11 PM SENATOR HUGHES related that the committee discussed this. She noted that when dispatchers receive numerous calls the call center may bring in additional dispatchers. She asked if an officer could be sent to arrest the person, once identified, to stop them from making 75 calls in one day since the 911 dispatcher could trace the call. She asked if anything would prevent an immediate interception to stop that person from making numerous false calls. MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He stated that this bill would create a criminal offense, and an officer would need to determine the probable cause that the person was committing an offense. If they were committing an offense, law enforcement could arrest the person. 2:47:37 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked if the sponsor intended that an officer would be dispatched after the known third or fourth call came in from a known prank caller to prevent further disruption. 2:47:59 PM JASMINE MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, answered yes. She said that the bill would also help 911 dispatchers by allowing them to inform the caller that the disruptive or offensive calls were illegal. 2:48:15 PM SENATOR MYERS stated that he asked during the initial hearing about callers suffering from mental illness. He recalled the answer was that the person must be stopped, but via the criminal justice system, the person could receive access to the needed mental health services. While he understood the intent, it also means that the mentally ill person would be exposed to the criminal justice system. He asked for the prosecutorial view of that circumstance. MR. SKIDMORE responded that in the last year or so, the legislature passed a bill that would allow the person to be transported to a crisis center for assistance. He explained that if the case was brought to a prosecutor, they would evaluate the person's mental status to determine if the person was competent. If the person was found to be competent and mental illness was not a defense, the district attorney would evaluate the available resources, the public interest, and if it was appropriate to do so. He pointed out that the department declines cases every day because murders and assaults are more pressing. He said that these cases would be determined case-by- case. 2:51:13 PM SENATOR KIEHL recalled a question from a prior hearing. He referred to page 2, lines 3-4 to subsection (a)(4), related to blocking communications between police, fire, or medical service personnel to cause a disruption in service. He asked whether other crimes pertained to the behavior of disrupting official activities of police or fire personnel. MR. SKIDMORE answered that he was speaking to interference between personnel that would clog up the system of communications between emergency service personnel. He said he could not immediately recall specific statutes, and he would need to research the statutes to determine if other provisions could be used to charge the person. 2:52:58 PM SENATOR KIEHL interpreted that language to mean standing between two police officers in the field and interfering with their ability to communicate with one another. MR. SKIDMORE answered that the only crime that came to mind was if the person was interfering with an official investigation. He characterized it as a fairly serious felony offense. He offered to review the elements to determine how it would apply, but he was not prepared to do so today. 2:54:04 PM JACOB BUTCHER, Communications Manager, Mat-Com Dispatch, City of Wasilla, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that programs were being developed in Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks, so moving forward it will be possible to address mental health aspects. In response to Senator Hughes, he stated that the intent of SB 182 was to address the disrupting callers and take measures to stop it after the third, fourth, or fifth call, rather than to wait until the 70th or 80th call. 2:55:07 PM SENATOR HUGHES surmised that he had worked with the sponsor on the bill. She referred to page 2 regarding interrupting communications between the dispatcher and various first responders. She offered her view that the person could interrupt the communication between the dispatcher and another person in need. She expressed concern that the disruptive caller might be keeping the dispatcher from picking up a call from another citizen in need. She asked if the bill is adequate since it applies to interrupting communication and a first responder, or between first responders. 2:56:07 PM MR. BUTCHER offered his view that the language on page 1, subsection (a)(1) and (2) captures that need. (1) makes repeated emergency communications to report a previously reported incident with no change in circumstance with the intent to cause an emergency police, fire, or medical service response, after an emergency communications worker instructs the person to stop initiating contact for the previously reported incident; (2) makes repeated emergency communications knowing that there is not a police, fire, or medical emergency; MR. BUTCHER stated that would capture the communication that the person is having with the emergency communications center whereas the language on page 2 captures the other types of interference that could happen between two first responders or the communications center, and the emergency responders in the field. 2:56:50 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked what language pertains to interrupting communications between the dispatcher and another citizen in need. MR. BUTCHER answered that was covered in Section 1, Sec. 11.56.785(a)(1),(2), and (3) of SB 182. He stated if the person was making repeated emergency communications and reports while knowing that there was no emergency would disrupt communications. He offered his view that it would be easy for the dispatcher to pull the call logs to see which 911 calls were put on hold from citizens reporting real emergencies, how many 911 calls went to queue, put on hold, or rolled over to the secondary answering point. 2:57:39 PM MS. MARTIN interjected that she believed she understood Senator Hughes' question. She referred to page 2, which addresses communications between emergency personnel and communications out of the communications center to emergency personnel. However, it doesn't cover the 911 call to the communications center. She offered her view that it was a valid point. 2:58:12 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked if the language should be added. MS. MARTIN responded that it was worth considering because she did not think it was covered in the language. 2:58:36 PM SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the last thing they wanted to do was make it a crime to call 911 in a panic. He stated that the first two paragraphs relate to bad behavior when a person has been told to stop calling, and the person keeps calling. However, typically people who call 911 are panicked, and the committee would not want to criminalize it if numerous people called in about a massive emergency that floods 911. He offered his view that focusing on the bad behavior as the sponsor has done will avoid unintended consequences. 2:59:44 PM SENATOR SHOWER referred to the language on page 2, to paragraph (4). He suggested that the language "between police and fire" implies it is on the scene. He related a scenario where a citizen who was under duress because their child was in the house and they yelled or otherwise inadvertently disrupted police or fire first responders. He wanted to ensure that the language would not create a crime for that circumstance. 3:01:02 PM CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 182 in committee.