SB 182-INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES  1:33:40 PM CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 182 "An Act establishing the crime of interference with emergency communications." He noted that this was the third hearing and there was a committee substitute (CS) for the committee to consider. 1:34:01 PM SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 182, work order 32-LS1103\O, Version O, as the working document. CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes. 1:34:23 PM ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, directed attention to the Explanation of Changes for the committee substitute (CS) for SB 182, from Version G to Version O. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES (VERSION G TO VERSION O) The Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute makes the following changes: Page 1, lines 14-15: (3)threatens [USES OBSCENE LANGUAGE DURING] an emergency communication with the intent to intimidate or harass an emergency communications worker Page 2, lines 1-12: (4) with the intent to cause a disruption in service, interferes with, blocks, or otherwise disrupts an  emergency communication [COMMUNICATIONS] the takes  place by telephone, radio or other electronic means between (A) an emergency communications worker and police, fire, or medical service personnel; (B) between police, fire, or medical service personnel, [WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE A DISRUPTION IN SERVICE];or (C) an emergency communications worker and a  person reporting an emergency or otherwise  assisting the emergency communication worker  during the emergency communication.    (b) Interference with emergency communications under  (a)(4) of this section does not apply to in-person  communications or [THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO] routine maintenance conducted by authorized personnel. Page 2, lines 14-16: "emergency communications" means a communication made to or from an emergency communications center or between police, fire, or medical service personnel in response to an emergency: (c) Interference with emergency communications is (1) a class C felony if [(A) WITHIN THE PRECEDING 10 YEARS, THE PERSON WAS CONVICTED ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE OCCASIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS JURISDICTION OR A SIMILAR CRIME IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR (B)] the interference results in serious physical injury to or the death of a person; 1:34:35 PM MR. KING referred to page 1, lines 14-15 of SB 182, Version O, adds "threatens" and removes "uses obscene language during". 1:34:42 PM MR. KING said the language on page 2, lines 1-12 of the committee substitute (CS) for SB 189 Version O makes several changes. First, it would address the concern about in-person communications by clarifying that the communications must be by telephone, radio, or other electronic means. 1:35:15 PM At ease 1:35:44 PM CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. MR. KING explained that the provisions in subparagraph (C) would cover communications with a civilian interacting with an emergency communications worker. MR. KING further explained that subsection (b) would further the point that in-person communications are exempted from the new provisions in law. MR. KING referred to page 2, lines 14-16 of Version O. He explained that the definition of "emergency communications" was amended to include communications to and from a communications center or between police, fire, or medical service personnel in response to an emergency. This change was to address the committee's concerns. MR. KING said the last change is on page 2, line 30 through page 3, line 2. That provision made it a class C felony to have more than one offense of interference with emergency communications within ten years. Under Version O, the penalty would be a class A misdemeanor regardless of the number of offenses. 1:37:14 PM CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection. He heard no further objection, and Version O was before the committee. 1:37:25 PM SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32- LS1103\O.2. 32-LS1103\O.2 Radford 3/1/22 AMENDMENT 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER TO: CSSB 182(JUD), Draft Version "O" Page 2, following line 12: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) A person may not be charged with an offense under (a)(1) of this section if the person, acting in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the person experiencing an emergency, made an effort to assist another person experiencing an emergency and made repeated emergency communications relating to the emergency." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes. 1:37:39 PM SENATOR SHOWER read Amendment 1. He explained that this would protect a person who was under duress during an emergency and was frantically trying to get assistance from being penalized under the harassment statute, although their behavior may have been construed as disruptive. He highlighted that this would apply to someone acting in good faith with no intent to cause problems for the communications center. 1:39:20 PM SENATOR KIEHL wondered how someone acting in good faith would be making threats during an emergency with the intention of helping. SENATOR SHOWER replied that the communications could be between people in the field during an emergency. He related that a person could be supercharged with adrenaline and emotion in those situations. Suppose the person was trying to help the officers or firefighters, but the emergency responders told the person to step back or be arrested. He stated the intent of Amendment 1 was to recognize that the person was trying to help, so they shouldn't be charged. 1:41:48 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked if the sponsor intended for Amendment 1 to apply to a person at the emergency scene or if it would apply to someone who calls the dispatcher. SENATOR SHOWER answered that the intent was to apply to people on the scene who were trying to assist someone but were disruptive. He acknowledged that someone might interpret the language in Amendment 1 to apply to callers. 1:43:08 PM SENATOR HUGHES suggested language could be added to clarify it was at the emergency location. She referred to the language on line 4 of Amendment 1, "in a manner the person reasonably believed" since people would always think their actions were reasonable. She further suggested that there might be a legal term for someone else believing that the person's actions on scene were reasonable. 1:44:01 PM CHAIR HOLLAND stated that a person being charged might make that argument in front of a judge or a court. 1:44:13 PM SENATOR SHOWER related that his staff worked with Legislative Legal Services on Amendment 1, so he may have comments. 1:44:46 PM SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Shower, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, related his personal experience with emergency services when a piece of equipment ran over a neighbor. At the time, he was working for a volunteer fire department that responded to the accident. He recalled that he repeatedly called 911 to get the status of the medical personnel because he was concerned that the injured person would bleed to death. He emphasized that it was important to capture the committee's discussion for the record. He offered his belief that Amendment 1 could apply to a person on the scene or someone who called 911. SENATOR SHOWER said that wasn't his intent, but someone might interpret the language to mean people making repetitive calls to the call center. He stated the intent was to add language that showed they would not be criminally charged if they were acting "in good faith." 1:47:45 PM SENATOR HUGHES related her understanding that the language "in a manner the person reasonably believed" should apply to what an ordinary person would believe was reasonable. She suggested that Mr. Skidmore might weigh in on that language. 1:48:18 PM SENATOR KIEHL said he thought the committee substitute (CS) would address it. He offered his belief that the only way someone would be committing a crime at the scene would be by unplugging or jamming radios or telephones. The person would need to intend to disrupt service and block or disrupt communication by electronic means. He stated that the trigger in the bill for calls would be that the emergency dispatchers told the person to stop calling. He suggested that this language would cover the situation Mr. Ogan described. He wondered if "in a manner, the person reasonably believed" really refers to third-party assessments of the person's behavior. 1:50:02 PM At ease 1:51:22 PM CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. 1:51:26 PM JASMIN MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, answered that Amendment 1 would only apply to [Sec. 11.56.785](a)(i), for those who make repeated emergency communications to report a previously reported incident. She explained that under Amendment 1, an "emergency communication" means a communication made to or from an emergency communications center. Thus, it is not in- person communication but repeated calls to the emergency communications center. In order to be charged under [Sec. 11.56.785](a)(i), a person would need to make repeated calls with no change in circumstance. For example, if someone was hurt or their condition worsens or improves, it would mean a change in their circumstance. In order for the person to be charged, there would have to be no change in circumstance, and the 911 operator would need to have told the person to stop calling because it was tying up lines and someone had already reported the incident. She offered her view that this clarifies the matter. 1:53:21 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he had not previously reviewed Amendment 1 but offered his short analysis. He noted that Amendment 1 was drafted to say a person may not be charged. However, that manner of drafting is inconsistent with criminal law, which would draft the language as a defense. For example, AS 11.41.432 lists the defenses for offenses against a person by indicating what conduct applies. However, stating that a person cannot be charged creates other problems. Second, the amendment addresses AS 11.56.785(a)(1), which says that it is a crime if a person makes repeated calls after being told to stop. Amendment 1 would add a caveat when the person believes they were acting in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believes was in the best interest and continues to make calls. He viewed Amendment 1 as basically gutting subsection (a)(1). Someone will always say they were acting in good faith, and they thought it was in the best interests of the person facing the emergency, even though the 911 operator told them to stop. He deferred to the committee to decide. He suggested that if the committee intends to stop callers or criminalize their conduct when the operator tells them to stop making calls, it should not adopt Amendment 1. 1:56:07 PM SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that Amendment 1 did not seem to match the intent, which was to recognize that some people are acting in good faith. SENATOR SHOWER withdrew Amendment 1. CHAIR HOLLAND stated that Amendment 1 was withdrawn. 1:57:21 PM CHAIR HOLLAND asked for closing comments, and there were none. 1:57:26 PM SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 182, work order 32-LS1103\O, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and CSSB 182(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee. 1:57:46 PM At ease 2:00:11 PM CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.