Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120

04/09/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 2:15 p.m. Today --
Moved HB 214 Out of Committee
-- Public & Invited Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public & Invited Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public & Invited Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
        HB 286-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES                                                                     
2:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  286, "An Act relating to  sport fishing, hunting,                                                               
or  trapping licenses,  tags, or  permits; relating  to penalties                                                               
for  certain   sport  fishing,  hunting,  and   trapping  license                                                               
violations;  relating to  restrictions on  the issuance  of sport                                                               
fishing, hunting, and trapping  licenses; creating violations and                                                               
amending  fines  and  restitution   for  certain  fish  and  game                                                               
offenses;  relating to  commercial  fishing violations;  allowing                                                               
lost  federal  matching  funds  from  the  Pittman  -  Robertson,                                                               
Dingell - Johnson/Wallop  - Breaux programs to be  included in an                                                               
order of  restitution; adding a definition  of 'electronic form';                                                               
amending Rule  5(a)(4), Alaska Rules of  Minor Offense Procedure;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
2:35:07 PM                                                                                                                    
KEVIN  BROOKS, Deputy  Commissioner, Department  of Fish  & Game,                                                               
explained that the bill is  a joint effort between the Department                                                               
of Fish & Game (ADFG), Department  of Public Safety (DPS) and the                                                               
Department  of Law  (DOL).   He related  the bill  was previously                                                               
heard in the House Resources  Standing Committee and is virtually                                                               
identical to its companion bill,  SB 164, currently in the Senate                                                               
Rules  Standing Committee.   The  bill  provides Alaska  Wildlife                                                               
Troopers authority  to issue correctable  citations and  allows a                                                               
person to go to a DPS  office and correct the citation by showing                                                               
proof they had  their license at the time  the citation occurred.                                                               
He  pointed  out  that  the   bill  also  offers  the  following:                                                               
standardizes  penalties  for   violations  throughout  Title  16;                                                               
aligns   serious  offenses   committed  within   Title  16   with                                                               
appropriate class  A misdemeanor penalty; offenses  to be charged                                                               
as  a violation  when appropriate;  prohibits an  individual from                                                               
receiving  an  Alaska  license  if  their  privileges  have  been                                                               
revoked  in another  state; raises  commercial fishing  violation                                                               
fines  that  have  not  changed   in  over  two  decades;  raises                                                               
restitution  amounts for  animals harvested  illegally that  have                                                               
not been changed in over two  decades; allows for leniency by not                                                               
assessing  restitution for  a hunting  mistake  if the  defendant                                                               
voluntarily and  immediately turns themselves in  for a violation                                                               
offense; and  allows for the  display of a license  in electronic                                                               
format to reflect modernization efforts  the Department of Fish &                                                               
Game  has  made  to  the  Department of  Fish  &  Game  licensing                                                               
2:38:02 PM                                                                                                                    
BERNARD  CHASTAIN,  Major/Deputy  Director,  Division  of  Alaska                                                               
Wildlife  Troopers, Department  of Public  Safety, offered  to go                                                               
through each of  the changes from the original  version or answer                                                               
questions from the committee.                                                                                                   
CHAIR LEDOUX asked  Major Chastain to discuss  the most important                                                               
2:38:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN referred  to page 1, line 5, and  said a semicolon                                                               
was  added to  the title  itself,  "; creating  an exemption  for                                                               
payment of restitution;".                                                                                                       
2:38:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN [referred to AS  16.05.330] said that page 2, Sec.                                                               
3, line 21,  removes the words "tag or permit"  from an item that                                                               
can  be correctable,  and removes  reference  to the  court.   He                                                               
advised the language  allows the Alaska Wildlife  Troopers or the                                                               
issuing  agency to  write a  citation that  can be  a correctable                                                               
offense if the hunter or  fisherman brings proof of their license                                                               
to an office within a certain period of time.                                                                                   
CHAIR  LEDOUX referred  to Sec.  3, line  24, [AS  16.05.330(h)],                                                               
which read:                                                                                                                     
        (h) A peace officer presented with an electronic                                                                        
      device under (g) of this section is immune from any                                                                       
     liability resulting from damage to the device.                                                                             
CHAIR LEDOUX asked him what it is referring to.                                                                                 
MAJOR  CHASTAIN responded  that  the Department  of  Fish &  Game                                                               
(ADFG), at some point in  time, is planning to develop electronic                                                               
licenses to  take the  place of  a paper  license.   He explained                                                               
that oftentimes  troopers will board  boats in  inclement weather                                                               
and  damage to  the cell  phone  or electronic  device may  occur                                                               
while  inspecting the  license.   The  provision  holds the  ADFG                                                               
immune from any  liability resulting from damage  to that device,                                                               
he advised.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Major Chastain  whether he really thinks it is                                                               
such a significant  problem that it is likely to  happen, and she                                                               
commented  that this  sounds like  boarding  Alaska Airlines  and                                                               
putting  your phone  under  the screen.    Although, she  doesn't                                                               
really have any  problems with it, it just seems  strange to have                                                               
it in here, she said.                                                                                                           
MAJOR  CHASTAIN stated  that  he  does not  have  a problem  with                                                               
whether the provision is in the  bill, but the purpose is that in                                                               
the event  a device  is damaged ADG&G  is immune  from liability.                                                               
In the  event the  Alaska Department  of Fish &  Game does  go to                                                               
electronic licensing that  section is in place  for that purpose,                                                               
he explained.                                                                                                                   
2:42:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BROOKS  advised the  provision  was  included because  other                                                               
states  have  encountered  this problem  within  their  licensing                                                               
programs.   The rationale being  that a person could  still carry                                                               
their paper license if they so choose, he said.                                                                                 
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that  usually when there is an exemption                                                               
for negligence,  there is usually  an exemption to  the exemption                                                               
for  recklessness, and  that is  not included  in the  provision.                                                               
She  commented that  she was  unsure the  amount being  discussed                                                               
with respect to the device is ...                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered a scenario  of a trooper asking for                                                               
a license,  the fisherman hands the  phone to the trooper  in the                                                               
pouring rain,  and it slips  out of  the trooper hands  and falls                                                               
into the stream; can the trooper  be sued.  The practical side is                                                               
why  a  person would  bring  their  cell  phone out  fishing  and                                                               
instead show  the trooper a paper  license.  He noted  that Chair                                                               
LeDoux  raised   an  interesting  question  as   to  whether  the                                                               
committee should  be in the  business of a criminal  statute, and                                                               
should the committee specifically  provide this kind of exemption                                                               
to liability.   He agreed  that this  is a peculiar  provision to                                                               
have in what  is essentially a criminal violation  within a civil                                                               
violation statute.                                                                                                              
CHAIR  LEDOUX  agreed  that  it  is similar  to  the  bar  review                                                               
CHAIR  LEDOUX agreed  with Representative  Lynn  that it  doesn't                                                               
really matter one way or the other.                                                                                             
2:44:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN  turned to  page 5,  line 6,  and said  the change                                                               
adds the  words "and  (c) of this  section," which  addresses the                                                           
changes in section 18, of which he would discuss momentarily.                                                                   
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Sec. 15  [page 4, lines 25-30] and asked                                                               
whether the  fines and  sentences in this  provision are  less or                                                               
more than in current statute.                                                                                                   
MAJOR CHASTAIN  explained that all  of the sections  that discuss                                                               
fines, class  A misdemeanors, and  punishable under AS  12.55 are                                                               
all aligned together  and provide one class of crime,  which is a                                                               
class A misdemeanor  for a situation where a trooper  can prove a                                                               
culpable  mental state.   A  second class  of crime,  which is  a                                                               
violation  offense, for  situations  where there  is no  culpable                                                               
mental state, he explained.                                                                                                     
CHAIR LEDOUX  reiterated her question  and asked whether  that it                                                               
is less than the current statute.                                                                                               
MAJOR CHASTAIN  asked Chair LeDoux  to turn  to Sec. 15,  page 4,                                                               
lines 27-29, that delete [BY A  FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR                                                               
BY IMPRISONMENT  FOR NOT MORE THAN  SIX MONTHS, OR BY  BOTH], and                                                               
on lines  26-27 it makes  it a class  A misdemeanor of  which the                                                               
maximum fine is $10,000 or a year in jail.                                                                                      
2:46:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX surmised  it raises  the  amount of  time spent  in                                                               
MAJOR  CHASTAIN explained  it aligns  with  class A  misdemeanors                                                               
since Title 16  had a variety of  penalties scattered throughout,                                                               
this bill attempts to align those together.                                                                                     
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed  out that the committee has  been working on                                                               
the criminal  justice bill  in which  the idea  is for  the least                                                               
serious crimes to  not result in much in the  way jail sentences.                                                               
She further  pointed out that this  bill appears to have  more in                                                               
the way of jail sentences, which  perturbs her, but she likes the                                                               
portion of the  bill regarding a correctable citation.   She said                                                               
she was noting the issue and asked Major Chastain to proceed.                                                                   
2:47:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN  [referred to  AS 16.05.925(a)]  Sec. 17,  page 5,                                                               
line 6,  and reiterated that  it adds  language "and (c)  of this                                                           
section" to address changes in Sec. 18 of this bill.                                                                        
2:48:08 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN  [referred to  AS 16.05.925(b)]  Sec. 17,  page 5,                                                               
lines  14-25, and  said it  changes restitution  amounts for  big                                                               
game  animals taken  illegally, and  the court  may impose  up to                                                               
that  amount in  addition to  any fine  for an  animal unlawfully                                                               
taken within the State of Alaska.                                                                                               
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked whether this  is a fine,  because restitution                                                               
is normally  to the  victim and  the victim in  this case  is the                                                               
MAJOR CHASTAIN said it is a  restitution amount paid to the state                                                               
for unlawfully taking  an illegal animal, and  each animal listed                                                               
is of  value to  the state  in different ways.   The  animals are                                                               
valued in  money to the  state such as,  the amount of  money for                                                               
social  and economic  reasons, and  because another  hunter would                                                               
not be able to take that animal  if it is taken illegally out the                                                               
system.   He advised  that in  1995, this  section was  added for                                                               
restitution  amounts the  court may  impose, in  addition to  any                                                               
fines or penalties given by the  court.  These are typically only                                                               
imposed  when a  misdemeanor or  a  more serious  crime has  been                                                               
committed,  and it  attempts  to  make the  state  whole for  the                                                               
illegal animal taken, he explained.                                                                                             
CHAIR  LEDOUX  pointed out  that  restitution  means there  is  a                                                               
victim  other than  the state,  and asked  why it  wouldn't be  a                                                               
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that all  animals taken illegally belong                                                               
to the State  of Alaska; therefore, the state is  the victim.  He                                                               
opined that  these restitution amounts  are paid to the  state in                                                               
an attempt to make the state whole for the illegal take.                                                                        
2:50:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to  Sec. 17, and noted the                                                               
marginal increases  in restitution for different  species of game                                                               
varies dramatically and asked the rationale.                                                                                    
MR.  BROOKS  responded  that  the bill,  in  its  original  form,                                                               
increased by 50  percent and was tied to  an inflation adjustment                                                               
from the  time the restitution  section was originally  placed in                                                               
statute  in   the  mid-1990s.    The   House  Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee discussed the  differences in animals, such  as a moose                                                               
that  could feed  people  for  a long  time.    The amounts  were                                                               
changed by  that committee  and in some  cases were  raised above                                                               
the  50  percent  figure  originally   listed  in  the  bill,  he                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  referred   to  the  felony  theft                                                               
threshold legislation  from two  years ago, the  committee's work                                                               
on the criminal  justice reform bill, and the  issue with certain                                                               
dollar  figures   becoming  outdated  because  the   economy  and                                                               
inflation marches  on.  He  asked whether there had  been thought                                                               
in tying these numbers to  the CPI so they automatically increase                                                               
slightly every year.                                                                                                            
MR.  BROOKS  advised there  was  discussion  during the  drafting                                                               
stages to  tie it  to the CPI,  and he could  not recall  why the                                                               
choice was  made to  just update  the 50  percent.   He commented                                                               
that it would  complicate the bill to put a  formula in there and                                                               
it is a different approach.                                                                                                     
2:53:59 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why it would complicate the bill.                                                                            
MR. BROOKS responded that inserting a formula ...                                                                               
CHAIR  LEDOUX  interjected  that  a  formula  would  be  inserted                                                               
stating it  will be evaluated  every five years according  to the                                                               
consumer price index (CPI).  She  remarked that it does not sound                                                               
MR. BROOKS agreed that it doesn't sound that complicated.                                                                       
2:54:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  asked the amount of  restitution the state                                                               
collected last year under this section.                                                                                         
MR. BROOKS  said he does not  have that information with  him and                                                               
reiterated that these are "not  to exceed" amounts, and the court                                                               
has the discretion in determining  the seriousness of the case to                                                               
go up to this amount.  He  opined that that may have been another                                                               
reason it wasn't  tied to a hard  formula, but it is  a number he                                                               
could bring back to the committee if there is interest in that.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  noted that he is  thinking, possibly, this                                                               
is insignificant economically to the department.                                                                                
MR. BROOKS advised  that all revenue for civil  penalties go into                                                               
the Department of  Fish & Game fund, subject  to appropriation by                                                               
the  legislature.   Criminal penalties  go to  the Department  of                                                               
Public Safety and, he commented,  the intent of these statutes is                                                               
to be a deterrent.                                                                                                              
2:55:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN [referred  to AS 16.05.925] Sec. 18,  page 5, line                                                               
26 and noted  that Sec. 17 refers to several  portions that read:                                                               
and (c) of  this section.  He  referred to Sec. 18,  line 26, and                                                           
said it creates a new section  that provides that a court may not                                                               
order  restitution under  Sec. 17  in  a case  where a  defendant                                                               
voluntarily turns themselves  in and is charged  with a violation                                                               
offense.   He  noted that  it also  provides that  a person  must                                                               
voluntarily and  immediately report to  the Department of  Fish &                                                               
Game  or  the  Department  of  Public  Safety  a  violation  they                                                               
committed to  qualify for this  affirmative defense.   Basically,                                                               
he explained,  each year there  are quite  a few people  who make                                                               
hunting  mistakes and  use good  ethics by  salvaging the  animal                                                               
from  the field  and turn  themselves into  the office  of Alaska                                                               
Wildlife Troopers.   He explained, in that  scenario, rather than                                                               
charging the person with a  misdemeanor offense, they are charged                                                               
with a  violation that  carries a  maximum penalty  of $500.   He                                                               
further explained that the person  then loses the illegally taken                                                               
animal, but  nothing else happens.   In that scenario,  the court                                                               
cannot order restitution, the court  can only order the defendant                                                               
to pay the fine, he explained.                                                                                                  
2:57:15 PM                                                                                                                    
MAJOR CHASTAIN [referred  to AS 16.10.110] Sec. 24,  page 6, line                                                               
24, and advised  it was a drafting statute number  error that was                                                               
MAJOR  CHASTAIN opined  that  Sec.  28, page  7,  lines 9-10  was                                                               
changed  to remove  a previous  section specifying  that a  court                                                               
rule must  be changed  in order to  make an  official correctable                                                               
citation, but  in consultation  with the  court system  the court                                                               
rule does not have to be changed.                                                                                               
MAJOR  CHASTAIN advised  that those  are all  of the  substantive                                                               
changes within HB 286, Version N.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   asked   Mr.   Aaron   Peterson,                                                               
Department  of Law,  whether there  is a  reason not  to tie  the                                                               
restitution penalties to inflation.                                                                                             
2:58:58 PM                                                                                                                    
AARON  PETERSON, Assistant  Attorney General,  Office of  Special                                                               
Prosecutions, Criminal  Division, Department of Law,  said he was                                                               
not  involved in  the  drafting  process on  this  bill, but  the                                                               
decision was  made to  simply raise the  amounts in  concert with                                                               
what  the  CPI increases  have  been  since they  were  initially                                                               
enacted, and they  were changed again by  the previous committee.                                                               
He remarked  that a formula  tying it to  the CPI could  work and                                                               
that he would  have to research the potential for  an argument as                                                               
to whether it would be a problem.                                                                                               
3:00:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  commented  that  it  is  interesting  the                                                               
committee  received this  bill in  the  midst of  working on  the                                                               
criminal  justice  reform  bill  and  consequently  it  considers                                                               
coming up  with a formula to  index for inflation on  a five-year                                                               
basis.  He  suggested reviewing the criminal  justice reform bill                                                               
to determine  whether the indexing  provision should  be modified                                                               
to include  additional sections  of the  criminal code  and these                                                               
codes.   Therefore,  every  fifth year  perform  the exercise  of                                                               
indexing for inflation  rather than the legislature  having to do                                                               
this, it becomes  an exercise that the government  is supposed to                                                               
go through.  Every fifth year  the government will do all of them                                                               
and the  legislature will not  have to  try to determine  what is                                                               
indexed  and  what isn't.    He  said  this  bill refers  to  the                                                               
criminal  code  for  $10,000  misdemeanor  fine  level,  but  the                                                               
committee  is  comfortable raising  that  fine  level to  $25,000                                                               
which would impact this bill through what is being done ...                                                                     
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that the bill is being held.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   noted  that  these  are   questions  the                                                               
committee members may  not have had if they  hadn't been spending                                                               
so much time on the crime bill.                                                                                                 
3:02:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  referred to Chair LeDoux's  intent to hold                                                               
the bill probably makes his  comment unnecessary, but opined that                                                               
if  the committee  knew  how  many times  a  judge  goes for  the                                                               
maximum  it would  impact it  also.   He said  that he  doubts it                                                               
happens often  because there are always  mitigating circumstances                                                               
and this gives the judge a lot  of leeway to add something on top                                                               
of the  fines.   He commented that  it is a  tool in  the judge's                                                               
toolbox and the exact amount is not all that critical.                                                                          
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.                                                                                           
3:03:17 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVEN SAMUELSON, said  he is a five  generation Southeast Alaska                                                               
family member,  has been a  commercial fisherman for most  of his                                                               
life, and he  has the deepest respect for  the governing entities                                                               
and that their  assistance on the water is much  appreciated.  He                                                               
opined that the following provision  is premature and referred to                                                               
[AS 16.05.330(h), Sec. 3] page 2, lines 24-25, which read:                                                                      
        (h) A peace officer presented with an electronic                                                                        
      device under (g) of this section is immune from any                                                                       
     liability resulting from damage to the device.                                                                             
MR.  SAMUELSON stated  that he  can speak  to subsection  (h) and                                                               
extended  that when  a  ship at  sea  is boarded  it  is never  a                                                               
pleasant  thing.   Currently, permit  cards issued  for fisheries                                                               
are similar  to a credit card  and can be scanned  and under this                                                               
bill [the  department] is not  liable if  a trooper takes  a cell                                                               
phone or  smart phone from a  person for their license.   Yet, he                                                               
asked, where is his protection  if something on the trooper's end                                                               
breaks, is  he liable, and does  the boat insurance have  to take                                                               
care of it.                                                                                                                     
3:05:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SAMUELSON  referred to killing  a moose in  Southeast Alaska,                                                               
and explained  that Moose brow  tines are  difficult to see  in a                                                               
scope,  and while  the hunter  is trying  to determine  the tines                                                               
they are  also thinking  about feeding their  family, and  in the                                                               
meantime the moose  is ready to take off.   The hunter determines                                                               
the  tines are  correct, takes  the shot  and then  realizes they                                                               
were wrong,  or it breaks off,  or something else happens.   Now,                                                               
he pointed out, the hunter is  liable for the $500 fine which, if                                                               
a person  is doing this  purposefully and illegally it  should be                                                               
more than $500, but mistakes  happen.  Further, he advised, there                                                               
are more consequences than just the  $500 fine, in that they have                                                               
to go to court  and are then put on probation.   Although, if the                                                               
hunter is  not a habitual  offender it probably isn't  a problem.                                                               
He said some of the raises  and increases don't make sense to him                                                               
because he  has found in several  fish and game court  cases when                                                               
it  has  to do  with  commercial  fishing  or anything  with  the                                                               
Department of  Fish & Game, it  is very strict.   He acknowledged                                                               
the  misdemeanor language  and  different  classification in  the                                                               
bill, but that  he doesn't always see that used  in court.  Quite                                                               
frankly,  he  expressed,  the laws  of  certificates,  commercial                                                               
regulations, and the  Department of Fish & Game could  be a whole                                                               
bill in itself.   He expressed appreciation to  the committee and                                                               
was hopeful  the committee would  take a  close look at  the bill                                                               
before moving it out.                                                                                                           
CHAIR LEDOUX  closed public testimony  after ascertaining  no one                                                               
further wished to testify.                                                                                                      
3:07:54 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to  surrendering the meat when an                                                               
animal  has accidentally  been killed,  and pointed  out that  in                                                               
Rural Alaska oftentimes  someone hunts far from a food  bank or a                                                               
charity.  She  asked whether the individual is  still required to                                                               
surrender the meat.                                                                                                             
MR. BROOKS deferred to Major Chastain.                                                                                          
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded  that that is an important  piece of how                                                               
the  troopers operate  and how  hunting  violations are  enforced                                                               
across the state.  In the  event a person takes an illegal animal                                                               
and  turns themselves  in,  that meat  is  given to  individuals,                                                               
charities, churches,  veterans, and  Native groups.   In  a Rural                                                               
Alaska  situation,  the  meat  goes to  the  same  community  the                                                               
defendant lives and  is distributed to many people  in that area.                                                               
Oftentimes, he said, when the  meat is salvaged in good condition                                                               
the  meat is  almost  always given  away rather  than  held in  a                                                               
freezer  as evidence  because  the  meat goes  to  better use  by                                                               
giving it to the community.                                                                                                     
3:09:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked who transports  the meat in a remote                                                               
MAJOR CHASTAIN  answered that it depends  upon the circumstances,                                                               
for  example, if  someone voluntarily  turns themselves  in, they                                                               
bring the  meat out of  the field, give  it to the  troopers, and                                                               
the  charity  picks it  up  from  the office.    He  said if  the                                                               
troopers catch  someone in the  field violating,  they physically                                                               
seize and  remove the meat  from the field and  it is given  to a                                                               
charity in that local area.                                                                                                     
3:10:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX  referred to the  testimony that the ADFG  is moving                                                               
toward electronic  devices, and  asked whether people  will still                                                               
have the  option of using paper  licenses, or be required  to put                                                               
their license  on their cell  phones.  She further  asked whether                                                               
the individual  is left without  any recourse if a  trooper drops                                                               
the cell phone.                                                                                                                 
MR. BROOKS  stated that  the department  will continue  to accept                                                               
paper and this  is meant to be a convenience  to the licensee and                                                               
nothing more than that.                                                                                                         
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that individuals  will continue to have the                                                               
option and if a person believes  the weather is too rough to hand                                                               
over their cell phone, they have  the option of using their paper                                                               
MR. BROOKS responded, absolutely.                                                                                               
[HB 286 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 214 - Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - CS Version P.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Summary of Changes - Version W to Version P.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Version W.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Fiscal Note - ACS-TRC-03-17-16.PDF HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Fiscal Note - DOA-DRM-03-11-16.PDF HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Fiscal Note - DOLWD-WCAC-03-08-16.PDF HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Supporting Documents - Numbers of Cases and Published Decisions.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 214 - Supporting Documents - Number of Supreme Court Appeals and Petitions for Review.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 214
HB 334 - Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - CS Version I.PDF HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Fiscal Note-ACS-TRC-04-05-16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Supporting Documents - Article KTOO 03.27.16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Supporting Documents - STEPHANIE F. v. GEORGE C., 270 P. 3d 737 (2012).pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Letter of Support - Grant 03.17.16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Letter of Support - Swanson 03.17.16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Letter of Opposition - Levy.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Letter of Opposition - ANDVSA 04.08.16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 286 - Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal Letter.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - CS Version N.PDF HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - Explanation of Changes - ver A to ver N.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - Version A.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - Fiscal Note-DFG-CO-04-04-16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 - Fiscal Note-DPS-AWT-12-18-15.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB 334 - Letter of Support - Triem 04.09.16.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334
HB 334 - Letter of Opposition - Bailey.pdf HJUD 4/9/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 334