Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/19/2018 01:00 PM 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

Audio Topic
02:04:05 PM Start
02:04:46 PM HB355
03:21:05 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 15 Minutes Following Session --
+= HB 355 FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 75 GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 355-FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HB 355  CS FOR HOUSE BILL  NO. 355(RES), "An Act  relating to the                                                               
crime of criminally negligent burning;  relating to protection of                                                               
and  fire management  on forested  land;  relating to  prohibited                                                               
acts  and  penalties  for  prohibited   acts  on  forested  land;                                                               
requiring the Alaska Supreme Court  to establish a bail schedule;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that this is  the second hearing on  HB 355                                                               
in  the  House Judiciary  Standing  Committee,  during the  first                                                               
hearing the  committee members reviewed  the bill and  opened and                                                               
closed  public  testimony.    He   reminded  the  committee  that                                                               
Legislative Legal  and Research  Services has permission  to make                                                               
any  technical and  conforming  changes to  the  bill, and  Chair                                                               
Claman then reiterated the amendment process.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:05:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, labeled  30-                                                               
LS1382\J.1, Radford, 3/15/18, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 14, following "suspected":                                                                                
          Insert "wildland"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:05:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  explained  that  Amendment  1  addresses  a                                                               
concern voiced  during public  testimony, and  he referred  to HB
355, Sec. 3, page 2, lines 13-17, which read as follows:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     an  officer or  employee of  the United  States or  the                                                                    
     state  may,  when  responding to  a  wildland  fire  or                                                                
     suspected fire or administering  the provisions of this                                                                
     chapter,  [AT ANY  TIME] enter  upon any  land, whether                                                                
     publicly  or  privately  owned,   for  the  purpose  of                                                                    
     preventing, investigating,  suppressing, or controlling                                                                
     a wildland fire or a destructive agent.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP noted  that  the  testifier offered  concern                                                               
regarding an  officer entering  private land  with the  idea that                                                               
they  could be  responding to  more  than just  a wildland  fire,                                                               
which appeared to  be the overall purpose.  The  language here is                                                               
"or suspected  fire," and whether  that would include  a campfire                                                               
or any other small controlled fire.   In the event the goal is to                                                               
emphasis the  danger of wildland fires  and wildland enforcement,                                                               
Amendment 1 would provide clarity  that this section is referring                                                               
to wildland fires  for the purposes of  fire prevention, control,                                                               
and  suppression as  to  why a  [fire  protection officer]  would                                                               
enter private property.  He explained  that it is with respect to                                                               
wildland fire  investigation and  control, and  not to  any other                                                               
range of  legitimate fires  a property  owner could  undertake on                                                               
their  property.   He  opined  that  Amendment 1  addresses  some                                                               
constitutional  concerns   and  provides  more   protections  for                                                               
landowners.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  Ms.   Salanguit,  staff  to  Representative                                                               
Guttenberg, whether the sponsor supports or opposes Amendment 1.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:08:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ALLIANA  SALANGUIT,   Staff,  Representative   David  Guttenberg,                                                               
Alaska   State   Legislature,   responded   that   she   believes                                                               
Representative Guttenberg is in support of Amendment 1.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:08:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  withdrew  his objection.    There                                                               
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:08:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 2,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1382\J.2, Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, following line 16:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
      "* Sec. 21. AS 41.15.950 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (c)  Nothing in this section requires a person to                                                                     
      disclose a deadly weapon under AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A)                                                                      
       to a peace officer described under (a)(1) of this                                                                        
     section."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 2:                                                                                                            
          Delete "sec. 21"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 22"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "sec. 21" in both places                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 22" in both places                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Sections 23 and 24"                                                                                           
          Insert "Sections 24 and 25"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "sec. 25"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 26"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:08:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN explained  that Amendment  2 makes  clear                                                               
that  that  provision  of  law  will  not  be  applied  to  [fire                                                               
prevention  officers], and  there  should be  no confusion  going                                                               
forward over whether an individual  is required to disclose their                                                               
concealed  weapon.   Although, he  noted, under  this bill  those                                                               
[fire protection officers] do have  the title of "peace officer,"                                                               
and  Amendment  2   deals  with  the  types   of  peace  officers                                                               
separately.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  asked   Ms.   Salanguit  whether   Representative                                                               
Guttenburg was in support of Amendment  2, or would she prefer to                                                               
hear from the Department of  Law (DOL) as to the administration's                                                               
perspective on Amendment 2.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. SALANGUIT  asked that the  Department of Law (DOL)  offer its                                                               
perspective.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:10:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AARON PETERSON, Assistant Attorney  General, Fish & Game Section,                                                               
Office of Special Prosecutions,  Criminal Division, Department of                                                               
Law (DOL), referred to AS 11.81.900[44], which read as follows:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (44)  "peace  officer"   means  a  public  servant                                                                    
     vested by law  with a duty to maintain  public order or                                                                    
     to  make  arrests,  whether the  duty  extends  to  all                                                                    
     offenses or is limited to  a specific class of offenses                                                                    
     or offenders;                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PETERSON advised  that the  statute  specifically read  that                                                               
"the duty  extends to all  offenses or  is limited to  a specific                                                               
class of offenses  or offenders."  In the event  it is the intent                                                               
of the legislature to exclude  fire prevention officers from this                                                               
particular statute  and the requirement that  people declare they                                                               
have  a firearm  concealed on  their person  when making  contact                                                               
with a  peace officer,  Amendment 2  would accomplish  that goal.                                                               
He  opined that  this requirement  risks causing  confusion among                                                               
the  public  as  to  who  to advise  that  they  are  carrying  a                                                               
concealed weapon.   From a purely legal  perspective, Amendment 2                                                               
would  likely  be  necessary  in order  to  exclude  people  from                                                               
reporting to a  fire prevention officer that they  are carrying a                                                               
concealed weapon, he said.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:12:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SALANGUIT,   in  response  to  Chair   Claman  advised  that                                                               
Representative Guttenburg opposes Amendment 2.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:12:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  posed that,  under current law,  a homeowner                                                               
was contacted by  any recognized peace officer,  whether there is                                                               
a duty  for the homeowner  to disclose  that they are  carrying a                                                               
concealed  weapon in  their own  home  or on  their own  property                                                               
outside of the home.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  answered that  there is case  law on  that specific                                                               
topic, but he would have to research the issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:13:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:14:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined  that the courts have ruled  that in a                                                               
person's home  or property, there is  not a duty to  disclose but                                                               
because the  answer cannot be  found at this moment,  he supports                                                               
the spirit of the amendment.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:15:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON, in  response to Chair Claman as to  when expects to                                                               
complete his  research, answered  that it  should be  another few                                                               
minutes.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  that Amendment  2  would be  held and  Mr.                                                               
Peterson would get back to the committee.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:16:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  noted   that  another   clarification  the                                                               
committee  might request  is whether  this  amendment applies  to                                                               
being contacted by  a peace officer on public lands,  and also on                                                               
a person's  private property.   He asked  whether Amendment  2 is                                                               
inclusive of both of those issues.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  responded to  Chair Claman  that he  would research                                                               
Representative Kopp's additional question.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:17:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 3,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1382\J.4, Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 14 - 15:                                                                                                     
          Delete "or administering the provisions of this                                                                   
     chapter"                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:17:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred  to HB 355, page  2, lines 12-17,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     upon request  of an officer  or employee of  the United                                                                    
     States or the state may,  when responding to a wildland                                                                
     fire or suspected fire  or administering the provisions                                                                
     of  this chapter  [AT ANY  TIME] enter  upon any  land,                                                                
     whether publicly  or privately  owned, for  the purpose                                                                    
     of    preventing,   investigating,    suppressing,   or                                                                
     controlling a wildland fire or a destructive agent.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  advised that this section  deals with the                                                               
right of anyone who is "doing  any of these listed activities" to                                                               
enter private  property and  perform a  service on  that property                                                               
with or  without the notification  or permission of  the property                                                               
owner.   He opined that  that is  an important issue  to consider                                                               
before "we  do that  blindly."  He  suggested that  the committee                                                               
better  tailor what  it is  that  someone who  would be  entering                                                               
private property  without permission "would  be able to do."   He                                                               
described  this  chapter  as  quite   broad,  and  suggested  the                                                               
language could  read, such that  anyone responding to  a wildfire                                                               
or suspected wildfire would have  the go-ahead to enter someone's                                                               
private property  and take care  of that fire or  suspected fire.                                                               
However,  he described,  "administering  the  provisions of  this                                                               
chapter" is  overly broad and  situations will occur  wherein the                                                               
committee did not  intend these individuals to perform.   Some of                                                               
the [fire protection officers] might  be employed temporarily and                                                               
they are  performing these types  of activities on a  seasonal or                                                               
other basis  with minimal  training, he said.   There  is concern                                                               
that  these individuals,  by entering  the private  property, see                                                               
items they  would otherwise  be unable  to see,  and it  comes up                                                               
missing later, he said.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:20:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether  Representative Guttenburg supports or                                                               
opposes Amendment 3.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SALANGUIT  advised  that Representative  Guttenburg  opposes                                                               
Amendment  3.    She  pointed  out  that  this  was  actually  an                                                               
amendment  taken up  in the  House  Resources Standing  Committee                                                               
with  Representative Rauscher.    She  said, "It  was  kind of  a                                                               
compromise"  to be  a little  more specific  as to  when "we  can                                                               
enter land."   Prior to this, the language was  "at any time" and                                                               
Representative Guttenburg  added "when  responding to  a wildland                                                               
fire or  suspected fire or  administering the provisions  of this                                                               
chapter" to be more specific.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:21:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS MAISCH,  State Forester and Division  Director, Division of                                                               
Forestry, Department  of Natural  Resources, noted that  he would                                                               
now  recap the  key points  of  the discussion  within the  House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee as follows:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     In  no  way does  an  individual's  criminal rates  for                                                                    
     search  and  seizure stop  from  this  section of  this                                                                    
     particular statute.   There is  also, of  course, their                                                                    
     constitutional rights.   And then, as  necessary, if it                                                                    
     is after  the fire, so  its not control  or suppression                                                                    
     of the  fire, a warrant is  required if we do  not have                                                                    
     the permission  of the landowner to  enter the property                                                                    
     to determine  cause and origin  of the fire,  which are                                                                    
     two key  aspects our  [fire protection  officers] FPO's                                                                    
     are  trained to  do.    So, we  feel  this language  is                                                                    
     necessary for our staff to properly do their charge.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:22:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr.  Maisch to described exactly what                                                               
"administering the  provisions of this chapter"  means, and where                                                               
the bill read that a warrant would be required.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  answered that  a warrant is  required if  a suspected                                                               
criminal charge may be pending  based upon the investigation.  He                                                               
related that  while his  officers are not  badge or  gun carrying                                                               
officers,  they are  trained to  enforce the  provisions of  this                                                               
chapter, the  safe burning practices  in regulation  and statute,                                                               
which  includes  determining cause  and  origin  of all  wildland                                                               
fires,  thereby requiring  a fire  investigation.   Sometimes, he                                                               
offered,  investigations  can  be   completed  at  the  time  the                                                               
suppression  action and  on other  occasions, the  investigations                                                               
must take place after the suppression actions.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:23:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted  that she did not see  where the bill                                                               
read that  a warrant was  required.   She asked someone  from the                                                               
Department of Law  (DOL) offer its perspective on  Sec. 3 because                                                               
that section  talks about  "when we're  talking about  what we're                                                               
talking about,"  the word "investigating,"  whether a  warrant is                                                               
required,  or  whether  this supersedes  other  law  requiring  a                                                               
warrant.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:24:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE   NELSON,  Senior   Assistant   Attorney  General,   Natural                                                               
Resources  Section,  Civil  Division, Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
answered  that the  requirement  for  a warrant  is  a matter  of                                                               
constitutional law  and there  is nothing  in state  statute that                                                               
would even  proport to  supersede that  constitutional law.   The                                                               
warrant requirement  is a Constitution  of the United  States and                                                               
Constitution  of  the  State of  Alaska  requirement  that  still                                                               
applies and  overlays all statutes  on the books,  including this                                                               
statute, she said.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:25:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that  if a fire protection officer                                                               
was  responding  to a  suspected  wildland  fire, a  warrant  was                                                               
clearly not required.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NELSON  responded  that  a warrant  would  not  be  required                                                               
because  with exigent  circumstances that  authority is  a little                                                               
broader.     The  investigation  the  fire   prevention  officers                                                               
typically perform is related to the  cause and origin of the fire                                                               
because   that  is   valuable  information   needed  to   develop                                                               
suppression tactics  and actively fight the  fire, she explained.                                                               
When it comes  to criminal liability, she  further explained that                                                               
that investigation is typically  performed under the direction of                                                               
the  Alaska  State Troopers  and  the  criminal division  of  the                                                               
Department of Law (DOL).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:25:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX questioned  whether  the investigation  is                                                               
performed under the auspices of the DOL.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NELSON replied  that  the initial  investigation  as to  the                                                               
cause  and origin  of  a fire  is often  performed  in the  field                                                               
during  the initial  attack of  the fire  by the  fire prevention                                                               
officers.   In  the  event  it appears  there  is  a question  of                                                               
criminal  liability, that  investigation is  performed under  the                                                               
auspices of  the criminal division  of the DOL, the  Alaska State                                                               
Troopers, and regular law enforcement, she said.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:26:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that  if administering the provisions                                                               
of this  chapter or investigating  the criminal liability  is all                                                               
performed under  the DOL with a  warrant and so forth,  she asked                                                               
why this needs  to be in the  statute.  She further  asked why it                                                               
should  not  read,  "when  responding   to  a  wildland  fire  or                                                               
suspected fire," thereby, removing  the phrase "administering the                                                               
provisions  of  this  chapter"  and   to  also  remove  the  word                                                               
"investigating."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. NELSON responded that in  addition to the criminal provisions                                                               
in this  bill, there are  also a number of  provisions addressing                                                               
"bail schedule  offenses" and enforcing  the permit  program that                                                               
the Division  of Forestry currently  administers.  This  right of                                                               
entry,  she  explained, would  actually  enable  the officers  to                                                               
follow up  on issued permits  and on complaints that  burning was                                                               
being conducted,  either in  violation of  a permit  or on  a day                                                               
when burning was closed statewide.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:28:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  whether  that would  be a  criminal                                                               
issue under the DOL anyway.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. NELSON answered,  "Not necessarily," and referred  to HB 355,                                                               
Sec.  21, page  6, lines  18-20, authorizing  the Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court to publish a schedule  of bailable offenses, which are akin                                                               
to parking tickets  a person can pay in  complete satisfaction of                                                               
the offense without appearing in court.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:28:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that  she still does not understand                                                               
why the investigation and the  administering of all of this would                                                               
not be under the DOL.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  Ms. Nelson whether part  of the investigation                                                               
in fire prevention is trying  to determine where the fire started                                                               
in order  to extinguish the  fire.  In  the event, a  warrant was                                                               
required  as  part  of  the   investigation  in  determining  the                                                               
location  of the  smoke and  where the  fire started,  an officer                                                               
could  put  significant danger  to  properties  by going  to  the                                                               
courthouse  to obtain  a  warrant,  he remarked.    He asked  Ms.                                                               
Nelson to clarify because Sec. 3  is specific to the employees of                                                               
the  Division of  Forestry so  it is  a fairly  narrow number  of                                                               
people  who  actually have  this  authority.   He  further  asked                                                               
whether an  investigation as to  where the smoke was  coming from                                                               
was different from a criminal investigation.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.   NELSON   answered   that    Chair   Claman   was   correct,                                                               
"investigating"  has  a  number  of  meanings  in  terms  of  the                                                               
Division of Forestry's fire program.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:30:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   commented  that  it  appears   the  term                                                               
"investigating" should  have parameters  in order for  the public                                                               
to know  that the fire  protection officers are  investigating in                                                               
order  to  determine  where  the fire  was  located  rather  than                                                               
investigating a criminal issue.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Mr. Maisch  to describe the range  of conduct                                                               
involved in investigating.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.   MAISCH   responded   that   with   regard   to   the   term                                                               
"investigating,"  there   are  different  kinds  and   needs  for                                                               
investigation  (audio difficulties).   In  the event  of a  smoke                                                               
report,  oftentimes  the  fire  protection  officers  must  cross                                                               
numerous pieces  of private property  to determine  whether there                                                               
actually is a  fire.  Another type of  investigating, he offered,                                                               
is that once the fire  protection officers have located the fire,                                                               
to investigate the  cause of that fire, the  ignition source, the                                                               
origin, and on what property the  fire was located.  He explained                                                               
that  that is  a more  formal investigation,  which his  staff is                                                               
highly  trained to  perform  because a  fire  investigation is  a                                                               
fairly  complex effort  and is  solely focused  on the  cause and                                                               
origin of the  fire.  In the event the  investigation of the fire                                                               
appears to  lead to a charge  under the statutes, the  State Fire                                                               
Marshals   and  Alaska   State  Troopers   become  involved,   he                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to the audio  difficulties in ascertaining                                                               
Mr. Maisch's testimony  and asked him to again  explain the range                                                               
of investigations and to speak slowly.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  repeated that  the two  types of  investigations that                                                               
are easiest  to describe would  be as follows:   when there  is a                                                               
smoke report, oftentimes the fire  protection officers must enter                                                               
numerous pieces  of private property  to determine  whether there                                                               
is an  actual fire; and  when a fire  has been located,  a formal                                                               
investigation is performed  to determine the origin  of the fire,                                                               
the  cause  of  the  fire,  and how  it  actually  ignited.    He                                                               
described  that  as a  fairly  extensive  investigation, and  his                                                               
enforcement officers  are highly  trained to  make determinations                                                               
as  to the  cause and  origin of  the fire.   In  the event  that                                                               
investigation appeared to  lead to a criminal  charge against the                                                               
private  landowner for  a violation  of the  statute, the  Alaska                                                               
State Troopers  or the State  Fire Marshals become  involved with                                                               
that aspect of the investigation, he said.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:33:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  surmised   that  expensive  investigating                                                               
could be  performed under  this proposed  statute, investigations                                                               
that  might  lead to  criminal  charges,  and this  investigation                                                               
could be performed without a warrant.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  answered that  when  they  are trying  to  determine                                                               
whether  there is  a  fire, and  suppressing  or controlling  the                                                               
fire,  it is  considered  the early  stage  of investigating  for                                                               
cause and origin.  At the point  the fire is controlled, if it is                                                               
believed  the investigation  will lead  to criminal  charges, the                                                               
State Fire Marshal and Alaska  State Troopers become involved, he                                                               
reiterated.    Oftentimes,  he related,  landowners  offer  their                                                               
permission to enter the property,  but if a warrant is necessary,                                                               
that would be  performed through law enforcement  and not through                                                               
his staff.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:35:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  asked   Mr.   Maisch   to  describe   a                                                               
destructive agent.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH responded  that  a destructive  agent  is defined  AS                                                               
41.15.170(2), which read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
       (2)"destructive agent" means an insect, pathogen,                                                                        
      or other environmental agent that causes damage to a                                                                      
     forest resource;                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:36:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked that  while someone  is controlling                                                               
the  destructive agent  based on  this  bill, would  they need  a                                                               
warrant or any  type of permission to be able  to do perform that                                                               
control aspect  on someone's private  property, or could  they go                                                               
ahead and  [investigate] without  notifying the  private property                                                               
owner.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH replied  that the  best example  would be  the Spruce                                                               
Bark Beetles  that can kill  large tracts  of trees and  create a                                                               
fire hazard  from the  resulting dead materials.   He  noted that                                                               
through other regulations, the commissioner  of the Department of                                                               
Natural  Resources (DNR)  can establish  a  zone of  infestation,                                                               
which  includes  a  best interest  finding,  and  then  emergency                                                               
regulations  can be  put in  place to  deal with  the destructive                                                               
agent.   He explained  that this was  initially created  in 1961,                                                               
and since  that time, additional regulations  have been developed                                                               
to  deal with  destructive agents,  but this  does not  give that                                                               
right  in conjunction  with the  other  activities he  previously                                                               
described.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:37:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN clarified  that his  question was  in the                                                               
event  Mr.  Maisch  was  to administer  the  provisions  of  this                                                               
chapter to  control a  destructive agent,  whether there  are any                                                               
requirements  under  this bill  to  notify  the private  property                                                               
owner.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH answered  that the  property owner  would have  to be                                                               
notified, and those  sections are addressed in  the Alaska Forest                                                               
Resources and Practices statute.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN noted  that this  particular section  is about  the                                                               
right to  enter property to  control and suppress fires,  and the                                                               
destructive  agents become  a  factor  in what  is  burning.   It                                                               
appears that this  section would not give authority  to deal with                                                               
suppression issues  just because  there was a  destructive agent,                                                               
it is  the combination  of a  fire where  a destructive  agent is                                                               
involved, he opined.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:38:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that  that is the question because                                                               
the  language   is,  "or  controlling   a  wildland  fire   or  a                                                               
destructive agent."   He opined that that now is  being opened up                                                               
to be anyone  who is administering any of the  provisions of this                                                               
chapter.   He  asked  whether  the fact  that  a fire  protection                                                               
officer cannot go onto someone's  property without notifying them                                                               
is located  in another area  of the bill.   He commented  that he                                                               
did not see any requirement  for notification in this statute and                                                               
asked  whether another  statute being  drawn upon  to reach  that                                                               
conclusion.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  answered that Representative Eastman  was correct and                                                               
he  then referred  to AS  41.17, Forest  Resources and  Practices                                                               
statute.   Mr. Maisch commented  that he had  previously outlined                                                               
that process that  the commissioner of the  Department of Natural                                                               
Resources  (DNR) would  follow.   He  reiterated that  a zone  of                                                               
infestation would  be declared through  a best  interest finding,                                                               
emergency  regulations  would  be  put   in  place,  and  if  the                                                               
landowner did not  comply with those regulations,  AS 41.15 gives                                                               
the authority for the fire  prevention officers to enter and deal                                                               
with the destructive agent.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:40:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   surmised  that  in   administering  the                                                               
provisions of  this chapter, the  reason for this  expanded scope                                                               
of  administering the  provisions  of this  chapter  is to  enter                                                               
someone's private  property and  issue a  citation of  some kind.                                                               
In the event this permissive language  is not here, a warrant "or                                                               
whatnot"  would  be  required   because  the  landowner  had  not                                                               
provided their permission to enter that private property.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  remarked that  he  could  not follow  Representative                                                               
Eastman's question and asked that he repeat his question.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:41:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that  the reason for this broaden                                                               
scope  of administering  the provisions  of this  chapter, rather                                                               
than simply responding  to a suspected wildland  fire, is because                                                               
the  bail schedules  are part  of this  bill with  the intent  to                                                               
issue  citations and  so  forth.   In  order  to enter  someone's                                                               
private  property  to  issue  the   homeowner  a  citation,  this                                                               
broadened scope  is necessary to  be able to enter  the property.                                                               
Otherwise, he  commented, the department  would have to  go about                                                               
it in a different manner and obtain a warrant, or something.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH answered  that he would not interpret it  in quite the                                                               
manner in which Representative Eastman  phrased his question.  He                                                               
explained that  in the  event someone  committed a  criminal act,                                                               
law enforcement  would have the  right to enter that  property to                                                               
issue  the  ticket or  charge.    He  said that  "administer  the                                                               
provisions  of  this  act"  are  the  things  he  previously  had                                                               
discussed, which  is to suppress  the wildland  fire, investigate                                                               
whether there  is an actual  fire as to  a smoke report  or other                                                               
complaints, and then  determine the origin and cause  of the fire                                                               
through an investigation which can occur  at the time of the fire                                                               
or after control of the fire.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:42:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN posed  a scenario  of a  residential fire                                                               
and someone                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN pointed  out to  Representative  Eastman that  this                                                               
section, including  Amendment 1,  does not deal  with residential                                                               
fires,  it  only deals  with  wildland  fires  and to  limit  his                                                               
questions to wildland fires.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:42:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that  he would  like to  contrast a                                                               
residential  fire with  a  wildland  fire.   He  asked that  when                                                               
responding  to a  residential fire,  a  warrant or  this type  of                                                               
provision would  not be  necessary because  responding to  such a                                                               
fire already includes, and once  the fire scene is controlled, an                                                               
investigation  can take  place without  obtaining a  new warrant.                                                               
Except, he said,  at the time the fire  protection officers cease                                                               
to have control  of the fire scene, a warrant  would be necessary                                                               
to go back  onto the property.  He asked  whether, this situation                                                               
is similar to the right to  have that investigation without a new                                                               
warrant or is something different taking place here.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  related that  he did  not believe  anything different                                                               
was taking place  as to whether it was a  structure or a wildland                                                               
fire.   He commented that  as he had previously  testified, after                                                               
the fire is controlled and  the landowner has given permission to                                                               
continue  the investigation,  if they  suspect the  investigation                                                               
could lead  to criminal  charges, the  Alaska State  Troopers and                                                               
the State  Fire Marshal's Office  becomes involved and  they will                                                               
seek a  warrant if it is  appropriate for the circumstances.   He                                                               
commented  that  he does  not  see  that  there is  a  difference                                                               
between  how a  structure or  wildland fire  would be  treated as                                                               
Representative Eastman had described.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:44:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Mr.  Maisch to  make clear  for the                                                               
committee  that if  something criminal  was suspected,  a warrant                                                               
would be necessary.   In the event "you are  leaving the property                                                               
and you  no longer are  in control of it,  you want to  come back                                                               
later, normally you would have to  get some kind of warrant."  He                                                               
asked why this  authority is necessary to enter  onto the private                                                               
land.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH reiterated  that again,  that is  a requirement  when                                                               
trying  to determine  whether there  actually  is a  fire from  a                                                               
smoke  report  taken  from a  neighbor,  aircraft  often  reports                                                               
smoke/fires, or  someone else, and  it is their job  to determine                                                               
where that fire  is located.  Oftentimes,  significant amounts or                                                               
private  property are  crossed during  the investigation  of that                                                               
smoke  report.    Essentially,  he advised,  that  is  what  this                                                               
chapter  does,  it  gives  them  that  authority  to  enter  that                                                               
property.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:46:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP commented  that exigent  circumstances apply                                                               
to municipal firefighting and wildland  firefighting, which is an                                                               
exception  to the  warrant requirement  due to  the fantastically                                                               
destructive potential  of fire.   In the event  a burn ban  is in                                                               
effect and something is going on  in a person's backyard, it will                                                               
be clear when  the fire department shows up because  they will be                                                               
pulling hoses  around the house.   The firefighters would  not be                                                               
knocking on  the door  because they are  there to  extinguish the                                                               
fire and  ask questions later.   There are  exigent circumstances                                                               
that  apply due  to  well documented  catastrophic fires  losses,                                                               
Alaska  is replete  with  horrific fires,  and  the fire  service                                                               
agencies must  respond quickly, he  pointed out.   Representative                                                               
Eastman  asked  that once  the  scene  was secure  and  something                                                               
criminal  was discovered,  whether  the agency  would  go to  the                                                               
courthouse for  the warrant.   In  response, Mr.  Maisch's answer                                                               
was  that  they  would,  as  is  the  current  process  with  the                                                               
municipal  and  state forestry.    As  far as  administering  the                                                               
provisions,  he opined,  that  would  include issuing  citations.                                                               
Once  the  fire protection  officers  arrive  and extinguish  the                                                               
fire,  at that  point,  the administering  portion  is the  civil                                                               
action of issuing a summons  or citation.  Currently, he advised,                                                               
there is nothing in the law  requiring a police officer to obtain                                                               
a search  warrant in  order to  go back  onto a  person's private                                                               
property to simply  issue a citation; therefore,  the officer can                                                               
go back  to that person and  issue the citation.   He opined that                                                               
it  is  consistent with  the  exceptions  to the  current  search                                                               
warrant requirement that  applies to the fire  services when they                                                               
are  in  active  response  mode.   This  bill  puts  the  current                                                               
practice  into statute,  he related  that it  is constitutionally                                                               
sound and it speaks practically as far as firefighting.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:49:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred  to Sec.  41.15.040,  Right  of                                                               
entry to  control and suppress  fires, [page 2, lines  9-17], and                                                               
commented  that   that  is  exactly  what   this  section  should                                                               
represent.  Except, he noted,  this [section] is about responding                                                               
to  wildland   fires,  suspected  fires,  or   administering  the                                                               
provisions of  this chapter, which deals  with destructive agents                                                               
and  so  forth.     Elsewhere  in  this  section   there  is  the                                                               
opportunity for officers, once they  are on the [private] land to                                                               
suppress, prevent, and  control using all of the  sorts of duties                                                               
firefighters  perform.   He opined  that that  is where  the line                                                               
should  be  drawn because  the  idea  that  someone, who  is  not                                                               
responding  to  a  fire  or  suspected  fire,  could  enter  onto                                                               
someone's land to  administer the provisions of  this chapter and                                                               
write citations and so  forth, is not a good idea.   In the event                                                               
firefighters are  responding or coming back  from responding that                                                               
is  fine,  he said,  but  not  for  them  to enter  onto  private                                                               
property  when there  is  no  fire or  suspected  fire and  write                                                               
citations on someone's private property.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[The  committee   treated  the   objection  to  Amendment   3  as                                                               
maintained.]                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:50:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Eastman and LeDoux                                                               
voted in favor  of the adoption of Amendment  3.  Representatives                                                               
Kopp,  Stutes,  Kreiss-Tomkins,  and  Claman  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:51:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:51:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  that the committee would now  return to the                                                               
discussions on Amendment 2, and  he asked Mr. Peterson to provide                                                               
his research as to the two questions previously discussed.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:51:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  responded that  he does not  believe there  are any                                                               
exclusions for  a person  being in  their dwelling,  for example,                                                               
specifically with respect to informing  a peace officer that they                                                               
are  concealing a  deadly weapon.   Mr.  Peterson referred  to AS                                                               
11.61.220(a)(1)(A), which read as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     (a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving                                                                     
     weapons in the fifth degree if the person                                                                                  
         (1) is 21 years of age or older and knowingly                                                                          
       possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary                                                                        
     pocket knife or a defensive weapon,                                                                                        
               (A)  that is  concealed on  the person,  and,                                                                    
     when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to                                                                     
                    (i)   immediately   inform   the   peace                                                                    
     officer of that possession; or                                                                                             
                    (ii) allow  the peace officer  to secure                                                                    
     the deadly  weapon, or  fails to  secure the  weapon at                                                                    
     the  direction   of  the  peace  officer,   during  the                                                                    
     duration of the contact;                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  advised that  there is  an affirmative  defense for                                                               
being in  "your dwelling  or on land  pertinent to  the dwelling"                                                               
for  other  offenses  under  that   same  statute,  but  not  for                                                               
informing  the  peace  officer  that a  person  has  a  concealed                                                               
weapon, as that is an officer's safety issue.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:52:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked   Mr. Peterson to explain  his statement "what                                                               
is in the statute."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR PETERSON referred to AS  11.61.220(a)(1)(A) and explained that                                                               
it  is the  requirement  that  a person  advise  a peace  officer                                                               
[under  subparagraph  (A)] that  they  are  carrying a  concealed                                                               
weapon.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:53:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN surmised  that that  is for  the protection  of the                                                               
officer.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.PETERSON  answered that  it is  to  let the  officer know  the                                                               
entirety of  the situation, which  is the  reason there is  not a                                                               
statutory exception  for where  that contact  occurs.   He noted,                                                               
for example, AS 11.61.220(a)(6), which read as follows:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          (a)  A  person  commits the  crime  of  misconduct                                                                    
     involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (6)  is  less  than   21  years  of  age  and                                                                    
     knowingly  possesses a  deadly  weapon,  other than  an                                                                    
     ordinary pocket  knife or a  defensive weapon,  that is                                                                    
     concealed on the person.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON advised that the cite  it is for possessing a deadly                                                               
weapon  while being  under  the age  of 21  years  if some  other                                                               
things apply.  He then offered  that the drafters of this statute                                                               
specifically considered  that private property question,  and the                                                               
drafters did not add that  affirmative defense to the requirement                                                               
that a  person inform  a peace  officer that  they have  a deadly                                                               
weapon on their person.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:53:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  whether Amendment  2 applies  to both                                                               
public and private land.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PETERSON responded  that the  amendment does  not appear  to                                                               
distinguish  between  public and  private  land.   Certainly,  AS                                                               
11.61.220 does  not for the  purposes of subsection  (a)(1), have                                                               
an exception  for public land  either.  For example,  he offered,                                                               
in  the event  someone  is  in the  field  fishing  and they  are                                                               
contacted by a peace officer,  they are required to disclose that                                                               
they are carrying a deadly weapon.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:55:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  commented that  he  thought  there was  [an                                                               
exception] for  a person's home  and property, and  because there                                                               
is not  [an exception] already  in the  law, he does  not support                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kopp explained  that it is very  important for the                                                               
safety and  protection of the  state's law enforcement  when they                                                               
have contact  with someone  in the  field, wherever  that contact                                                               
occurred, while  on official  duty.   The law  currently provides                                                               
that  the person  disclose  that they  are  carrying a  concealed                                                               
weapon, thereby, allowing  the officer to be aware of  all of the                                                               
facts in  the situation.   He pointed out  that the law  does not                                                               
require law enforcement to take  possession of the gun, it simply                                                               
read that  a person  must notify the  officer of  the concealment                                                               
gun.   He stressed that it  is very important for  officer safety                                                               
reasons  that  the  legislature  not  change the  law  as  it  is                                                               
currently written.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:56:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS  maintained   his  objection   to                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that  Amendment 2 simply  read that                                                               
nothing in  this section requires  a person to disclose  a deadly                                                               
weapon  to a  peace  officer, as  defined in  this  section.   He                                                               
opined that  when the average  Alaskan comes upon Smoky  the Bear                                                               
and they discuss fire, fire  prevention, or wildfires, the person                                                               
is  probably not  thinking that  they are  speaking with  a peace                                                               
officer.   He said he does  not believe "they were  ever intended                                                               
to" because these are not  peace officers wearing guns and Alaska                                                               
State  Trooper uniforms,  and [the  person] is  to disclose  that                                                               
they  are  carrying  a  deadly  weapon.   This  is  a  completely                                                               
different  concept,   he  stressed,  these  are   peace  officers                                                               
performing  a very  different function.   The  legislature should                                                               
not require this language from  "our traditional law enforcement"                                                               
to apply to these kinds of special condition peace officers.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:57:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  declared a  point of order.   Representative                                                               
Kopp offered that the entire Amendment  2 is out of order because                                                               
the  committee  was  clearly  advised  that  these  persons,  for                                                               
purposes of  that definition,  do not  fall under  peace officer.                                                               
The  testifier  advised that  fire  protection  officers are  not                                                               
armed and  do not  wear badges  and, to begin  with, the  duty to                                                               
disclose may not even apply to  those persons.  In the event that                                                               
is the case, he opined that  the amendment is unnecessary even by                                                               
the intent of the sponsor.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:58:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN declared a point of order.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  questioned whether  he was making  a point                                                               
of order on a point of order.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:58:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  explained that  they  are  not sworn  peace                                                               
officers, they are firefighters.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that the definition in the bill  is about who                                                               
is a peace officer.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said  that he did need to make  a point of                                                               
order.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative Eastman  that he could make a                                                               
statement because  until he ruled on  Representative Kopp's point                                                               
of order, another point of order is not appropriate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN opined  that it  is important  to correct                                                               
the record because  during this hearing today,  the Department of                                                               
Law (DOL)  testified that  these peace  officers, whether  or not                                                               
they have  badges and  hats, very  much fall  under this,  and he                                                               
asked  that  DOL  re-testify  to   clarify  its  answer  to  that                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:59:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  Mr.  Maisch  to  describe  what  the  [fire                                                               
protection  officers],   who  are  a  "limited   authority  peace                                                               
officer" under  the Division  of Forestry,  look like,  what they                                                               
carry,  and Mr.  Maisch's  understanding of  the  scope of  their                                                               
authority.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Title 11 applies.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH referred to AS 41.15.950(a), which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          (a) The  following persons  are peace  officers of                                                                    
     the  state and  they  shall enforce  the provisions  of                                                                    
     this  chapter and  the regulations  adopted under  this                                                                    
     chapter:                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
               (1) solely for the  purpose of enforcing this                                                                    
     chapter,  an  employee  of  the  department,  or  other                                                                    
     person, authorized by the commissioner;                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
               (2) a police officer in the state.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  A person  designated in  (a) of  this section                                                                    
     may, when  enforcing the provisions of  this chapter or                                                                    
     a regulation adopted under this chapter,                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
               (1)  execute  a   warrant  or  other  process                                                                    
     issued   by   an   officer  or   court   of   competent                                                                    
     jurisdiction;                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
               (2) administer or  take an oath, affirmation,                                                                    
     or affidavit; and                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               (3) arrest a person  who violates a provision                                                                    
     of  this chapter  or a  regulation  adopted under  this                                                                    
     chapter.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH replied  that their  scope is  narrowly defined.   He                                                               
explained  that they  are peace  officers  by definition,  except                                                               
there is  a range of  peace officers  from the fully  sworn peace                                                               
officer  to  the  type  of fire  prevention  officer  within  the                                                               
Division of Forestry, who do not carry a gun or wear a badge.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:00:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether a  peace officer designated  under AS                                                               
41.15.950  is  covered  within  the meaning  of  Title  11  peace                                                               
officer that is at issue in Amendment 2.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. NELSON  responded that whether  they are or not  depends upon                                                               
the enforcement  context.  The  fire prevention  officers working                                                               
for   the  Division   of  Forestry   are   commissioned  by   the                                                               
commissioner in  accordance with AS 41.15.950(a)  and pursuant to                                                               
the  definition of  peace officer  in  AS 01.10.060(7)(F),  which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (a) In the  laws of the state,  unless the context                                                                    
     otherwise requires,                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (7) "peace officer" means                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                    (F)  an  officer  whose duty  it  is  to                                                                    
     enforce and preserve the public peace;                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NELSON  advised  that  that   definition  of  peace  officer                                                               
definitely applies, and it is outside of Title 11.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:02:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  pointed to Amendment  2, page 1,  lines 4-5,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (c) Nothing  in this section requires  a person to                                                                    
     disclose  a deadly  weapon under  AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A)                                                                    
     to a peace officer under (a)(1) of this section.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  then  referred  to  AS  11.61.220(a)(1)(A),                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (a)  A  person  commits the  crime  of  misconduct                                                                    
     involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (1)  is   21  years  of  age   or  older  and                                                                    
     knowingly  possesses a  deadly  weapon,  other than  an                                                                    
     ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                    (A)  that is  concealed  on the  person,                                                                    
     and,  when contacted  by a  peace  officer, the  person                                                                    
     fails to                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                (i) immediately inform the peace                                                                                
     officer of that possession; or                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                         (ii)  allow  the peace  officer  to                                                                    
     secure  the  deadly  weapon, or  fails  to  secure  the                                                                    
     weapon at  the direction  of the peace  officer, during                                                                    
     the duration of the contact;                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  described  this   as  the  section  of  law                                                               
requiring that  a person  notify a peace  officer that  they have                                                               
concealed  on their  person a  deadly weapon.   He  asked whether                                                               
this would apply to a fire  [prevention officer] in the field who                                                               
entered a person's land, or whether  it depends upon the scope of                                                               
duty of  that fire [protection  officer].  He explained  that the                                                               
committee would  like to understand  whether this  requirement of                                                               
notification to  a peace officer  would apply to the  Division of                                                               
Forestry [fire prevention officer].                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NELSON opined  that the  answer  to that  question turns  on                                                               
whether  fire  prevention  officers  fall  within  the  Title  11                                                               
definition of peace officer.   She advised that peace officer, as                                                               
described for  the purposes of  Title 11, means a  public servant                                                               
who is vested  by law with a duty to  maintain public order, make                                                               
arrests whether the  duty extends to all offenses,  or is limited                                                               
to a  specific class of  offenses or offenders.   Therefore, even                                                               
though that description  is located under Title  11, AS 11.81.900                                                               
read  that  those definitions  are  for  the purpose  this  title                                                               
unless  otherwise  specified  or   unless  the  context  requires                                                               
otherwise.  Fire  prevention officers would fall  under the scope                                                               
of both of  those definitions; however, they do  not have general                                                               
Title 11 enforcement authority, she advised.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:05:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   surmised  that   Representative                                                               
Kopp's  point of  order was  unnecessary because  such a  duty to                                                               
disclose does  not already exist.   He asked whether such  a duty                                                               
to disclose does not presently exist.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. NELSON responded  that in the 10-years she  has been advising                                                               
the  Division of  Forestry, she  was unsure  that issue  had ever                                                               
been researched.   She related a situation  where fire prevention                                                               
officers had gone to someone's  private property to investigate a                                                               
report that a  neighbor was burning, and the fire  appeared to be                                                               
uncontrolled and dangerous.  Those  officers, she noted, were met                                                               
at  the  bottom  of  the  driveway by  a  number  of  individuals                                                               
carrying loaded weapons,  and in that situation,  there was never                                                               
a question as  to whether those weapons would be  disclosed.  She                                                               
explained that  the fire prevention  officers are trained  to not                                                               
engage in  such situations, to  back off and avoid  the conflict,                                                               
and contact the Alaska State Troopers.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:07:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted to Representative  Kopp that prior to                                                               
this philosophical or  legal discussion as to  whether these fire                                                               
prevention officers  fall under  the definition of  peace officer                                                               
pursuant to Title 11, it  sounded like Representative Kopp wanted                                                               
to  make  sure that  the  existence  of  a concealed  weapon  was                                                               
disclosed.     For  example,  she   offered,  if   the  committee                                                               
determines that  the fire protection  officers do not  fall under                                                               
AS  11.61.220(a)(1)(A),  she  asked whether  Representative  Kopp                                                               
would like to  see that the existence of a  concealed weapon must                                                               
be  reported.   She further  asked whether  Representative Kopp's                                                               
rationale for  reporting the concealed  gun to peace  officers is                                                               
whether  they fall  enough  into the  peace  officer category  in                                                               
order to make sure someone reports their concealed weapon.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP stressed  that  he wants  to  make sure  the                                                               
committee  is not  undoing current  law.   Representative Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins  was  correct  in  asking   whether  this  amendment  was                                                               
redundant.   He pointed out  that he wants  to make sure  that if                                                               
these people are peace officers,  and the testifiers were unsure,                                                               
then he  does not want to  undo what the law  currently requires.                                                               
He  explained that  in the  event  they are  recognized as  peace                                                               
officers, the  current law read  that if  a person is  carrying a                                                               
concealed weapon  and contacted  by a  peace officer,  the person                                                               
must notify  the peace officer  of the concealed weapon  on their                                                               
person.  He stressed that that  is a very good officer safety law                                                               
that the legislature passed many  years ago to protect the safety                                                               
of peace  officers in the line  of duty.  He  related his concern                                                               
that in the event Amendment 2  undoes that law, if they are peace                                                               
officers,  this amendment  would actually  undo what  current law                                                               
requires.  He  reiterated that he wants to  understand the status                                                               
of fire protection  officers because he does  not support undoing                                                               
Alaska's current law.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:09:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  related   her   understanding  for   his                                                               
response, and offered a scenario  that "they decided that they --                                                               
that we  were just told that  these are not peace  officers under                                                               
AS 11, etc.,  would you want to see them  protected like that, or                                                               
not.   Or,  is  the big  thing the  definition  whether they  are                                                               
covered by  AS 11.?"   In the event  there is good  rationale for                                                               
making sure [the  peace officer is aware of  the concealed deadly                                                               
weapon], she  asked whether  it really  matters whether  they are                                                               
currently   covered  under   Title   11.     She  asked   whether                                                               
Representative Kopp would like to  see these folks covered or not                                                               
covered and commented  that she has a feeling that  when Title 11                                                               
was  passed, no  one had  considered  this issue  because no  one                                                               
currently knows the answer to this question.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  responded  that  he  is  not  favorable  to                                                               
expanding  the definition  of peace  officer beyond  current law.                                                               
He said he was  trying to get at what the  definition is in order                                                               
that  the committee  does not  unintentionally upend  current law                                                               
with  this amendment,  that  is a  whole  separate public  policy                                                               
question.  Once  the definition of peace officer  is expanded, he                                                               
advised, it gets  into all kinds of questions  about benefits and                                                               
it opens  a pandora's box.   It is important, he  expressed, that                                                               
the  committee  is  careful  on these  types  of  amendments  and                                                               
understands what is actually before the committee.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  advised  that  she did  not  believe  the                                                               
committee  had any  idea of  what was  before it  based upon  the                                                               
answers to the questions posed to the testifiers.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:12:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that when the police  are executing warrants,                                                               
they come wearing  big jackets with "POLICE" written  all over it                                                               
because they  do not people to  make no mistake.   He opined that                                                               
in the  somewhat narrow scenario  being discussed today,  say for                                                               
example, a fire  was taking place and a  fire protection officer,                                                               
a designated  peace officer  pursuant to Title  41, who  does not                                                               
look exactly like  a police officer because they  are not wearing                                                               
"POLICE" jackets and they are  not clearly identified as a public                                                               
safety officer  in the  traditional sense.   The  fire protection                                                               
officers wear  firefighting gear  and wildland  firefighting gear                                                               
and  if everyone  was running  around trying  to extinguish  that                                                               
fire, and someone  did not disclose in that  instance, he opined,                                                               
that based on  Ms. Nelson's testimony, the  person would unlikely                                                               
be charged.   He explained that if the person  was charged, their                                                               
defense  would  be that  they  had  no  idea  this was  a  police                                                               
officer,  and  that knowledge  about  whether  the person  was  a                                                               
police officer would be a  prerequisite to charging someone under                                                               
AS 11.61.220.  He opined  that the question being discussed today                                                               
is  whether the  committee wants  to weaken  the protections  the                                                               
state is trying  to provide for easily  identified and recognized                                                               
public safety  officers, or does  the committee want  to diminish                                                               
those protections in current law, or to maintain the status quo.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:14:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP noted  that  according  to testimony,  those                                                               
folks are either not authorized to  carry firearms or in fact, do                                                               
carry firearms.   It appears  there would be little  within which                                                               
to  identify the  folks  working for  the  Division of  Forestry,                                                               
other  than possibly  their wildland  firefighter grey  shirt and                                                               
green pants  or whatever is the  standard of duty.   He explained                                                               
that the  reason for the  notification requirement in the  law is                                                               
to  protect  readily  recognized uniformed  peace  officers  from                                                               
bodily injury harm  and allow them the ability to  know whether a                                                               
threat was present  or the possibility of an  elevated threat, to                                                               
keep  them safe.   He  stated that  this definition  is important                                                               
because if these  people were for all intents  and purposes peace                                                               
officers, he  would not want  to deny them that  same protection.                                                               
Although, he  advised, he has a  high doubt in his  mind that the                                                               
intent  of the  enactment  of  this statute  was  to extend  this                                                               
protection  to  these  types  of   folks,  but  the  question  is                                                               
unanswered in his mind.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:15:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS    agreed   with   Representative                                                               
LeDoux's  statement that  the  committee does  not  know what  is                                                               
before it,  and Ms. Nelson did  not appear to know  the answer to                                                               
his question  because it enters  an obscure realm.   In practice,                                                               
these  fire  protection officers  run  up  peoples' driveways  to                                                               
investigate  smoke  or  a  potential  fire  currently,  he  asked                                                               
whether  the Division  of Forestry  presently has  an expectation                                                               
that the  people they  encounter will  disclose whether  they are                                                               
carrying firearms.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH answered  that the Division of Forestry  does not have                                                               
that expectation,  and its officers  are noticeable  because they                                                               
arrive  in  a lime  green  truck  with flashing  lights,  wearing                                                               
yellow   firefighter  shirts,   helmets,  and   shoulder  patches                                                               
identifying them as a Division of Forestry firefighter.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN surmised  that the  Division of  Forestry does  not                                                               
expect their  folks to  be advised  that a  person is  carrying a                                                               
concealed weapon.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH stated, "We do not."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:17:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  opined that  this amendment is  trying to                                                               
preserve  that same  expectation  because this  bill expands  the                                                               
definition of  firefighter to encompass things  such as citations                                                               
that  are more  typically  thought  of as  police  officers.   He                                                               
opined that firefighters would like the  public to be clear as to                                                               
exactly what they are there to  do, that they are not the police.                                                               
He commented that just because  "we're given" the right to (audio                                                               
difficulties) he  did not  think that should  change the  way the                                                               
public will be looking at fire protection officers.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:19:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Eastman and LeDoux                                                               
voted in favor  of the adoption of Amendment  2.  Representatives                                                               
Reinbold, Kopp, Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins,  and Claman voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 2-                                                               
5.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[HB 355 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB355 ver J 3.14.18.PDF HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Supporting Document-Division of Forestry Letter 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Supporting Document-Officer for the Kenai Peninsula Borough Letter 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Opposing Document-Public Comment 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB075 ver D 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 2) 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fact Sheet 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 3) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 2) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Connecticut, Indiana, & Alaska Comparison Table 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Additional Document-Redington v. State 3.16.18.pdf HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-National Review Article - The Gun Violence Restraining Order, Responding to a Libertarian Critique 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Additional Document-Developments in Mental Health Law V36 Issue2 Summer2017 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB355 Amendments #1-10 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355