Latest news with #HousePublicSafetyandHomelandSecurityCommittee
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama bill would allow law enforcement to demand people remove medical masks in public
Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 8, 2024 in Montgomery, Alabama. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee approved his bill that allows law enforcement to demand that people remove their masks while in public. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee Wednesday approved a bill that gives law enforcement the power to demand that people remove their medical face masks in public so that they can be identified. HB 559, sponsored by Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville, allows people to wear a health care mask while in public without being charged with loitering, but allows law enforcement to demand that people show them a note from their medical provider to not spread an infection during a protest. It also allows law enforcement to demand that people remove their masks so that they can be identified. 'If there is not a reason to wear the mask in a public place, this also deals with universities, then there needs to be an excuse for wearing that mask,' Kiel said to members of the committee. 'Instead of just wearing a mask in a place where there may be, like a parade for instance, it is not a masquerade mask, then this would allow law enforcement to request to remove the mask unless they have a medical reason.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX According to the bill, Alabama statute states that people can be charged with loitering if they remain in a public place to panhandle, gamble and to solicit prostitution, and if they remain in a transportation facility for commercial purposes. They can also be charged with loitering if they wear a mask while in a public space or stay on the grounds of the university or college after they are told to leave by officials with the school and who are not connected with the university in some way. People can be charged with a violation if they are charged with loitering for the first time, but they may be charged with a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. The legislation Kiel filed exempts people from getting charged with loitering during times they are wearing a mask while in public, such as a protest or a parade, but they must demonstrate to law enforcement that they have legitimate medical reason. 'If I want to wear my mask for safety procedures, I have to get a doctor's order just for me to stand out (there), or just for the three of us gathering together,' said Tashina Morris, D-Montgomery. Republicans on the committee allows law enforcement to identify people who stay in a public place, such as a protest on school grounds for example, in case any incidents occur, and that university and college officials agree with the measure. 'The only thing we are trying to do is when we are having a situation on campuses where we have some folks who are coming to protest,' said Porter Bannister, vice chancellor for state affairs with the University of Alabama system. 'They may or may not be students. They are telling our police officers, 'No, I will not take off my mask' when we ask them for identification. That is all we are trying to do.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama House committee approves bill criminalizing interference with first responders
Rep. Allen Treadaway, R-Morris, speaks in the Alabama House of Representatives on May 8, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery. A House committee Wednesday approved legislation sponsored by Treadaway that makes it a crime to interfere with first responders. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) An Alabama House committee Wednesday approved legislation to make it a crime to interfere with first responders working a scene after the sponsor removed language that critics said violated free speech rights. HB 224, sponsored by Rep. Allen Treadaway, R-Morris, makes it a misdemeanor to loiter within 25 feet of a first responder after getting told to leave the scene or to interfere with either paramedics or law enforcement who were dispatched to the area. 'We are seeing more and more of this,' Treadaway told the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. 'Since I left four years ago a lot of this, when I was policing, we did not see.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX As originally filed, the bill included language that potentially criminalized people for verbally harassing or directing abusive language at first responders. A substitute that Treadaway filed removed that section and required first responders to instruct people not to approach or leave the scene. If they refuse or return after they are told to leave, and remain within 25 feet of the first responder, they are then subject to arrest if they interfere with first responders while they are working a scene, or if they threaten them. Those who violate the provisions in the bill are subject to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The radius for the crime was originally 100 feet. The substitute changed it to 25 feet. The original version also stated that those who loiter within 25 feet of a first responder after they were told to leave and interfere in the situation or make disparaging verbal comments or abusive language could then be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. The language was removed. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee considered the legislation after the committee hosted a public hearing in March prior to the spring recess. Some still had concerns with the limit pertaining to distance. 'Is there anything that is going to tell the community that they are going to have to stay back 25 feet?' asked Rep. Tashina Morris, D-Montgomery. Treadaway said that officers are trained to move a crowd back from a scene further than 25 feet and make it clear they cannot move any closer. 'We have this whole court system in our country that allows redress,' Treadaway said. He said that individuals can use the court system to challenge the actions of law enforcement. 'If the officer is doing his job, he is videotaping everything, he is not going to put someone in jail that he has got to go before a judge,' Treadaway said. 'We have this whole court system in this country that allows redress, so if you feel like you want to challenge it, just like a ticket, that is what we have a court for. Either you can pay for your ticket, or you can argue your case. An officer feels the same way.' The bill moves to the full House. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama House committee approves bills expanding police powers
A close-up of police lights. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee passed several bills that expand police powers in Alabama. (Getty) The Alabama House Public Safety and Homeland Security committee last week approved a series of measures giving law enforcement additional powers over objections from Democrats about potential abuse. The three bills passed on Wednesday allow police and sheriffs' deputies to confiscate vehicles of those who drive without their driver's licenses; require residents to divulge personal information while being questioned by law enforcement; and allows law enforcement to detain people for up to 24 hours on charges of resisting arrest. Democrats expressed concerns with all the measures. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'You got some hot-headed officers out there, and they demand too much for being a police officer in blue,' said Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville. HB 296, sponsored by Rep. Chris Sells, R-Greenville, allows law enforcement to hold people charged with resisting arrest for up to a day. The three-page legislation offered few changes to the law except for adding the detention section. 'It is a growing problem, local law enforcement asked me to bring this,' Sells said. 'It is getting to be more of a problem with people resisting arrest.' HB 34, sponsored by Rep. Ron Bolton, R-Northport, makes it unlawful for a person questioned by police in public to give a false date of birth to law enforcement when asked. It is currently illegal to provide a false name and address to law enforcement when asked. HB 34 adds a person's birth date to the information that law enforcement can demand from people they encounter. People who provide a false name, address or date of birth could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000. In addition, Bolton's legislation also makes it a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine, for a person to 'knowingly refuse to give the law enforcement officer his or her name, address, date of birth, and an explanation of his or her actions.' 'The requirement to provide a person's identification doesn't cross over into the Miranda guidelines,' Bolton said. 'When they start questioning them, asking them specific questions, it does, but simply identifying themselves is not covered by Miranda.' HB 304, sponsored by Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville, allows law enforcement to impound people's vehicles if their driver's licenses were revoked, suspended or expired for more than 180 days. It also establishes several fines and fees. For people with driver's licenses from another state that are not valid, law enforcement may levy a fine of $100 to $500 for the infraction, and $50 in court costs. The person's driving privileges may also be suspended for an additional six months. Money from the fines and fees goes to the Traffic Safety Trust Fund, the Peace Officers' Standards and Training Fund and the police or sheriff's department that made the arrest. Democrats on the committee said the bills amounted to overreach. 'There is an issue between policing and community in this state, and in the nation, what we are doing is making it even worse by passing these types of bills,' Jackson said. Rep. Jeremy Gray, D-Opelika, said that the bills expand police powers to the point that it infringes on the public's rights. 'What right does the citizen have in this whole thing?' Gray said. 'It seems like you are giving law enforcement a lot of autonomy to do whatever they want. If I am a citizen, and I am not doing anything … what rights do I have as a citizen with this bill?' Rep. Tim Wadsworth, R-Arley, was the lone Republican on the committee to express any concerns with any of the legislation. 'By doing this bill, what we are going to end up doing is put people in a place where they are going to lose their vehicle and they will end up losing their job, even losing their house as a result of this,' he said. 'I have been involved where, if you don't put a $2 ticket in, they tow your vehicle and charge you $200. With all these fees, once you get into the system, you can't get it back.' Lawmakers are also considering legislation that gives police and deputies, as well as corrections officers and tactical medics, enhanced protection against criminal prosecutions and civil litigation that people may file for alleged misconduct. Republican lawmakers decided to make crime their top priority for the 2025 legislative session after Gov. Kay Ivey announced in a news conference that she is supporting several bills aimed at addressing public safety, particularly violent crime. Many of the proposals she wants to adopt focus on enhancing police powers, from providing additional benefits and legal protections to assist with recruitment and retention to enhancing penalties for specific crimes that could exacerbate prison overcrowding. Democrats have proposed a series of measures, including bills to make possession of Glock switches — which rapidly increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons — a state crime, and require safe storage of firearms in homes with children. Thus far, the Republican supermajority has stalled the bills sponsored by Democrats. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee has rejected the safe storage measure. A Republican-version of the Glock switch ban is expected to be in committee on Wednesday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama legislators elevate guns over children. Again.
Pistols are displayed in a New Jersey gun shop on Feb. 11, 2023. An Alabama House committee last week rejected a bill that would have required parents to secure firearms in households with children present. (Aristide Economopoulos for New Jersey Monitor) The leading cause of preventable death for Alabama children is guns. Let me say that again in active voice. Guns kill Alabama kids more than anything else we can prevent. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX And we refuse to act. Our lawmakers treat these dangerous weapons as props and charms. They pose with them in campaign ads, where they cosplay as hunters and militia members. It's all part of the deadly fantasy that justice comes from a gun and not the law or the courts. It leads to the fatal delusion that every American — no matter their inexperience or lack of training — can be trusted with a firearm. That's led to Alabama lawmakers hauling down basic gun safety laws, making a state with an unacceptably high rate of firearm deaths even more dangerous. We can start addressing the problem by keeping devices created to kill out of irresponsible hands. But we don't. And each year, thousands of Alabamians pay the price for this foolishness. Sometimes I let myself hope legislators are waking up to this reality. But then they manage to find a way back into their fantasies. On Wednesday, the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee rejected a bill from Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, that would have taken a small step toward addressing gun deaths in our state. HB 103 would have subjected the parents or guardians of children who bring unauthorized firearms to a public school to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine. It was, in effect, a safe storage bill. Under the legislation, a gun owner with children would have to keep their firearm secured, either with a trigger lock or in some sort of secure container. That's something the American Association of Pediatrics supports, not only because it will prevent accidental deaths, but also because it will substantially cut the risk of suicide attempts with firearms. Guns account for about 70% of all suicide deaths in Alabama. You can plausibly ask how the law would be enforced. My own sense is that having this penalty in place will encourage parents to invest in devices keeping their guns away from their children. But that wasn't the stated reason Republicans rejected Drummond's bill. Rep. Ginny Shaver, R-Leesburg, a member of the committee, said she was concerned that the measure 'applies a criminal offense based on another person's actions.' This is a reasonable objection. But then I remember the Alabama Senate was considering a bill earlier this month that would have imposed criminal penalties on those providing aid or transportation to a person without legal status. Fine to punish aid to the stranger. But sanctions for letting a child get a hold of a firearm? That's an assault on freedom. Perhaps Republicans didn't want to advance a bill brought by a Democrat. Or maybe appeasing the gun lobby matters matters more than fixing this deadly status quo. If they have legitimate concerns about the penalties in Drummond's bill, then they should bring their own. Make it impossible to buy a firearm without buying some device to secure it. Put the onus on the gun owner. There are some GOP proposals that could inch toward safety. The House last week passed HB 216, sponsored by Rep. Russell Bedsole, R-Alabaster. The bill would allow gun dealers to participate in a program allowing the voluntary surrender of firearms without fear of lawsuits. The Senate on Thursday approved a similar measure from Sen. Keith Kelley, R-Anniston. Neither bill is a red flag law, where a court can order the seizure of firearms from a person who appears to be a threat to themselves or other people. Both count on a person who owns a firearm recognizing that he or she might do harm and acting before that happens. Now, I admire a person who can tell that they can't be trusted with a gun. Unfortunately, such foresight is rare. And if you're trying to intervene on behalf of a spouse, a child or a parent, you're out of luck. So it doesn't seem like the legislation be effective. The bills won't be useless. Even a voluntary program will save someone's life. But it's hardly what's needed in a state with a higher firearm death total than New York State. Which is four times bigger than Alabama. It's very hard to take the Legislature's push for 'public safety' seriously when they treat the single-worst threat to law and order — the firearm — as some kind of fixed and blameless object. Taking the firearm off that pedestal would go a long way toward saving lives in this state. But we can't have that. To legislators, the gun is higher and holier than anything else in Alabama. And its sanctity must be preserved. Even if children needlessly die. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama House committee rejects bill making parents liable when children bring guns to school
Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, speaks during a debate in the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. A House committee rejected a bill sponsored by Drummond that would have imposed criminal penalties on parents of children who bring unauthorized firearms to school. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) Lawmakers Wednesday halted a bill that could have made parents and guardians who don't secure their firearms criminally liable if their children bring those guns to school. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee rejected HB 103, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, that would have subjected parents to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine if their child brings an unauthorized firearm to school. 'I want you to know that this is not anti-gun bill or a gun control bill,' she said to members of the committee. 'This is a pro-parenting and pro-schools bill to help us prevent children from bringing their parents' guns to school campuses.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Drummond introduced the legislation after she noticed an increasing number of incidents in which children brought firearms to school. The bill would require parents to attach a trigger lock device to a gun or storing the firearm in a lock box that requires a key or some kind of combination to unlock. This is the third consecutive year that Drummond introduced legislation that held parents responsible should their children gain access to their firearm and subsequently bring the weapon to school with them. The 2023 version of her legislation made it a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000, for someone to have a firearm after they were convicted of a violence offense or had a protection order because of domestic abuse. That version also had a section that made it a Class A misdemeanor for minors, or those with a drug or alcohol addiction, to have a firearm. Parents could also be convicted of a Class C felony if they fail to safely secure their firearms, and their children bring the weapon to school. In 2024, Drummond downgraded the punishment to a Class A misdemeanor if parents fail to secure their firearms and their children bring it to school. It also left in place the other elements pertaining to people who had been convicted of a violent offense, along with punishing minors and people with an addiction to alcohol and drugs. In the most recent version, Drummond stripped the bill down to criminal liability for parents who fail to secure their firearms. The bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee last year. Democrats on the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee unanimously voted in favor of the legislation, but Drummond failed to get enough support from Republicans. 'My basic opposition to this particular bill is that it applies a criminal offense based on another person's actions,' said Rep. Ginny Shaver, R-Leesburg. 'No matter what you do, if the child does take a gun to school, that person's action is then going to trigger a criminal penalty on someone else.' Drummond then warned her colleagues of the potential consequences after members voted against her proposal. 'I hope none of our children die as a result,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
