Several consequential pieces of legislation were advanced Wednesday in the Alabama Legislature, while others stalled. From a bill that would expedite the removal of those illegally occupying a dwelling, to a proposal that would impose a felony charge on medical examiners who retain organs during an autopsy, catch up on the latest action in the Alabama Legislature in our Legislative brief for March 20.
In second attempt, bill targeting squatters advances in committee
A bill that would expedite the process by which a property owner may have an individual removed from a dwelling saw unanimous approval Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 182, sponsored by Rep. Craig Lipscomb, R-Gadsden, give a property owner the ability to have an individual removed by law enforcement within 24 hours of signing a sworn affidavit.
Lipscomb said that the bill was designed to target squatters, individuals who take up residence in another person or entity’s dwelling. If done for a certain amount of time, squatting grants them ‘squatters’ rights.’
Such rights, which may entitle an individual to claim ownership of someone else’s dwelling after living on the property for a set amount of time, vary by state. In New York, for instance, squatters’ rights can be established in as little as 30 days, whereas in Alabama, such rights are established after 20 years of occupying a dwelling.
Lipscomb’s bill appeared in the House Judiciary Committee in February, but by the request of the committee’s chair, was sent to a sub-committee to address several concerns, including issues related to liability for law enforcement.
This time, Lipscomb introduced a substitute to his bill that he felt addressed those concerns.
“The substitute increases information required of the property owner in the affidavit to protect legitimate occupants, and requires an owner to provide a 24-hour notice,” Lipscomb said.
“The (substitute) also makes clear several crimes, including that filing a false affidavit by anyone is not only a crime, but also creates a civil cause of action.”
Committee approves measure to criminalize state medical examiners who retain organs during autopsies
The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would add more teeth to a state law pertaining to retaining organs during state-performed autopsies.
While existing Alabama prohibits medical examiners from retaining organs when performing autopsies, be it for research purposes or otherwise, the law carries no criminal penalties for violation. Doing so under House Bill 200, sponsored by Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, would instead constitute a Class C felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
The bill, England told Alabama Daily News, was in direct response to several incidents in which the bodies of deceased Alabama inmates have been returned to their families – after state-ordered and performed autopsies – with organs missing.
Those incidents continue to be litigated in court, particularly in the case of Audrey Dotson v. Alabama Department of Corrections, in which an Alabama inmate’s body was returned to their family without a heart. The University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences are also named in the lawsuit.
“The reason we put a penalty in it is to make sure that at these critical junctures, somebody who’s responsible says ‘have you notified the family, and do we have permission to do this?’” England told ADN.
“When it comes to the Department of Corrections in just about anything, they’re usually the most culpable and the least responsive. In this particular situation, I think that theme continues.”
Committee rejects effort to amend Alabama’s ‘proximate cause’ murder law
An effort to change Alabama’s felony murder law was rejected Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee, though its sponsor said he intends on continuing his efforts this legislative session in pushing for the proposal.
In writing the bill, its sponsor, Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said he was trying to improve fairness in the application of murder charges in the state by amending the state’s felony murder law, which allows for individuals to be charged with murder for the death of an individual they did not directly cause.
One notable application of Alabama’s felony murder law is in the case of LaKeith Smith, who at 15, was arrested and charged with murder after, having been discovered burglarizing an unoccupied home, his accomplice was shot and killed by police. Smith was sentenced to 65 years in prison, later reduced to 30, on the murder charge.
Under England’s bill, an exception would be created for the crime of murder for an individual were the person killed their accomplice, and their death not directly caused by the individual.
Rep. Ben Robbins, R-Sylacuaga, introduced during the committee meeting an amendment to the bill that would narrow its application, and exclude the exception for those in possession of a deadly weapon. Just one committee member, Rep. Matt Simpson, R-Daphne, voted against the amendment’s adoption.
When the bill as amended came up for a vote, however, the committee shot it down in a vote of 6-8.
England later told Alabama Daily News that he was hopeful there was still a path forward for the bill this year, but if not, he would continue advocating for its passage next year.
“As reflected in the amendment and the discussion around it, I think there is some ability to find a compromise and we’re just going to continue to work toward that,” England told ADN.
Simpson argued that the bill, even with its amendment, would strip the ability of a jury to make the ultimate decision as to when and under what circumstances an individual should be found guilty of murder.
“If somebody’s involved in a robbery or a serious offense, and someone dies as a result of it, I think the jury should be able to make the determination that felony murder applies,” Simpson told ADN.
New statewide health care system for veterans moves forward with new optimism
A proposal to create a new, statewide health care system for Alabama veterans with a focus on mental health passed out of a House committee Wednesday with a renewed sense of optimism when compared to its rocky rollout last week.
House Bill 197, sponsored by Rep. Chip Brown, R-Hollingers Island, was filed in February, much to the surprise of the boards of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs. Members of the ADVA boards suggested that the scope of the bill may exceed the capabilities of the agency, with one member describing the bill’s filing as “like a shotgun blast.”
Members of the ADVA State Board did, however, all support the intent of the bill – to expand and improve health care for veterans – and ultimately voted to engage in negotiation with the bills’ sponsors; Brown, and in the Senate, Sen. Andrew Jones, R-Centre.
“The purpose of this bill is to treat veterans; on the financial side, it’s not new expenditures, the money is there to do this,” Brown said. “I’d like to see it happen; we’ve got to take care of our veterans, those that put their lives on the line for us.”
The fiscal note on the bill says it will increase the department’s expenses “by a significant undetermined amount.”
In the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, the bill passed unanimously, and with no discussion, the entire meeting lasting less than ten minutes.
Beverly Gebhardt, deputy attorney general for the ADVA, told Alabama Daily News that both of the bills’ sponsors had been “very cooperative in talking with us,” that “both have a history of working with the agency,” and expressed optimism at the prospect of narrowing the bills’ scope.
Rep. Kenneth Paschal, R-Pelham, vice chair of the committee and U.S. Army veteran, said that while the bill still had some “details to be worked out,” he was optimistic on its prospects for success.
“This bill is about taking care of veterans, and I think as a state, we have an obligation and should always look at any opportunity to do a better job of taking care of our veterans and their families,” Paschal told ADN.
Last week, Kent Davis, commissioner for ADVA, while also praising the intent of the bills, said that he didn’t see the initial proposal as feasible. On Wednesday, however, he released a statement championing the effort, and said that he was “100% confident” that all parties would be able to work for a feasible solution.