Court Opinion

ID: 9569215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:11:33.550388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:37.906704
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
concurring.
In order to avoid the possibility that the dissent might engender some degree of confusion, I think it appropriate to summarize my understanding of the limited scope and effect of our decision in Beran v. State, 705 P.2d 1280 (Alaska App.1985), and in the present case.
*191In Beran, we held that, absent express legislative authorization, the Board of Fisheries was not empowered to create a strict liability offense punishable by criminal sanctions. We nonetheless concluded that the regulation challenged in that case could be enforced as a strict liability offense but only if punished exclusively by noncriminal penalties. We expressly left open the question of what penalties might be considered permissible. Beran, 705 P.2d at 1283-84 and n. 4.
Our decision today provides a partial answer to the question we left open in Beran: we hold only that, in the absence of more specific legislation, the challenged regulation, when enforced as a strict liability offense, is punishable under the provisions applicable to noncriminal violations under AS 12.55.035(b)(5).
We do not purport to restrict the legislature from adopting other, more stringent noncriminal penalty provisions. Nor do we restrict the state from invoking the full force of the sanctions already provided for under Title 16, by prosecuting violators for negligent, rather than innocent, acts. See Reynolds v. State, 655 P.2d 1313 (Alaska App.1982).