Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1995-02-27 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1995-02-27 House Journal Page 0493 HB 203 HOUSE BILL NO. 203 by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor, entitled: "An Act relating to the meaning of the phrase "previously convicted" as that phrase applies to the operation of a motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated." was read the first time and referred to the Transportation and Judiciary Committees. 1995-02-27 House Journal Page 0494 HB 203 The following fiscal notes apply: Zero fiscal notes (2), Dept. of Administration, 2/27/95 Zero fiscal note, Dept. of Corrections, 2/27/95 Zero fiscal note, Dept. of Law, 2/27/95 Zero fiscal note, Dept. of Public Safety, 2/27/95 The Governor's transmittal letter, dated February 27, 1995, appears below: "Dear Speaker Phillips: Under the authority of art. III, sec. 18, of the Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill relating to the meaning of the phrase "previously convicted" for purposes of this state's driving while intoxicated (DWI) laws. Alaska law tries to discourage repeat offenders by treating them more harshly than first offenders. In keeping with this public policy, the mandatory minimum sentences for second, third, and subsequent drunk driving offenses require more jail time, higher fines, and longer revocations of driving privileges. A repeat DWI offender also is subject to forfeiture of the vehicle or aircraft involved in the commission of the offense, and is precluded from being granted limited license privileges during the time that person's driver's license is revoked. In Burnette v. Municipality of Anchorage, 823 P.2d 10 (Alaska App. 1991), an Alaska court held that a defendant who had a prior DWI conviction from Oregon was not subject to Alaska's enhanced mandatory minimum sentence for second offenses because Oregon's DWI law was less restrictive than Alaska's law. In Oregon, and many other states, a person is presumed intoxicated if there is more than .08 percent by weight of alcohol in the person's blood (BAC). Alaska still uses the .10 percent BAC standard. Because it is possible for a person in Oregon or one of these other states to be convicted of drunk driving with a lower BAC than that required in Alaska, our courts have held that convictions from these states cannot be counted when deciding what is the proper mandatory minimum sentence to impose. This result occurs even if the court records from the other state show that the person's BAC was not .08 or .09 percent, but was actually .10 percent or higher at the time of the offense. 1995-02-27 House Journal Page 0495 HB 203 This is not fair. A person who has been convicted of drunk driving in one state should be treated like a repeat offender when convicted of drunk driving in another state. The person should not be treated like a first offender over and over again because of technical differences between the states' laws. Drunk drivers are dangerous and need to be kept off of our roads. This bill will help do that. It amends DWI-related provisions in AS28 to make clear that the phrase "previously convicted" includes a conviction under a law of another state even if that law allows conviction with a lower BAC level than that used in Alaska. Whether another state's law allows a DWI conviction for .08 or .09 BAC levels, it is still a conviction for drunk driving and it should count as one. I urge your favorable action on this bill. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor"