Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/08/1995 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 21
"An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license
for illegal possession or use of a controlled substance
or illegal possession or consumption of alcohol by a
person at least 13 but not yet 21 years of age; and
5
providing for an effective date."
Ms. Coggins testified in support of HB 21 stating that the
law should be amended to include municipal ordinance as well
as State law.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-42, Side 2).
Ms. Coggins noted that HB 21 would fix a loophole in a law
passed last year. Under the bill which passed last year,
the administrative license revocation could only occur when
there was a violations of the pertinent state law. She
added, in practice, municipalities such as Anchorage or
Fairbanks, often arrest or cite under municipal ordinances.
HB 21 would amend that bill to include violation under
municipal ordinance as well.
Ms. Coggins advised that the bill had been amended in the
House Judiciary Committee at the recommendation of the
Department of Law. It would eliminate "personal
observation" replacing it with "probable cause"; she felt
that would be sufficient. Ms. Coggins added that "probable
cause" would be the same standard used for minor consuming
and driving while under the influence.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #1.
[Attachment #2]. Representative Brown OBJECTED for the
purpose of discussion. Ms. Coggins stated that Amendment #1
would pertain to the court revocation license addressed on
Page 3. It would add to the current charge of using drugs
and alcohol, the additional offense of possession of a
firearm punishable under the municipal ordinance. She
advised that the Department of Law has requested inclusion
of that language.
MICHAEL FORD, ATTORNEY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES,
responded to concerns of Representative Martin. He advised
that the person making the arrest would not be the person
who decides if the license should be revoked. There would
be a "due process" in order to revoke the license.
Representative Therriault questioned the "double jeopardy"
use. Mr. Ford explained that there would not be a "double
jeopardy" problem because there would be separate interests,
which would result in a portion of the penalty for
committing the offense. Discussion followed among Committee
members regarding "punitive" action.
Mr. Ford reminded Committee members that cases which have
challenged the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) laws are not
recent. Representative Brown pointed out that the new court
ruling has changed the approach without penalties being as
6
severe. Mr. Ford expounded that the question would be:
"What is the license", is it a privilege or is it a property
right. He understood it to be a privilege.
Co-Chair Hanley commented that the intention of the
legislation would be to create a consistency in and
expansion of current law.
MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
testified that there are two issues involved with the "Use
It-Lose It" motor vehicle related offenses as compared to
other offenses such as minor consuming, drugs or expansion
of weapon offense. The weapon offense only would occur
after there had been a court adjudication or conviction for
the offense. She insisted there would be no double jeopardy
results in any of the court revocations. That argument
could exist if there was an administrative revocation first;
a situation currently occuring for DWI offenses.
Ms. Knuth noted that the municipalities have requested the
proposed legislation in order to have the same footing as
the State. She emphasized the success of the "Use It-Lose
It" policy, indicating that it would encourage guns to be
kept off playgrounds more strongly than any other policy.
Ms. Knuth stated that the Department knows that Amendment #1
would be beneficial to the State.
Representative Martin questioned the responsibility of the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Ms. Knuth reported that
DMV would hold the hearing. If they found that the facts
were accurate, they would revoke the license. There would
then be only one penalty. Co-Chair Foster noted concern on
how the law would affect village areas where adolescents
commonly possess firearms. Ms. Knuth stated that firearms
can not be sold to a person under a certain age, although
they can legally possess them with parental consent.
Representative Grussendorf disagreed with the zero fiscal
impact of the proposed legislation. Ms. Knuth replied, the
agency most impacted would be the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), Division of Motor Vehicles. She added, there
will be no extra court hearings resulting from the proposed
legislation. Representative Brown pointed out that DMV had
not submitted a fiscal note to date. Ms. Coggins noted her
office had received a verbal affirmation from DMV.
Ms. Knuth advised that there were two different laws
regarding the weapons on school grounds. If a person
violates a restraining order, and takes a gun on school
grounds, it would be a Class B felony. Most of the time, it
would be a Class B misdemeanor for someone to have a firearm
7
or defensive weapon within the grounds of a parking lot next
to a school. In Alaska, it is required that a minor under
sixteen years of age have the consent of a parent or
guardian to possess a fire arm. Firearms can not be taken
on school grounds at any time. Ms. Knuth reiterated that
the conviction would only apply if there was a conviction or
adjudication.
Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment #1.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Parnell, Therriault, Brown,
Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley.
OPPOSED: Martin, Foster.
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Hanley OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. Representative
Brown explained that Amendment #3 would provide education or
rehabilitation treatment programs for reissuance of a
driver's license.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-43, Side 1).
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF, DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, commented that Barrow
had not applied to the Department for approval of their
alcohol and drug program, as part of the traffic safety
program. She pointed out, that to implement a program as
recommended in Amendment #2, would require screening and
then the determination would be made if rehabilitation
should be required. She agreed that the language was broad
enough to include education.
Ms. Hensley stated in rural Alaska the screening would be
performed through participation in the drug and alcohol
programs. In a municipality, the screening would be
provided by the city's department of health and social
services. She explained that DMV had no objection to the
amendment. There being NO FURTHER OBJECTIONS, Amendment #2
was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Hanley OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative
Brown explained the amendment would delete the words "to
believe" and insert "and based on personal observation".
She asked Ms. Knuth the standard of probable cause used in
order "to believe" if not based on personal observation.
8
Ms. Knuth responded that if evidence provides probable cause
to believe that the minor has consumed alcohol in violation
of state law, that would be sufficient. The defense would
try to understand when the offense occurs; if it is only
when the minor is consuming or after intoxicated, they would
be in possession by consumption. Some courts hold that a
minor who has already consumed the alcohol, the consumption
is over. If the law is interpreted that way, a minor could
be arrested for minor consuming, go to court, receive a
conviction but "Use It-Lose It" would not apply.
Representative Grussendorf voiced concern with the proposed
language "to believe"; he explained that often times that
language could be used in unfair treatment of the minor. He
thought that the standards should be decreased and that the
information would be nebulous. Ms. Knuth stated that
"probable cause to believe" has been defined by the courts
to mean that there are uncontradicted facts that would prove
without reasonable doubt the truth. She stressed that it
would be required to present facts of the case. "To
believe" means to accept evidence without a reasonable
doubt. "To believe" would not be a reduction of the current
standard. It is the standard used for felony and murder
convictions.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf.
OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Hanley.
Representatives Mulder, Navarre and Foster were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-6).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4.
Representative Parnell OBJECTED. He reminded Representative
Brown of a mutual agreement to eliminate the "findings" of
all future legislation. Representative Brown emphasized
that the amendment would bring to the attention of the
Committee the importance of dealing with alcohol and the
alcohol abuse by minors in ways which will have an effect on
consumption. Following discussion among Committee members
on the importance of an alcohol tax, Representative Brown
WITHDREW the motion to adopt Amendment #4. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #5. Co-Chair
Hanley OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. Representative
Brown noted that the amendment would define the intent to
9
spend program receipts generated from reinstatement fees.
The amendment would place half of the fees into the
Department of Public Safety and the remaining half into the
Department of Health and Social Services for alcohol and
drug abuse prevention. Representative Brown pointed out
that the proposal was recommended by the Drug and Alcohol
Task Force report, 3/17/94.
Ms. Hensley commented that the legislation passed last year
generated $622 thousand dollars of new program receipt
revenue coming into the State from reinstatement fees and
driver license fees. The same revenue continues to be
generated. She pointed out that last year the House passed
intent language that receipts be divided between the two
departments. The Senate did not pass that Letter of Intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY stated that she did not object
to Amendment #5. Co-Chair Hanley requested that Amendment
Brown agreed.
Representative Mulder MOVED CS HB 21 (FIN) out of Committee
with the House Finance Letter of Intent and the accompanying
fiscal notes. Representative Brown commented on the absence
of a fiscal note by the Division of Motor Vehicles. Ms.
Hensley stated that there was a fiscal note attached to last
years legislation. That fiscal note was reduced in
Conference Committee last year by $70 thousand dollars, and
that impact was more than estimated by the Department. She
offered to provide a fiscal note to the Committee.
Representative Brown presumed that Amendment #1 would impact
the workload of DMV. Ms. Hensley pointed out the similar
language in AS 28.15.185 which provides for adjudication of
juvenile defense. Since 1988, there have been thirteen
cases of adjudication, although since July 1, 1994, there
have been 918 cases in which the drivers license was
revoked. Juveniles continue to be arrested although those
cases have not increased from the estimation.
There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION, CS HB 116 was reported out
of Committee with a "no recommendation", a House Finance
Letter of Intent and a zero fiscal notes by the Department
of Administration, the Department of Public Safety, the
Department of Health and Social Services dated 2/10/95, the
Alaska State Troopers dated 2/10/95 and the Department of
Law dated 2/10/95.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|