Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/15/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB56 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 101-UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS 9:15:14 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 101, "An Act relating to uniform traffic laws." The committee took an at-ease from 9:15 a.m. to 9:22 a.m. 9:22:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that ignition interlock law was a way to get drunk drivers from getting in the car. However, the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) doesn't want to enforce it and thus HB 101 would address that by inserting language "or enforce" to AS 28.01.010(a). This change would specify that the uniform traffic laws apply statewide and municipalities don't have the right to exempt themselves from the uniform traffic laws. He then referred to the October 30, 2006, memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research Services, which relates: "The legislature has provided the traffic laws of the state shall be uniform throughout the state and shall apply within all municipalities of the state." Therefore, municipalities aren't allowed to not enforce the uniform traffic laws. 9:27:27 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH opined that MOA is relating in the aforementioned memorandum that the court has upheld its need not to comply. Therefore, she questioned whether this proposed language change really makes it clear to the court system that the municipality needs to comply. She related her guess that perhaps the municipality believes it has a liability if it complied with this traffic law. She noted her agreement that it's irrelevant whether the municipality wants to comply or not. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that he would think MOA would be worried about not enforcing this law based on the thought that the municipality could be sued by a person who was injured by a drunk driver driving with a previous driving under the influence conviction and should have been required to have an interlock device. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if there is any documentation from the court case or the opinion relating why the language was determined to be such that MOA doesn't have to comply with this law. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO deferred to Mr. Luckhaupt, Legislative Legal and Research Services. 9:30:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM inquired as to whether anyone from MOA or the Anchorage Police Department is available to discuss the situation. 9:32:29 AM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said that he isn't privy to why Anchorage [law enforcement] isn't willing to enforce this law. However, Lieutenant Dial said that DPS understands the intent of this legislation and supports passage as a means to ensure consistency in the application of traffic law throughout the state. Lieutenant Dial related that DPS does see a problem with regard to local municipalities interpreting laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the original law. He opined that he could only speculate that MOA viewed the original law as an unfunded mandate and decided to opt-out of its enforcement. 9:33:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM mentioned that she didn't have a fiscal note, and therefore she called upon the sponsor to comment. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO deferred to his staff. 9:34:15 AM CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that MOA's deputy attorney, John McConnaughy, believes that the law was onerous and confusing and that MOA could choose not to adopt municipal code, and therefore not enforce these specific provisions. However, that's not the case as the organized and unorganized areas of the state have to have traffic code that's consistent with state law. This legislation proposes a simple language change to make the aforementioned extremely clear. 9:36:14 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH said she still wasn't clear why MOA isn't enforcing the law. Co-Chair Fairclough related her agreement that MOA should enforce the law, but she said she wasn't sure how two words will change the situation. She opined that it would be most relevant to contact MOA regarding what it feels is inconsistent in the message of the legislature through this law. She then expressed concern that no representatives from MOA are available today to discuss the situation. 9:37:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO informed the committee that he has surmised that the difficulties of having a vendor of these ignition interlock devices in Southcentral has complicated MOA's ability, as a condition of sentencing, to order the installation of an ignition interlock device. The situation becomes more complicated for areas outside of the area where the vendor/technician is located. MR. RICE said that there is at least one vendor in the state and two to three others who are permitted, but aren't operating because of the low volume. The low volume is attributable to the fact that the largest community in the state is choosing not to enforce the current law. 9:40:43 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opined that currently, with no law change required, MOA is required to enforce this traffic law. Therefore, she questioned why the language change in HB 101 will change the situation. She emphasized the need to do something that will actually solve the problem. MR. RICE related his belief that the proposed language in HB 101 makes it clearer. Furthermore, HB 101 makes it clear that choosing not to adopt municipal code consistent with new state law and maintaining the old law isn't consistent with statute. With respect to MOA's position, Mr. Rice said that in conversations with Mr. McConnaughy he understands that MOA feels that the language of the original law isn't how it would've preferred the language be drafted. Therefore, MOA made a conscious decision not to enact municipal code consistent with state law. 9:43:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned whether the cost of each of these ignition interlock devices could be viewed as an unfunded mandate. MR. RICE pointed out that the cost of the devices is borne by the offender. The cost, he related, averages approximately $3 per day. In cases of need, the cost can be deducted from the fines assessed by the court. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that as a condition of sentencing the offender is fined $2,000 with $300 relieved to be utilized to obtain the ignition interlock device. Therefore, there would be no additional cost for obtaining the device. 9:44:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed difficulty with the state telling communities what to do regardless of the communities' thoughts or situation. He further expressed concern with regard to smaller municipalities who can't afford to enforce this law and asked if his understanding that some smaller municipalities can opt-out of this law is correct. MR. RICE clarified that the uniform traffic law is to be implemented statewide. However, he acknowledged under state law that in communities "with traffic volumes of less than 499 cars a day for individuals who have had not had six points or more removed from their license within the last five years" can be exempted from insurance requirements. Therefore, although there are variances across the state, they are consistent with state law. This legislation, HB 101, attempts to reach compliance and consistency, he said. 9:49:38 AM JOHN MCCONNAUGHY, Deputy Anchorage Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage, confirmed that MOA isn't requiring an ignition interlock device when there is a violation of the municipal ordinance. The current law has been interpreted by Anchorage judges to specifically require a violation of state law AS 28.35.030(r). CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if those are written decisions by the state court. MR. MCCONNAUGHY said he didn't know. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX then asked if MOA would enforce the state law if HB 101 passes or would MOA argue that it still wouldn't be required to enforce it because people are being charged under a municipal ordinance. MR. MCCONNAUGHY said that municipal ordinances are already required by law to be consistent with state law. He deferred to the courts regarding whether they would consider the particular language of the statute as something that would be required to be incorporated into a municipal ordinance and further how the law would have to be enforced. Mr. McConnaughy clarified that the municipality isn't opposed to the use of ignition interlock devices or unwilling to require them. 9:53:40 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned what it will take for MOA to start requiring the use of ignition interlock devices. MR. MCCONNAUGHY opined that there are some difficulties with the current language of [AS 28.35.030(r)] that would likely create legal problems for MOA or any other entity enforcing it. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux, the provision's language: "if it's to be determined by the trier of fact" is troubling because normally "the trier of fact" refers to the jury. Therefore, the provisions assume that the jury will make a determination that the breath test result was at least .16 percent or more or .24 percent or more. However, that's problematic because the breath test submitted to a jury isn't upon which the jury actually rules. Rather, the jury makes a determination as to whether an individual is under the influence of an intoxicating beverage. There are a couple of different definitions of "under the influence," which are found in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of [AS 28.35.030]. Those are considered to be theories of intoxication. Under case law, the jury doesn't have to reach the result and conclude beyond a reasonable a doubt that the result is over .16 or .24; but rather that under one of the two theories that the defendant is intoxicated. Furthermore, the jury doesn't have to come to a unanimous decision on that particular determination. Mr. McConnaughy summarized that the statute seems inconsistent with the way the law works. 9:58:01 AM MR. MCCONNAUGHY, in response to Co-Chair LeDoux, agreed to provide written remarks on this matter. He then related his belief that [the ignition interlock device requirement] be imposed as a requirement when someone receives his/her license back by the Division of Motor Vehicles. 9:59:08 AM MR. RICE maintained that the issue at hand is the refusal of MOA to address existing statute. He then related that the sponsor would be happy to work on making the statutes more amenable to MOA. In the meantime, however, the problem of who has the authority to choose when to enforce and not to enforce state law [must be addressed]. 9:59:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON related his understanding that HB 101 has been introduced for one month and MOA hasn't provided comment on the legislation. MR. RICE replied yes, adding his recollection that when the original ignition interlock legislation was passed, MOA didn't provide comments either. 10:00:09 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the sponsor would join herself and Co-Chair LeDoux to generate a letter to the Anchorage Assembly that the administration of Anchorage is choosing not to enforce state law. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed to do so. [HB 101 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|