Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/23/1994 08:35 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 299 An Act relating to education programs on consumption of alcohol and to revocation of a driver's license for illegal consumption of alcohol; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 299 was reported out of Committee with "no recommendations" and a House Finance Committee Letter of Intent with a fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law dated 3/09/94. HOUSE BILL 299 "An Act relating to education programs on consumption of alcohol and to revocation of a driver's license for illegal consumption of alcohol; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY advised that HB 299 is referred to as "Use it-Lose It" legislation stating that dangerous association of controlled substances and alcohol 1 or controlled substances cause a reduction of mental and physical capabilities and can severely impair one's ability to drive in a responsible manner. HB 299 would provide the Department of Public Safety a tool to help discourage youth from starting the dangerous and often fatal association of controlled substances and alcohol with driving. Under HB 299, a minor who is old enough to have either a permit or license to drive would lose that license, permit or privilege if the said minor possessed, used, or consumed a controlled substance or alcohol. Revocation would be through administrative proceedings. Co-Chair MacLean questioned the cost for first time offenders. Representative Toohey noted there would be a ninety (90) day revocation and a $250 dollar charge. JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, reiterated that the legislation would provide an administrative revocation and the cost would be $250 dollar reinstatement fee and loss of the license for ninety (90) days for first time offenders. No civil fine would be assessed. Treatment would be paid for individually and would be required through an action taken by DFYS or through the Court System. The legislation would exempt the offender from the requirement to purchase special insurance. Representative Parnell asked the constitutional reason for including the "findings" section to the legislation. MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, replied that there is not a constitutional requirement that the "findings" be included, although in some legislation these sections help to clarify existing law. Representative Toohey added that the "findings" section would lay the ground work for the proposed legislation. Representative Grussendorf noted his concern with the authority granted to "peace officers" as referenced on Page 2, Line 5. Ms. Knuth pointed out that a right to appeal would be available to the offender. Initial action taken by a peace officer would be the same in any case, although there will be an administrative procedure and that a neutral person would act on behalf of the Executive Branch in a quasi judicial function. She added that there are many process rights which accompany judicial proceedings and which would provide safe guards within the system. Co-Chair MacLean asked what evidence would be used to establish guilt. Ms. Knuth explained that DMV would need 2 testimony or an affidavit from the peace officer describing their observation of how the offense was committed. Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the "evidence of guilt". Representative Brown referenced Page 2, Line 5, noting her concern that through the proposed legislation "due process" would not be provided to young people. She disagreed that a young person should be cited upon the word of one peace officer. Representative Parnell MOVED Amendment #1 which would delete the "findings" section, Page 1, Lines 5-14 and Page 2, Lines 1-2. Representative Brown OBJECTED, stating that Amendment effect the findings would propose an increase to alcohol excise tax. She added that action recommended in the legislation has had low impact on youths in other states. The highest and most valuable incentive to encourage youths to stop "use" would be to increase the tax on alcohol, a tax which has not been raised since 1983. Representative Brown WITHDREW THE OBJECTION to adopting Amendment #1. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2 and explained the changes. [Copy on file]. Representative Grussendorf suggested splitting the amendment. Representative Brown MOVED to divide Amendment #2. There were NO OBJECTIONS to dividing the question. Representative Brown MOVED the portion of the amendment to Page 2, Line 8. There being NO OBJECTIONS, that portion was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED the second portion of Amendment WITHDREW the previous MOTION and MOVED to divide portion #2 of Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was divided. She stated the new Portion #2 would contain all material recommended in Amendment #2 which would affect Page 3 of HB 299. Representative Brown MOVED the amended portion #2 of Amendment #2. (Tape Change, HFC 94-77, Side 2). Representative Parnell OBJECTED to the amended portion #2 of Amendment #2. He asked the repercussions for offenders who currently have to obtain treatment for conditions of parole and who live in an area which does not provide that service. Ms. Knuth understood that there is some screening available everywhere. Ms. Hensley replied that there are sufficient alternative treatments such as A.A. and N.A. programs in the 3 village areas and added that the Department currently is working on a correspondence course for those offenders needing rehabilitation. Discussion followed among Committee members regarding approved programs for offenders living in areas where little is available. Representative Parnell MOVED TO AMEND Portion #2, Amendment rehabilitation or alcohol education is unavailable". Representative Hanley OBJECTED to the entire Portion #2 of Amendment #2. He thought that the Department should be given discretion to create guidelines. Ms. Hensley remarked that currently, it is a requirement for an offender convicted of a drunk driving offense to be enrolled in, complete and pay for their alcohol program. Every area has some type of program available. Representative Brown argued the requirement that the offender should be required to pay for the rehab course, pointing out that the State does provide many of those services. Ms. Hensley replied that the House Judiciary Committee added the clause requesting payment by the offender. Representative Brown WITHDREW THE MOTION to adopt Portion #2, Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn. Co-Chair MacLean MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Copy on file]. Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the correct wording of a language technicality which would identify when the $250 dollar charge would be implemented. Ms. Knuth requested amending Amendment #3 by inserting "or limited" following "revoked" in Section (A) and Section (B). Co-Chair MacLean MOVED the recommended language change to Amendment #3. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. There being NO OBJECTION to Amendment #3, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4. [Copy on file]. Representative Therriault OBJECTED advising that the "findings" in Section #1 had been deleted in Amendment #1. Representative Brown WITHDREW THE MOTION to adopt Amendment Committee Letter of Intent. There being NO OBJECTION to withdrawing the amendment, it was so ordered. Representative Brown MOVED Amendment #5. [Copy on file]. The amendment would insert a new subsection to Page 3, after Line 27 which would read: "(h) The department may waive the provisions of (g) of this section if a person who is required to obtain drug 4 or alcoholism treatment resides in an area where drug rehabilitation or alcoholism education is unavailable." She added that the amendment would also include the insertion of new language to Page 3, Line 19. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Parnell MOVED to report CS HB 299 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Martin OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the provisions which had been added and would change the legislation from dealing specifically with juveniles to legislation addressing all alcohol and drug offenders. R. Martin WITHDREW THE OBJECTION following the discussion. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4 as a House Finance Committee Letter of Intent and requested that it be included with the legislation. [Copy on file]. Representative Therriault OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Hanley, Hoffman, Navarre, Brown, Foster, MacLean. OPPOSED: Martin, Parnell, Therriault, Larson. The MOTION PASSED (7-4). There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION to moving the bill from Committee, it was so ordered. CS HB 299 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no recommendations" and including the House Finance Committee Letter of Intent and with the zero fiscal note by the Department of Law dated 3/09/94, and a fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|