Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/24/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES Number 043 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), expressed her support for HB 136. She then gave an overview of the draft committee substitute for HB 136 dated March 23, 1993. She said that the bill would place first and second driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders in halfway houses, and require them to pay for their incarceration, up to $1,000. Additionally, those offenders would be required to perform community service while housed in the halfway house. She said that the current version of HB 136 defined halfway house placements in such a way that it would exclude house arrests. MS. KNUTH stated that HB 136 also solved serious problems that had been created with regard to limited licenses. She noted that section 2 of the bill changed the period of time for mandatory minimum revocations on third and fourth DWI offenses so that the mandatory minimum time would now be the same period for which a person's license would be revoked and the person was ineligible for a limited license. She said that the bill would get rid of limited license privileges for offenders convicted of second, third, fourth, and subsequent DWI offenses. Number 100 MS. KNUTH commented that sections 1 and 3 allowed the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the court system to restore driving privileges to people who, under former versions of the law, had their licenses revoked for much longer periods of time than the mandatory minimum times. She said that this would only occur if people had met the mandatory minimum periods, had completed alcohol treatment programs, and were otherwise in good standing with the court system and the DMV. She said that people in Alaska who were making a good recovery were often greatly hampered by not being allowed to drive. Number 140 MS. KNUTH noted that section 4 rewrote the limited license statute. She said that the new section provided that there would be no more limited licenses for anything except a first offense DWI conviction. She mentioned that the section included a special definition of "previously convicted." Ms. Knuth commented that for the purposes of a limited license, the state would count a ".08 conviction" from another jurisdiction. She noted her earlier concern that a person could have multiple .08 convictions from other jurisdictions and still not be subject to repeat DWI offender laws in Alaska. That would no longer happen under section 4's provisions, she said. Number 175 MS. KNUTH stated that section 5 ensured that offenders enrolled in and complied with alcohol treatment programs before they receive their licenses back. Section 6 added a $100 fee for obtaining a limited license. She said that another $100 fee would be charged at the time that a person went from a limited license to a regular driver's license. Number 197 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how long a limited license would be in effect. Number 205 JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DMV, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, replied that after the period of revocation, a person was eligible to get a regular, five year license. At that time, she added, a person would pay a reinstatement fee of $100. She also mentioned the $100 application fee for a limited license, which would be in effect for 60 days. Number 222 MS. KNUTH called the members' attention to section 7 of HB 136. That section clarified to the court of appeals that limited licenses could not be granted to people whose licenses had been revoked for driving while a license was revoked or cancelled. She said that the rest of section 7 related to placements in halfway houses and requiring payment of up to $1,000. She reiterated that the bill contained a tight definition of what appropriate placements would be. She noted that all convicted DWI offenders would be required to pay up to $1,000 toward the cost of their placement, regardless of whether they were housed in a prison or a halfway house. MS. KNUTH commented that section 11 indicated that there was a court rule change regarding making it a part of a defendant's judgment that he or she pay the cost of the incarceration. She stated that if HB 136 did not pass the legislature with a 2/3 vote, as required for a court rule change, section 11 would not take effect and judgments would not necessarily contain an order for payment of up to $1,000 for placement. However, she said that the court system could enforce that requirement on its own initiative. MS. KNUTH mentioned the applicability section of HB 136, and the effective date. She stated that the provisions of HB 136 relating to limited licenses would start applying to people regardless of when their conviction occurred. Number 295 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER agreed with Ms. Knuth that the current version of HB 136 was a very good bill, as earlier concerns with the bill had been addressed. Number 303 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 136 (JUD), dated March 23, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 318 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to PASS CSHB 136 (JUD), dated March 23, 1993, out of committee, with attached fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 28 next.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|