Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 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
TAPE 93-45, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KNUTH expressed her opinion that the elements of HB 136,
Drunk Driving and Breath Test Offenses, would dovetail well
with HB 61.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was interested in amending HB 61 so
as to make the state eligible for federal funding. He asked
Ms. Knuth if there were many acquittals for persons charged
with DWI offenses, whose BAC registered on or near the .10
margin.
Number 034
MS. KNUTH did not know about acquittals, but knew that there
were many cases which were simply not prosecuted because the
BAC was on or near the margin. She commented that under
current law, a person could be charged with a DWI offense if
his or her BAC registered under .10. However, she said that
it was difficult to successfully prosecute such cases. If
the state had a .08 DWI offense, she added, the state
expected that persons who had a BAC at or near the .10
margin would plead down to the lesser .08 DWI offense. The
state did not expect to make more arrests, she said, just to
end up with more convictions.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that with HB 61, persons
charged with a .10 DWI offense could plead down to the
lesser .08 charge, whereas under current law, persons with a
BAC at or near .10 were often not prosecuted.
Number 081
MS. KNUTH was concerned about whether or not a .08
conviction would count as a DWI offense, in terms of the
state's repeat offender sentencing laws. She feared that
HB 61 would lessen the deterrent effect of the state's
current DWI laws.
Number 104
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what would happen in the event that a
person was convicted of a .08 DWI offense, and later was
convicted of a DWI offense, with a BAC of .15. "Would that
person be treated as a second offender?" he asked.
Number 112
MS. KNUTH believed that person would not be treated as a
second offender.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recognized that as a problem. He
stated that the reason for making a .08 DWI a separate
offense was to not add to the already overcrowded jails in
the state. He noted that if HB 61 was amended as the DOL
had suggested, it would require a DOC fiscal note. He
mentioned Representative Eldon Mulder's HB 136, Drunk
Driving and Breath Test Offenses, and said that if that bill
passed, it would be a good idea to make the change suggested
by Ms. Knuth.
Number 156
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee could ask the DOC
to draft a fiscal note based on HB 136 being law at the time
that HB 61 was enacted.
Number 445
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND requested that the committee write a
letter to the DOC, asking that its fiscal note indicate the
effect of HB 61 in the event that HB 136 was enacted.
Number 456
MS. HORETSKI indicated that the committee could request two
different fiscal notes from the DOC, one of which could
reflect the fiscal impact of HB 61, given enactment of HB
136.
Number 464
CHAIRMAN PORTER proposed asking the DOC to prepare two
fiscal scenarios for HB 61, based on enactment and non-
enactment of HB 136.
Number 482
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE out CSHB 61
(JUD). There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|