02/27/1995 01:05 PM House JUD

 HJUD - 02/27/95                                                               
 CSHB 21 - DRIVER'S LIC. REVOCATION;ALCOHOL/DRUGS                            
                                                                               
 Number 585                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, bill sponsor, explained the bill.              
 House Bill 21 closes a small, but important loophole in House Bill            
 299 which passed last year.  The administrative license revocation            
 can only occur when there has been a violation of the pertinent               
 state law.  That law should be amended to include municipal                  
 ordinance as well as state law.  House Bill 21 does this.  There             
 are zero fiscal notes from the Department of Public Safety, the               
 Department of Health and Social Services, and the Department of               
 Law.  The simple fix will cost the state nothing, but will increase           
 the effectiveness of the law.  She proposed an amendment, on page             
 2, line 23; it was pointed out that one would assume that a                   
 municipal ordinance would pertain to drug or alcohol violations;              
 qualification would leave no doubt.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 615                                                                    
                                                                               
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,                  
 Criminal Division, testified in support of this legislation.  She             
 asked the committee to consider another technical change that would           
 address the existing problem with the "use it - lose it" law.  We             
 are requiring both probable cause and personal observation by the             
 officer.  For the underlying offenses, probable cause is sufficient           
 for a case to be made, and for there to be a conviction.  So we               
 have an anomalous situation where the child can be convicted, but             
 is not subject to the "use it - lose it" provision, when it is                
 appropriate that there be consistency.  One place this occurs is on           
 page 1, line 7.  With this change it would read, "if a peace                  
 officer has probable cause to believe that a person is at least 14            
 years of age".  The same change could be made on page 2, line 17              
 and 18, replacing "and based on personal observations"  with "to              
 believe".  Then it would read, "...one, that the officer had                  
 probable cause to believe that the person was at least 14 years of            
 age and under 21 years of age."  This would create harmony in the             
 law with what we are doing with the violations and with citing                
 these juveniles.                                                              
                                                                               
 MS. KNUTH stated the second issue that has come up with the "use it           
 - lose it" since the law was enacted, is whether military police              
 qualify as peace officers, allowing them to enforce this law.  They           
 would like to, but are not certain whether they are included or               
 not.                                                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a military police officer is not a peace           
 officer by federal law.  You cannot be a police officer and serve             
 in the military at the same time.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 790                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought they could put into the statute that             
 this particular situation includes military officers.  He mentioned           
 this bill does not make the peace officer have to see the juvenile            
 in the act of drinking.                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER added the minor who is, visually, obviously                   
 intoxicated, cannot right now, be arrested.  The juvenile can only            
 be cited, given a ticket, and sent on his way.  That is what we are           
 trying to change.  We want to be able to take this individual into            
 custody because he is in a position of potential danger.  A                   
 juvenile could not have his license suspended under the "use it -             
 lose it," as it stands now.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version G of the              
 committee substitute as their working draft.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 800                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move the amendment offered             
 by Margot Knuth, as described above.  Seeing no objection, the                
 amendment passed.  She then made a motion to move Amendment Number            
 2, which would delete from page 2, line 23, "a violation of AS                
 11.71, [OR] AS 04.16.050, or a municipal ordinance;" and insert:              
 "(A) a violation of AS 11.71 or AS 04.16.050; or (B) possession or            
 use of a controlled substance or alcohol in violation of a                    
 municipal ordinance."  There was no objection to the amendment so             
 it was adopted.                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 21, as amended,           
 with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes, out of                 
 committee.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.