Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2001 01:03 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 40 - REVOKE DRIVER'S LIC. FOR FATAL ACCIDENT Number 1962 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act providing for the revocation of driving privileges by a court for a driver convicted of a violation of traffic laws in connection with a fatal motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle accident; amending Rules 43 and 43.1, Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective date." Number 1977 DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, presented HB 40 on behalf of the administration. He began by acknowledging that the legislature is focusing a lot of attention this year on drunk driving and the problems drunk drivers cause on Alaska's highways. The ultimate tragic event that is caused by a drunk driver is the death of someone. He added, however, that a lot of other types of traffic accidents result in death, and the impact on the victims is just as great as if the other driver were driving drunk. Yet, because no alcohol is involved in these types of incidents, there is very little that happens to the other driver with regard to penalties. He said that most of these incidents occur when someone, either because of inattentiveness or by falling asleep at the wheel, drives off the road, crosses the median, or crosses the centerline, and thus crashes into a person or another car and kills someone. MR. GUANELI went on to say HB 40 was introduced as a result of complaints that in cases resulting in death without the contributing factor of alcohol, nothing was being done. He added that there was not a large volume of these incidents, just a half-dozen or so, per year. He said that HB 40 would take away, for a year, the driver's license of a driver who, as a result of violating a law, is found by a court to have caused the death of someone. Mr. Guaneli clarified that "violating a law" could mean driving off the road, driving across the centerline, or simple driving too fast for conditions. He said that in circumstances where there is a true nexus between violating a law and contributing to the death of someone, it would be appropriate to take away a driver's license for a year. Number 2098 MR. GUANELI pointed out that in cases of license revocation due to drunk driving, there is a period of time when the person cannot drive at all, and then during the last 30 days [of the revocation period] the person may be issued a limited license for the purpose of earning a livelihood. In contrast, HB 40 proposes that a person could get a limited license for the entire period [of one year] if he or she can convince the courts that his or her livelihood depends on [the limited license]. This provision would allow a person to use a limited license at work, or to get to and from work, but not at any other time. He said this provision of HB 40 would limit the economic hardship placed on a person whose license has been revoked, while contributing to the protection of the public. MR. GUANELI explained that current law sets out a continuum of mental states, which are used to convict people of crimes, and thus the department is prevented from acting on these types of cases. For instance, if a person is acting recklessly, as defined by law, and that person kills someone while driving a car, the offense is manslaughter. If a person is acting with criminal negligence, the offense is criminal negligent homicide. However, most of these instances, as described in HB 40, do not rise to the level whereby a criminal prosecution can occur. All the department is left with to prosecute are violations such as speeding or going over the centerline. Regardless of the fact that these offenses appear innocuous, someone has died, and the impact on the families is just as severe as if it were an offense involving alcohol. Number 2182 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he was glad to see HB 40 because he had introduced similar legislation four years ago. At that time, the department had argued that the "lesser- included-offense issue" would hinder felony convictions of manslaughter associated with drinking while intoxicated (DWI). Representative Ogan inquired whether the same issue would be a problem in HB 40. MR. GUANELI responded that HB 40 was simply a license revocation provision. To the extent that current law already covers some conduct, such as going over the centerline, the problem of instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses always exists. He said he thought that because these were simply violations, if the jury were given a choice between manslaughter and driving over the centerline, and the circumstances were such that they fit manslaughter, the jury would choose manslaughter. He said he had very little concern that the jury would opt for the lesser violation. He added that HB 40 does not create new offenses; instead, it just addresses penalties or the remedial action the state wants to take, as a result of an offense that is already under existing law. Number 2287 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN confirmed that his own legislation [from a previous session] would have created a new offense. He added that he thought HB 40 was very important legislation. He described a situation that he was familiar with, in which a person caused the death of two people and only received a fine of $300. He also knew of another situation in which the person, while in the course of running a red light, killed someone, and received only a $50 fine. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed concern over the issue of criminal conduct caused by a lack of sleep. He asked Representative Ogan to further describe his legislation from four years ago. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that he had endeavored to create a new type of crime for vehicular manslaughter. Number 2369 MR. GUANELI further explained that Representative Ogan's legislation [would have] created a new crime for what is now considered civil negligence. He added that another problem with that piece of legislation was that every car accident that might result in a civil lawsuit would be preceded by some form of criminal prosecution. In addition, civil litigation involving car accidents is complicated, and as part of the criminal prosecution process would become problematic. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL returned to the issue of license revocation. He inquired whether a person with a revoked license [under the provisions of HB 40] could, at some point after the original hearing, ask for a limited license. He also asked if it would involve another court hearing. MR. GUANELI replied that he did not see any provision [in HB 40] that would prohibit the defendant from coming back to the judge in order to demonstrate a need for a limited license. There were not any deadlines by which to demonstrate the need, but it would involve another court hearing. He also explained that it would have to be the court that originally revoked the license. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented on the issue of arraignment proceedings. He said he had witnessed situations in which people who had had their license revoked had an additional revocation period imposed on them, but the additional penalty seemed inconsequential. He asked how additional penalties would be handled under HB 40. MR. GUANELI responded that under HB 40, revocations would run concurrently, rather than consecutively. He supposed that this was simply a policy question for the legislature. He had heard concerns from members of the legislature about cases of repeated license revocation; he had also noted skepticism from members of the legislature regarding the appropriateness of repeated license revocation as a course of action. As a result, the department has been recommending concurrent penalties. He added that he thought that with regard to problem drivers, multiple license revocations have little deterrent effect, and other steps need to be taken. [Tape changed sides mid-sentence.] TAPE 01-25, SIDE B Number 2526 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [on the point of arranging for the limited license] asked, "Is that going to be incumbent upon the person charged to bring that in?" He noted that it would be required but wondered how it would be overseen. MR. GUANELI explained that a person can come in [to court] with a certificate of employment, or testify that for purposes of employment, he or she needs a limited license. He said this is a standard court proceeding, which happens frequently; the burden is on the driver to come forward and present evidence that will convince the judge that a limited license is necessary. He added that for the purposes of HB 40, there are no additional aggravators; it is a "stand-alone" type of situation, and [the department] already considers it to be aggravated because the fatality has occurred. Number 2480 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired whether HB 40 could be expanded to include permanent disability. He commented that oftentimes there are very serious consequences of these types of accidents even though a death does not occur. He added that in some ways, becoming a paraplegic/quadriplegic or suffering a severe brain injury is considered to be as bad as, or worse than, death. MR. GUANELI said that the inclusion of permanent disability had not yet been considered. The complaints that had arisen were in cases of fatalities. He acknowledged it was a good point to raise. He noted that there is a definition of serious physical injury under the criminal code (AS 11.81.900(b)) that speaks to prolonged impairment of bodily functions and fairly serious injuries. He said he thought that perhaps there should be some sort of assessment regarding how many such cases there were, and what kind of impact there would be. He agreed that cases involving [permanent disabilities] present concerns similar to those in cases involving fatalities. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he had more questions but would wait until another time to ask them in order that more public testimony could be heard. He commented that he was curious about [Section 1, subsection] (e) and the application of the court rule change [Section 4]. He said he wondered if it was adding the death of a person to the traffic laws. Number 2380 DAVID S. CARTER testified via teleconference and said he was an attorney practicing in the field of personal injury; however, he was speaking as a private citizen. He said he wanted to speak in favor of HB 40; he believed the concept, in general, was appropriate. As he understands HB 40, it does not really focus on the egregious conduct of drunk drivers, which is already covered under another statute, but instead, is an effort to provide some penalty to people who are involved in accidents that cause death. He said that typically, if a person violated a traffic regulation or was held legally responsible for the accident, his or her insurance company would settle claims arising out of the accident. He noted, however, that sometimes people do not have insurance coverage, and HB 40 would fill that gap and ensure that they feel the impact of their actions. MR. CARTER suggested that HB 40 should include language indicating that a determination of whether something did or did not contribute to an accident would not be admissible in a civil action arising out of the accident. In other words, relatives of a decedent should not be foreclosed, in a later civil action, by a court determination that the violation did not contribute to the accident. Conversely, if, during a license revocation proceeding, the traffic violation was determined to have contributed to the accident, that information should not be admissible in a later civil action because it is a somewhat vague finding. Both sides should be entitled to the present civil system while stating their claims. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked for further explanation from Mr. Carter on the point of determination of causation. MR. CARTER clarified that current Alaska law, based on an Alaska Supreme Court case called Scott v. Robertson, says that unless a violation is punishable by jail time, the fact that a citation is issued at an accident is not admissible in a civil action. This also applies to cases in which a fine is paid or a ticket is contested and upheld. He said it would be hard to anticipate what would happen during a license revocation hearing with regard to protections offered or thoroughness of traffic-law- violation analysis. He said he did not want to have something found during a license revocation hearing to be binding on either party. Number 2140 CHAIR ROKEBERG said he interpreted Mr. Carter's explanation to mean that the Alaska Supreme Court has determined, for example, that should a person run a red light, cause the death of another person, and be convicted of running the red light, the fact that the person had run a red light would be admissible, but the fact that he or she had been ticketed for running the red light would not be admissible. MR. CARTER agreed with that interpretation and added that the person running the red light would also be found negligent per se, in other words, automatically negligible for violating a red light, in a civil action. He noted that anything having to do with a citation in a [traffic] light situation would not be admissible in a later civil trial, whether it was a red light or a yellow light. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Carter was suggesting that HB 40 was drafted to allow culpability of license revocation to enter into civil action, and thus would negate the ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court. MR. CARTER replied that it was perhaps just an abundance of caution, based on what he does for a living. He saw a possibility that someone, during a civil action, could argue that due to a license revocation determination, a particular issue had already been determined. He added that a higher court or judge might not agree with that argument. He noted that current statute specifically excludes admission of police reports in determining civil cases arising out of an accident, and along that line, he suggested including similar language in HB 40. He used the following as an example of such language: "The determination under this section shall not be admissible in any civil action arising out of the accident." Number 2029 ALBERT TAYLOR testified via teleconference. He said that his only son was killed by a driver who had negligently crossed the centerline and struck the car his son was in. He said that he was led to believe that driving is a privilege; if a motor vehicle operator chooses to drive irresponsibly, breaking traffic laws and killing others, then his or her driving privileges should be taken away. There are too many deaths on Alaska's roads and highways brought on by negligence due to the actions of careless and irresponsible drivers. He said that HB 40 would be a step towards holding such drivers accountable for their actions. Also, HB 40 would encourage other drivers to be more responsible. He asked that the committee pass HB 40 so that Alaska's roads could be made safer for everyone. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed condolences on behalf of the committee for the loss of Mr. Taylor's son. He went on to ask if the driver that had crossed the centerline had been drinking, or if there were other contributing factors. MR. TAYLOR said that according to the accident report, the testimony of witnesses, and the individual's own statement, the driver was just in hurry - driving too fast - and lost control of the vehicle. He was cited for careless driving and fined $300. Number 1892 MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, testified via teleconference. She said that HB 40 had no appreciable effect on the DMV because the volume of incidents is relatively small. Under HB 40, the revocation would be court-ordered and would not have a fiscal impact on the DMV. Ms. Marshburn explained that it normally takes approximately 30-45 days to receive a court's determination of revocation; the delay is due to the fact that there is not an electronic notification system set up. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER inquired how a person got his or her license back after the revocation period had ended. MS. MARSHBURN responded that according to her interpretation of HB 40, when the revocation period has expired, and if the individual is eligible for "re-licensing", he or she would pay a reinstatement fee; obtain special risk premium insurance (SR22), which has to remain in effect for three years; take a vision test; take a knowledge test; and pay a limited license fee. She added that with regard to the limited license, the court could impose any restrictions it deemed necessary for re-licensing of the individual. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if a driver's test was also a requirement for re-licensure. MS. MARSHBURN said it would depend on the circumstances surrounding the revocation. For instance, if someone suffered a seizure, or had another medical condition, which was determined to have contributed to the revocation, then more than just the standard revocation process would be brought to bear, and that could include the administration of a skills test. She added that everyone, at one time or another, has driven a little faster than was safe for the conditions, but that was not necessarily something that could be remedied by a skills test. She said the foregoing was the long answer; the short answer to Representative Meyer's question was, "It would depend on what led to the incident." Number 1706 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he supported HB 40 because if someone dies because of careless driving, there should be punishment. He added, however, that if there is an underlying driving problem, then license revocation might not correct that problem; at the end of the revocation period, the person would be back causing the same mistakes again. He said that he would like to see a little more attention given to correcting a driving deficiency, if possible. He also questioned what the penalty would be if someone with a revoked license continues to drive, as he has seen happen with DWI offenders. MS. MARSHBURN responded that it depends on what the individual was picked up for originally. Normally, if the charge is driving with a revoked or suspended license, an additional revocation period is administered in addition to any court penalties. She noted that Mr. Guaneli would have more specifics on the court penalties. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL sought assurance that any underlying driving problems would be corrected before a license is returned to someone who caused a death. MS. MARSHBURN said she thought it would be taken care of. First, the state has the latitude to examine a specific situation if there is any indication in the officer's report or the court record that that kind of a problem exists. And Second, when there is a traffic fatality, both the investigating officer and the court take a thorough look at all the details during the investigation and the court case. Ultimately, a reason has to be found which contributed to the fatality. She again said that the court has the latitude to do whatever it deems necessary in these types of situations. Number 1531 MS. MARSHBURN, at the request of Chair Rokeberg, explained the difference between a suspension and a revocation. She said that the difference usually relates back to the offense and the time period in which it occurred. Minor point violations can result in suspension, but if too many point violations occur within a certain amount of time, then a revocation could be imposed. In cases of serious offenses - for example, in all instances involving DWI - it is a revocation, not just a suspension. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that Representative Ogan had raised an interesting point regarding serious physical injuries. On another point, Chair Rokeberg asked Mr. Guaneli if, when considering HB 40 and the issues it raised, the department had also considered the concept of a criminal definition of falling asleep while driving. MR. GUANELI said that the department had not considered creating a criminal definition of falling asleep while driving. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted his interest was due to the growing amount of fatalities caused by driving while fatigued. He added that he thought it was becoming as rampant a problem as DWI. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that the use of cell phones while driving was also becoming a contributing factor in traffic fatalities. Number 1389 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the public hearing on HB 40 would be kept open, and he encouraged Representative Ogan to investigate some of the aforementioned issues. [HB 40 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|