Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/31/2001 11:19 AM 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 0286 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced the first order of business, 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." [Possible amendments had been suggested and discussed at the previous meeting, but none had been adopted.] Number 0294 DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), provided two written amendments, both of which he indicated were requested by Representative Berkowitz; he referred to his own testimony at previous hearings and noted that he had no objection from the administration's standpoint. MR. GUANELI first discussed Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: In Section 2 of the bill, add a new subsection as follows: (e) The findings made by the court under (a) of this section are not admissible in a civil, criminal or administrative action arising out [sic] the motor vehicle accident. MR. GUANELI explained that the findings the court has to make to revoke someone's license for a year are: that the person operated the motor vehicle, that the accident caused the death of another person, and that the violation of the traffic laws was a contributing factor. Those findings, which may be made by a magistrate, perhaps in a perfunctory hearing, would not be admissible in any further civil, criminal, or administrative action. MR. GUANELI told members he saw no problem with that, and that the action should stand alone; if there were going to be further civil litigation, for example, he believes the person ought to have the opportunity to prove there was contributory negligence [on the part of another] or to use another defense. He noted that this amendment also was requested by the private attorney [Mr. Carter] who had testified from Anchorage during the first hearing. Number 0412 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. CHAIR ROKEBERG objected. He mentioned a supreme court case allowing evidence [from] a criminal trial to be used as prima facie evidence in a civil action; he asked how that differs here. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that his own concern is logistical as much as anything else. If evidence from a [hearing before] a magistrate involving a traffic violation [is allowed to be used in further proceedings], then it magnifies everything else tied to the case and the significance of what happened in front of the magistrate; logistically, there will be delays and more costs. If the objective of the bill is to ensure that someone who has killed someone else while driving doesn't have his or her license, [the language in Amendment 1] is the fastest way to make sure it happens. He pointed out that other civil remedies, criminal cases, or administrative consequences would still exist, but [Amendment 1] would remove a serious logistical impediment to taking someone's license right away. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that [Amendment 1] says, "The findings made by the court". She pointed out that it doesn't eliminate any evidence or negate having those same findings found by someone else; therefore, it doesn't remove anybody else's ability to try the case in any civil, criminal, or administrative action. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the fact that there was a conviction and a loss of the person's license still would be admissible [in a further proceeding] because that wouldn't be a finding, but would be a matter of public record. MR. GUANELI said that is his own view of it, that the conviction of the offender would remain [admissible], and that [Amendment 1] applies to the further findings. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the fact that the person was convicted for crossing a double yellow line would be admissible, for example, but not the finding that the crossing of the double yellow line led to the accident and the other consequences. Number 0625 CHAIR ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0654 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]: Section 2, Page 2, lines 12-23, delete and replace with: (c) A court revoking a person's driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license under (a) of this section may consider a request for a limited license by the person. A court may not grant a limited license if another statute prohibits a limited license for violation of its provisions. A court shall require a certification of employment to prove a claim based on the person's employment, and a certification of need by a licensed health care practioner [sic] to prove a claim based on care for another person. After a review has been made of the person's driving record and other relevant information, the court may grant limited license privileges for all or part of the period of revocation if the court finds that limitations can be placed on the license that will enable the person to drive without danger to the public, and that without a limited license (1) the person's ability to earn a livelihood would be severely impaired; or (2) the person would be severely impaired in acting as the primary care giver for someone with a debilitating medical or mental condition. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to discussion at the previous hearing about the impacts on people who require a caretaker [who drives], in addition to impacts on people's livelihood. He concluded that Amendment 2 allows a person to maintain a partial license in order to care for someone else. Number 0694 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there was any objection. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0715 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report HB 40 as amended out of committee with [individual recommendations and] the attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 40(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|