Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/22/2002 01:10 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 396 - ALCOHOL OFFENSE SURCHARGE/EQUIPMENT FUND Number 1971 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act relating to a surcharge on certain offenses for law enforcement equipment." He then called an at-ease from 1:45 p.m. to 1:46 p.m. Number 1972 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor, noted that HB 396 is referred to as the Justin Wollam Act. She explained that HB 396 would create a $100 surcharge on any offense listed under Title 4, which pertains to alcoholic beverages; under Title 28, which pertains to motor vehicles and ingestion or possession of alcohol as an element of the offense; or under any regulation or municipal ordinance authorized by Title 28 that has to do with ingestion or possession of alcohol as an element of the offense. She noted that this surcharge money would go into the general fund (GF) and then be appropriated by the legislature to the Alaska alcohol offense equipment fund ("the fund"), which would then be used by municipalities and the Department of Public Safety to purchase law enforcement equipment that would assist in enforcement and prevention of alcohol-related offenses. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how much money would be raised. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there is a fiscal note attached to HB 396. MS. NOBREGA said that there is an indeterminate fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency and a zero fiscal note from the Alaska Court System. She remarked that she could only estimate how much money has been collected under the existing surcharge statute, not how much would be collected under HB 396. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that getting money from indigent offenders could prove difficult. MS. NOBREGA remarked that both HB 396 and the current surcharge statute have a provision that allows an individual to perform community work service (CWS) in lieu of paying the surcharge. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether minors who commit offenses under Title 4 would be entitled to a jury trial before being sentenced to [CWS]. MS. NOBREGA reminded members that according to the [1995 Alaska Court of Appeals] Booth decision, as long as performing [CWS] is not mandatory and is merely an option, a jury trial would not be required. Number 2235 MATT WILLIAMS, Officer, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), testified via teleconference in support of HB 396. He elaborated: This bill is one that we believe has been needed for some time. The people of Alaska ... deserve the best possible enforcement of their law, and this legislation will help in that. One thing that this bill will help with is that on the passage of this bill and the conviction of somebody under Title 4 and Title 28, a person most responsible for the crime - the defendant - will help pay for the cost of the equipment used in combating the very crimes that they've [been] committing. This type of equipment most likely will be, but is not limited to, in-car video recording systems, portable breath testers [PBTs], intoximeters, radars, and lasers; all these devices play different roles in dealing with criminal behavior involving alcohol, [and] all are important. ... The purpose of in-car video systems ... will be evidentiary; a picture is worth a thousand words. I could describe the incident to a jury in great detail until I'm blue in the face, but [with] them being able to see it on video, it's possible for the jury to really see the incident as it's happening, for themselves, and for them to make their own decision accordingly. Another major purpose of in-car video is officer safety; this video allows us to see what the vehicle that's stopped looks like, what the license plate [number] is, [and] possibly what the driver or the occupants of the car look like, [so that] if something happens to the officer, we'd be able to have a starting point to track down suspects based on the information gleaned from the video. And also the incidents that are captured on video could possibly be used for training in the future. MR. WILLIAMS continued: Another device that would possibly be purchased with these funds are the [PBTs]. Portable breath testers are miniature intoximeters that officers are able to carry in their patrol cars for immediate uses when they're needed. Portable breath testers allow officers to check the sobriety of minors ... at large parties or school functions when police are called to those functions; they also allow us to check the sobriety of people [who are on] probation when we come in contact with them. And [PBTs] are always available because they are always in an officer's car for whatever situation may arise. Number 2387 And some other equipment, the radars and lasers -- greater uses of these devices along our highways allow for greater traffic enforcement, which in turn allows us to deal with other crimes that are discovered after the initial traffic stop ... through the contact of the officer with the driver [or] the occupants of the car, [and] their observations of what they're seeing inside the car. ... All these pieces of equipment are expensive and budgets are tight, and this law would help us to begin to cover some of the funding gaps. So, as a police officer myself, and from all the other police officers in the [APD], we urge you to work on this bill - make it as effective as possible so that we can begin to purchase these equipment items and become more effective for our own safety and citizens' safety, and be more efficient. MR. WILLIAMS concluded: To answer one of the questions that you had before about how much money we could possibly expect to bring in: the only figures that I have are [from] arrests that were made in the municipality between July 1st, 2000, and June 30th, 2001. There were a total of 1,773 DWI [Driving While Intoxicated] arrests in the municipality during that time; that comes out to 4.8 [arrests] a day. Now, how many of those were state charges, I do not know, and how many were municipal, I don't know that either, but more than likely, mostly municipal. ... Those are the only figures I have, but based on those, it has a very big possibility of being a pretty decent amount of money. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: What other alcohol offenses are there besides DWI and impairment and minor in possession? MR. WILLIAMS noted that Title 4 also covers offenses such as being intoxicated in a bar and "drunk on premises." CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: What about licensure provisions in Title 4? TAPE 02-21, SIDE B Number 2496 CHAIR ROKEBERG continued: Aren't there license offenses that might rise to the level of a crime? Number 2489 WALT MONEGAN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), testified via teleconference, explaining that on a fairly regular basis, the APD assists the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board in doing premises checks, and these premises can be monitored for license and code violations with the use of the [PBTs]. Use of the [PBTs] in this manner aids the APD in keeping the community safe. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked the APD representatives whether, over time, the number of DWI offenses is being reduced. MR. MONEGAN said that as the population grows, the APD is actually seeing more violations, although not in proportion to the population growth because there are a lot of agencies that have helped heighten awareness and mitigate the growth of DWIs. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Monegan whether he thinks the APD has adequate resources, in terms of "material" and officers, to handle the problem to his satisfaction. MR. MONEGAN replied that he would have to say no. He added that the reason for that response relates to the fact that although the "in-car video" is such a [valuable] tool, as relayed by Mr. Williams, the APD does not have enough of this type of equipment to be able to put one in every patrol car. If the in-car video could become standard issue for all patrol cars, it would have a significant impact on the conviction rate. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many more in-car videos and how many more officers would be needed, and what would be the total cost. He said that his frustration with the way the DWI/alcohol problem is currently approached is that it tends to be "with little band-aids, one piece at a time, instead of getting aggressive and going after it completely." MR. MONEGAN relayed that he has about 200 uniformed officers on patrol, each with his/her own car, but only about a half dozen if those cars are equipped with in-car video. "It would certainly aid me to have a significant portion of [those] 200 [cars] ... equipped," he said, adding that adoption of HB 396 would help defray the costs of such equipment. They are not cheap, he noted, costing approximately $5,500 apiece. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there were an adequate number of officers. Number 2304 MR. MONEGAN replied that although [adequate] staffing is always an issue, DWI offenses are a priority and are something that "we'll find regardless of how many or how few officers we do have." CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what the cost of a PBT is. MR. MONEGAN said it is about $500. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what cost is for a new intoximeter. MR. MONEGAN said that the APD is utilizing DataMaster machines, but he'd not brought figures relating to cost with him. In response to questions, he confirmed that a PBT result is not satisfactory for use in court, and that those results are not used for DWI arrests; PBTs are used in situations pertaining to minor consuming and liqueur license violations. He said that in some instances, an officer will use the PBT simply as an aid in determining whether there is probable cause, particularly now that the blood alcohol concentration [BAC] limit has been lowered to .08. In response to further questions, he said that the APD is very much in support of the .08 BAC limit, and that it has been an aid to the community; "we do not want to see people hurt or killed because of drunk driving." He noted, however, that he did not have the current statistics with him regarding arrests for DWI at the .08 BAC level, but would be happy to research that information for the committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Monegan whether he had any suggestions regarding the collection and allocation of surcharge monies. MR. MONEGAN indicated that the deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Safety had mentioned to him that perhaps the monies could go to the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC), which would then grant the monies to various [police] departments. Number 2056 MARTI GREESON, Executive Director, Anchorage Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), testified via teleconference, and said that MADD supports HB 396, which would provide a consistent, ongoing source of funding for public safety and current enforcement technology. Offenders would be contributing directly to enforcement, and enforcement contributes directly to prevention. Public safety should never be compromised because of budgetary shortfalls, she opined, adding that HB 396 is a perfect example of restorative justice. Number 1995 CINDY CASHEN, Juneau Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), reiterated that MADD Alaska chapters support HB 396. She added that as [the family member of] a victim [of a drunk driver], she will always wonder whether such a fund would have made a difference in catching the man who killed her father, before he rammed his truck into the car her father was in. She opined that HB 396 will make a difference [for others in the future], and encouraged its passage. Number 1947 ROYCE WELLER, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS), indicated that the DPS recognizes and appreciates the ultimate sacrifice made by APD officer Justin Wollam. In answer to the question of how much money HB 396 might generate, he said that although the DPS is still waiting for a complete Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) report, his estimate is that the proposed $100 surcharge could perhaps generate up to $350,000. He mentioned, however, that there is a concern that because monies generated under the current surcharge statute fund the APSC for activities such as in-service training and academy training, and because there may be overlapping offenders, funds currently generated for regular APSC purposes might be reallocated to the Alaska alcohol offense equipment fund. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Weller to explain the current surcharge statute - AS 12.55.039. MR. WELLER replied that the surcharges listed under AS 12.55.039 are the only ones that fund the APSC and have a graduated rate depending on the offense. Number 1736 IRL STAMBAUGH, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), added that under AS 12.55.039, there is a $10 surcharge for citations, a $50 surcharge for most misdemeanors, a $75 surcharge for DWI offenses, and a $100 surcharge for felony offenses, all of which currently go to the APSC. He mentioned that last year these surcharges generated about $960,000 for the APSC, with about one-third each going to administrative costs, academy funding, and in-service advanced training. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what the fine was for a DWI offense. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it depends. There is an initial fine of $250, and the first two offenses are misdemeanors. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what the rate of collection is and whether offenders' permanent fund dividends (PFDs) could be used as "collateral" if they don't pay. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the DPS is probably not the correct department to get that type of information from. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied that his point is that if fines are not currently being collected, adding another surcharge will not improve matters, although he did acknowledge that "anything is better than nothing." CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that other legislation the committee has heard would raise the fines for DWI offenses. He noted that "a surcharge is always on top of the statutory fines." With regard to the question of whether PFDs can be used to pay monies owed, he said that the Department of Law (DOL) is responsible for collecting all fines and assessments, other than ones that are initially collected by the courts. Number 1598 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), in response to a question, said: The trouble right now is [that] fines do go to the Department of Law for collection - fines, of course, [are] not the same as surcharges - but our accounting system, as it is, can't transmit the surcharge itself for collection. Now, as you know, we're getting a new computer system, [at] which time they will be able to. But as of right now, although technically you could go after a [PFD] for a surcharge, we don't have the technical capability to do that, but we will.... CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the courts collect bail and fines that are paid right then and there. MR. WOOLIVER said that is correct, and confirmed that any unpaid fines or assessments get forwarded onto the DOL for collections. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the ACS collects any surcharges. MR. WOOLIVER said that the ACS does collect surcharges, but any that aren't paid to the court system are not subsequently transferred to the DOL for collection due to a lack of technical capability. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the ten-day timeframe in which the surcharge must be paid is sufficient for the ACS. MR. WOOLIVER indicated that the ten-day timeframe proposed by HB 396 does not affect the ACS one way or the other. CHAIR ROKEBERG, returning to the issue of how much money would be generated by the surcharge proposed by HB 396, surmised that approximately half of the DPS's estimate would come in through APD DWI arrests. He noted that HB 396 does not outline a specific mechanism for collecting and distributing the proposed surcharge, although the DPS has suggested that the mechanism for current surcharges be used. MR. STAMBAUGH confirmed that the suggestion is to have the surcharges proposed by HB 396 appropriated to the APSC, the board of which would then determine which communities should receive those funds. In response to a question, he relayed that the APSC has 11 members, including several police chiefs; a deputy police chief; the commissioners from the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections; the director of Community Corrections in Anchorage; and "civilian" members from several communities. Number 1396 CHAIR ROKEBERG voiced some reluctance to turn over the allocation process to the APSC, and suggested that that aspect of HB 396 should be discussed further. He asked whether it would be possible to, in effect, return surcharges to the communities from which they were generated. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that HB 396 states that the money from surcharges shall go directly into the general fund, and opined that the current discussion appears to be seriously treading into the realm of dedicated funds, which are not allowed under the Alaska State Constitution. He added that although perhaps legally "it" isn't a dedicated fund, the legislature often sets up "quasi dedicated funds" to which general funds are appropriated. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Weller to explain where the money would go according to HB 396. MR. WELLER said that as proposed by HB 396, the money would be deposited into the general fund - separately accounted for - and then appropriated to the Alaska alcohol offense equipment fund, from which the legislature would then appropriate money out of for the DPS and municipalities. So there would really be two appropriations as proposed by HB 396, he remarked: one into the fund and one out of the fund. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that although he understands the constitutional argument regarding dedicated funds, the legislature often sets up similar mechanisms as need requires; it is up to the legislature to decide whether there is a need to do so for this particular purpose. "The surcharges ... are controversial, and right now I'm concerned because they are kind of stepping on other things," he added. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that legislation reported out of committee earlier - HB 281 - provides for a less constitutionally suspect manner by which the state and municipalities can recover costs pertaining to convictions, and suggested that perhaps funds for the purchase of alcohol- offense-related equipment could be acquired via that legislation instead of HB 396. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, referring to the APSC's administrative costs, asked what those entail. MR. STAMBAUGH said that those costs include the cost of the instructors who provide training, and salaries for himself, his secretary, an administrative clerk, and a training coordinator; those costs do not, however, include the cost of officers' attendance at such training. Number 1040 CHAIR ROKEBERG again asked whether it would be feasible to return surcharges directly to the communities from which they came, and suggested that perhaps the state could pay a small fee to the APSC to cover the administrative cost of collecting and allocating those surcharge monies. MR. STAMBAUGH said he would have to consult with "our finance people [and] the court"; a lot of planning would have to go into that because of the need to track the collection of surcharges in each jurisdiction, and that would be difficult right now without the ACS having a new [tracking] system online. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that perhaps the legislation could provide "that the municipality could do it - could make the collection." MR. STAMBAUGH said that "on municipal charges, they can do that," but not for state charges. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps 90 percent of the surcharge proposed by HB 396 could be given back to the community that collects it, and the remaining 10 percent could go into the general fund. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that that suggestion has merit; "we could even make it a local-option deal," which would provide an incentive to municipalities that actually use their own ordinances to prosecute. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he has concerns with that idea because it would give law enforcement agencies an incentive "to make their quota." CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that it would also take the heat off the state to pay for the judicial system. He likened the suggestion to: "revenue sharing with a twist." In response to a question from Representative Meyer, Chair Rokeberg mentioned that he would not be comfortable moving HB 396 out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee without knowing that the funds from the surcharges would "find the proper home." MR. WELLER said that regardless of how the committee decides to allocate funds generated by HB 396, the committee may want to consider a new fund source because essentially HB 396 would collect money for a specific purpose and allocate it back. In conclusion he noted that the DPS supports the intent of HB 396. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 396 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|