Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
01/25/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB321 | |
| HB318 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 314 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 321 | ||
HB 321 - AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING 1:11:05 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 321, "An Act relating to high risk operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance and to refusal to submit to a chemical test." [Included in committee packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 321, Version 24-LS1099\F, Luckhaupt, 1/16/06.] REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 321, offered his understanding that a string of fatalities related [to drunk driving] a few years ago in Anchorage was the genesis for House Bill 4 [adopted in 2002], and said the same sort of situation has recently arisen in Fairbanks; after attending several meetings this summer, many of which were sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), he said he is now considering various remedies for the problem of traffic fatalities caused by people who have consumed so much alcohol that they can't make a distinction between a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle, between a stop sign and no stop sign, and between a red light and a green light. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that such people drink to such an extent that they become an enormous hazard to others in the community. In researching the issue, he relayed, he's come to understand that 31 states have adopted a policy regarding "high risk operation of a motor vehicle." A government has the authority to discourage certain behavior and punish those who violate the law. He noted that he operates liquor licenses, and said that this has given him insight into the psychology of those who choose to consume alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle regardless of their blood alcohol concentration (BAC). REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS went on to describe some of the programs currently in place that are intended to stop "over-serving." He offered his understanding that statistics illustrate that with regard to the aforementioned type of fatality, they are disproportionately caused by those that have consumed an enormous amount of alcohol. House Bill 321 is intended to address this problem. The three deterrents against driving under the influence (DUI) that government currently utilizes include pressing certain criminal charges if another person is killed or seriously injured, levying fines, and imposing jail time. He acknowledged that when one leaves a drinking establishment, he/she doesn't drive away with the intention of hurting anyone, nor does he/she keep the possible financial ramifications in mind until it is too late. He therefore characterized the possibility of going to jail as the most effective of the aforementioned three deterrents to DUI. 1:18:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS opined that consuming enough alcohol so as to have a .16 BAC is unacceptable behavior, and the bill proposes to double the amount of jail time for DUI with a BAC of .16. He suggested that public service announcements (PSAs) will go a long way towards informing people that if they drive under the influence with double the legal BAC, they will be subject to double the jail time. He offered his belief that adoption of HB 321 will lead to fewer fatalities and to better behavior on the part of people who drink, and relayed that MADD, Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR), and wholesale distributors [of alcohol] have endorsed [the bill]. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS acknowledged that the sponsor of House Bill 4 has expressed concern regarding the fiscal ramifications of HB 321. He opined, however, that [the legislature] must find a way to prevent people with a BAC of .16 from DUI. He explained that under HB 321, for example, the crime of DUI with a BAC of .16 or greater would subject a person to a minimum mandatory sentence of 6 days for a first offense, 40 days for a second offense, [80 days for a third offense], and so on. He offered his understanding that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, amended Sec. 410, Alcohol-impaired [driving] countermeasure incentive grant may be available to the state. Because people are afraid of going to jail, he remarked, [increasing the amount of jail time a person would be subject to] will result in safer roads. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether the sentencing guidelines of the aforementioned other 31 states are the same as what is being proposed via HB 321. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS relayed that a BAC of .15 is considered more of a national standard, but from a marketing standpoint, he said he thought that to provide for, "double the BAC, double the jail time" would be a much simpler concept for people to grasp. The goal of HB 321, he added, is to deter people who are really drunk from getting in their cars. Although the sentencing standards vary in the aforementioned 31 states, they all have a significantly higher [penalties] for a higher BAC level; he mentioned that members' packets include a summary produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) illustrating what the standards are in those states. 1:23:20 PM CHAIR McGUIRE said she wants to ensure that the penalties for DUI are appropriate. She asked Representative Ramras whether he can provide the committee with evidence either that the laws adopted over the last six year pertaining to this issue aren't working or that society would be better served by strengthening the penalties yet again. It always sounds great to say, "Let's be tough on drunk drivers," she noted, but they must also ensure that the benefits of having the proposed stiffer penalties will be worth the cost to the state to prosecute and then incarcerate violators. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he is not interested in hearing public testimony from victims regarding this issue because it will merely underline his point, though he mentioned that he has requested further information from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC). He reiterated his view that jail time is the single most effective deterrent to DUI. He opined that although Minnesota has a [high risk] BAC threshold of .20, strong sanctions have made it effective and have lowered recidivism and refusal rates among "high BAC first time offenders." He characterized HB 321 as the correct policy to pursue, and offered his belief that they need to further dissuade people who are already problem drinkers from DUI. 1:28:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that having a BAC of .15, .14, or even .13 is unacceptable. Why, therefore, does the bill propose a threshold of .16 BAC? REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that the "local chapter" of MADD initially opposed the bill because it felt that establishing a threshold of .16 was too high since one couldn't draw a distinction between legally drunk and really drunk, but was persuaded to support the bill because of input and statistics received from other MADD chapters nationwide. He reiterated that he'd selected a .16 threshold because it will be easy for people to understand a PSA that says, "double the blood alcohol [concentration], double the jail time." He said he thinks that Alaska has one of the toughest, strongest, and best set of DUI laws, and that HB 321 will further strengthen those laws and make the community safer. There is a segment of the population that already drinks to excess, and something needs to be put in place that will make those people think harder about their behavior, he offered. 1:32:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is concerned about the proposed advertisement campaign because there might be a tendency for people to think its okay to drive drunk at a BAC lower than .16. "I want them to focus on [.14 BAC], I want them to focus on [.12 BAC]; I don't want to take out an ad campaign, saying, 'Don't worry about it 'til you're at [.16 BAC],'" he remarked. He surmised that a first time offense could be construed as merely an inconvenience because currently it only subjects a person to 3 days in jail, and suggested that an alternative to the language currently being proposed via the bill would be to instead establish a longer mandatory sentence for a first time offense unless the defendant can prove with substantial evidence that he/she only deserves to spend 3 days in jail. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he is attempting to reach those who are the worst offenders, the repeat offenders who despite all the penalties, fines, and jail time, continue to drive under the influence. When people chose to drink beyond the current .08 BAC limit, it wrecks a lot of lives, he remarked, and again reiterated his belief that an effective deterrent for those who have already surrendered their rational thought processes will be more jail time. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she is pleased with the bill, particularly with the provisions regarding fines. Alaska has the [dubious] honor of being number one with regard to alcohol abuse, and [alcoholism] is costing the state huge amounts of money; therefore, she opined, the legislature must do something about this issue, both from a safety standpoint and from a financial standpoint. 1:38:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification regarding the last [sentence] in the sponsor statement: "This legislation allows professional servers to renew their alcohol server education cards, by demonstrating their knowledge by passing the written test without having to retake the introductory course". JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, indicated on behalf of Representative Ramras that that sentence was not meant to apply to HB 321. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the fiscal notes and characterized the one provided by the Department of Law (DOL) as being much more honest than the one provided by the DPS, which he further characterized as being inaccurate; he asked the sponsor to discuss this issue with the DPS and seek out a corrected fiscal note. He then said it appears that the main difference in the proposed committee substitute (CS) included in committee packets is that the maximum that can be charged to cover the cost of imprisonment is being raised from $2,000 to $4,000; this language is located [in Sections 2 and 4]. MS. PIERSON concurred with the latter point. 1:41:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 321, Version 24-LS1099\F, Luckhaupt, 1/16/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized the aforementioned change as being entirely reasonable. He mentioned that he is concerned, however, that the repeal of AS 28.35.032(i) - via Section 5 of the bill - is a mistake. [Ms. Pierson's answer was inaudible.] REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, referring to Representative Wilson's comment, relayed that the current fine schedule is not being changed via HB 321; rather, it is only the amount of jail time that is being increased, the thought being that jail time is just as inconvenient for affluent offenders as for those with more modest incomes. 1:45:06 PM RON TAYLOR, Coordinator, Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP), Prevention and Early Intervention Section, Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said he is pleased to see HB 321 come forward. The DHSS has long viewed "high risk" drivers as posing a greater public safety risk and using up enormous amounts of resources. Referring to earlier stated concerns, he said that according to statistics gathered by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for 2004 through 2005, the number of DUI [arrests] dropped from 5,107 to 4,312; therefore, he surmised, [current] DUI laws are having a very positive effect. MR. TAYLOR, referring to another earlier stated concern, offered his understanding that a comprehensive look has not yet been taken at all the DUI laws; instead, changes have been made on a continuing basis. Alaska is one of the top states in terms of having uniform DUI laws; for example, a first time DUI offense is considered a first time DUI offense all across the state. He said he has statistics illustrating that over 60 percent of DUI offenders have BAC levels in excess of .15, and suggested that the state has been remiss in addressing this particular type of offender. He said it is important for these types of offenders to be held accountable, particularly given the enormous cost to public safety, to the criminal justice system, and to health and social services entities that their behavior results in. MR. TAYLOR said one of the recommendations the [DHSS] made in its fiscal analysis of the bill was to "increase everything"; a very clear message needs to be sent that the behavior of high risk drivers must be deterred. He suggested that the committee change the BAC threshold in the bill so that it mirrors the national high risk BAC threshold of .15; this would conform Alaska's law to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) definition of a high risk driver. He also suggested that the committee proportionally increase the jail time, fines, and DMV reinstatement fees. The [extra] money could then be used to offset the bill's fiscal note. MR. TAYLOR opined that [the bill] should also clarify who qualifies as a high risk driver. For example, he remarked, if he were a third time DUI offender and had a BAC above .15 only on that third offense, would he be subject to the aggravated penalty at that point, or would he have to have had a BAC level above .15 for the prior two DUI convictions. He relayed that the DHSS recommends that a portion of the [fines and fees] go back to the ASAP, the Prevention and Early Intervention Section of the DBH, and various traffic safety programs. He indicated that this latter point merely mirrors sentiments that the department has heard the legislature expressing. In conclusion, he said that the department thinks that the benefits of passing HB 321 [with the suggested changes] will allow it to be in compliance with the NHTSA's programmatic criteria - which include, for example, passing a "high risk" bill that stipulates a BAC level of .15 - and thereby qualify for highway safety traffic incentive grants. 1:52:06 PM CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether Alaska would qualify for those grants if the bill states a BAC of .16. MR. TAYLOR offered his understanding that the programmatic criteria says that a state must adopt a law that imposes stronger sanctions or additional penalties for high risk drivers who's BAC is .15 or more. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Taylor to provide his comments, statistics, and any suggested changes to the committee in writing. MR. TAYLOR agreed to do so. CHAIR McGUIRE asked that those items also be sent to the bill's sponsor. 1:55:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again asked the sponsor to deal with the issue of the fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS agreed to do so. With regard to the portion of statute being repealed by Section 5 of the bill, he explained that AS 28.35.032(i) applies to the crime of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and said he would further research the issue of why they should repeal that provision. He also offered his belief that federal monies would still be available to states as long as they have a BAC threshold between .15 and .20. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Taylor to provide the committee with statistics that encompass more than the last two years. MR. TAYLOR agreed to do so. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 321. She relayed that HB 321 [Version F] would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|