Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
01/27/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB326 | |
| HB321 | |
| HB314 | |
| HB379 | |
| HB343 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 379 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 326 | ||
| = | HB 321 | ||
| = | HB 314 | ||
HB 321 - AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING 1:54:29 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next 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." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 321, Version 24-LS1099\F, Luckhaupt, 1/16/06, which had been adopted as a work draft on 1/25/06.] JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Representative Ramras answered questions posed on January 25, 2006. She reminded the committee that Representative Gruenberg had asked why the committee would want to repeal AS 28.35.032(i) via Section 5. She explained that for those circumstances outlined in the bill, there would no longer be a 72-hour sentence as outlined in AS 28.35.032(i) for refusing to take a chemical test to determine a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level; instead, the sentence for refusal would mirror what is in the bill for driving under the influence (DUI) convictions. She reminded the committee that Representative Gara had asked for some statistics regarding the effectiveness of the [current] DUI laws and informed the committee that the statistics are in the packet. 1:56:33 PM MS. PIERSON noted that Ron Taylor, Coordinator, Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP), Prevention and Early Intervention Section, Division of Behavior Health (DBH), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), brought up the question of [a possible] amendment dealing with increased [fees for reinstating a person's driver's license]. She stated that although Representative Ramras didn't want to increase the court fines, he didn't have a problem with increasing the [fee] for reinstating a driver's license. In regard to the fiscal notes and Representative Gruenberg's question about them, she remarked that she has yet to receive a return email from the Department of Corrections (DOC). In regard to the available grants, she relayed that 23 U.S.C. 410 alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants are available if certain criteria are met, and referred to the criteria for the grants in committee packets. MS. PIERSON relayed that one of the things she checked into was whether a .15 BAC would be a threshold for that and the answer is no. There are states that have a high BAC law, for example a .20 BAC, and they are still receiving these grants. [Alaska] has to meet the criteria and she offered her understanding that Alaska is qualified under "Basic Grant A" criteria and probably under "Basic Grant B" criteria. She relayed that Ron Taylor also asked what it would count as if one were to get a third DUI and had gotten two previous DUIs with a low BAC but the third DUI was with a high BAC. She opined that if one gets a high BAC [DUI] and it is the third one, it falls under DUIs that one is charged with under [proposed] AS 28.35.030, but acknowledged that perhaps this is not yet clear in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the "rule of lenity": if a criminal statute can be interpreted two ways - one way that's harsher than the other way - the court will have to interpret it the less-harsh way. Therefore, the statute needs to be clearer, otherwise the aforementioned rule may be brought to bear. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to increase the [fee for reinstating a driver's license], after a second high-risk DUI offense, to $750. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that Amendment 1 be conceptual so the drafter could put it where it's appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then altered Conceptual Amendment 1 so that it would increase the fee to only $700. In response to a question and comments, he noted that AS 28.15.271 relates to driver's license reinstatement fees. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't understand what the purpose would be of increasing the [fee] by $200. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that increasing the fee is creating another aspect of deterrence for this higher-level crime. 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), relayed that his suggested increase in the driver's license reinstatement fee is in response to something that said at the previous meeting, which is that each time something is changed in [the DUI statutes] it's going to send a clear message to a high-risk driver that he/she will have the distinction of being subject to higher penalties - whether it be fines, jail time, or reinstatement fees. He remarked that there's no rhyme or reason for a 50 percent increase across the board for jail time, fines, and reinstatement fees. 2:06:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, clarified that if one has a .16 [BAC], [Conceptual Amendment 1] applies, while if one has a .159 [BAC], it won't. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that in 2000 there were 4,686 DUI arrests and the number was the same in 2005. In the intervening years, the number of DUI arrests have increased and decreased, but that's not compelling evidence that changes in DUI laws have caused the number of arrests or convictions to decrease. He opined that although the fines have been drastically increased, it seems like increases in jail time is more important because it is punitive. He expressed his concern about whether [an increase in fees] is actually needed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "We have not increased the [fines] ... in the bill, so [Conceptual Amendment 1 would be] ... the only additional monetary sanction in it." MS. PIERSON concurred. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON recalled Representative Ramras stating that someone affluent can easily pay a fine and that therefore his intent was to change the jail time, not the fine. MS. PIERSON concurred with that summation. 2:11:24 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives McGuire, Wilson, Anderson, and Gara voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-4. MS. PIERSON, in response to comments, informed the committee of the high BAC levels in states which are receiving the aforementioned grants: .15 in Arizona; .15 in Arkansas; .20 in California; split .15/.20 in Colorado; .16 in Connecticut; .16/.20 with a graduated law in Delaware; .20 in Florida; and .15 in Georgia. In response to a question, she offered her understanding that this legislation would make it so that [the State of Alaska] would be able to apply for the grants. MR. TAYLOR indicated that that issue has not yet been clarified. He said he was unaware of whether having a high BAC threshold of .16 would impact [the State of Alaska] for the upcoming fiscal year (FY). REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that the point to him isn't that one is half as dangerous with a .159 BAC than if one has a .161 BAC; "the truth is, you're a fantastic danger at both." He opined that to pretend that one is twice or half as dangerous simply by using these numbers is a fiction, and that one's first time DUI conviction, in a lot of cases, just seems like a "slap on the wrist" when it should instead have a bigger impact. It seems reasonable to him, he remarked, that in a more serious case, a first time DUI should result in six days [in jail], whereas always making the penalty twice as much, every single time, doesn't make as much sense. He reiterated his concern that HB 321 sends the message that it's okay to drive with a .10 or .08 BAC, and opined that dong so is not okay. 2:17:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to make a conviction for a first time DUI at the .16 BAC level result in a minimum of six days [in jail] and enhancing the sentence for subsequent DUIs by a minimum of a third longer than it currently is though the court can impose something longer if it thinks the circumstances justify it. 2:18:58 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson and Gara voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives McGuire, Wilson, and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-3. [Following was a brief discussion regarding what changes to sentences would have been effected by Conceptual Amendment 2.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested replacing "40 days" with "30 days" on page 2, line 26; "80 days" with "70 days" on page 2, line 28; "140 days" with "130 days" on page 2, line 31; and "280 days" with "260 days" on page 3, line 3. CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Representative Gruenberg's suggested changes as Amendment 3. CHAIR McGUIRE informed the committee that she would hold HB 321 over. She expressed her concern about the bill sponsor's absence and Amendment 3 being a fairly substantive change to the legislation, which is intended to double the penalties in the category of jail sentences. She expressed her desire for a more definitive answer - in writing - as to whether .15 BAC or .16 BAC makes a difference. In response to questions, she clarified that HB 321 will be held over with Amendment 3 left pending, adding that it would be okay if Representative Gruenberg wanted to withdraw Amendment 3 at the next meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that none of the committee members should be doing "math on the fly," and asked whether the federal government has stipulated how much the states have to increase their sentences by. MS. PIERSON clarified that [the federal language in part] reads, "a law that imposes stronger sanctions or additional penalties for high risk drivers with a BAC of .15 or more". 2:27:56 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 321 [Version F] would be held over with the question of whether to adopt Amendment 3 left pending.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|