Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/08/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB321 | |
| HB353 | |
| HB363 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 339 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 321 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 321 - AGGRAVATED DRUNK DRIVING 1:14:58 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." [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; left pending from 1/27/06, and not addressed further during this meeting, was the question of whether to adopt an Amendment 3 to Version F.] 1:15:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 321, Version 24-LS1099\Y, Luckhaupt, 1/30/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version Y was before the committee. 1:15:49 PM JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of Representative Ramras that Version Y [contains a new] Section 3, which clarifies that a person convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) will be subject to the enhanced penalties in accordance with the previous number of DUIs he/she has been convicted of. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether HB 321 will substantially curb drinking and driving. JAMES A. HELGOE, Lieutenant, Legislative Liaison, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), offered his belief that HB 321 is a step in the right direction. There are many factors contributing to the problem of [drinking and driving in Alaska]. The media and law enforcement agencies throughout Alaska are attempting to increase public awareness as well as voluntary compliance. He opined that tougher penalties is a means of educating the public that it will be held more accountable [for drinking and driving], whether through increased [fees] or longer jail time. 1:20:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, in response to a question, relayed HB 321 is endorsed by both the Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving MADD. He noted that he attended 10-15 meetings of the Fairbanks MADD chapter and initially they were reluctant to endorse HB 321 because they didn't want to differentiate between "drunk" and "really drunk." It wasn't until other MADD chapters around the country began to endorse it that the local MADD chapter "came around." The Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association, on the other hand, embraced HB 321 initially at its annual convention because it recognized that it's not the intent of the hospitality and/or food and beverage industry to put drunk people out on the road. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that 31 states have adopted an aggravated drunk driving law. Currently, there is one threshold for drunk driving, which is .08 BAC. He expressed his hope that [HB 321 will result in] safer roads. He noted that he explored the issue of federal grants and found that Alaska can't qualify unless it adopts several provisions outlined by the federal government. He informed the committee that the fiscal note for HB 321 is $1.2 million. 1:27:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Representative Ramras whether he feels that [Alaskans] who "don't have that much of a problem but just have to be careful of how much they drink" are going to [take notice of HB 321]. She opined that those whom [the legislature] is concerned about aren't going to be aware of how high his/her BAC is. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS relayed that in states where an aggravated drunk driving law has been passed and implemented, the recidivism has decreased. He noted that license suspension isn't working since there are people who have had their licenses suspended for a lifetime but are still driving and are still getting [DUIs]. He suggested that for those people the bill will put them in jail longer and thereby act as a deterrent. He noted that felony drunk driving is already "on the books" and that it's not that successful against chronic drunk drivers. He posed the questions of whether HB 321 will lead to safer roads and greater public safety, and whether it will be worth the fiscal note of $1.2 million. He answered, "A resounding yes because it has the potential of changing behavior." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, in regard to the states that have already adopted [an aggravated drunk driving law], asked what the impact has been. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS referred Representative Wilson to a document in the packet that addressed her question. REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he's not convinced that HB 321 is going to make major changes in recidivism rates or behavior. State law currently doesn't allow the use of interlock devices to prevent people from driving as a condition of probation if one has been convicted of a felony [DUI]. He asked why that is. 1:33:48 PM SUSAN A. PARKES, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), relayed that the statute may not require [the use of an interlock device] in felony [cases], but she doesn't know why it couldn't simply be a condition of probation. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether [the use of an interlock device] is required in misdemeanor DUI cases. MS. PARKES relayed her understanding that in certain instances, [interlock devices] are required or order for a person to get a limited license, but said she would research that issue further. CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to whether driving under the influence of marijuana would be considered a DUI. MS. PARKES indicated that driving under the influence of any drug or alcohol is a DUI crime. However, "drug driving" cases, whether involving OxyContin, methamphetamine, or marijuana are much more difficult to prosecute in terms of proving the level of intoxication; for example, in regard to marijuana, specific blood tests have to be conducted and one has to be able to show that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was active in the body at the time of the driving. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that she's heard that judges are routinely throwing out evidence related to [driving under the influence of] marijuana on the grounds that that evidence is more prejudicial that probative. She asked, "Is it a question of changing the law or is it a question of funding or coming up with a test that's more accurate in showing how those other drugs also [influence driving]?" MS. PARKES, in response to questions, reiterated that [people who are driving under the influence of drugs] are subject to the same penalties as those driving under the influence of alcohol, but it's just much more difficult to prove those cases. The problem with drugs, especially when [the drugs] are interacting with alcohol, is that there are differences in body type and tolerance, and standard levels haven't been set for every drug, although the Division of Alaska State Troopers has recently [employed] certified drug recognition experts. The specific problem with marijuana is that THC remains in one's body up to 30 days after one has used marijuana. To determine whether it's just still in one's body because he/she got high two weeks ago or because he/she just got high and got in his/her car takes a very specific test that state's crime lab doesn't do. When "drug driving" cases are prosecuted, the tests have to be sent to an outside laboratory to determine whether [THC] was actually active in one's body. 1:38:30 PM CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that the more severe the penalties become for DUI and the focus being on alcohol, questions regarding drugs arise. When new crimes or enhanced penalties for existing crimes are being considered, recidivism and deterrence are not the only things that are looked at. She added that there are graduated penalties for the severity of crimes. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that in the "seriously high" BAC level cases, the courts are already imposing longer sentences, adding that he's worried that HB 321 is going to send a message that driving with a BAC of .159 is okay. Therefore, why run that risk if judges are already imposing longer sentences for higher BACs? REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS clarified that his approach is to set an aggravated drunk driving standard to discourage people from drinking and driving. The very first thing that goes out the window when one has been drinking is his/her ability to reason/think rationally. REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed his interest in adding a provision that would require the use of interlock devices. 1:49:36 PM MS. PARKES referred to AS 12.55.102, which read: (a) The court may order as a condition of probation or generally as part of a sentence that a defendant convicted of an offense involving the use, consumption, or possession of an alcoholic beverage may not operate a motor vehicle during the period of probation unless the vehicle is equipped with a properly functioning, monitored, and maintained ignition interlock device. MS. PARKES added that it's clear that [an interlock device] can be ordered in DUIs or any alcohol-related offense. She referred to AS 28.15.201, which read in part: "(ii) the court or department requires the person to use an ignition interlock device during the period of the limited license;". REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he would drop the interlock device idea until later, and remarked that there's a certain amount of logic to HB 321, so he's partially supportive of it; HB 321 addresses people who are so irresponsible that they won't stop drinking. He again expressed his concern, however, about the state advertising that .16 BAC is no longer tolerated, because that will imply that driving with lower BAC levels is okay. 1:53:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: In any public relations efforts by the state to inform the public about AS 28.35.030(b)(1)(B), the state shall in no way minimize the danger of intoxication below those levels while driving, and shall advise that intoxication below those levels is also illegal and/or dangerous. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 1 provides that if the State of Alaska begins advertising the dangers of driving at a .16 BAC and above, it also needs to emphasize that driving drunk at all is dangerous and unacceptable. He said he doesn't want the State of Alaska to put money into anything suggesting that driving with something less than a .16 BAC is acceptable behavior. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that he did not object to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he is not in favor of having the language in Amendment 1 listed in statute, and would therefore vote against it. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added that she would also vote against Amendment 1 because she doesn't feel that such language needs to be put in statute. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON inquired about a letter of intent. 1:55:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 1. 1:55:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to add to the uncodified law [the text of Amendment 1], thereby sending a message to the current administration and/or future administrations to think through its advertising campaign. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. 1:56:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB 321, Version 24-LS1099\Y, Luckhaupt, 1/30/06, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He relayed that he's against drunk driving, but is not convinced that HB 321 is going to do what Representative Ramras intends for it to do. He's said that although he's convinced that HB 321 will change the state's behavior, he is not convinced that it will change drunken driving behavior. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then withdrew his objection. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to reporting the bill from committee. There being none, CSHB 321(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|