Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
05/10/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB145 | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 145 - MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE 1:11:09 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 145, "An Act relating to municipal impoundment and forfeiture." 1:11:27 PM SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that SB 145 amends Title 28, which allows local municipalities to adopt individual ordinances for impoundment and forfeiture of vehicles. This legislation only pertains to motor vehicles. Under SB 145, AS 28.01.015(5) is added to allow municipalities to adopt ordinances for impoundment of the motor vehicle of those who have over $1,000 in delinquent traffic fines or violations within that municipality. This legislation, the so-called scofflaws, addresses the small group of individuals who simply do not pay their fines. In fact, an individual in Anchorage has over 43 citations, totaling $9,310. Another Anchorage resident has over 70 traffic citations that total over $7,000 in unpaid fines. The current liability in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is $7.5 million. This legislation merely provides a tool for municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES related that she is very supportive of SB 145. She then inquired as to whether the vehicles can be impounded without a hearing or whether there needs to be a separate charge brought at the time the individual is pulled over. SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that during the consideration of the legislation on the Senate floor, there was the suggestion to make the actual accumulation of over $1,000 in fines a crime. Senator McGuire related that she disagreed with that suggestion because it, she opined, makes a crime upon a crime. She expressed her belief that vehicles can be forfeited for these [violations] so long as notice and the opportunity for a hearing is afforded. The process in which the government seizes property should be a thoughtful and careful act. Senator McGuire specified that she feels comfortable keeping the legislation as is and asking the municipality to adopt fair articles for notification and due process such that the seizure can occur without making it a crime. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it's the sponsor's intent to limit the legislation to moving violations or could it include parking violations as well. SENATOR MCGUIRE explained that when the municipality contacted her it expressed interest in the legislation being broader [by] making it a crime. Whether the violation is a moving violation or a stationary violation, it's the same net effect, she noted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the term "traffic" on page 2, line 1, includes stationary and moving violations. He expressed the desire to use language that relates the sponsor's intent. 1:23:47 PM DAN MOORE, Treasurer, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), related his understanding that the intent is that the term "traffic" will refer to moving violations. He related his further understanding that there's no intent to include stationary violations. SENATOR MCGUIRE related her impression that the municipality had two sections of the law in which there are significant unpaid fines, some of which are moving and some are stationary, and thus the municipality wanted the tool in both areas. Although Senator McGuire specified that she wanted to do what the municipality wants, she reiterated her belief that the same net effect results in relation to unpaid fines whether they're for moving violations or stationary violations. MR. MOORE the two areas in which the municipality had the largest problem in terms of unpaid fines is related to traffic fines, which are truly moving violations under MOA's law. The other category was criminal fines, which deal with a host of things that tie into moving violations with driving while under the influence (DUI). The hope, he opined, is that through SB 145 an additional consequence can be created for the most extreme cases. The trigger would be the amount owed. He remarked that MOA views SB 145 as a public safety tool in trying to change behavior rather than as a collection tool. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that a definition of "traffic fines" be included in the legislation in order to be clear. SENATOR MCGUIRE interjected that one option is to simply refer to "moving violations". She inquired as to the rationale behind using the term "traffic fines". MR. MOORE explained that the cases with a long record of fines are all judgment cases that have gone through the court, specifically through traffic court. Therefore, these are considered minor offenses, moving violations that are separate from parking violations. He noted that parking violations are adjudicated through an entirely different process. According to MOA's law, a traffic violation is a moving violation not a parking violation. CHAIR RAMRAS asked if Mr. Moore would like to relate MOA's preference for the legislation, in relation to whether it should be broadened or left as currently before the committee. MR. MOORE deferred to Mr. Reeves. 1:28:48 PM JIM REEVES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), related his understanding that the term "moving violations" is a term with a well-understood meaning that wouldn't include parking tickets. He expressed his further understanding that the purpose of this legislation isn't to include parking tickets. He said that he wasn't sure that the term "traffic fines" has the same clearly understood meaning. SENATOR MCGUIRE said that she is comfortable with maintaining the language "traffic fines" in light of the testimony today regarding MOA's definition of it. Although she expressed concern with referring to "moving violations" as there may be violations that go through traffic court that aren't defined as moving violations, she said that she's fine with either terminology. CHAIR RAMRAS asked if the language as it exists in SB 145 captures those violations that amount to $7.5 million in unpaid fines. SENATOR MCGUIRE related her belief that the language would cover it, although she expressed interest in hearing from the municipality. Again, she expressed her desire to conform to the wishes of MOA. CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to the best language to use. MR. MOORE confirmed that the insertion of the term "moving" prior to the term "violations" would be satisfactory and provide further clarification that this legislation doesn't include parking violations. With regard to the $7.5 million, he clarified that's the total of all the unpaid default judgment cases in Anchorage that have gone through the traffic court for moving violations. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that CSSB 145(CRA) proposes the addition of new subsection (r), which would have the department sharing information with the municipalities. The aforementioned subsection isn't included in SB 145; is that because it was deemed unnecessary, she asked. SENATOR MCGUIRE explained that at one point the MOA had considered requesting the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) to share, in confidence, with the municipality, the place of work of the individual with all these violations. Although Senator McGuire said she felt it's a good idea, the department ultimately chose to add a fiscal note related to the sharing of information. Senator McGuire disagreed that this sharing of information amounted to the fiscal note submitted, and thus the decision was made to not address that and return to the version that simply provides the option for forfeiture. 1:36:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, referring to the language "motor vehicle used", asked if an individual who lends his/her vehicle to someone who has, unbeknownst to the vehicle owner, fines totaling more than $1,000, could have his/her vehicle impounded. He then inquired as to how many tickets would total $1,000. With regard to the language "within the municipality", he asked if the MOA could address a situation in which an individual has fines totaling [$1,000 or more] from an area outside the municipality. SENATOR MCGUIRE reiterated her earlier comment that she's uncomfortable with making this a crime due to the language "motor vehicle used". She emphasized that the legislation asks the municipality to follow due process in seizing property. Due process will involve fair notice and opportunity for a hearing. Senator McGuire then highlighted that one goal of SB 145 is education and deterrence; the desire is to think twice about to whom one loans a vehicle. More than one citation would be required to reach $1,000 in fines. As the information in the committee packet relates, this legislation addresses individuals with multiple citations that total large sums. Studies have shown that there is a link between the propensity to commit these traffic violations and not pay them, she related. Therefore, there is an interest in public safety. In regard to the language "within the municipality", she pointed out that statute includes a definition of "municipality". SENATOR MCGUIRE emphasized the need for an opportunity for fair notice because the government seizing property is a very serious matter. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether [subsection (r) of CSSB 145(CRA) could be included in SB 145] if there was a delayed effective date as well as language specifying that the cost [of sharing the information] would borne by the municipality. SENATOR MCGUIRE related that when that language was in the bill, the municipality agreed that the cost of the [information sharing] would be borne by the municipality. However, the DLWD then provided an unfounded fiscal note, in her opinion, based on the department's internal procedures. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed some concern with the sponsor's suggestion to be careful to whom one lends one's vehicle. SENATOR MCGUIRE opined that the fact that an individual who lends his/her vehicle in good faith to another without knowing that individual's propensity for moving violations is a factor. 1:45:25 PM STEVE SMITH, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), noted his agreement with Senator McGuire that SB 145 is a worthwhile tool for law enforcement to use to attempt to change the behavior of those for whom the existing laws don't seem to matter. MR. MOORE, in response to Representative Samuels's earlier question, specified that on average an individual would have to have about seven outstanding delinquent traffic tickets for this law to apply. Mr. Moore related that although there are about 23,000 with delinquent traffic fines, this legislation only addresses about 4-5 percent of that population, the most likely to commit additional traffic fines and put the safety of others at risk. With regard to the scenario of lending a vehicle, the Municipality of Anchorage has a web site at which one can search for individuals with unpaid traffic fines. CHAIR RAMRAS asked if an individual with over $1,000 in unpaid traffic fines would forfeit the entire value of the vehicle or only the portion to pay the outstanding fines. 1:48:37 PM JOSH FREEMAN, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), related that at the municipal level this will be a crime. As such, if there are two convictions, the vehicle would be forfeited completely. The aforementioned is how the DUI and suspended license ordinances are set up, and thus those parameters would be followed. MR. REEVES interjected that if SB 145 passes in its current form, the municipality will have to revisit the matter with the assembly because the assembly's approach was predicated on the fact that it would be a criminal act for those in the scofflaw category to operate a vehicle. If the aforementioned isn't the case, there will be constitutional questions regarding the forfeiture of the vehicle. CHAIR RAMRAS related to the committee that Duane Bannock, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), has relayed the DMV's support for SB 145 since he had to attend another hearing. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if an individual would only be impacted by this proposed legislation if he/she amasses fines of $1,000 or more within the municipality or would those fines outside of the municipality also be included. MR. MOORE clarified that the intent is to only include those traffic fines within the boundaries of a municipality. Therefore, MOA would enforce this proposed law based on traffic fines issued by Anchorage police officers within the bounds of the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised then that if the state wished to do the same thing, then the municipality would have to have procedures in place such that the state could also impound vehicles. MR. REEVES answered yes. 1:52:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that existing forfeiture statutes refer to "a motor vehicle used by a person". He asked if there has been a circumstance in which an individual who doesn't own the vehicle was responsible for having a vehicle impounded. If so, he inquired as to how the municipality has handled that. AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said that such situations occur often and the municipal code includes procedures to address that. He referred to the procedures as the "innocent owner defense" by which owners of the vehicles can provide evidence to show that they didn't know or have reason to know that the individual would drive the vehicle in violation of the law. CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. CHAIR RAMRAS moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to insert "moving" after the word "for" on page 2, line 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:53:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SB 145, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 145(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|