Legislature(2001 - 2002)

03/31/2001 11:19 AM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 179 - OFFENSES RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING                                                                               
[Contains brief references to SB 105  and HB 4 regarding loss and                                                               
allocation  of an  offender's permanent  fund dividend  (PFD) for                                                               
certain offenses.]                                                                                                              
Number 0129                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  the next order of  business, HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO.  179,  "An  Act  relating   to  underage  drinking  and  drug                                                               
offenses; and  providing for an  effective date."  He  noted that                                                               
he would reopen public testimony.                                                                                               
[Because  of its  length, Amendment  1, which  was discussed  and                                                               
adopted during  the meeting, is found  at the end of  the minutes                                                               
for HB 179.  Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]                                                                 
CHAIR ROKEBERG  called an  at-ease at  1:39 p.m.   He  called the                                                               
meeting back to order at 1:42 p.m.                                                                                              
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  Mr.  Guaneli   to  explain  Amendment  1.                                                               
[Amendment 1 is provided with  original punctuation at the end of                                                               
the minutes on HB 179.]                                                                                                         
Number 0196                                                                                                                     
DEAN  J.   GUANELI,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Legal                                                               
Services  Section-Juneau, Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law                                                               
(DOL),  advised members  that the  administration originally  had                                                               
proposed  an underage-drinking  bill; although  [HB 179]  adopted                                                               
many  of the  administration's  proposals, it  didn't adopt  some                                                               
significant  parts.   Therefore,  Amendment 1  goes  back to  the                                                               
administration's proposal.                                                                                                      
MR.  GUANELI  referred  to  a chart  [in  packets],  noting  that                                                               
originally proposed was a graduated  system in which a first-time                                                               
offender  would be  subject to  certain penalties,  a second-time                                                               
offender  would be  subject to  more, and  so on.   One  goal, at                                                               
least for  the first offense,  was to  try to eliminate  costs by                                                               
eliminating the  right to a jury  trial or to a  public defender.                                                               
Toward that end, proposed in the  first column of the chart under                                                               
first offense,  is simply a  fine [$600], all suspended,  so that                                                               
the amount  at stake doesn't trigger  a jury trial; no  jail time                                                               
is  available,  so that  it  isn't  technically classified  as  a                                                               
"crime";  and no  license revocation  or  community work  service                                                               
(CWS) is  available, which the  courts have held would  trigger a                                                               
right to  a jury  trial and  a right to  counsel, which  drive up                                                               
costs for first-time offenders.                                                                                                 
MR. GUANELI suggested that most  [of these offenders] merely need                                                               
education  on the  effects of  alcohol,  with the  hope that  the                                                               
person  will  never  re-offend.   Therefore,  all  the  functions                                                               
relating  to  a  criminal  case,   including  a  jury  trial  and                                                               
attorneys, may not be necessary.                                                                                                
Number 0375                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI  referred to  the bottom  section of  the chart.   He                                                               
emphasized  the importance  of referral  to the  Juvenile Alcohol                                                               
Safety Action Program (JASAP),  whether for first-time offenders,                                                               
second-time  offenders, or  third  offenders.   He expressed  the                                                               
belief is that all of the  other options - including fines, jail,                                                               
revocation of licenses, or CWS -  won't be nearly as effective as                                                               
having  those options  plus some  form  of screening  as well  as                                                               
education or treatment.                                                                                                         
MR. GUANELI, still  referring to the chart,  addressed the second                                                               
offense, for  which more is at  stake in terms of  money [$1,000,                                                               
with up  to half suspended].   He pointed out that  although jail                                                               
still isn't  available, license  revocation is,  but only  if the                                                               
person doesn't  complete the treatment  or the mandated  48 hours                                                               
of CWS.                                                                                                                         
Number 0464                                                                                                                     
MR.  GUANELI  pointed  out  that someone  with  a  third  offense                                                               
probably exhibits  signs of  alcohol dependence.   As  with drunk                                                               
driving,  for each  time a  person is  caught, the  person likely                                                               
commits  the offense  numerous  times.   He  said for  third-time                                                               
offenders under age 18, it  is felt by juvenile justice officials                                                               
that  sending  the  person  to the  juvenile  justice  system  is                                                               
valuable; it could  be formally going to juvenile  court or going                                                               
through  the so-called  informal adjustment  process, in  which a                                                               
probation officer enters into a  probationary agreement [with the                                                               
offender].   This would allow  more supervision and  more program                                                               
MR. GUANELI  addressed [third-time offenders] ages  18 and older,                                                               
noting that the options are more  limited.  Therefore, it will be                                                               
left up to  a district court judge, who will  have the full range                                                               
of penalties,  including a fine [up  to $1,000, all of  which can                                                               
be suspended, according to the  chart]; jail time, if appropriate                                                               
[up to 90  days, all of which can be  suspended, according to the                                                               
chart]; six  months' license revocation upon  conviction, and six                                                               
more months' revocation if treatment  isn't completed; as well as                                                               
96 hours of CWS.                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said, in a nutshell,  the proposal is for a graduated                                                               
set  of  penalties,  with  the  JASAP  referral,  screening,  and                                                               
treatment, which  the offender must pay  for, at each stage.   He                                                               
emphasized  that the  committee must  decide to  what extent  the                                                               
JASAP will  be used, which  will involve  cost.  He  restated the                                                               
importance  of  the treatment  alternative  in  order to  have  a                                                               
successful program.                                                                                                             
MR.  GUANELI offered  to discuss  the issue  of wiping  the slate                                                               
clean.   He asked that  any questions about  treatment, including                                                               
both  programmatic and  budgetary  aspects, be  addressed to  the                                                               
officials  from  the Department  of  Health  and Social  Services                                                               
Number 0684                                                                                                                     
MARY  MARSHBURN,  Director,  Division of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department of  Administration, testified via teleconference.   In                                                               
answer to a question by  Chair Rokeberg, she specified that there                                                               
were  4,737 violations  by  people under  the age  of  21 in  the                                                               
calendar year 2000.  In  response to a question by Representative                                                               
James, she  said those were  for minor consuming  and possessing,                                                               
but  not for  drug use,  fraudulent  use of  a driver's  license,                                                               
"zero tolerance," or DWI (driving while intoxicated).                                                                           
Number 0734                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  requested confirmation  whether someone                                                               
who was  underage and  [charged with] DWI  would also  be charged                                                               
with minor consuming.                                                                                                           
MR. GUANELI answered,  "In all likelihood, we  would charge both,                                                               
but the most common disposition in  those cases is there's a plea                                                               
to  the  drunk-driving  charge  and a  dismissal  of  the  minor-                                                               
consuming charge."                                                                                                              
CHAIR ROKEBERG  suggested that is  because there is  a revocation                                                               
anyway for the [DWI].                                                                                                           
MR.  GUANELI said  right now  there is  a $300  maximum fine  for                                                               
minor  consuming;  for drunk  driving,  however,  it goes  up  to                                                               
$5,000, potentially, and there is jail time.                                                                                    
Number 0807                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI,  in response to  Chair Rokeberg's mention  of wiping                                                               
the slate  clean, said hundreds  or perhaps thousands  of persons                                                               
under the  age of 21  have prior convictions for  minor consuming                                                               
under current  law.  Because  of the  way the law  is structured,                                                               
and because  of the  way that the  supreme court  has implemented                                                               
the  law, those  persons were  convicted without  the right  to a                                                               
jury trial or  counsel.  In Alaska law, he  reported, a couple of                                                               
cases -  one from  the supreme  court and one  from the  court of                                                               
appeals - say that if there  is a conviction when a person didn't                                                               
have the  right to a  jury trial  or to counsel,  that conviction                                                               
cannot  be  used as  a  basis  for  enhancing a  future  penalty;                                                               
therefore, it cannot be used  as the person's first offense under                                                               
a third-time-offender-type situation.                                                                                           
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked  Mr. Guaneli to provide a  memorandum to the                                                               
committee later, with a case citation.                                                                                          
MR. GUANELI agreed to do so.   He continued, pointing out that if                                                               
a  new  system  is  created  for the  first,  second,  and  third                                                               
offenses,  none of  those past  convictions can  be relied  upon.                                                               
That  is why  he uses  the phrase  "wipe the  slate clean":   all                                                               
offenders will have to treated  as first-time offenders under the                                                               
new  system.   He emphasized  that having  alcohol screening  and                                                               
treatment will  be even more  important, because starting  now, a                                                               
lot of  so-called first-time offenders  will actually  be second-                                                               
or third-time offenders.                                                                                                        
Number 0944                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said a huge  number of adults  convicted of                                                               
DWI don't  re-offend.  She  inquired about statistics  on whether                                                               
underage DWI offenders offend again.                                                                                            
MR. GUANELI  suggested it  would be good  to get  statistics from                                                               
the  DMV on  the number  of second-time  minor-consuming offenses                                                               
that occur  each year [Ms. Marshburn  provided statistics later].                                                               
He recalled,  from looking at  statistics, that every  year there                                                               
are  roughly  5,000  total  offenders,  with  about  1,000  being                                                               
second-time offenders and much  fewer being third-time offenders.                                                               
In response  to a suggestion  by Representative James that  it is                                                               
probably  about the  same  rate, he  agreed  that the  connection                                                               
could be made.                                                                                                                  
Number 1029                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  what  the objective  is with  HB
CHAIR ROKEBERG stated:                                                                                                          
     We're  trying  to  dissuade  juveniles  from  consuming                                                                    
     alcohol.  I take it as  a matter of public policy.  And                                                                    
     it's up to  this committee to figure out  what the best                                                                    
     way to do  that is.  Historically, we had  the "Use it,                                                                    
     Lose  It"  provisions  for revocation  that  simplified                                                                    
     matters and decreased the cost.                                                                                            
CHAIR ROKEBERG  told members he hoped  they had all had  a chance                                                               
to read  the executive  summary of C  & S  Management Associates,                                                               
which addresses some of the problems  in the state.  [Provided in                                                               
packets  was page  83, "VI.  Substance Abuse  Treatment Resources                                                               
for Minors."]   He said the question is how  to make a transition                                                               
from  the  current  unconstitutional Niedermeyer  methodology  of                                                             
"Use it,  Lose It"  to a new  statute without  losing credibility                                                               
with the youth of the state.   He suggested the need, however, to                                                               
make a strong enough statement that  it gets the attention of the                                                               
youth of the state.                                                                                                             
Number 1130                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said "Use  it, Lose  It" can't  be used                                                               
with  a driver's  license, but  perhaps  could be  used with  the                                                               
[permanent fund] dividend (PFD).                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   said  he   didn't  see  why   not,  if   it  is                                                               
criminalized.   He  noted that  pending  legislation -  SB 105  -                                                               
would have a similar impact.                                                                                                    
Number 1170                                                                                                                     
MS. MARSHBURN  spoke up to  offer statistics.   She said  for the                                                               
year  2000, there  were 2,700  first-time offenders,  900 second-                                                               
time offenders, and 1,000 "third and up."                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES commented  that she  doesn't believe  these                                                               
young people  are thinking as  seriously about it upon  the first                                                               
offense, in comparison to adults.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested the  implication that "Use it,                                                               
Lose It" wasn't having a serious impact, either.                                                                                
Number 1220                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred  to his mention at an  earlier hearing of                                                               
a  130 percent  increase since  implementation of  "Use it,  Lose                                                               
It."  He  suggested testimony would be mixed  about how effective                                                               
it is.   He noted that at  a prior meeting, Mr.  Melton [from the                                                               
Fairbanks Alcohol  Safety Action  Program (FASAP)]  had testified                                                               
that he  believed it was effective,  as far as it  went; however,                                                               
[Mr. Melton] is limited in the tools he uses.                                                                                   
MR.  GUANELI  responded  that  until three  months  ago,  it  was                                                               
believed that  there was  a system in  which a  person's driver's                                                               
license could be  taken away, and a $300 fine  was the only thing                                                               
available.   However, now  that the  driver's license  aspect has                                                               
been  lost,  all that  minors  face  is  a  $300 fine  for  minor                                                               
consuming.  If  the combination of [revocation of  a] license and                                                               
a  $300 fine  wasn't  particularly effective,  he cautioned,  the                                                               
fine alone  certainly wouldn't be  very effective, which  is what                                                               
would exist  if nothing were done.   On another subject,  he said                                                               
the cost of  giving a jury trial to all  of these offenders would                                                               
be  very high;  he  mentioned  the fiscal  note  from the  Public                                                               
Defender Agency (PDA).                                                                                                          
CHAIR ROKEBERG estimated  that the costs would be  about the same                                                               
if  either trials  were  required  under the  "Use  it, Lose  It"                                                               
scenario or this new program were to be instituted.                                                                             
MR. GUANELI agreed,  saying either everyone could  be provided an                                                               
attorney and then the licenses would  be revoked, or the cost for                                                               
the public defender  alone would roughly equal  the estimate from                                                               
the DHSS  for the  JASAP.   He emphasized the  desire to  craft a                                                               
scheme whereby  the costs for  attorneys -  including prosecutors                                                               
and public  defenders - would  be put instead into  treatment, to                                                               
the extent possible;  he acknowledged that the HB  179 doesn't do                                                               
that completely because it still  provides attorneys for a second                                                               
and third offense.                                                                                                              
Number 1316                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether  the intent is to facilitate                                                               
a way to  get into the JASAP,  for which there is  only one pilot                                                               
program  in Alaska  at this  point,  or to  facilitate a  penalty                                                               
through the court  system.  He said it looks  as if [Amendment 1]                                                               
is  trying  to  facilitate  a  JASAP -  which  will  have  to  be                                                               
facilitated  somewhere  in  the  system,  through  the  DHSS,  he                                                               
surmised - that incorporates a learning process and a penalty.                                                                  
Number 1377                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG informed members that  Ms. Nobrega had just handed                                                               
him "an  example of the differential."   He said for  HB 179, the                                                               
[fiscal]  note from  the PDA  is  roughly $380,000.   However,  a                                                               
fiscal note  had been requested  for the current status,  if jury                                                               
trials were  to be enforced;  he said  the PDA's fiscal  note for                                                               
that alone is $1.3 million.                                                                                                     
Number 1414                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked where  the parents  fit in,  and what                                                               
the juvenile status of the offender is.                                                                                         
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  pointed  out   that  Mr.  Guaneli  distinguishes                                                               
between offenders  under the age  of 18  and those 18  and older.                                                               
He said the committee needs to  deal with that, because there are                                                               
people between  the age of  majority and  21 years old,  which is                                                               
the statutory  age for drinking in  Alaska.  As for  the parents,                                                               
he said an  amendment will be offered that adopts  Court Rule 11,                                                               
which says  the parents are  responsible for the fines  and fees.                                                               
He suggested that  parents would be looked to for  fines and fees                                                               
for treatment,  through a court  order and/or by statute,  if the                                                               
committee approves.                                                                                                             
Number 1462                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  mentioned  a  parent  of  a  17-year-old                                                               
having to  go to  court; he suggested  that authority  could come                                                               
into  question.    He  said  that many  times  there  are  family                                                               
struggles, in a variety of circumstances, that could exist.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ noted  that one  standard condition  of                                                               
adult probation or release is a  "no driving" provision.  Under a                                                               
JASAP, which is  essentially a juvenile probation,  he asked what                                                               
authority could there be for  the probation officer or department                                                               
to impose the "no driving" condition.                                                                                           
ROBERT   BUTTCANE,   Legislative  and   Administrative   Liaison,                                                               
Division  of Juvenile  Justice, Department  of Health  and Social                                                               
Services (DHSS), answered that  what Representative Berkowitz had                                                               
mentioned  is provided  for  in the  proposal  in [Amendment  1].                                                               
Third-time offenders  would be subject  to all of  the provisions                                                               
and  conditions of  the delinquency  chapter,  [AS] 47.12;  under                                                               
that, the  department has some  broad authorities to  solicit the                                                               
participation  of the  parent and,  in  some cases,  to have  the                                                               
court order the participation of the parent.                                                                                    
MR. BUTTCANE  continued, explaining that sanctions  might include                                                               
suspension of a driver's license;  he said that can be negotiated                                                               
as part of the delinquency disposition  order - a formal order of                                                               
the court  - or  through an informal  diversion upon  a voluntary                                                               
agreement with the parent and the minor.                                                                                        
MR.  BUTTCANE  said  the  scheme   proposed  is  that  for  those                                                               
juveniles  diverted  through  a community  diversion  action,  in                                                               
order for  [the division] to be  able to enter into  an agreement                                                               
with them  for an  informal diversion, they  would have  to agree                                                               
that the  minor would surrender his  or her right to  drive for a                                                               
period  of six  months, just  as if  he or  she were  adjudicated                                                               
delinquent through the formal delinquency process in court.                                                                     
Number 1602                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  whether  that  condition of  "no                                                               
driving"  through a  JASAP  could  be part  of  a first  offense,                                                               
without running afoul of the Niedermeyer decision.                                                                            
MR.  GUANELI  articulated  the difference  between  a  JASAP  and                                                               
juvenile probation.  He said a  JASAP, as he understands it, is a                                                               
screening  mechanism  for  determining  one's  need  for  alcohol                                                               
treatment and then  is a referral mechanism  to certain treatment                                                               
providers; the  JASAP program  may also,  in some  cases, provide                                                               
some of that treatment.   He said he doesn't know  that it is set                                                               
up to monitor other types  of activities, however, as a probation                                                               
officer  would  be;  it  is  not designed  to  be  a  "substitute                                                               
probation  officer."   It  is  only when  there  is a  third-time                                                               
offender  who has  to go  to juvenile  court and  get a  juvenile                                                               
probation  officer that  this more  formal agreement  - that  the                                                               
person will  lose his or her  license, or that the  person simply                                                               
won't drive - will come into play.                                                                                              
MR.  GUANELI pointed  out that  it couldn't  be done  on a  first                                                               
offense because the possible loss  of license triggers a right to                                                               
a jury trial  and right to counsel; that is  what the [state] has                                                               
been trying to  avoid for the first offense in  order to keep the                                                               
costs down.   In response to  Representative Berkowitz's question                                                               
regarding whether  that is true  even in a  probationary context,                                                               
Mr. Guaneli said  he believes that if loss of  a valuable license                                                               
is a possible sanction, that triggers  the right to a jury trial;                                                               
he specified that he thinks  the courts would hold that, although                                                               
they may not have specifically  addressed the question of whether                                                               
the loss of license came about as a part of probation.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said   if  it  isn't  as   part  of  a                                                               
probationary   period,   there  are   less-rigorous   protections                                                               
attached;  the  probation  would  tend   to  be  focused  on  the                                                               
individual who had come under  "probation supervision."  He asked                                                               
whether that doesn't address some of the Niedermeyer concerns.                                                                
Number 1710                                                                                                                     
MR.  GUANELI  emphasized  the  desire  to  not  be  in  the  same                                                               
situation as two years ago, when  the supreme court struck down a                                                               
scheme  that had  provisions  that might  have  worked, but  that                                                               
weren't  guaranteed to  do  so.   He  stated  his preference  for                                                               
taking a cautious approach.  He  said something needs to be done;                                                               
the  whole statutory  scheme that  the state  had been  operating                                                               
under for five  or six years has been thrown  out the window, and                                                               
it  is uncomfortable  for everyone  in  the justice  system.   He                                                               
restated his  concern about  triggering a right  to a  jury trial                                                               
for first-time offenders.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE   BERKOWITZ  expressed   concern   that  this   is                                                               
constitutionally   "suspect"  because   the   third  offense   is                                                               
contingent upon  a first  and a second  offense, which  are done,                                                               
under  this scenario,  without  recourse  to a  jury  trial or  a                                                               
public defender.                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI  offered that a  right to a  jury trial and  right to                                                               
counsel are still triggered for  a second offense because the CWS                                                               
is mandated and because license revocation is possible.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked  why they are waiting  until the third                                                               
offense to  refer people  to the  juvenile justice  system (JJS);                                                               
she suggested the  referral to the JJS should come  on the second                                                               
offense, and then perhaps there would not be a third offense.                                                                   
Number 1829                                                                                                                     
LOREN JONES,  CMH/API Replacement  Project Director,  Division of                                                               
Mental Health & Developmental  Disabilities, Department of Health                                                               
& Social Services  (DHSS), on the distinctions  between the JASAP                                                               
and  probation  officers,  said that  within  the  adult  Alcohol                                                               
Safety Action  Program (ASAP), misdemeanant adults  are monitored                                                               
for compliance  with conditions of  probations set by  the court,                                                               
but ASAP  does not have  any powers to set  additional conditions                                                               
of probation.   He said  he envisions  the JASAP working  in much                                                               
the same  fashion:  juveniles  would be monitored  for compliance                                                               
with conditions of  probations set by the court,  but neither [HB
179] nor any other portion of  statute would give JASAP the right                                                               
to set  conditions of probation beyond  what is set by  the judge                                                               
at sentencing.   [The JASAP]  would merely be providing  the link                                                               
between the treatment/education system and the court.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ offered  that although  the Niedermeyer                                                             
decision might have  struck down a portion of a  statute, some of                                                               
those same  penalties are  still available to  the court  if they                                                               
are causally related  to the crime; if a juvenile  comes in front                                                               
of judge  for a minor  consuming case and  there is some  link to                                                               
driving, a  judge could still  say it's minor consuming  and that                                                               
one of  the conditions of probation  for which the fine  is being                                                               
suspended is that the juvenile not drive.                                                                                       
MR. GUANELI concurred  that if there was a link  to driving, such                                                               
a  condition could  probably  be  set.   However,  in the  fairly                                                               
typical  situations when  there is  a beer  party and  a juvenile                                                               
gets  arrested but  has  not  been driving,  that  link does  not                                                               
exist.   He surmised  that the  vast majority  of cases  will not                                                               
involve that  link to driving,  and for  those cases that  do, he                                                               
said the judge has broader authority.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  suggested that on an  individual basis,                                                               
the prosecutor  could make the  argument that the  juvenile drove                                                               
to  the party.    After looking  at the  statistics,  he said  he                                                               
questioned whether the "Use It,  Lose It" law was that effective;                                                               
he  reasserted the  suggestion of  seeking  another mechanism  to                                                               
deter juveniles  from drinking such  as possibly taking  away the                                                               
offender's PFD, which would also offset the fiscal note.                                                                        
Number 2023                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  after  commenting   that  the  committee  would                                                               
discuss the issue  of the PFD further at a  later time, said that                                                               
one  of the  problems surrounding  the PFD  is allocation  of the                                                               
funds for treatment and education.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that  with juveniles, there  is a                                                               
greater  likelihood that  the  PFD would  be  available for  this                                                               
purpose because most  juveniles will not have a  backlog of other                                                               
debts owed.   Using  an estimate of  1,500 juvenile  offenders at                                                               
approximately $2,000  per offender, he  arrived at a  rough total                                                               
of $3  million, which  could be  used to offset  the cost  of the                                                               
JASAP as portrayed by the fiscal note for HB 179.                                                                               
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that looked like  a good response for a third                                                               
offense but not for a first offense, which is a misdemeanor.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  whether  a trial  and a  defense                                                               
attorney would be required to take a PFD.                                                                                       
MR.  BUTTCANE   said  that   what  Representative   Berkowitz  is                                                               
proposing makes  sense to  an adult offender,  but to  a 14-year-                                                               
old, "they  totally don't get it."   The PFD is  invisible money.                                                               
Most  14- and  15-year-olds  don't actually  get  the PFD;  their                                                               
parents take  that money and  put it  somewhere.  The  kids might                                                               
get $100,  but the  rest of it  is in the  college fund  or being                                                               
used  for other  purposes.   The 14-year-old  is not  thinking in                                                               
terms of cause  and effect so as  to be able to make  a choice in                                                               
his/her  behavior  whether to  have  a  beer  that day  and  then                                                               
possibly lose the PFD next  October.  The cognitive developmental                                                               
processes  of adolescents  are such  that they  just don't  think                                                               
that way;  therefore, imposing the  loss of  a PFD as  a sanction                                                               
will  be lost  on  them.   The driver's  license  is tangible  by                                                               
comparison, and while the statistics  show that "Use it, Lose It"                                                               
had a  minimal impact, it  did have an impact,  particularly when                                                               
it was first implemented - there  was a decrease in the number of                                                               
incidents of minor consuming.                                                                                                   
Number 2142                                                                                                                     
MR. BUTTCANE,  on the point  of the $300  fine, noted that  it is                                                               
"almost  nothing."   In  fact,  when looking  at  what the  court                                                               
typically  imposed in  terms of  fines, it  was somewhere  in the                                                               
neighborhood  of less  than $100  for  a first  offense, and  for                                                               
third and  subsequent offenses, the  fines were  averaging around                                                               
$180;  these fines  did  not provide  "a hook."    The hook  that                                                               
engaged  kids  was  the  loss  of  their  driver's  license;  the                                                               
requirement  that they  get involved  in alcohol  information and                                                               
education, through  some kind of  screening process, in  order to                                                               
get their licenses back  from DMV, was a piece of  that hook.  He                                                               
noted that "we"  still think that adolescent use of  alcohol is a                                                               
rite  of  passage,  and  "we"  have to  instill  in  this  social                                                               
consciousness the knowledge that there  is now a "zero" tolerance                                                               
for underage drinking.                                                                                                          
MR. BUTTCANE  offered that the fine  scheme in HB 179  is part of                                                               
that,  wherein  "we" are  elevating  the  seriousness with  which                                                               
adolescent  use of  alcohol is  viewed.   The $1,000  fine for  a                                                               
second  offense  is  not  "chump  change,"  and  if  parents  are                                                               
required to participate in the  process, then they are influenced                                                               
into  thinking  that maybe  underage  drinking  isn't a  rite  of                                                               
passage that  they want their children  to go through.   He noted                                                               
that the graduated  sanctions incorporated by HB 179  depend on a                                                               
lot of little  pieces; they depend on some  accountability at the                                                               
first drink, which  is where JASAP comes  in - where it  is not a                                                               
full-fledged  probation  sanction,   but  is  an  accountability-                                                               
monitoring  situation  that  will  make sure  the  offenders  are                                                               
getting the  information they need.   A  lot of these  kids don't                                                               
understand how  the body metabolizes  alcohol, but in  an alcohol                                                               
information  school (AIS)  they  begin to  learn; most  offenders                                                               
don't come back for  a second offense.  For the  few that do come                                                               
back a second  time, the sanctions are increased  - the offenders                                                               
have to  do more  CWS and  pay an incredibly  large fine,  all of                                                               
which goes toward  sending the message that "we"  do not tolerate                                                               
underage drinking in this state.                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE explained  that a third-time offender  is probably a                                                               
kid  that is  "dependent" or  alcoholic. Thus  a whole  different                                                               
approach needs  to be taken  such as mandatory  treatment, higher                                                               
levels  of  accountability  and  supervision,  and  engaging  the                                                               
family.   The reason the delinquency  system is put into  play on                                                               
the third offense  is that now these are not  simply kids who are                                                               
making stupid choices;  these are kids who  are exhibiting levels                                                               
of  dysfunction   that  need   intrusive  intervention   via  the                                                               
delinquency  system.     He  surmised   that  under   the  scheme                                                               
encompassed in  HB 179, if  an 18-year-old  is hit with  a $1,000                                                               
fine for  a second offense, that  person is going to  be thinking                                                               
that he/she can't afford this [behavior].                                                                                       
Number 2294                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked if there  are statistics  showing how                                                               
many second-time  offenders do  not become  third-time offenders.                                                               
She opined  that if  a juvenile has  committed a  second offense,                                                               
then he/she will probably go on to commit a third offense.                                                                      
MR. BUTTCANE noted that those  statistics are available, and that                                                               
according  to  his  recollection,  approximately  70  percent  of                                                               
juveniles with  court convictions for minor  consuming of alcohol                                                               
do  not  have  a  second  offense.   He  also  noted  that  these                                                               
statistics are different from the  DMV statistics, which are tied                                                               
to loss of  licenses and which involve cases that  may or may not                                                               
have been in court.                                                                                                             
MR. JONES added that the  DHSS fiscal notes include a replication                                                               
of the DMV  statistics to which Mr. Buttcane alluded.   He noted,                                                               
however, that these charts do  not include data for calendar year                                                               
1999, but do  include data for calendar years 1995  (the start of                                                               
the  "Use It,  Lose It"  law), 1996,  1997, 1998,  and 2000.   He                                                               
detailed that for 2000 there  were approximately 2,200 first-time                                                               
offenders, close  to 940 second-time offenders,  and 1,048 third-                                                               
time  offenders.   With regard  to the  third-time offenders,  he                                                               
confirmed that their  previous offenses could have  occurred in a                                                               
prior year, but the chart  is simply showing that these offenders                                                               
lost their license  for a third time due to  a third offense that                                                               
occurred in 2000.                                                                                                               
MR. GUANELI added that there  is a long "look-back" provision for                                                               
these  types of  offenses;  a person  could  have gotten  his/her                                                               
first offense at  the age of 14 and then  the subsequent offenses                                                               
could have occurred years later.                                                                                                
Number 2416                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES,  after looking at the  aforementioned chart                                                               
and  acknowledging  that  there  is   probably  not  any  way  to                                                               
determine if these were the  same offenders, said it appears that                                                               
juveniles who  commit a second  offense go  on to commit  a third                                                               
offense.   And with this  in mind,  she again suggested  that the                                                               
referral  to the  JJS come  at  the second  offense, rather  than                                                               
waiting until the third.                                                                                                        
MR. BUTTCANE explained that [the DHSS]  has been able to take the                                                               
data  for  court  convictions  of  minor  consuming  alcohol  and                                                               
separate out individual youth without  duplicating the count.  In                                                               
the  total time  period  from  1995 to  2000,  there were  11,000                                                               
individuals who were  18 or older on January 1,  2001.  Of those,                                                               
7,800 had one  minor consuming alcohol offense  within that five-                                                               
year period.   Within that  five-year period, 1,744 of  the 7,800                                                               
had  a second  offense, and  1,427 had  a third  offense.   These                                                               
figures  illustrate  that  there  is  just  a  little  bit  of  a                                                               
reduction between second-time and  third-time offenders; the rate                                                               
of recidivism is quite high within this group of 18- through 20-                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES stated  that  Mr. Buttcane  was making  her                                                               
MR.  BUTTCANE brought  up the  point that  the statistics  show a                                                               
different picture  for those  offenders under 18  years old.   In                                                               
this same  five-year period, 1,749  kids were  17 or under  as of                                                               
January 1, 2001.                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-50, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2499                                                                                                                     
MR. BUTTCANE  continued by saying that  amongst this 17-and-under                                                               
age group within  this five-year period, there  were 1,388 first-                                                               
time offenders; of  these offenders, only 200  committed a second                                                               
offense, and only  145 committed a third offense.   He noted that                                                               
when   looking  at   this  delinquency   population,  145   is  a                                                               
significant decrease from 1,388.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES countered that the  older a person gets, the                                                               
more  exposure there  is to  alcohol,  and thus  the greater  the                                                               
likelihood of getting caught.                                                                                                   
MR. BUTTCANE  argued, however, that  what is missing here  is the                                                               
requirement to  start addressing an alcohol  dependency, which is                                                               
what the  whole scheme in  HB 179  does:  it  increases treatment                                                               
capacity for  underage drinking,  not just for  17-year-olds, but                                                               
also for the  19- and 20-year-olds, so that,  hopefully, the kids                                                               
start getting  treatment earlier,  which is  the role  that JASAP                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that her  concern is not  with regard                                                               
to  the JASAP;  it  is,  instead, with  waiting  until the  third                                                               
offense to get serious.                                                                                                         
MR. BUTTCANE  remarked that  there is  no need  to resort  to the                                                               
most  expensive processes  any sooner  than is  really necessary,                                                               
given  the  circumstances.   If  second-time  offenders are  sent                                                               
through the  JJS, the need  for more juvenile  probation officers                                                               
and associated costs increases, as  opposed to a JASAP person who                                                               
will  still  be  able  to  sort some  of  the  kids  out  without                                                               
resorting to the  "sledge hammer" to solve their  problems.  This                                                               
is why  the JJS is  being reserved  for the third  offense; these                                                               
kids  really  are demonstrating  dependency  issues  - they  need                                                               
serious intervention -  and the JJS can help  with the associated                                                               
problems such as dysfunctional families and educational issues.                                                                 
Number 2410                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES,  with  regard to  the  younger  offenders,                                                               
remarked that  she was not convinced  it is so much  a dependency                                                               
problem rather than a behavior problem.                                                                                         
CHAIR  ROKEBERG agreed  with Representative  James, and  said his                                                               
belief that  the majority of  offenders do not have  a dependency                                                               
problem is the primary reason he  is reluctant to have first- and                                                               
second-time  offenders  receive  treatment.    He  did,  however,                                                               
acknowledge that there are some  offenders who do have dependency                                                               
problems, and it is, therefore,  important to identify those kids                                                               
and intervene with treatment.                                                                                                   
MR. BUTTCANE cautioned against losing  sight of the fact that out                                                               
of [1,388]  kids, 145 of them  continue to drink in  a manner far                                                               
different from the drinking behavior of an ordinary kid.                                                                        
MR.  JONES, on  the point  of whether  the JASAP  screening would                                                               
"pick up"  on that type of  offender, said that a  requirement of                                                               
screening is to look at an  offender's history - to interview the                                                               
offender  and his/her  parents  - and,  therefore,  that type  of                                                               
determination could be made.   He reminded the committee that the                                                               
JASAP  would  not involve  treatment,  and  that most  first-time                                                               
offenders would  not go  to treatment;  they would  simply attend                                                               
AIS, which  in most  instances will  be sufficient.   Only  a few                                                               
first-time offenders would need further review.                                                                                 
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked  that while that may be the  case, he did                                                               
not think  it was  money well  spent in terms  of "what  we would                                                               
pick up  there."   He agreed  that there  should be  an education                                                               
component for first-time  offenders, but he said  he is concerned                                                               
about spending the  money on formal screening  and evaluation for                                                               
the first offense.                                                                                                              
Number 2272                                                                                                                     
ERNIE  TURNER, Director,  Division  of Alcoholism  & Drug  Abuse,                                                               
Department  of Health  &  Social Services  (DHSS),  said that  he                                                               
really liked  the concept of  graduated sanctions.  The  "Use It,                                                               
Lose It"  law applied to  adolescents in  the urban areas  of the                                                               
state, but most of the kids  in rural Alaska could not have cared                                                               
less whether  they lost  their licenses.   He did  note, however,                                                               
that  when some  of  the  youth moved  from  the  rural areas  to                                                               
Fairbanks to  attend college, they participated  in the Fairbanks                                                               
Alcohol Safety Action  Program (FASAP) minor consuming/possession                                                               
pilot program in order to get their licenses back.                                                                              
MR. TURNER relayed that the  number of adolescents who get caught                                                               
is  far fewer  than the  number who  are actually  using [alcohol                                                               
and/or  other substances].   Surveys  show  that there  up to  55                                                               
percent of  adolescents between the ages  of 12 and 15  are using                                                               
alcohol and/or other substances.   So, while the discussion today                                                               
centers  around the  adolescents who  are caught,  it is  not the                                                               
true number, he  added.  National statistics show  that there are                                                               
1.1 million  adolescents between the ages  of 12 and 15  who have                                                               
been  assessed  as  being  dependent   on  alcohol  and/or  other                                                               
substances.   He  said he  is excited  about HB  179 because  the                                                               
sooner "we  get to  them, the easier  it is to  treat them."   He                                                               
noted that  there are  statistics that  show if  a person  can be                                                               
delayed  or prevented  from  drinking  until the  age  of 21,  as                                                               
compared with  someone starting at the  age of 14, there  is a 75                                                               
percent greater  chance that this  person won't  become dependent                                                               
on alcohol.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said that  he agreed  with Mr.  Turner's remarks,                                                               
but he reiterated his concerns  about the effectiveness and costs                                                               
of instituting a  JASAP for first-time offenders.   He again said                                                               
that he  was in favor  of mandating alcohol education  for first-                                                               
time offenders, however.                                                                                                        
MR. TURNER  reminded the committee  that the cost of  the alcohol                                                               
information  school (AIS)  will be  paid  for by  the client  (or                                                               
client's family), so the only  additional cost will be that which                                                               
is generated by clients who are referred to the JASAP.                                                                          
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the  fiscal note for the pilot JASAP                                                               
proposed in HB 179 is $1.5 million.                                                                                             
Number 2079                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER remarked  that even  if some  of the  lower                                                               
fines don't have  any impact on the kids, any  funds received via                                                               
those  fines could  go  towards offsetting  the  fiscal note  and                                                               
could  help  fund  the  various programs  being  discussed.    He                                                               
mentioned  that he  disagreed in  some ways  with Chair  Rokeberg                                                               
with  regard to  [the effectiveness  of] treatment  and education                                                               
[for  first-time   offenders].    He  relayed   that  during  his                                                               
adolescence in Nebraska,  the penalties for a  first offense were                                                               
a  joke, and  the  only  thing anybody  learned  was  to be  more                                                               
careful the next  time so as not  to get caught.   He opined that                                                               
had  the eight-hour  AIS  been  a requirement  back  when he  was                                                               
growing up,  it would have  deterred some people  from continuing                                                               
to  drink.   As it  was, the  only thing  that had  any deterrent                                                               
effect was  for an offender  to have  his/her name listed  in the                                                               
paper,  which   has  since  been  ruled   unconstitutional.    He                                                               
suggested that some  sort of fine should be required  for a first                                                               
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that he  did support education and fines                                                               
for first-time  offenders, but  he again  reiterated that  he had                                                               
concerns about having the JASAP  and mandated treatment for first                                                               
offenses, and even for second offenses, for that matter.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said that what  she found to be  missing in                                                               
this issue  is parental involvement.   She said that she  did not                                                               
feel that "we"  as a government or "we" as  a society are totally                                                               
responsible for  these kids.   There will never be  enough money,                                                               
programs, or people  working in this field to  solve these youth-                                                               
related alcohol/substance-abuse problems.   She stressed that the                                                               
parents must  become involved  in this issue,  and that  the onus                                                               
should be placed on them to "make this happen."                                                                                 
CHAIR  ROKEBERG commented  that  taking an  offender's PFD  would                                                               
certainly get  the parents involved.   He noted that there  was a                                                               
forthcoming  amendment that  would  take  into consideration  the                                                               
financial resources  of the defendant's parents  when determining                                                               
eligibility for court-appointed counsel.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL added  that language  in Amendment  1 [as                                                               
well as in  HB 179] mandates parental involvement  with regard to                                                               
an informal adjustment.                                                                                                         
Number 1931                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  emphasized that  she  was  not opposed  to                                                               
taking a  person's PFD to  pay an  established debt, but  she was                                                               
not  in favor  of  taking a  person's PFD  simply  as a  punitive                                                               
MR.  TURNER noted  that a  large portion  of clients  between the                                                               
ages  of 18  and  21 use  the  PFD to  pay  for their  outpatient                                                               
treatment; they assign their PFD directly to the agency.                                                                        
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  with  regard  to  the  costs  incurred  by  the                                                               
offender, remarked that if there  is a JASAP instituted, there is                                                               
a JASAP  fee; there  is a  fee for the  AIS; there  is a  fee for                                                               
treatment; and  then there are also  fines.  And on  the issue of                                                               
confiscating the  PFD, he  noted there is  still the  question of                                                               
whether this  money would go  directly towards  reimbursing these                                                               
programs or would go directly into the general fund (GF).                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said since one  of the goals with HB 179                                                               
is  to create  a didactic  affect, if  the legislature  sends the                                                               
message,   "If  you   drink,  inappropriately,   you  lose   your                                                               
dividend," that's a pretty profound  statement.  He surmised that                                                               
the courts will sort out the  financial aspect so that fines will                                                               
be adjusted  to offset costs,  and the  like.  He  suggested that                                                               
the message from  the legislature should be clear:   "We view the                                                               
dividend as  semi-sacred, but we  think the problems  of drinking                                                               
are  so  profound  in  this  state that  we're  willing  to  take                                                               
dividends as a deterrent against drinking."                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  asked  where the  money  from  confiscated                                                               
dividends goes,  adding that she is  not in favor of  having this                                                               
money go to the GF.                                                                                                             
MR. JONES explained that currently,  when people are not eligible                                                               
for a PFD  due to being incarcerated as a  felon [or a third-time                                                               
offender]  during   the  eligibility  year,  the   Department  of                                                               
Corrections (DOC)  notifies the Department of  Revenue (DOR), and                                                               
that money is  placed in a pool;  that money can then  be used by                                                               
the DOL  and the Department  of Public Safety (DPS)  for specific                                                               
programs.    However,  alcohol-and-drug-abuse-treatment  programs                                                               
are not included as programs for which that pool can be used.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  commented that  there  should  be a  nexus                                                               
between   confiscating  the   PFD  and   paying  for   [treatment                                                               
programs];  the PFD  should not  just simply  be confiscated  and                                                               
placed into the GF.                                                                                                             
CHAIR ROKEBERG  mentioned that the  process by which the  pool is                                                               
allocated  would have  to be  amended in  order to  channel those                                                               
funds  specifically into  treatment, and  that runs  the risk  of                                                               
constitutionality problems.                                                                                                     
Number 1709                                                                                                                     
CANDACE BROWER,  Program Coordinator/Legislative  Liaison, Office                                                               
of  the Commissioner,  Department  of Corrections  (DOC), on  the                                                               
topics  of SB  105 and  confiscation of  an offender's  PFD, said                                                               
that SB  105 proposes  to expand the  pool of  PFD-withholding to                                                               
include   misdemeanant  offenders   who  have   a  prior   felony                                                               
conviction.   According  to her  understanding,  that money  goes                                                               
into a pool, which  goes into the GF, and then at  the end of the                                                               
budgetary  year,  that  money is  allocated  to  "crime  victims'                                                               
compensation,"  the  Council  on  Domestic  Violence  and  Sexual                                                               
Assault (CDVSA), and some DOC programs.                                                                                         
CHAIR ROKEBERG then  surmised that should the  pool allocation be                                                               
amended via SB  105, and should either  HB 179 or HB  4 include a                                                               
PFD confiscation  provision, the accompanying fiscal  notes would                                                               
then  reflect  incoming   revenue  to  the  GF.     But  he  also                                                               
acknowledged that  the nexus would  then be lost, and  thus there                                                               
would  be no  guarantee  that  those funds  would  go toward  the                                                               
(J)ASAP,  education, and  treatment fees.   For  this reason,  he                                                               
suggested that  it would be  better to leave  decisions regarding                                                               
[fines, fees, and fund sources]  to the discretion of the courts.                                                               
He also suggested  that the legislature should  simply keep these                                                               
issues in mind when setting the levels of the fines.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ said  he understood  the argument  that                                                               
money  and PFDs  are  fungible,  but there  is  a very  different                                                               
message  relayed  by  saying   "we're"  taking  "your"  dividend.                                                               
People think  of fines as  just money, while  taking a PFD  has a                                                               
more profound meaning,  he added, and even with youth  who do not                                                               
normally see their dividends, their  parents will help "bring the                                                               
gavel down upon the kids."                                                                                                      
MS. BROWER, with regard to the  PFD, offered that what happens in                                                               
rural  Alaska, as  opposed  to urban  Alaska,  is very  different                                                               
because a  lot of families in  Bush Alaska are dependent  on PFDs                                                               
for heat and survival;  there are not a lot of  jobs in the rural                                                               
areas  and money  is  not  flowing heavily.    Another issue  she                                                               
brought up  is that of  grandchildren being raised by  elders who                                                               
may  not  be able  to  control  those  kids.   And  although  she                                                               
acknowledged that  intervention, treatment, and education  can be                                                               
helpful  in those  situations, she  did  not know  that taking  a                                                               
person's dividend away would fix the problem.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   BERKOWITZ  argued   that   the  legislature   is                                                               
operating under the  premise that they are deterring  a number of                                                               
people from drinking, and that  they are helping people get their                                                               
lives  in  order.    In  essence,  he  suggested  that  what  the                                                               
legislature  is  saying  is  that   if  they  are  successful  in                                                               
deterring people  from drinking, those  people are making  a down                                                               
payment with  one or two  years' worth  of dividends in  order to                                                               
save  themselves  from  the  costs of  a  lifetime  of  drinking;                                                               
notwithstanding the  differences between urban and  rural Alaska,                                                               
in the  long run  he suggested  that those  people will  come out                                                               
ahead, fiscally.                                                                                                                
Number 1433                                                                                                                     
ALVIA  "STEVE" DUNNAGAN,  Lieutenant,  Division  of Alaska  State                                                               
Troopers,  Department  of  Public  Safety  (DPS),  testified  via                                                               
teleconference and said that the  DPS has submitted a zero fiscal                                                               
note and a  bill analysis in support of HB  179.  He acknowledged                                                               
that the  "Use It,  Lose It"  law was effective  for a  time, but                                                               
from an  enforcement standpoint,  the effects  began to  wear off                                                               
over time  and kids began  to drink and  have parties again.   He                                                               
posited that HB  179, as currently drafted  with the "stair-step"                                                               
penalties, is  probably the  best way at  this point  to approach                                                               
the  problem [of  underage  drinking].   He  added  that from  an                                                               
enforcement standpoint, HB  179 will not affect the  DPS; the DPS                                                               
hopes that  some measure encompassed  in HB 179 will  take effect                                                               
and deter underage drinking.                                                                                                    
LIEUTENANT DUNNAGAN  went on  to say that  he thinks  the "stair-                                                               
step" and  the larger  fines will  act as  deterrents, especially                                                               
if,  upon passage,  there is  information put  out to  the public                                                               
detailing  the state's  new position  on minor  consumption.   He                                                               
added  that he  thinks  these  provisions will  have  more of  an                                                               
effect  on  parents  than  "Use  It, Lose  It"  did  because,  he                                                               
surmised,  some  parents  viewed  the  loss  of  an  adolescent's                                                               
driver's license as an answer  to a prayer, particularly since it                                                               
was  the result  of the  state's  mandate rather  than their  own                                                               
mandate.  He  also surmised that the CWS provision  will act as a                                                               
deterrent since "kids  out there have a lot better  things to do,                                                               
according to them, than help out in their communities."                                                                         
Number 1296                                                                                                                     
BLAIR McCUNE,  Deputy Director,  Central Office,  Public Defender                                                               
Agency  (PDA),   Department  of  Administration,   testified  via                                                               
teleconference and  said that although  [the PDA] has  not really                                                               
had  an  opportunity  to  try   treatment  through  the  [F]ASAP,                                                               
previous testimony was encouraging.   He agreed with Mr. Buttcane                                                               
with  regard to  deterrence; having  to  spend a  Saturday at  an                                                               
alcohol education class and having  to go through assessments and                                                               
screening  processes  is something  that  gets  the attention  of                                                               
younger  people  and  also   helps  prevent  early-onset  alcohol                                                               
dependence, which is a tremendous  problem.  He surmised that the                                                               
increase in  youthful offenders is  not so much because  "Use It,                                                               
Lose  It" hasn't  worked, but  because the  concept of  community                                                               
policing   has  become   more  prominent   and  enforcement   has                                                               
MR. McCUNE, on the point  of [mandated] CWS requiring jury trials                                                               
and  public  defenders,  said  the   Booth  case  is  cited,  and                                                             
accounted for,  in [the PDA's]  fiscal note.   He also  said that                                                               
[the PDA] believes in the  "clean slate" concept discussed by Mr.                                                               
Guaneli, and,  therefore, third-time offenders are  not accounted                                                               
for in the fiscal  note for the first period of  time that HB 179                                                               
would  be in  effect, should  it pass.   To  explain [the  PDA's]                                                               
belief in  the clean  slate concept, Mr.  McCune stated  that one                                                               
clear  way to  collaterally  attack a  prior  conviction, in  the                                                               
context of  a current  case, is  if the  prior conviction  was an                                                               
"uncounseled"  conviction  (Gideon  v.  Wainwright)  whereby  the                                                             
offender  did not  have  the  right to  an  attorney  or was  not                                                               
advised  of  that  right.    He added  that  most  of  the  prior                                                               
convictions  [the PDA]  deals with  are criminal  convictions; he                                                               
does know  of any current state  law that says a  prior violation                                                               
can be used  as an element to enhance a  misdemeanor offense.  He                                                               
noted that a  first offense under HB 179 would  be an uncounseled                                                               
case;  although it  is  only a  violation and  as  such does  not                                                               
really carry  a right to counsel,  it is still an  element of the                                                               
misdemeanor  offense.   This adds  a level  of complexity  to the                                                               
situation,  and there  might be  some legal  challenges to  using                                                               
violations as elements to enhance a misdemeanor, he suggested.                                                                  
MR. McCUNE said  the PDA thinks that a program  such as the JASAP                                                               
would  be  effective and  would  work  better than  putting  kids                                                               
through the misdemeanor-type  criminal process.  On  the issue of                                                               
parental  involvement, he  referred to  AS 47.12.030(b)  and said                                                               
that  this is  the provision  currently in  HB 179  regarding the                                                               
third offense.  When a child  under 18 commits an offense such as                                                               
a traffic  offense, a fish and  game offense, or a  Title 4 minor                                                               
in possession  offense - which  are not covered by  the [statutes                                                               
regarding] juvenile offenses - the  statutes say that the minor's                                                               
parent,  guardian, or  legal custodian  shall be  present at  all                                                               
proceedings.   Thus, currently, the parents  are legally required                                                               
to be in court with a child who is charged with minor consuming.                                                                
Number 0905                                                                                                                     
MR.  McCUNE, on  the topic  of  fines, noted  that an  old law  -                                                               
stemming from  a 1972 case  (City of  Fairbanks v. Baker)  - said                                                             
that  if  more than  a  $300  fine is  going  to  be imposed,  it                                                               
triggers the  right to a  jury trial and  court-appointed counsel                                                               
for  those  who cannot  afford  their  own  counsel.   [The  PDA]                                                               
believes that  because of inflation  and so on, the  courts would                                                               
not object  if higher types  of fines - in  the range of  $600 to                                                               
$1,000  -  were  imposed.    [The PDA]  also  believes  that  the                                                               
approach to take  is to make the JASAP mandatory,  to couple that                                                               
with ensuring  that the courts have  the ability to put  fines on                                                               
these violations,  and to  keep these  offenses at  the violation                                                               
MR. McCUNE, in response to  questions, said that if the provision                                                               
mandating CWS  for a first  offense is  removed from HB  179, the                                                               
PDA's fiscal note would be reduced,  although he was not yet sure                                                               
by how much.  He mentioned  that he had been very conservative in                                                               
calculating  the PDA's  current fiscal  note:   he had  estimated                                                               
that [only  30 percent] of  the total number of  projected first-                                                               
time offenders  would request the  PDA's services in  response to                                                               
the mandated CWS.                                                                                                               
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  alluded to  perhaps  removing  CWS for  a  first                                                               
offense in an attempt to lower the fiscal note.                                                                                 
MR.  GUANELI,  on  the  topic  of  using  violations  to  enhance                                                               
misdemeanors,  said  that the  idea  of  wiping the  slate  clean                                                               
applies  to offenses  that were  committed  before the  effective                                                               
date of HB 179, but, he added,  there is still the problem of how                                                               
to  stair-step from  first  offense to  second  offense to  third                                                               
offense.  He  explained that [the DOL] has  determined that there                                                               
is  a way  to overcome  this  problem resulting  from wiping  the                                                               
slate clean, and he used the  example of a crime called violating                                                               
a  domestic violence  restraining order.    When a  person has  a                                                               
domestic violence  restraining order  issued against him  or her,                                                               
that person  is given the  status of domestic  violence offender,                                                               
even  if  he/she  is  not  convicted  of  any  crime,  since  the                                                               
restraining order was probably entered based on a preponderance-                                                                
of-evidence  standard  or  might  have  even  been  an  ex  parte                                                               
[proceeding].   Hence, when  the offender  violates the  terms of                                                               
that order, he/she then becomes  guilty of the crime of violating                                                               
a domestic violence restraining order.                                                                                          
Number 0524                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI opined that if  people who are convicted of violating                                                               
provisions of  HB 179 are given  a certain status, they  can then                                                               
be  considered  status offenders  for  subsequent  offenses.   He                                                               
envisioned  it working  thus:    When a  person  commits a  first                                                               
offense and is then put on  probation, and if a second offense is                                                               
committed while on  probation for the first, that  person is then                                                               
placed in the  second-time offender category.  In  this way, [the                                                               
DOL] believes that even if the  first offense did not come with a                                                               
right  to a  jury  trial or  right  to counsel,  as  long as  the                                                               
offender is  on probation for that  offense - and has  the status                                                               
of  probationer  -  then  any  further  offense  will  place  the                                                               
offender in the higher offense category.   He suggested this is a                                                               
viable way to get around current Alaska case law.                                                                               
MR. GUANELI  recommended further that  a way to instill  the idea                                                               
that offenders  may not drink  until they  become 21 is  to place                                                               
offenders on  open-court, unsupervised, informal  probation until                                                               
they are  21.   Then, when  the offender reaches  the age  of 21,                                                               
he/she is off  probation.  However, if the  offender drinks again                                                               
before  getting  off probation,  then  he/she  is committing  the                                                               
crime of minor consuming while  on probation for a prior offense,                                                               
and  hence is  treated as  a second-time  offender as  previously                                                               
outlined.   This  method,  he suggested,  has  the advantages  of                                                               
allowing "stair-stepping"; it  tells the minor that  he/she is in                                                               
this status until the age of 21;  and it allows the $600 fine for                                                               
a first offense  to be suspended.  [The DOL]  recommends the $600                                                               
fine be suspended  as a way to encourage the  offender to pay for                                                               
the JASAP or  education program, and also to  hold something over                                                               
the  offender's head  until  he/she  reaches the  age  of 21;  if                                                               
another offense is  committed before then, the $600  will have to                                                               
be  paid, in  addition to  any fines  imposed for  the subsequent                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  opined that  perhaps [the DOL]  had not                                                               
gone far enough with this idea.   He recommended that rather than                                                               
having  the first  offense be  a violation  - using  the DV-order                                                               
analogy -  [the offender] could be  subject to a court  order for                                                               
the first offense.  In this  way, any subsequent offense would be                                                               
considered  the first  offense but  it  would be  the offense  of                                                               
violating a  "no drinking" (ND) order.   If the analogy  with the                                                               
DV-order  is  an  appropriate  analogy,  he  continued,  then  an                                                               
underage  individual caught  drinking could  be brought  before a                                                               
judge who  would issue, in  essence, a  ND order that  would also                                                               
include things like  a JASAP assessment and  compliance with that                                                               
assessment.   Failure  to  comply with  the  JASAP assessment  or                                                               
failure  to not  drink would  then  subject the  juvenile to  the                                                               
criminal  penalties  associated  with  what  is  currently  being                                                               
termed the second  offense.  He surmised that in  this way, if it                                                               
is true  that nearly  70 percent of  first-time offenders  do not                                                               
re-offend after  the first court  contact, then the need  for the                                                               
first proceeding to  be criminal can be eliminated,  and it would                                                               
still allow  what is now  considered the second offense,  "to fit                                                               
Number 0155                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI, in  response to this suggestion, said  it would work                                                               
with  the  exception of  imposing  a  fine; thus  the  additional                                                               
incentive of  the fine, as  proposed via Amendment 1,  drops out.                                                               
He opined that  it is important to provide some  form of monetary                                                               
incentive to  minors who are going  to be told that  they have to                                                               
pay  for their  alcohol screening  and education.   For  example,                                                               
"You either pay $100  to go to this class or you  pay $600 to the                                                               
judge," he said.  Even  15-year-olds can understand the economics                                                               
of this choice, he  surmised, and thus will opt for  the AIS.  He                                                               
expressed reluctance  to lose  that incentive  via Representative                                                               
Berkowitz's suggestion.  He then  reminded the committee that the                                                               
current  fine for  a first  offense is  up to  $300, but  current                                                               
practice seems to be to impose a fine of $50 or $75.                                                                            
CHAIR ROKEBERG called this current  practice a "hand slap," which                                                               
is not catching "their" attention.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ suggested  that  any additional  moneys                                                               
could be made up by assessing court costs.                                                                                      
MR.  GUANELI commented  that he  would have  to think  further on                                                               
that aspect of the suggestion.                                                                                                  
TAPE 01-51, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said  he   did  not  think  [that  his                                                               
suggestion] would  trespass on the same  constitutional ground as                                                               
"stair-stepping," which  he sees as being  extremely problematic;                                                               
if there is a second offense,  then the juvenile would be subject                                                               
to a  violation of  a court  order, as  well as  whatever happens                                                               
with the  second offense.   And  with that  violation of  a court                                                               
order,  some other  penalties  do  attach in  the  same way  that                                                               
penalties attach for violations of a DV order.                                                                                  
CHAIR ROKEBERG, in  summary, noted that Amendment 1  was what the                                                               
administration  had originally  recommended as  HB 179,  but this                                                               
was  changed to  reflect  an increase  in fines  and  CWS, and  a                                                               
lowering  of  some  of  the  treatment  elements.    Since  then,                                                               
information  was brought  forward indicating  that mandatory  CWS                                                               
would  still trigger  a  requirement  for a  jury  trial and  for                                                               
counsel.  He  added, however, that if the CWS  is simply given as                                                               
an option  by the judge,  a jury trial  and counsel would  not be                                                               
required even  if CWS is  what the offender  opted for.   He also                                                               
noted  that  Mr.  Wooliver  [of  the  Alaska  Court  System]  had                                                               
estimated that  1 percent of  misdemeanant offenders would  go to                                                               
trial, and that another study had an estimate of 3.7 percent.                                                                   
MR. McCUNE  clarified that [the PDA]  has to do more  work on its                                                               
cases regardless of whether the cases  go to trial; [the PDA] has                                                               
to meet  with the defendant  and discuss the case,  and generally                                                               
also  has to  meet  with family  members  who are  understandably                                                               
upset.   Therefore,  unlike other  state agencies  and the  court                                                               
system, [the PDA] does not  make fiscal calculations based on the                                                               
number  of trials;  instead,  it bases  its  calculations on  the                                                               
number of cases.                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  suggested that the committee  develop a committee                                                               
substitute - via the adoption today  of Amendment 1 and any other                                                               
amendments  currently  available  to  the committee  -  with  the                                                               
intention of  bringing it back  before the committee  for further                                                               
review and possibly further amendments.                                                                                         
Number 0425                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  made  a  motion to  adopt  Amendment  1.                                                               
[Amendment 1 is provided with  original punctuation at the end of                                                               
the minutes on  HB 179.]  There being no  objections, Amendment 1                                                               
was adopted.                                                                                                                    
Number 0445                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG  made a  motion to  adopt Conceptual  Amendment 2,                                                               
which  "removes  the  screening  and  treatment  from  the  first                                                               
offense, but leaves the education as a mandate."                                                                                
Number 0475                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.                                                                                              
Number 0485                                                                                                                     
ELMER LINDSTROM,  Special Assistant, Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Department of  Health and Social Services  (DHSS), suggested that                                                               
there is still a misunderstanding on  this point.  He pointed out                                                               
that [the  DHSS] has  a series  of three  fiscal notes,  with the                                                               
largest one  reflecting the  treatment element.   He  assured the                                                               
committee  that  not one  penny  of  those treatment  dollars  is                                                               
associated with the first-time  offender; the first-time offender                                                               
will receive nothing but a referral to an AIS.                                                                                  
CHAIR  ROKEBERG warned  that this  is not  a sufficient  argument                                                               
against Conceptual Amendment 2.   He clarified that his intention                                                               
is to  provide for  mandatory education  while deleting  the ASAP                                                               
provision for first-time offenders.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  commented that  for most  offenders who                                                               
get caught up in the system,  once is enough; they get the point.                                                               
He argued that the assessment  provision is critical in trying to                                                               
"put the net  out to see who we're catching."   He suggested that                                                               
about  10 percent  of offenders  - even  the younger  juveniles -                                                               
have  some real  [alcohol-related] problems;  if those  offenders                                                               
can be  caught early,  the state  will be  saving costs  down the                                                               
road.   He  also suggested  letting the  House Finance  Committee                                                               
worry  about "the  numbers," while  the House  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee focuses on creating the right policy.                                                                                 
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he  thinks the AIS is essential for                                                               
first-time  offenders because  this, coupled  with the  fines, is                                                               
what will  get the  kid's attention.   He expressed  the concern,                                                               
however, that people who go through  the ASAP will be assessed as                                                               
needing treatment even after "they have one Budweiser."                                                                         
MR. LINDSTROM explained  that for the person  just described, the                                                               
ASAP  will  only be  determining  whether  the  AIS is  the  most                                                               
appropriate course  of action, and  then reporting back  to court                                                               
whether this step was taken by the offender.                                                                                    
CHAIR ROKEBERG  stated, "We  don't need  that bureaucrat  in that                                                               
MR.  LINDSTROM reminded  the committee  that  if the  clean-slate                                                               
concept is instituted, then, for  a period of time, a significant                                                               
number of people  coming in as first-time  offenders might really                                                               
be second-,  third-, fifth-,  tenth-, or  twelfth-time offenders;                                                               
as such,  through a  formal screening process,  they may  well be                                                               
assessed as  needing some form  of treatment.  He  suggested that                                                               
is  a significant  hole in  the first-time-offender  scheme.   He                                                               
also suggested that there is  still a misperception regarding the                                                               
role of the JASAP.                                                                                                              
Number 0732                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER pointed  out  that according  to the  chart                                                               
detailing the  administration's proposal, offenders will  have to                                                               
pay for  screening and any  education or treatment.   He surmised                                                               
that if this is the case, there is no additional cost.                                                                          
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that for  those who cannot afford it, the                                                               
costs of screening  and education/treatment will be  picked up by                                                               
the state.                                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER suggested  that if a fine  is reinstated for                                                               
a first  offense, in the  long run "it'll be  a wash."   He added                                                               
that he did not think a $300 fine would require a jury trial.                                                                   
MR. BUTTCANE,  as an  argument in favor  of screening  for first-                                                               
time offenders, posed  a scenario in which  1,300 adolescents are                                                               
asked, "Do  you black  out when  you drink?"   While all  but 145                                                               
will say "No," those 145 are  more likely to respond, "Well, yes,                                                               
doesn't everyone?"   Hence, during screening,  specific groups of                                                               
kids will be  found that have the disease [of  alcoholism] - they                                                               
drink differently  and they respond  differently to  the chemical                                                               
substance alcohol, even  with the first drink.   Accordingly, the                                                               
appropriate  assessment can  be performed  at an  early stage  so                                                               
that perhaps  the second offense  can be avoided altogether.   He                                                               
opined that great savings occur  "down the road" by helping these                                                               
kids    who    have    this   "allergy"    to    alcohol,    this                                                               
biological/physiological  difference, get  into treatment  at the                                                               
first offense.                                                                                                                  
CHAIR ROKEBERG  suggested that  the fee for  the JASAP  should be                                                               
raised to a minimum of $150.                                                                                                    
MR. JONES noted that this  increase could be done via regulation.                                                               
He  estimated that  for  those  people who  show  up in  publicly                                                               
funded  programs, the  collection rate  for the  ASAP fees  would                                                               
probably remain at approximately 40-45 percent.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, with regard  to the question of whether                                                               
to institute  a minimum fine  for a  first offense, said  that he                                                               
would  like to  explore other  alternatives because  he considers                                                               
the   "stair-step"   to   be  incredibly   problematic   from   a                                                               
constitutional  perspective.   He again  suggested instituting  a                                                               
system  using a  "no  drinking"  order, similar  to  a DV  order,                                                               
whereby all  the penalties  would attach  upon violation  of that                                                               
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  on additional  points  to  consider, asked  the                                                               
committee to decide whether to institute a JASAP pilot program.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  also   suggested  that  more  research                                                               
should  be done  with  regard  to the  consequences  of taking  a                                                               
person's PFD.                                                                                                                   
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that  he would  consider the  suggestion of                                                               
taking a person's  PFD at the third offense if  the amount didn't                                                               
exceed the  class-A-misdemeanor parameters.  He  recommended that                                                               
Representative Berkowitz's research should  include a look at how                                                               
to "get past the pooling effect of the GF."                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,  on  the  point of  whether  to  adopt                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 2,  which  would remove  the screening  and                                                               
treatment  for  a  first offense  but  still  mandate  education,                                                               
maintained his objection.                                                                                                       
Number 1275                                                                                                                     
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Coghill, James, and                                                               
Rokeberg  voted  for  Conceptual Amendment  2.    Representatives                                                               
Meyer  and Berkowitz  voted against  it.   Therefore,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2 passed by a vote of 3-2.                                                                                            
Number 1287                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG  made a  motion to  adopt Conceptual  Amendment 3,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
     Add a new subsection to AS 04.16.050 stating:                                                                              
      When considering the financial resources of a minor                                                                       
     for purposes of determining the eligibility for court-                                                                     
     appointed  counsel,   the  court  shall   consider  the                                                                    
     resources  of both  the defendant  and the  defendant's                                                                    
     parents,  unless the  court finds  good cause  to treat                                                                    
     their resources as being unavailable to the defendant.                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG  added that  this concept is  already part  of the                                                               
district court rules.  He  asked whether there were objections to                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 3.   There  being no  objection, Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                                        
[HB 179 was held over.]                                                                                                         
The  following amendment  to  HB 179  was  discussed and  adopted                                                               
during  the hearing.   [Shorter  amendments are  provided in  the                                                               
main text only.]                                                                                                                
Amendment 1 (adopted) [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
     Delete Section 1 and replace with:                                                                                       
     *Section 1.  AS 04.16.050(b) is amended to read:                                                                         
          (b) A person who violates (a) of this section and                                                                 
     who  has not  been  previously convicted  is guilty  of                                                                
     minor  consuming   or  in  possession  or   control  [A                                                                
     VIOLATION].   Upon  conviction in  the district  court,                                                                    
     the court shall  [MAY] impose a fine of  $600 [NOT LESS                                                            
     THAN $100].   The court  shall suspend the  full amount                                                                
     of the  fine, and place  the person on  probation under                                                                
     (e) of this section.                                                                                                   
     Delete Section 2 and replace with:                                                                                       
     *Sec.  2.    AS  04.16.050 is  amended  by  adding  new                                                                  
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
          (c) A person is guilty of repeat minor consuming                                                                      
     or  in  possession  or  control if  the  person  is  on                                                                    
     probation  under  (b)  of  this  section  or  has  been                                                                    
     previously convicted,  and the  person violates  (a) of                                                                    
     this section.  Upon conviction  in the  district court,                                                                    
     the court shall impose a fine  of $1000 and at least 48                                                                    
     hours  of  community  work  service.  The  court  shall                                                                    
     suspend a  portion of  the fine up  to $500,  and place                                                                    
     the person on probation under (e) of this section.                                                                       
          (d) A person is guilty of habitual minor                                                                              
     consuming or in possession or  control if the person is                                                                    
     on  probation  under  (c)  of   this  section  or  this                                                                    
     subsection,  or has  been  twice previously  convicted,                                                                    
     and the  person violates (a) of  this section. Habitual                                                                    
     minor consuming or in possession  or control is a class                                                                    
     B misdemeanor.   Upon conviction, the  court may impose                                                                    
     an  appropriate period  of  imprisonment  and fine  and                                                                    
     place  the  person  on  probation  under  (e)  of  this                                                                    
     section, and shall                                                                                                         
               (1) impose at least 96 hours of community                                                                        
     work service;                                                                                                              
               (2) revoke the person's privilege to drive                                                                       
     for six  months, and  by the end  of the  next business                                                                    
     day shall notify the division  of motor vehicles of the                                                                    
     revocation; and                                                                                                            
               (3) take possession of any driver's license                                                                      
     or permit.                                                                                                                 
          (e) A person sentenced under (b), (c) or (d) of                                                                       
     this  section  shall be  placed  on  probation for  one                                                                    
     year,  or  until  the person  turns  21,  whichever  is                                                                    
     later.  The conditions of probation are:                                                                                 
               (1) that the person pay for and enroll in a                                                                      
     juvenile alcohol safety action program;                                                                                    
               (2) that the person pay for and successfully                                                                     
     complete any education or treatment recommended;                                                                           
               (3) that the person not consume inhalants,                                                                       
     or   possess  or   consume  controlled   substances  or                                                                    
     alcoholic   beverages,  except   as   provided  in   AS                                                                    
               (4) that the person timely complete any                                                                          
     community work  service ordered, as provided  in (f) of                                                                    
     this section; and                                                                                                          
               (5) any other condition the court considers                                                                      
          (f) Community work service ordered under this                                                                         
     section must be performed within  120 days of the entry                                                                    
     of judgment  for a  conviction.   The court  may expand                                                                    
     the time  period for up  to 30  days upon a  showing of                                                                    
     good cause.   The  person shall submit  verification of                                                                    
     completion of  community work service  to the  clerk of                                                                    
     court  on  a  form  provided  by the  court.    If  the                                                                    
     verification  is not  provided within  the time  period                                                                    
     required by  this subsection, within 30  days the court                                                                    
     shall  schedule  further  proceedings in  the  case  to                                                                    
     determine   whether  a   violation  of   probation  has                                                                    
          (g) The treatment recommended by a juvenile                                                                           
     alcohol safety action program under  (b), (c) or (d) of                                                                    
     this  section   may  include  a  period   of  inpatient                                                                    
     treatment if the judgment  specifies the maximum period                                                                    
     of inpatient treatment  authorized.   A  person who has                                                                    
     been  recommended for  inpatient treatment  may make  a                                                                    
     written request  to the sentencing court  for review of                                                                    
     the referral.   The  request for  review shall  be made                                                                    
     within  seven days  of  the  recommendation, and  shall                                                                    
     specifically  set  out  the   grounds  upon  which  the                                                                    
     request for  review is  based.  The  court may  order a                                                                    
     hearing on the request for review.                                                                                         
          (h)  The juvenile alcohol safety action program                                                                       
     to which a person is  referred under this section shall                                                                    
     inform  the  court  or  a  minor's  juvenile  probation                                                                    
     officer if the person fails  to submit to evaluation or                                                                    
     fails  to   successfully  complete  any   education  or                                                                    
     treatment recommended.    If  the court finds  that the                                                                    
     person has failed to perform  community work service as                                                                    
     ordered,  or  has failed  to  submit  to evaluation  or                                                                    
     successfully  complete   the  education   or  treatment                                                                    
     recommended, the court shall  impose the suspended fine                                                                    
     and may  impose any period of  suspended incarceration.                                                                    
     If the  person was convicted of  repeat minor consuming                                                                    
     or in possession  under (c) of this  section, the court                                                                    
     shall also  revoke the person's privilege  to drive for                                                                    
     six months,  and shall take possession  of any driver's                                                                    
     license  or  permit. If  the  person  was convicted  of                                                                    
     habitual minor consuming or in  possession under (d) of                                                                    
     this section,  the sentencing  court or  juvenile court                                                                    
     shall  revoke the  person's privilege  to drive  for an                                                                    
     additional six  months beyond the revocation  under (d)                                                                    
     of this  section.   A court  revoking the  privilege to                                                                    
     drive under  this subsection shall notify  the division                                                                    
     of motor vehicles.                                                                                                         
          (i) In this section,                                                                                                  
               (1)    "juvenile   alcohol    safety   action                                                                    
     program," means                                                                                                            
                    (A) a juvenile alcohol safety action                                                                        
     program developed  and implemented  or approved  by the                                                                    
     Department  of  Health  and Social  Services  under  AS                                                                    
                    (B) any other alcohol education or                                                                          
     treatment program approved by  the Department of Health                                                                    
     and  Social  Services  under AS  47.37,  if  a  program                                                                    
     described  in AS  04.16.050(g)(1) is  not available  in                                                                    
     the community in which the person resides; or                                                                              
                    (C) a program or counseling approved by                                                                     
     the court,  if a program  or treatment described  in AS                                                                    
     04.16.050(g)(1)(A)  or  (B)  is not  available  in  the                                                                    
     community where the person resides;                                                                                        
               (2)    "previously    convicted"   means    a                                                                    
     conviction  or an  adjudication as  a delinquent  for a                                                                    
     violation of  AS 28.35.030, 28.35.032, AS  28.35.280 --                                                                    
     28.35.290, AS 11.71,  or a law or  ordinance in another                                                                    
     jurisdiction with substantially similar elements;                                                                          
               (3) "privilege to drive" means a driver's                                                                        
     license  license  [sic]  or  permit,  or  privilege  to                                                                    
     obtain a driver's license or permit.                                                                                       
     Delete Section 4 and replace with:                                                                                       
        *  Sec. 4.   AS  28.15 is  amended by  adding a  new                                                                  
     section to read:                                                                                                           
          Sec. 28.15.176.  Administrative revocation for                                                                      
     minors who consume or possess alcohol or drugs.   (a)                                                                    
     The department  shall revoke the privilege  to drive of                                                                    
     a minor for                                                                                                                
               (1) six months, when notified of an informal                                                                     
     adjustment under  AS 47.12.060(b)(4), and  shall revoke                                                                    
     the minor's  privilege to drive  for an  additional six                                                                    
     months  when  notified  of an  unsuccessful  adjustment                                                                    
     under that statute;                                                                                                        
               (2)the   time   period    specified   in   AS                                                                    
     28.15.185(b), when  notified of an  informal adjustment                                                                    
     under AS 47.12.060(b)(5).                                                                                                  
          (b) The department may not issue a new license or                                                                     
     reissue a license to a  person whose privilege to drive                                                                    
     has been  revoked under AS  04.16.050, AS  28.15.183 or                                                                    
     AS  28.15.185  unless  the person  has  enrolled  in  a                                                                    
     juvenile    alcohol   safety    action   program    and                                                                    
     successfully  completed  any   education  or  treatment                                                                    
          (c)  A revocation under AS 04.16.050 is                                                                               
     consecutive  to  a  revocation  imposed  under  another                                                                    
     provision of  law, but is concurrent  with a revocation                                                                    
     under  that  statute  based   on  a  prior  conviction,                                                                    
     adjudication  of  delinquency  or  informal  adjustment                                                                    
     under AS 47.12.060.                                                                                                        
          (d)  Notwithstanding the provisions of AS                                                                             
     28.20.240  and   28.20.250,  the  department   may  not                                                                    
     require  proof   of  financial   responsibility  before                                                                    
     restoring  a person's  privilege  to  drive under  this                                                                    
          (e) In this section,                                                                                                  
               (1)    "juvenile   alcohol    safety   action                                                                    
     program," has the meaning given in AS 04.16.050;                                                                           
               (2) "privilege to drive" has the meaning                                                                         
     given in AS 04.16.050;                                                                                                     
     Delete Section 5 and replace with:                                                                                       
     *Sec.  5.   AS 28.15.181  is  amended by  adding a  new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (i) A court convicting a person under AS                                                                              
     04.16.050(c)   or  (d)   shall   revoke  the   person's                                                                    
     privilege  to drive  as provided  in  AS 04.16.050.  As                                                                    
     used in  this subsection, "privilege to  drive" has the                                                                    
     meaning given in AS 04.16.050.                                                                                             
     Add a new Section:                                                                                                       
     *Sec. ___.  AS 28.15.183(g) is amended to read:                                                                          
          (g) Except as provided under (h) of this section,                                                                     
     the department may  not issue a new  license or reissue                                                                    
     a license  to a person whose  driver's license, permit,                                                                    
     or  privilege  to drive  has  been  revoked under  this                                                                    
     section unless  the person has  enrolled in  a juvenile                                                                
     alcohol  safety  action  program,   as  defined  in  AS                                                                
     04.16.050, and successfully  completed any education or                                                                
     treatment  recommended  [IS  ENROLLED   IN  AND  IS  IN                                                                
     COMPLIANCE WITH, OR HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED,                                                                            
               (1)     AN     ALCOHOLISM    EDUCATION     OR                                                                    
     REHABILITATION  TREATMENT  PROGRAM  APPROVED  UNDER  AS                                                                    
     47.37, IF  THE REVOCATION  RESULTED FROM  POSSESSION OR                                                                    
     CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION  OF AS 04.16.050 OR                                                                    
     A  MUNICIPAL   ORDINANCE  WITH   SUBSTANTIALLY  SIMILAR                                                                    
     ELEMENTS,  FROM] OPERATING  A  VEHICLE AFTER  CONSUMING                                                                    
     ALCOHOL IN  VIOLATION OF AS 28.35.280,  OR FROM REFUSAL                                                                    
     TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL  TEST OF BREATH IN VIOLATION OF                                                                    
     AS 28.35.285; OR                                                                                                           
               (2) A DRUG EDUCATION  OR REHABILITATION                                                                          
     TREATMENT  PROGRAM,  IF  THE REVOCATION  RESULTED  FROM                                                                    
     POSSESSION  OR   USE  OF  A  CONTROLLED   SUBSTANCE  IN                                                                    
     VIOLATION  OF AS  11.71 OR  A MUNICIPAL  ORDINANCE WITH                                                                    
     SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ELEMENTS].                                                                                           
     Delete Section 13 and replace with                                                                                       
     *Sec. 13.  AS 47.12.060(b) is amended to read:                                                                           
          (b) When the department or an entity selected by                                                                      
     it decides to  make an informal adjustment  of a matter                                                                    
     under (a)(2) of this section, that informal adjustment                                                                   
               (1) must be made with [MAY NOT BE MADE                                                                       
     WITHOUT] the agreement or consent  of the minor and the                                                                    
     minor's   parents  or   guardian  to   the  terms   and                                                                    
     conditions of the adjustment;[.]                                                                                     
               (2) must give [IN ADDITION, THE DEPARTMENT                                                                   
     OR  ENTITY SHALL  GIVE] the  minor's foster  parents an                                                                    
     opportunity to be heard  before the informal adjustment                                                                    
     is made;[.]                                                                                                          
               (3) must include notice that [AN] informal                                                                   
     action  to   adjust  a   matter  is   not  successfully                                                                    
     completed   unless,  among   other  factors   that  the                                                                    
     department or  entity selected by  it considers,  as to                                                                    
     the victim  of the act of  the minor that is  the basis                                                                    
     of   the  delinquency   allegation,   the  minor   pays                                                                    
     restitution in the amount set  by the department or the                                                                    
     entity selected by it or  agrees as a term or condition                                                                    
     set by the  department or the entity selected  by it to                                                                    
     pay the restitution;                                                                                                   
               (4) for a violation of habitual minor                                                                        
     consuming or in possession  under AS 04.16.050(d), must                                                                
     include an  agreement that the  minor perform  96 hours                                                                
     of  community   work  service  and  that   the  minor's                                                                
     privilege to  drive be  revoked for  six months,  as if                                                                
     the  minor had  been adjudicated  delinquent, and  that                                                                
     the  privilege to  drive be  revoked for  an additional                                                                
     six   months  if   the  informal   adjustment  is   not                                                                
     successful  because the  minor  has  failed to  perform                                                                
     community  work service  as ordered,  or has  failed to                                                                
     submit  to  evaluation  or  successfully  complete  the                                                                
     education or treatment recommended.   The department or                                                                
     entity  selected by  it shall  notify  the division  of                                                                
     motor  vehicles of  an informal  adjustment under  this                                                                
     paragraph, and of  an unsuccessful adjustment described                                                                
     in this paragraph;                                                                                                     
               (5)   of   an   offense   described   in   AS                                                                
     28.15.185(a)  must   include  an  agreement   that  the                                                                
     minor's privilege  to drive be  revoked as  provided in                                                                
     AS 28.15.185(b),  as if the minor  had been adjudicated                                                                
     delinquent.   The department or  entity selected  by it                                                                
     shall  notify  the division  of  motor  vehicles of  an                                                                
     informal adjustment under this paragraph.                                                                            
     Add a new section:                                                                                                       
        *Sec. ___.  AS 47.37.040  is amended by adding a new                                                                  
     paragraphs to read:                                                                                                        
               (20) develop and implement or designate, in                                                                      
     cooperation  with  other  state or  local  agencies,  a                                                                    
     juvenile  alcohol safety  action program  that provides                                                                    
     alcohol  and substance  abuse screening,  referral, and                                                                    
     monitoring of  persons under 21  years of age  who have                                                                    
     been referred  to it  by a court  in connection  with a                                                                    
     charge  or conviction  of  a  violation or  misdemeanor                                                                    
     related  to   the  use  of  alcohol   or  a  controlled                                                                    
     substance,  by  the  division   of  motor  vehicles  in                                                                    
     connection with a license action  related to the use of                                                                    
     alcohol or  a controlled substance, or  the division of                                                                    
     juvenile justice after  a delinquency adjudication that                                                                    
     is  related  to the  use  of  alcohol or  a  controlled                                                                    
[End of Amendment 1 to HB 179; HB 179 was held over.]                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects