Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120

02/10/2006 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Moved CSHB 226(JUD) Out of Committee
Moved CSHB 190(JUD) Out of Committee
+= Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 343(JUD) Out of Committee
HB 190 - REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL                                                                                   
2:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  final order of  business would                                                               
be  HOUSE BILL  NO.  190, "An  Act relating  to  the purchase  of                                                               
alcoholic  beverages  and  to  requiring  identification  to  buy                                                               
alcoholic    beverages;   requiring    driver's   licenses    and                                                               
identification cards to be marked  if a person is restricted from                                                               
consuming  alcoholic beverages  as a  result of  a conviction  or                                                               
condition of  probation or  parole."   [Before the  committee was                                                               
CSHB 190(L&C).]                                                                                                                 
2:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD,  Alaska State Legislature, sponsor                                                               
of  HB  190,  relayed  that  during  the  interim  he'd  had  the                                                               
opportunity  to consider  the question  of  what can  be done  to                                                               
prevent  the sort  of situation  in which  he found  himself last                                                               
year when his wife was struck by  a drunk driver.  House Bill 190                                                               
is intended  to stop  people from  getting alcohol,  from getting                                                               
drunk,  from  getting to  the  point  where  they kill  and  maim                                                               
people.   Currently, judges will  order people who  are convicted                                                               
of  felony  driving under  the  influence  (DUI)  to not  buy  or                                                               
consume  alcohol  or  enter  premises   where  alcohol  is  sold;                                                               
however, those orders aren't enforced  because there is not yet a                                                               
way to identify such people.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  said that  HB  190  would require  that                                                               
driver's licenses  or state identification  (ID) cards  be marked                                                               
so that  everyone could identify  those who've been  convicted of                                                               
DUI.  A  prior version of the bill  required establishment owners                                                               
to be  responsible for  checking IDs for  such marking,  but that                                                               
concept  didn't  have  statewide  support,  and  so  the  current                                                               
version of HB 190 - CSHB 190(L&C)  - makes the checking of IDs by                                                               
establishment  owners voluntarily.    If  an establishment  owner                                                               
does  choose to  check someone's  ID and  finds the  marking that                                                               
indicates the person has been ordered  by the court to not buy or                                                               
consume  alcohol or  enter premises  where alcohol  is sold,  the                                                               
establishment  owner  could  collect  a civil  damages  award  of                                                               
$1,000.  He noted that he'd  borrowed the civil fine concept from                                                               
legislation pertaining to minor consuming.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD relayed  that  Brown  Jug, Inc.  ("Brown                                                               
Jug"), had  expressed a willingness  to incorporate  the checking                                                               
of IDs for court order designations into its current practices.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  asked Representative  Crawford  whether                                                               
he's  consulted with  the Cabaret  Hotel Restaurant  & Retailer's                                                               
Association (CHARR) regarding this bill.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD indicated  that he  had but  doesn't yet                                                               
have anything in  writing.  His understanding is that  as long as                                                               
the  proposal is  voluntary,  CHARR would  have  no objection  to                                                               
checking IDs for evidence of court orders.                                                                                      
2:45:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD, in  response to  a question,  explained                                                               
that the  first portion  of Section 1  specifies that  the person                                                               
who has been  ordered by the court to not  buy or consume alcohol                                                               
or  enter premises  where alcohol  is sold  may not  do so;  CSHB                                                               
190(L&C) does  not require  an establishment  owner to  check IDs                                                               
for such court orders.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE   ANDERSON  expressed   favor  with   the  concept                                                               
embodied in CSHB  190(L&C), and concern that IDs  will soon start                                                               
containing more and more information about a person.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD noted  that  the strip  on  the back  of                                                               
driver's  licenses  already   provides  certain  information  [as                                                               
described in AS 28.15.111(a)].                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  supports the  bill, but  he is                                                               
questioning whether a  stigma will be placed on a  person with an                                                               
ID marked  in the manner  being proposed; a stigma,  for example,                                                               
that could influence a job interview.                                                                                           
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she agrees  with the  goals of the  bill, but                                                               
questions whether marking one's ID  in the fashion proposed would                                                               
be considered  "cruel and  unusual" punishment  in that  it would                                                               
constitute continued  punishment -  further punishment  meted out                                                               
after  one  serves  his/her  time  and  pays  his/her  fines  and                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD acknowledged that  having one's ID marked                                                               
in the proposed manner could be  somewhat of a stigma, but opined                                                               
that people should know that one  is not to have alcohol or enter                                                               
onto premises that  serve alcohol.  He  offered his understanding                                                               
that such  a mark can  be removed once  the court order  has been                                                               
CHAIR McGUIRE noted  that some states mark the  license plates of                                                               
those who've been convicted of  DUI, and asked whether anyone has                                                               
looked  into the  constitutional aspects  of marking  IDs in  the                                                               
manner proposed.                                                                                                                
2:51:20 PM                                                                                                                    
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
indicated that  she's not  yet researched  that issue,  but added                                                               
that  she would  be  surprised if  there  are any  constitutional                                                               
ramifications  given  that an  ID  would  only  be marked  for  a                                                               
limited period of time.                                                                                                         
CHAIR McGUIRE asked what such a mark would look like.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that  the Division of Motor Vehicles                                                               
(DMV) would resolve that issue.                                                                                                 
2:52:12 PM                                                                                                                    
DUANE  BANNOCK,  Director,  Division  of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department  of  Administration  (DOA),  relayed that  he  is  not                                                               
familiar with  any state that uses  such a mark and  so he cannot                                                               
answer  that particular  question.   He said  that CSHB  190(L&C)                                                               
still causes  the DMV  concern because currently  there is  not a                                                               
direct  link of  communication  between the  DMV  and the  Alaska                                                               
Court System, and  thus there is no way for  the DMV to determine                                                               
who  has been  court ordered  to not  buy or  consume alcohol  or                                                               
enter premises where alcohol is sold.   And even though Section 2                                                               
of  the bill  states in  part, "the  person has  been ordered  to                                                               
refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages  as part of a sentence                                                               
for conviction  of a crime under  AS 28.35.030 or as  a condition                                                               
of  probation or  parole", the  DMV  doesn't have  any idea  what                                                               
would be  expected in terms of  how many "customers" it  could be                                                               
dealing  with and  what would  be  expected if  the court  simply                                                               
faxes over court orders.  For  example, would the DMV be expected                                                               
to revoke  the driver's  privilege until the  driver came  to the                                                               
DMV to  get another driver's license,  and is there a  time frame                                                               
involved?   So  although the  DMV  understands Section  4 of  the                                                               
bill, the DMV is concerned about  how it will get the information                                                               
in a timely manner so as to be able to act accordingly.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON asked  whether  the establishment  owner                                                               
would  be  held accountable  by  the  Alcoholic Beverage  Control                                                               
Board  ("ABC Board")  if  he/she failed  to  identify someone  as                                                               
having been  ordered by the court  to not buy or  consume alcohol                                                               
or enter premises  where alcohol is sold, what  the fiscal impact                                                               
will  be on  the DMV,  and whether  an individual  would be  held                                                               
liable for providing  alcohol to someone who has  been ordered by                                                               
the court to  not buy or consume alcohol or  enter premises where                                                               
alcohol is sold.                                                                                                                
2:55:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD answered  that  the establishment  owner                                                               
would not  be liable  for failing  to identify  such individuals,                                                               
and  that the  DMV would  be  able charge  those who  must get  a                                                               
marked ID with the cost associated issuing those IDs.                                                                           
MR.  BANNOCK,  in  response  to  a  question,  said  it  will  be                                                               
difficult to determine  the bill's fiscal impact on the  DMV.  He                                                               
noted that currently, every dollar  the DMV collects is "defined"                                                               
by  either  statutory  or  regulatory authority,  and  so  he  is                                                               
presuming that  the sponsor and  the committee recognize  that in                                                               
order for the DMV  to comply with the bill, there  will be a cost                                                               
to the DMV.  And although the  intent might be for the people who                                                               
have to  get a marked  ID to be the  ones paying that  cost, this                                                               
will require  a statutory  change because  currently the  cost of                                                               
licensure is  the same for everyone  and the DMV does  not get to                                                               
raise the rate.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD,   in    response   to   Representative                                                               
Anderson's third  question, offered his understanding  that it is                                                               
already against the  law for an individual to  provide alcohol to                                                               
someone who has  been ordered by the court to  not buy or consume                                                               
alcohol  or enter  premises where  alcohol is  sold, though  that                                                               
individual  is not  responsible for  checking someone  else's ID;                                                               
the bill will not change current law in that regard.                                                                            
CHAIR McGUIRE  asked Representative  Crawford whether he's  had a                                                               
chance to work  out the details of cost and  expectation with the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD said  he'd thought  that that  issue had                                                               
been resolved and  so he will take further steps  [to ensure that                                                               
it is], adding that he would  be amenable to an amendment on that                                                               
issue.   There are  people being killed  and maimed  everyday, he                                                               
remarked, adding  HB 190  differs from past  attempts in  that it                                                               
establishes a  voluntary program that will  provide establishment                                                               
owners  with  the financial  incentive  to  check IDs  for  court                                                               
orders; something must be done  to stop alcohol from getting into                                                               
the hands of those that are  causing the most trouble, those that                                                               
continue to  drink and drive.   He explained that the  person who                                                               
struck his wife  had a blood alcohol concentration  (BAC) of .38,                                                               
and  offered his  belief that  one cannot  get to  that point  of                                                               
intoxication without  having had  a lot  of practice;  the person                                                               
was  a "multiple,  repeat  offender,"  and this  is  the type  of                                                               
person he is targeting.                                                                                                         
3:01:02 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA suggested  that they  consider a  conceptual                                                               
amendment  that  would provide  the  DMV  with the  authority  to                                                               
charge an enhanced fee for those that must get a marked ID.                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE  indicated  that  another issue  for  the  DMV  to                                                               
address  would be  how it  will go  about putting  an appropriate                                                               
program in  place.  She asked  Mr. Bannock whether he  would like                                                               
the  legislation to  speak  to  that issue  or  whether he  would                                                               
prefer that the details get worked out as the DMV sees fit.                                                                     
MR. BANNOCK,  contrary to an  earlier comment, said that  the DMV                                                               
does  have a  communication link  with the  ACS, but  pointed out                                                               
that  probation   and  parole  situations  are   handled  by  the                                                               
Department of  Corrections (DOC), which  is not linked at  all to                                                               
the DMV.   One question  that will need  to be addressed  is what                                                               
happens to  the person referred  to in  Section 2.   For example,                                                               
will he/she  be required  to surrender his/her  unmarked ID?   He                                                               
pointed out that people frequently come  into the DMV and sign an                                                               
affidavit  saying they've  lost their  ID; therefore,  if someone                                                               
has  to get  a  marked ID  but claims  that  he/she lost  his/her                                                               
unmarked ID,  he/she will have both  IDs and will be  able to use                                                               
the one that suits him/her.                                                                                                     
MR.  BANNOCK said  that the  DMV  concurs with  the sponsor  that                                                               
something needs to  be done about Alaska's  drunk driver problem,                                                               
but from  the DMV's perspective,  the cost/benefit ratio  must be                                                               
considered.   Also,  if this  bill  passes, who,  then, won't  be                                                               
buying  alcohol, and  what will  happen  if a  person refuses  to                                                               
obtain a  marked ID.   Although vendors  will have the  option of                                                               
checking someone's  ID for court  orders, the bill  doesn't speak                                                               
to whether a  person under a court order will  be required to get                                                               
a  marked ID.    The DMV  will  do as  directed,  he assured  the                                                               
committee,  but the  question  remains of  how  to implement  the                                                               
proposed  program:    "exactly  how  are  we  going  to  get  the                                                               
information, what do we  do with it, and is it just  as much of a                                                               
voluntary program for the person as it is for the vendor."                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD   requested   that  the   DMV   provide                                                               
suggestions for change.   He posited that if a  person refuses to                                                               
get  a  marked  ID,  then   he/she  may  be  refused  service  in                                                               
establishments  that  are  voluntarily  checking  IDs  for  court                                                               
orders.   He reiterated  that the  intent of the  bill is  to cut                                                               
down on the number of people  who buy alcohol when they have been                                                               
ordered not to,  and suggested that the $1,000  [civil] fine will                                                               
be  a  good  incentive  for establishment  owners  to  assist  in                                                               
stopping problem drinkers.   He indicated that he  is amenable to                                                               
working with the DMV to resolve  its concerns, and opined that it                                                               
won't  be  that  hard  for  the DMV  to  implement  the  proposed                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  asked whether  a  having  a DUI  conviction                                                               
mandates that one turn in one's license.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  offered his understanding that  a first-                                                               
time DUI conviction wouldn't mandate such.                                                                                      
3:10:10 PM                                                                                                                    
DOUG  WOOLIVER,  Administrative Attorney,  Administrative  Staff,                                                               
Office  of  the  Administrative  Director,  Alaska  Court  System                                                               
(ACS), in  response to  questions, relayed  that when  an officer                                                               
stops someone  for DUI,  the officer seizes  the license  [at the                                                               
time of arrest], and the person  can then get a temporary license                                                               
issued by the DMV.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON surmised,  then, that  those arrested  for                                                               
DUI won't  have a license;  thus such a  person won't be  able to                                                               
have two licenses as suggested by Mr. Bannock.                                                                                  
MR.  WOOLIVER concurred  that that  would  be the  case at  least                                                               
initially,  but remarked  that the  situation  could become  more                                                               
complicated  if a  person  is given  back  his/her license  while                                                               
litigating  the DUI  charge.   In  such a  situation, the  person                                                               
could simply claim  that his/her unmarked license  was lost, with                                                               
the  result being  as Mr.  Bannock predicted:   the  person would                                                               
then have both a marked license and an unmarked license.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  a  solution  would  be  to                                                               
require  a person  to  swear  under oath  before  the court  that                                                               
he/she [has  lost the unmarked  license]; then, if a  person lies                                                               
under oath, he/she  could be found guilty of perjury.   He opined                                                               
that a  person should be required  to have a marked  license even                                                               
while a case is being litigated;  in other words, while a case is                                                               
pending, if  the person seeks  to have his/her  license returned,                                                               
it should be  a license that is marked in  the manner proposed by                                                               
the bill.                                                                                                                       
MR. WOOLIVER  acknowledged that such  a requirement might  fill a                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   KOTT,  referring   to  Section   2,  offered   a                                                               
hypothetical  example  in  which  a judge,  as  part  a  person's                                                               
probation, tells  him/her that  he/she can't  have alcohol  for a                                                               
period of  time, and noted that  Section 1 of the  bill specifies                                                               
that a  person who is  not privileged to purchase  alcohol cannot                                                               
enter or  remain in the  premises of an establishment  that sells                                                               
alcohol.  He  asked whether this language would  preclude a judge                                                               
from  restricting  a  person's ability  to  consume  or  purchase                                                               
alcohol in situations where the  person is employed by a licensed                                                               
MR.  WOOLIVER offered  his understanding  that  judges have,  and                                                               
would  retain, the  discretion to  set  conditions of  probation.                                                               
For example,  a judge could say  to the person that  he/she can't                                                               
enter a  licensed premise of any  kind with the exception  of the                                                               
one at which the person works.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  concurred,  adding  that  the  bill  is                                                               
simply changing the enforcement aspect.                                                                                         
MR. WOOLIVER concurred.                                                                                                         
3:14:43 PM                                                                                                                    
BRYAN  TALBOTT-CLARK, President,  Board  of Directors,  Anchorage                                                               
Chapter,  Mothers   Against  Drunk  Driving  (MADD),   said  MADD                                                               
supports [HB 190], though he  acknowledged that it will not solve                                                               
the problems  of drunk drivers,  domestic violence,  child abuse,                                                               
sexual assault,  or any of the  many social ills that  are fueled                                                               
by alcohol.  He relayed  his personal experience involving a dear                                                               
friend, Jessie  Withrow, who was  killed by a drunk  driver who'd                                                               
been  convicted of  DUI six  times  previously and  who had  been                                                               
ordered  by the  court to  not drive  and to  not buy  or consume                                                               
alcohol or enter  premises where alcohol is sold.   He went on to                                                               
     This is  an issue  about choices.   In this  case we're                                                                    
     talking about  a choice  made by  people who  are under                                                                    
     orders not  to drink, whether they're  going to violate                                                                    
     that order.   And this is  about a way of  helping them                                                                    
     to make the right choice,  making it easier for them to                                                                    
     make the right  choice.  Like any choice,  you can kind                                                                    
     of  imagine a  bell curve,  where,  on one  end of  it,                                                                    
     you've  got  people who  are  going  to get  around  it                                                                    
     anyway they can - whether  it's through a fake license,                                                                    
     getting somebody  else to the  buy the  booze, whatever                                                                    
     it's going to  be; on the other end,  you've got people                                                                    
     who are  afraid of  any consequences and  they're going                                                                    
     to  follow it  no matter  what; [and]  most people  are                                                                    
     going to be in the  middle, where, if they're presented                                                                    
     with  temptation,  it  kind  of  depends  on  how  much                                                                    
     temptation is it, what are  the consequences, [and] how                                                                    
     hard it is to get around it.                                                                                               
     And when we  can set up an obstacle like  this, we know                                                                    
     that  we're going  to  move a  few  people from  barely                                                                    
     making  the wrong  choice to  barely  making the  right                                                                    
     choice.   And so maybe  we only  save a few  lives, but                                                                    
     the  question  I  have  to  ask  is,  do  we  waste  an                                                                    
     opportunity  to  save even  a  few  lives with  just  a                                                                    
     little effort?   This bill  gives us  that opportunity,                                                                    
     and I urge  you not to waste it.   On behalf of Mothers                                                                    
     Against Drunk  Driving, and of myself,  and for Jessie,                                                                    
     I urge  you to support this  bill.  And thank  you very                                                                    
     much for your attention.                                                                                                   
3:18:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to                                                                    
testify, closed public testimony on HB 190.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual                                                                           
Amendment 1, which, with handwritten corrections, read:                                                                         
     1)  While  a prosecution for a DWI, other  than a first                                                                    
     DWI, is  pending, and until  restrictions on  the right                                                                    
     to consume  alcohol remain in  effect, the  State shall                                                                    
       only issue a license or State ID with markings as                                                                        
     provided by this statute.                                                                                                  
     2)  The State has the authority to charge an enhanced                                                                      
     fee for a license or ID under this statute.                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA posited  that  Conceptual  Amendment 1  will                                                               
address the  two concerns  raised, the  one pertaining  to having                                                               
possession of  an unmarked ID  while a  DUI case is  pending, and                                                               
the one  pertaining to  fees.   He asked whether  it is  a common                                                               
condition  of  probation in  a  DUI  case  that one  not  consume                                                               
alcohol,  or  whether is  it  a  common  condition that  one  not                                                               
consume alcohol while driving.                                                                                                  
MS.  CARPENETI  said  it  depends,  and  while  either  of  those                                                               
conditions is common, it is a  more common condition that one not                                                               
consume alcohol or enter establishments that serve alcohol.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  surmised  that  they would  only  want  the                                                               
marked-license provision  to apply when  the condition is  to not                                                               
consume alcohol.                                                                                                                
3:21:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  amend  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 such that "shall" will  become "may".  There being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was amended.                                                                                             
CHAIR McGUIRE  removed her objection  to Conceptual  Amendment 1,                                                               
as amended.  She asked  whether there were any further objections                                                               
to  Conceptual  Amendment  1,  as amended.    There  being  none,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  the bill  currently doesn't                                                               
contain  a mechanism  requiring the  ACS to  notify the  DMV when                                                               
such conditions  are set by  the court, and pondered  whether the                                                               
bill should include such a mechanism.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD indicated  that he  would amenable  to a                                                               
conceptual amendment  to that  effect, and  surmised that  such a                                                               
change will engender a fiscal note.                                                                                             
MR. WOOLIVER  explained that right  now the ACS transmits  to the                                                               
DMV any judgment that affects a driver's license.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked   whether  this  transmittal  is                                                               
required by statute.                                                                                                            
MR. WOOLIVER  said he is not  sure.  Currently the  judgments are                                                               
in paper form  and there is a time delay,  although the ACS hopes                                                               
to soon have everything done electronically.                                                                                    
MR. BANNOCK concurred that that is  the case with regard to court                                                               
orders,  but noted  that Section  2 of  the bill  references both                                                               
court orders and conditions of  probation and parole, and, again,                                                               
that the DMV has zero communication with the DOC.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked  how long it takes for  the DMV to                                                               
receive notification [of the aforementioned judgments].                                                                         
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing,  Director's Office, Division of                                                               
Motor Vehicles  (DMV), Department  of Administration  (DOA), said                                                               
that although  such judgments are  received in about 10  days, it                                                               
can take up  to two more weeks to manually  enter the information                                                               
into the DMV's system.                                                                                                          
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to  a question, reiterated that the ACS                                                               
hopes   to   eventually   be    able   to   transfer   everything                                                               
3:25:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked the  sponsor whether he  would be                                                               
amenable to an  amendment "that would be  consistent with current                                                               
practice" but that didn't engender a fiscal note.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  indicated that  he would be  amenable to                                                               
such a change.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked whether  one can  be ordered  to not                                                               
drink and yet still be allowed to drive.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered his understanding  that limited                                                               
licensure provides for such circumstances.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  asked  whether a  limited  license  would                                                               
specify that the person could not drink.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered   his  understanding  that  it                                                               
MR.  WOOLIVER  clarified  that   a  lot  judges  impose  drinking                                                               
restrictions on people who've  committed crimes, crimes unrelated                                                               
to driving, while under the influence of alcohol.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked how the  DMV would know to  change a                                                               
person's ID  to reflect  that although  the person  cannot drink,                                                               
he/she can still drive.                                                                                                         
MR.  WOOLIVER said  that currently,  under  such an  order for  a                                                               
crime  unrelated to  driving, a  person's driver's  license isn't                                                               
affected and therefore  it isn't changed; under  HB 190, however,                                                               
the ACS would  have to begin sending such information  to the DMV                                                               
so that a person's ID could be marked.                                                                                          
CHAIR McGUIRE  offered her understanding that  this would require                                                               
additional processing  [of information] by the  DMV, and surmised                                                               
that  it would  be  up to  the DMV  to  decide how  court-ordered                                                               
limitations will be designated on the licenses.                                                                                 
3:29:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  remarked  that  he  might  have  created  a                                                               
constitutional problem  via Conceptual  Amendment 1,  as amended.                                                               
He elaborated:   "My belief is  that ... if you've  already had a                                                               
[DUI] and you're  on to your second [DUI], even  when the case is                                                               
pending we  should be able  to mark a  license, but I  don't know                                                               
that  constitutionally we  can mark  somebody's  license if  they                                                               
haven't been  convicted just  because the case  is pending."   He                                                               
suggested that the sponsor simply seek  a way, before the bill is                                                               
heard in  its next committee  of referral, to close  the loophole                                                               
wherein  someone might  be  able  to have  possession  of both  a                                                               
marked license and an unmarked license.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked that  the committee rescind  it action                                                               
in adopting Conceptual  Amendment 1, as amended.   There being no                                                               
objection, the committee rescinded it action.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to  a question, made a motion to                                                               
adopt  Amendment 2,  "which  would  say that  the  state has  the                                                               
authority to charge  a higher fee for a state  ID or license that                                                               
contains the  markings required  by this bill".   There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to Conceptual  Amendment 1,                                                               
as amended, remarked,  "I'm sure that the judge could  do that as                                                               
a condition of bail."                                                                                                           
CHAIR  McGUIRE  suggested  that Representative  Gruenberg  pursue                                                               
that issue further with the sponsor.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  reiterated his concern that  the language in                                                               
Sections 1  and 2 will preclude  a judge from placing  a drinking                                                               
restriction  on someone  who works  in  licensed premise  because                                                               
then that person wouldn't be able to go to work.                                                                                
MR.  WOOLIVER  acknowledged that  his  earlier  response to  that                                                               
concern might have been in error.   While it is true that a judge                                                               
can tailor  conditions of probation,  once a license that  has an                                                               
alcohol  restriction  is  issued,  Section 1  of  the  bill  will                                                               
preclude  a  person from  entering  or  remaining in  a  licensed                                                               
premise  regardless  of what  the  conditions  of probation  say.                                                               
What one  can do if  one has a marked  license is spelled  out in                                                               
Section  1 of  the  bill,  not in  the  conditions of  probation.                                                               
Therefore, Representative Kott is correct in his concern.                                                                       
3:33:20 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD offered  his  belief,  though, that  the                                                               
judge still has  the discretion to specify that a  person may not                                                               
drink but may enter his place of employment.                                                                                    
CHAIR  McGUIRE surmised  that  Representative  Kott's concern  is                                                               
that the bill  states that if a judge says  one can't drink, then                                                               
one can't enter  or remain in a licensed premise.   She suggested                                                               
that  the sponsor  didn't intend  for this  to be  the case,  and                                                               
therefore perhaps [Section  1 of] the bill could  be changed such                                                               
that one may  not knowingly enter or remain  in licensed premises                                                               
for the purposes of consuming alcohol.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  maintained his  argument that  the judge                                                               
can specify  whether a person who  has been ordered to  not drink                                                               
may  enter into  a  licensed  premise for  a  purpose other  than                                                               
consuming alcohol,  adding his belief  that the license  could be                                                               
marked to reflect this distinction.                                                                                             
CHAIR  McGUIRE opined  that it  would be  better to  clarify that                                                               
point in the  bill.  For example, currently under  the bill, if a                                                               
restaurant  had  an  alcohol license,  then  someone  who'd  been                                                               
ordered by  a judge to not  consume alcohol could not  go to that                                                               
restaurant for a meal without violating Section 1.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD   offered  his  belief  that   the  only                                                               
possible   penalty   for   such   a  violation   would   be   the                                                               
aforementioned civil  penalty should the establishment  choose to                                                               
pursue it.                                                                                                                      
CHAIR  McGUIRE  surmised,  then,  that the  bill  would  allow  a                                                               
restaurant to  seek a $1,000 civil  fine from someone who  had no                                                               
intention of drinking while in the restaurant.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concurred.                                                                                              
CHAIR McGUIRE said she completely rejects that [concept].                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD argued that  currently, that person would                                                               
be violating the  law anyway because he/she  is violating his/her                                                               
court  order if  that order  says that  he/she may  not enter  or                                                               
remain  in a  licensed premise.    What a  judge may  order of  a                                                               
person is  not being changed by  HB 190; instead the  bill merely                                                               
proposes to institute an enforcement mechanism for such orders.                                                                 
CHAIR McGUIRE questioned whether there  are really judges in this                                                               
state  that  are  issuing orders  precluding  someone  from  even                                                               
entering premises that  are licensed to serve alcohol.   She said                                                               
she agrees that there are people  who should not be drinking, and                                                               
that she  is compelled by  the arguments in favor  of instituting                                                               
marked IDs,  but she pointed  out that  it is tremendous  leap to                                                               
then say that  establishments with alcohol licenses  would be off                                                               
limits to those people even if they  are just there to eat, or to                                                               
gather for a social function, or to secure employment.                                                                          
MR.  WOOLIVER said  it is  not uncommon  for a  court to  issue a                                                               
condition of  probation that  the person  not consume  alcohol or                                                               
enter a  premise that serves  alcohol; this is typically  done in                                                               
more serious cases, though not all judges do so.                                                                                
3:39:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested  amending page 1, line  10, to say,                                                               
"enter or  remain on a premise  that's licensed in this  title to                                                               
obtain alcohol  for personal consumption".   Such a  change would                                                               
allow a person to still eat or work in such a premise.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  indicated that  such a change  would address                                                               
his concern.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON   remarked  that   a  judge  may   make  a                                                               
determination   that   a   person   shouldn't   even   enter   an                                                               
establishment that is licensed to  serve alcohol, and pointed out                                                               
that there are  plenty of places for that person  to eat or work.                                                               
Therefore she  is not  that concerned  that a  person may  not be                                                               
able to enter certain establishments.                                                                                           
CHAIR  McGUIRE pointed  out that  in small  communities, the  few                                                               
restaurants there are may well  all be licensed to serve alcohol,                                                               
and so such an order would  in effect preclude someone from going                                                               
out to eat.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  in such  a  situation  the                                                               
license could simply be marked to  indicate that a person may not                                                               
be in such an establishment  for the purpose of obtaining alcohol                                                               
for personal consumption, though for  some people the judge might                                                               
even  go  so far  as  to  say a  person  can't  go into  such  an                                                               
establishment for  any purpose -  the judge's discretion  in that                                                               
regard would not be altered via the bill.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she'd  forgotten that some communities                                                               
may not have many restaurants.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered the City of Kake as an example.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD,  in response  to questions,  offered his                                                               
understanding  that  the bill  provides  that  either a  driver's                                                               
license or a state identification  card could be marked, and said                                                               
that he  didn't want someone's ID  to be marked until  he/she has                                                               
been convicted,  and then only  if that  conviction is for  a DUI                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  made   a   motion   to  adopt   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3, to insert  after the word, "title", on  page 1, line                                                               
10,  the words,  "to  obtain alcohol  for personal  consumption".                                                               
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                   
3:44:45 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  moved to report  CSHB 190(L&C),  as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying  fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection,  CSHB                                                               
190(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects