Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
02/21/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 118-PROHIBIT ALLOWING MINORS TO HAVE ALCOHOL 4:05:19 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to underage possession of alcoholic beverages in a dwelling." 4:05:46 PM MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 118 is the result of concerns that have been raised regarding underage drinking in Alaska. Studies have shown that the majority of underage drinking in Alaska occurs at home or at a friend's house. He explained that currently, it is illegal to rent a hotel room for the purposes of providing alcohol to minors; however, it is not illegal to have minors in your house consuming alcohol. While researching this issue, the sponsor looked at how other states deal with this. He stated that this would give the police an additional enforcement tool. He explained that the police must prove that underage individuals were consuming alcohol on the premises, which the persons in charge of the premises allowed to happen. The latter would receive a $500 fine. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS inquired as to whether this would require parents to clear all alcohol out of the house prior to going on vacation. MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that there is a blanket exception in statute which allows a parent, guardian, or spouse to provide alcohol to a person who is under 21 years of age, as long as the person providing the alcohol is of legal age. Additionally, he explained that if the parents were away, responsibility would fall on the person who is in control of the house at the time of consumption. In response to additional questions, he clarified that the $500 fine is a non-criminal penalty and would accrue to the responsible party regardless of age. He offered his understanding that if there is no other source of income, the offenders permanent fund dividend may be revoked as payment. 4:11:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what would happen if a youth has been drinking, denies it when confronted by his or her parents, and is later involved in a traffic accident. He expressed concern regarding liabilities that may result MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that there are separate liability protections for social hosts. He offered his understanding that if this were to occur, the parent would not be liable. He read the definition of "recklessly" as follows: A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a provision of law defining an offence, when the person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the result will occur, or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree, that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his belief that the parents in the previous example would have satisfied these requirements, and therefore would not have acted "recklessly." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for clarification that the intent is not for the parent to be found liable. MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that the parent would only be found liable if he or she was in control of the house while the consumption was occurring. If a parent provides a venue for children to consume alcohol, then this is reckless disregard, and the parent would be liable. In response to additional questions, he explained that the current law requires proof that alcohol was furnished to a minor, which is more difficult to prove. If a hotel room is rented for purposes of underage drinking, this would violate current law. He reiterated that the proposed penalty is a $500 fine, and is a non-criminal violation. 4:18:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern with whether "control" could be misinterpreted. MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that this has been discussed at length with Legislative Legal and Research Services. He explained that "exercising dominion or control" refers to the moment the offense is occurring. It is not the sponsor's intent to make the owner or authoritative figure liable, but rather the person in control of the dwelling at the moment the offence was taking place. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER gave an example in which a child is left home, has a party, and is punished by the parent. She questioned whether the parent would be considered to have acted "recklessly" if the child was left home alone the following weekend, due to the knowledge of a previous offense. She said: This is my concern: If that kind of thing happened, and a kid left my house, and was killed - or killed somebody in a drunk driving accident, I would definitely feel [that] I shouldn't have gone out. I was responsible, I could have prevented it. Whether that's what the law says or not, I would feel that way. MR. PAWLOWSKI said "I think you ... bring up a good point about how you personally would feel." He reiterated that the sponsor's intent is not to hold the parent liable, and that the child throwing the party would be held responsible. He explained that this would allow the police to show up, at that time, and give a citation to the person "in control" of the house. 4:21:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said: Regardless of the sponsor's intent, anybody who has a teenage kid, who leaves for the weekend, probably should be aware that it's likely that the kid's going to have a party at the house. And, if they're not aware, then they're either hopelessly naïve, or reckless. MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed. In response to a question from Representative Gatto, he explained that a person who leaves his or her home empty while on vacation would not be held liable or be considered to have acted "recklessly," if the home was broken into and underage drinking occurred on the premises. In response to additional comments, he questioned whether it is reasonable to believe that the house would be broken into. However, the police would be able to site the individuals in charge of the house at that moment, for the $500 fine. This fine would be in addition to breaking and entering and minor consuming charges. 4:23:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked why the term "recklessly" was chosen. MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that "recklessly" describes a mental state that best fits the offense. He explained that "knowingly" is more difficult to prove, as a person may not inquire as to whether those in attendance were over 21 years of age. The sponsor wanted to set the bar "a little bit lower than 'knowingly.'" 4:25:11 PM MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question from Representative Buch, explained that if the owner of the house was cited and was not responsible, this could be disputed in the same manner as a traffic violation. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her belief that it can be difficult to prove innocence if unfairly cited for a traffic violation. She expressed concern that this would apply to this violation, as well. She said "as any of us who have thought we [were] unfairly cited [for a traffic violation are aware,] that's not always the easiest thing to rectify." MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that people may end up on the wrong side of any law that has a penalty. However, the sponsor believes this will have a good balance. 4:29:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for more detail regarding what "possession" requires. MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his understanding that this can mean alcohol within a person's blood system or outside the blood system, adding that whether a person is over 21 years of age is also a factor. He stated that he would provide additional information regarding the definition of "possession." In response to a question regarding the maximum penalty for a violation, he reiterated that the maximum penalty would be $500. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that his is in support of HB 118. He inquired as to whether the $500 fine would apply to all individuals in attendance, or if this is limited to the host. Additionally, he questioned whether the person in control of the dwelling is more culpable than others who are present. He said "It's often not the alpha juvenile that says 'let's have a party at my house tonight.' It's often the best friend who is the alpha [juvenile] who says 'hey your parents are gone this weekend, let's have a party at [your] house." He suggested that the sponsor consider this. MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed that this is a concern, and will be given further consideration. He offered his understanding that as the bill is currently written, the person in control of the dwelling would be held responsible, regardless of who suggests the party. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed her concern regarding whether this will encourage driving while under the influence of alcohol, by creating an obligation to ensure that these individuals are no longer on the premises. MR. PAWLOWSKI stated that he does not agree with this. He opined that the obligation is to ensure that the youth are no longer in possession of alcohol. He said: If you come home to find a bunch of 20-year-olds in your house drinking, and you understand this law, the first thing you should probably do is - exercising dominion or control over your house, now - take the alcohol away from them, and ask them to perhaps stay. 4:38:11 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), in response to a question from Representative Gatto, explained that the $500 fine would only be given to the individual in control of the dwelling, and minor consuming laws would remain in effect. He opined that individuals "running a party house" would quickly realize that this is not worth it, therefore resulting in a better quality of life for others. He also explained the difficulties which currently arise in regard to minor consuming. 4:40:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what would happen if the fine was not paid. LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that non-payment would result in a warrant being issued for the individual's arrest. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 118 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 4:42:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected. 4:42:32 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Ramras, Gatto, Gardner, Neuman, and Olson voted in favor of reporting HB 118 from committee. Representative Buch voted against it. Therefore, HB 118 was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|