Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/17/2001 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 42 - PRIVILEGE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL/I.D. CARDS ACTING CHAIR FATE announced that the next item of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 42, "An Act relating to the consumption, purchase, furnishing, delivery, offer for sale, and sale of alcoholic beverages and to driver's licenses and identification cards used to purchase alcoholic beverages." Number 0936 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to adopt CSHB 42, Version 22- LS0043\P, Ford, 4/16/01, as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. Number 0969 JEFF LOGAN, Staff to Representative Green, came forward to testify on behalf of Representative Green, sponsor of HB 42. He said: Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is defined as a problem by just about everyone. There have been some high-profile accidents in the past several months in our state involving operators under the influence that have caused many people, including some legislators, to take a second look at how we criminalize the act of driving under the influence. One approach has been to separate the driver from the vehicle. The bill before you takes a different approach. It seeks to separate the alcohol from the abuser ... by establishing that the privilege to purchase alcohol is just that, a privilege, then goes a step further by revoking that privilege for persons who are convicted of driving under the influence. If a person loses that privilege, they are required to go to the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles], turn in their driver's license or state identification, and get another one that will have, as the bill says, a distinctive color background, ... indicating to anyone who sees that identification or driver's license that that person's privilege to purchase alcohol has been revoked. The bill goes a step further ... by enabling municipalities to enact a local option that would require anyone selling alcohol to check identifications of the purchaser to see whether or not they have the privilege to purchase alcohol. We're confident that even if such an option were not voted in by a local community, there are a number of alcohol retailers in the state who are looking for something like this, a tool to use, and that many retailers would do it voluntarily. Number 1217 MR. LOGAN explained that the CS, like the original HB 42, addresses those people operating a car, boat, or plane under the influence of alcohol. Previous versions included other crimes in which alcohol was a factor. That increased the number of people that had to be processed, "and the fiscal notes were just killing us," he said. Therefore, the sponsor agreed to narrow the scope of the bill to drunk drivers, which is the primary change. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to the amount of the current fiscal note, which committee members did not have. He also asked if there was any community support for the bill. MR. LOGAN said there are three new fiscal notes; from the Department of Law, Department of Corrections, and Division of Motor Vehicles; and that people from those agencies are here to address them. Although there has been support from communities for earlier versions of the bill, there has not been time for those communities to respond to the CS. However, legislation allowing local options is generally supported by communities. Number 1321 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Logan to explain again how the system would work. Specifically, she asked if HB 42 means that anyone who wanted to buy alcohol would need to have an identification card showing their eligibility to purchase it or would they just show a driver's license or state ID card? She also asked whether it would be perceived as discrimination if some purchasers are asked for identification and others are not. And, finally, "Do you really believe that those people who want to drink are not going to get it because they can't buy it ...?" She said she did not think so. Number 1359 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify as sponsor of HB 42. He explained that everyone's ID would be checked, just as it is when boarding an airplane, and that under those circumstances, it would not be discriminatory. He did not expect this to be a cure-all, but "one of what we hope ultimately will be an arsenal against this devastating thing called drunk driving ... because people are out of control and they're driving a killing machine...." He said his intent is to reduce the number [of drunk drivers] before they get on the highway, not punish them after they get on the highway, where they have already subjected everyone they pass to potential death. Number 1562 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was trying to visualize how this would work. She asked if a person spending a few hours in a bar would have to show ID each time he or she ordered a drink. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it would be up to the proprietor of the establishment whether ID is checked at the door, at the table, or with each order. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how a seller could prove that ID had been checked. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if the seller sold alcohol to someone who doesn't have a legal ID, the seller also is punished by this bill. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered what happens if a drunk driver has bought alcohol at several places. She asked if all of the sellers would be guilty of selling it to them. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if it can be proven that the drunk driver bought alcohol from all of those sellers, then they all are guilty. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked who is going to prove it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that would be up to the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES assumed that meant the municipality's governing body would have to prove where the liquor was purchased, which struck her as a difficult job. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the municipality would have to prove that only if it wanted to prosecute the person who sold the alcohol. "They've got the person who was driving," he said. "That's the one we're after. We also would like to stop the sales to that person. That's up to the municipality...." Number 1887 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thought there would have to be "some teeth in it" to discourage those selling liquor from serving people who are not allowed to buy. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the seller is also guilty if it is proven that he sold to the drunk driver. Number 1887 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what kind of crime it was. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was a misdemeanor with a $500 fine. MR. LOGAN directed the committee's attention to page 3, line 20, of the CS, which establishes a civil penalty of $500 for a person who furnishes or delivers alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that $500 might not mean much to a wealthy drunk, but maybe it would to a teen-age drunk. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that the penalty applied to the seller as well. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised then that it would not be a problem to a wealthy bar owner. Number 1938 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if it is easy for people to get fake ID. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said a neighbor who was a policeman told him that the fact that driver's licenses are laminated makes forgery difficult. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if a person could still buy alcohol with an out-of-state driver's license. He also wondered what a state resident who does not drive would show to buy alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the state can issue non-drivers a personal identification card similar to a driver's license. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD assumed those would come out in the same color as the driver's license. He said he had heard that only 30 percent of the people who work at the Red Dog mine have state driver's licenses. Furthermore, many people who live in the Bush do not have driver's licenses because they don't have the need. He wondered how HB 42 addressed that situation. MR. LOGAN explained that the state identification card issued by DMV looks just like a driver's license. In those communities that require sellers to check ID when selling alcohol, the purchaser would need some sort of identification to buy it. The DMV has 30 field offices and a mail-in system whereby a person can get a state ID card. Number 2191 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked about the person with an out-of-state license or military ID. He thought there were "cracks in the system there." He also thought the person who kept alcohol at home would not be affected by HB 42. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if those in the military had to get a state driver's license. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said those in the military can drive with a license from their state of record. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said according to HB 42, those people would have to get a state ID card from DMV if they wanted to purchase alcohol in Alaska. He acknowledged that someone with a good supply of liquor at home could "beat the rap for a long time." Furthermore, a person could get someone else to buy for him, but the person who supplies the alcohol takes a risk. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed concern about imposing a hardship on those serving in the military. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was no more of a hardship on them than on anyone else. He added that if that person had been convicted of driving a killing machine while under the influence of alcohol, he did not think that was too much to ask. Number 2399 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON thought HB 42 took a unique approach. She wondered if there was any way to punish a person who bought alcohol for someone who was disqualified to buy. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied yes, it is in the bill. MR. LOGAN pointed out that on page 3, line 16, the bill addresses "a person furnishing or delivering an alcoholic beverage to a person whose privilege has been revoked." Number 2460 ACTING CHAIR FATE asked, "Are you saying that because a person has a pink slip that he cannot drink any more ... and that anybody that ... even serves him a drink is going to be a criminal?" REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "He's not going to be a criminal, he's going to be in violation.... It's a misdemeanor." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed approval of that provision. "When innocent people are being killed by drunk drivers, we need to take some drastic steps," she said. Number 2528 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed. "Historically, we have always tried to find the guilty people by inconveniencing the law- abiding," she said. "What we're doing is putting a responsibility on every single other person to try to be sure that the person who would drive drunk doesn't get drunk." She said she believes that people who are going to drink in excess cannot be stopped by others. She observed that a person who wants to buy alcohol can go to a community that does not require ID to be checked. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is assuming that these people are addicted to alcohol, and that they will go to great lengths to get it. Therefore, she doubted that HB 42 would stop those people. She also thinks the public wants to do something to stop drunk driving. She indicated that other legislation being considered might be more effective, even though it has a much higher fiscal note. She said she would rather pay for people to take treatment that might not work than to be personally inconvenienced. She expressed great reluctance to make other people take responsibility for an individual's crimes, which she thought HB 42 would do. Number 2707 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it is already illegal for a bartender to serve a person who obviously has had too much to drink. This legislation goes a step further by requiring the bartender to check ID. She added, "They say a person who is stopped for drunk driving probably has done it 80 or 100 times before...." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thought it takes about 5 seconds to show ID, and he didn't think that was too much inconvenience. He acknowledged that HB 42 would not stop everyone [from drinking and driving], but he thought it would stop some. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he appreciated Representative James' thoughts on inconvenience, but he said he was willing to put up with a small inconvenience if it helps protect his family. He asked why [this bill] uses a local option [approach] versus a statewide [approach]. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he wished it would be adopted statewide, but there are some areas that feel it is an infringement... TAPE 01-40, SIDE B REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he would like to see it nationwide as well. Number 2962 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed continuing concern about HB 42 and the large number of military personnel in the state. To him, it sounds like personnel stationed in Alaska will need to get state identification, and that the inconsistency across the state will be cumbersome. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said military personnel in places that adopt the local option would need to get state ID to purchase alcohol there. It might create a slight inconvenience for a person coming into that area, but it isn't against the law for that person [if he has not been convicted of drunk driving] to get someone else to buy alcohol for him. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he would be afraid to buy alcohol for somebody because if that person were lying, he would be in just as much trouble as that person. He thought HB 42 would affect military people differently than everyone else, and he would like the sponsor to look into that. Number 2816 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he believes that over all, this is a good piece of legislation that will help cure the problem. Number 2777 JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), testified by teleconference. She noted that she sent the committee a position paper. She mentioned that she did not have a copy of the CS and thus would base her remarks on the original bill. MS. RUDINGER said the AkCLU was concerned about unintended consequences of HB 42 as they relate to the right to privacy. Although she commended the sponsor for "thinking outside the box" in order to find a way to curtail drunk driving, she believes HB 42 "sweeps too broadly." There are many occasions in which a person is asked for a driver's license that has nothing to do with drinking or driving, and she gave several examples. Colorizing a driver's license forces an individual to display a "badge of shame," she said. Number 2539 MS. RUDINGER said another privacy issue relates to the database that is created. She expressed concern that the database listing offenders might not be kept current. She also pointed out that HB 42 could interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion because it does not provide any exception for using wine for religious ceremonies. Further, she said, the bill seems to invade the sanctity of the home by requiring hosts to request identification from friends to whom they wished to serve alcohol. She also pointed out that the bill prohibits a person whose privilege has been revoked from entering any premises where alcohol is served, which would prevent that person from going out to eat in many restaurants, or from attending a concert or a sporting event. There are many unintended consequences of HB 42. ACTING CHAIR FATE told her the committee had now received her written testimony. Number 2316 ALVIA S. DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Troopers, testified by teleconference. He said he was available for questions regarding how HB 42 related to law enforcement. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that if HB 42 were the law and police had a drunk driver in custody, what would be the police procedure to find out who else might be to blame for the driver's having too much alcohol. LT. DUNNAGAN replied that as part of a normal investigation into a driving while under the influence case, several questions are asked of the driver. About 60 percent of the time, people are willing to answer all questions. He thought it would not be a problem to ask that type of question. He also noted that the person is not always carrying a driver's license. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what step the police would take, under existing law, after they knew where the driver had obtained alcohol. LT. DUNNAGAN said if the person was intoxicated and caused an accident, and police were looking into the possibility of a licensee serving an impaired person, police would go to the bar and try to find employees who were on duty and other patrons who might be able to provide information. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES posed a situation in which the police found that an establishment served someone who was incapacitated and there was a serious accident in which people were killed. She inquired as to the kind of action that would be taken against the person who made that sale and the penalties that would result. LT. DUNNAGAN said the information would go to the district attorney's office and the person might be cited on the spot. He pointed out that it is a misdemeanor to serve an intoxicated person on licensed premises. The district attorney would look at all the evidence that was gathered and if there was enough to support a prosecution, then the prosecution would go forth. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how much easier it would be to get this person for selling to "them" under HB 42. LT. DUNNAGAN said police would have to know that the drunk driver's privilege to purchase alcohol had been revoked, where he or she had purchased the alcohol, and if that establishment was in a location covered by the local option. Therefore, obtaining that information might take some time and legwork. Number 2045 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Lt. Dunnagan if he viewed HB 42 as a something positive or negative to help with the problem of drunk driving. LT. DUNNAGAN replied, "I look at just about anything that we could do to reduce the number of ... serious accidents and fatalities caused by drunk drivers as a positive step as long as what we're doing is going to stand the test of legality ... and that we're not creating major inconveniences for everybody. Those not affected by it, ... law enforcement, [and] DMV would have to be considered." LT, DUNNAGAN noted that HB 42 could be circumvented because it does not specify [require] State of Alaska identification. Other identification would show no tie to revocation, and therefore the seller would be off the hook and there would be no violation because the person was able to show legal identification. There are many kinds of identification, including driver's licenses from other states, military ID cards, and passports. Number 1917 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether it would help if HB 42 were changed to specify [require] State of Alaska identification. LT. DUNNAGAN said it definitely would help if HB 42 required the kind of ID that DMV was going to be issuing to people whose privilege to buy alcohol was revoked. However, he pointed out, the offender could leave the state ID card at home and just show a passport in order to buy alcohol. Number 1831 ACTING CHAIR FATE asked a hypothetical question: I go into a nice dinner place with my family. My wife orders the dinner for everybody and she orders wine, and I have a pink driver's license, and I have one glass of wine. After the dinner, we go out and I get into an automobile accident, not a serious one ..., and of course the officer come up and looks at my driver's license and here it is pink. Now he checks back and finds out that I had wine, which I'm not supposed to have, at a dinner. Now who's responsible for this ... misdemeanor, my wife ... or the establishment? LT. DUNNAGAN said the guilt would fall on his wife, who ordered the wine and let her husband drink some while knowing that his privilege to buy liquor had been revoked. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the incident involved underage drinking, wouldn't the server be responsible for checking the ID of anyone who drank that wine. LT. DUNNAGAN said that was a good point, and he didn't know if HB 42 would specifically require identification checks of everyone at the table who has a glass of wine. Number 1690 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked how the local control option would work in conjunction with the statewide ID. LT. DUNNAGAN said if your privilege to buy is revoked, DMV still will issue you a license to drive. The only time you will have to show that colored ID mandated by HB 42 is when you are trying to buy alcohol in a community that has adopted the local option. So if you walk into a liquor store in a community that does not have the local option, and you are obviously of legal age, nobody is going to ask you for your identification. Number 1561 ACTING CHAIR FATE observed that it creates the opportunity for people whose privilege to buy has been revoked to go into a community that does not have the local option and load up their cars with alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Texas has a local option in counties and the system works there. Number 1525 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Lt. Dunnagan if there is a pervasive problem with fake IDs. LT. DUNNAGAN replied that in his 21 years of experience, he has only run across a handful of actual fake IDs. He said police more often see legitimate ones on which the date of birth has been altered or the card has been damaged so it is very hard to read. He didn't think it was a big issue. Number 1428 MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, testified by teleconference. A driver's license or state ID card is not required to purchase alcohol; other types of identification that carry a photograph and a birth date generally are acceptable. Military personnel usually carry both a military ID and a driver's license. The license is confiscated at the time a person is picked up for driving while intoxicated. At the time the license revocation ends, the driver can obtain a license from either Alaska or the home state. So military personnel who wished to evade the provisions of HB 42 could do so. Ms. Marshburn also noted that the time periods for license renewal are not the same as for suspension [of the right to purchase] under HB 42. Number 1187 MS. MARSHBURN asked the committee to consider amending HB 42 to include marked state ID cards, as the bill now only speaks to driver's licenses. She also corrected a statement made earlier in the meeting, saying that DMV does not issue ID cards through the mail. Number 1117 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he didn't see any requirement in HB 42 that military personnel obtain Alaska ID. MS. MARSHBURN agreed, explaining that active duty military personnel can operate on their home state drivers licenses. Number 1077 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about how long the colored license would last. He asked Ms. Marshburn if he understood correctly that a person could apply for an unmarked license after one year. MS. MARSHBURN said that was correct on a first offense. After that, the period is three years after a second offense and five years after a third or subsequent offense within a five-year period. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if that was the current practice or that specified under HB 42. MS. MARSHBURN said under current law, a driver's license is revoked for one year following a first conviction for drunk driving. Under HB 42, that driver's privilege to purchase alcohol is revoked for three years. After the first year, the driver would be issued a marked license to use for the next two years. At the end of that time, the driver would be eligible for an unmarked license. Number 0949 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified by teleconference. He observed that there had been a lot of good discussion about HB 42 and said he was available to answer questions. He pointed out that the section about which the Public Defender Agency would be concerned is [AS] 04.16.160(d) that makes it a misdemeanor for someone to knowingly purchase alcohol after that person's privilege to purchase alcohol has been revoked or relinquished. "This would be a Class A misdemeanor and we would have quite an increase in our caseload if this was enacted and enforced," he said. Number 0852 DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified by teleconference. He stated that he was available to answer any questions specific to the affect of HB 42 on liquor licensees. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked about offering alcohol to people in one's own home. He asked if the host would be responsible for carding guests. Number 0968 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thought that knowingly serving someone who has lost the privilege to drink would be a violation, just as it is when marijuana is offered. However, he thought it would probably not be enforced. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said "knowingly" was the key word. He asked if HB 42 would put the onus on the homeowner to request that information before giving someone a beer. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it would. He said the homeowner could be guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she served beer to a guest who went out and had an accident. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if HB 42 prohibits an offender entering a place where alcohol is served, such as the Performing Arts Center in Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought that had been included in an earlier version. Number 0566 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that would make a big difference. He then asked Lt. Dunnagan if the marked license would give a police officer reasonable cause to search for and seize alcohol he suspected might be in the car. LT. DUNNAGAN said alcohol in the back seat could be seized under the "plain view" law, but a marked license would not give the officer the right to search the trunk of a vehicle stopped for speeding. If the officer smelled alcohol on the driver's breath, that driver is subject to arrest under HB 42. If the driver were arrested, police would have to tow the car, and be required to inventory its contents before it is impounded. Alcohol found in the trunk under those circumstances may or may not be admissible evidence in court. Number 0957 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if it was the intention of HB 42 that everyone have a state identification card or license to get into bars or buy alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the intent was to prevent consumption, not to prevent entering premises. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he still was troubled by the effect on military personnel if that provision is included in the bill. Number 0251 ACTING CHAIR FATE asked Lt. Dunnagan if he knew the ratio of first-time offenders to repeat offenders. LT. DUNNAGAN said he thought there were about 3,500 first-time offenders and 1,000 second offenders in the state, and that the number took a big drop after that. MS. MARSHBURN confirmed that Lt. Dunnagan's estimate was correct. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought she had heard in the [House] Judiciary Committee that about 80 percent of first time offenders do not re-offend. LT. DUNNAGAN said he thought that sounded right. He then referred to an earlier question from Representative James, saying that a server probably would not check the identification of all adults at a table where wine was served, but would do so if there appeared to be underage or questionable persons in the group. TAPE 01-41, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if HB 42 would make the server responsible for checking all those IDs. LT. DUNNAGAN said he thought it would. Number 0050 ACTING CHAIR FATE asked how many of the drivers who get into serious accidents are multiple offenders of driving under the influence. He wondered if it was a disproportionate number. LT. DUNNAGAN said that was an interesting question, but he did not have the numbers available to answer it. However, he provided 1988 National Traffic Safety Association figures indicating that high blood alcohol levels [of .10 or above] were associated with 2,700 crashes that killed 28 and injured 1,500 people. Blood alcohol levels of .08 to .09 were associated with 50 crashes, in which 1 person was killed and 100 injured. Blood alcohol levels that were detectable but below .08 were involved in an estimated 100 crashes that killed 2 and injured 100. He said the monetary cost was estimated at $5.1 million for every alcohol-related traffic fatality in Alaska. ACTING CHAIR FATE asked if he understood correctly that there were more accidents and more fatalities at the lowest blood alcohol level than there were at the second lowest. LT. DUNNAGAN said that was correct. Number 0210 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if he had any statistics showing the blood alcohol level of drivers involved in serious accidents. LT. DUNNAGAN said he did not have those numbers at hand, but thought if one were to look at all of the information available, it shows that Alaska has an abnormally higher blood alcohol range than any of the Lower 48 states "for just about everything." Number 0294 LT. DUNNAGAN offered a final comment regarding people serving alcohol to guests in their home. He said as he understands HB 42, it pertains to identification checks by those who are licensed by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and would not apply to a homeowner serving guests. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES wondered if any other states required one form of identification for those purchasing alcoholic beverages [a liquor ID card]. MS. MARSHBURN said she had inquired about that last year through the national DMV network. There were no jurisdictions doing so that they could find. ACTING CHAIR FATE announced that he intended to hold over HB 42 until some of the questions could be answered. He expressed concern about HB 42 becoming a "legal playground." However, he applauded Representative Green's thinking out of the box in an attempt to alleviate the problem of drunk driving. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if he would be privy to the questions. ACTING CHAIR FATE replied, "Absolutely." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was "stonewalling" the bill. ACTING CHAIR FATE assured him that was not his intent. "You've heard the testimony. There are some serious questions, I believe." He specifically mentioned questions raised by Representative Hayes and some confusion about places where the bill might or might not apply, and said he hoped some of those questions could be clarified. [HB 42 was HEARD AND HELD.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|