Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/28/2001 09:06 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 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 42, Version 22-LS0043\P, Ford, 4/16/01.] Number 2258 JEFF LOGAN, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor. Mr. Logan informed the committee that Version O included a provision whereby people convicted of alcohol-related offenses were included under the auspices of the bill. The Department of Law and other departments estimated that such would include about 14,000 alcohol-related offenders. The cost of processing those additional 14,000 increased the fiscal note considerably. Therefore, in an effort to decrease the fiscal note in hopes of the bill's passage, the sponsor decided to limit the scope of the bill to those refusing to take a breathalyzer; or [being in violation of AS 28.35.030] refusing to submit to a chemical test; or being convicted of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated. CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that the bill is limited to criminal action. MR. LOGAN agreed. Number 2326 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her understanding that the legislation says that an individual refusing to take a breathalyzer test [or chemical test] would be arrested. MR. LOGAN clarified that is already in the statute. "Essentially, what we're saying is: If you are convicted for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you fall under this legislation," he explained. However, the previous version included those intoxicated persons that were involved in a fight at a bar. The scope of this version of HB 42 was restricted to drunk driving and refusing to take the breathalyzer. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to what this bill would do to drunk drivers and those refusing to take the breathalyzer that is different than normal. MR. LOGAN explained that this bill adds the requirement that such persons have a different driver's license and there are restrictions in relation to the privilege of purchasing alcohol. Furthermore, the current version allows municipalities and local governments to impose a local option whereby those identifications would have to be checked. MR. LOGAN, in response to Chair Coghill, clarified that the bill is saying that [changes to] the driver's licenses will be imposed. However, the municipality can have a local option election whereby the licensee or the employee of the licensee selling the alcohol would be required to check the license in order to know that the license is different from those having the privilege to purchase alcohol. CHAIR COGHILL asked if there have been discussions with the department regarding how the license may be colored or changed. MR. LOGAN pointed out that the language merely specifies a "distinctive color," which he indicated would be left to the department. Number 2500 CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, explained that if this legislation passes, the division would envision issuing a card that looks like the driver's license or ID card. The division plans to have a colored stripe, such as a light red stripe, that would run diagonally across the license. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that if a municipality opted to check and refuse service to anyone that has such a license, then the municipality would be requiring that the individual couldn't use his/her driver's license for identification. She asked if that understanding is correct or is the division assuming that these are people that don't have a driver's license. MR. HOSACK answered, "It could be either." He explained that some of these people may not be able to get their driver's license back because their license is revoked, and therefore an ID card with a stripe would be issued. An individual with a first offense can be eligible to get his/her driver's license back after 90 days, but the privilege to purchase alcohol would be revoked for a year. Therefore, that individual would have a driver's license with a stripe, which would signify the individual's inability to purchase alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that under this legislation if an individual has done something to lose his license, that individual can't purchase [alcohol]. She also related her understanding that the revocation of an individual's ability to purchase alcohol isn't anywhere else in law. MR. HOSACK agreed that there is no other provision that would prevent such an individual from purchasing alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "This bill, then, says that anyone who has lost their license by one of these things cannot buy liquor any more; ... that's statewide." MR. HOSACK replied yes. MR. LOGAN indicated agreement with Representative James that under this bill everyone would be treated the same [in that an individual losing his/her license for an alcohol-related offense can't purchase alcohol]. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood, then, that such individuals would have a separate identification card that would have a stripe across it. This ID card would be shown when attempting to purchase alcohol because the individual wouldn't have a driver's license. On the other hand, would [the passage of this legislation allow] an individual who has the ability to purchase alcohol the ability to show other forms of identification, such as a passport. She inquired as to whether a local government could make decisions that only impacted that area. MR. HOSACK answered that this legislation is aimed primarily at the driver's license and, as he reads it, doesn't preclude showing other forms of identification that has a date of birth listed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised that this ID card would be the identification that would be shown as a person boards a plane. MR. HOSACK replied yes and specified that this ID card could be used for anything that requires identification. Number 2740 KEVIN HOGAN testified via teleconference. He began by commending the sponsor because he viewed this legislation as model legislation. However, Mr. Hogan didn't view the committee substitute as an improvement over the original bill. The local option provision doesn't seem to provide any benefit at all nor does reducing the scope of the legislation. Mr. Hogan expressed the need for judicial discretion in regard to setting the duration of the revocation of the ability to purchase alcohol. He reiterated his praise for this legislation. MR. HOGAN turned to the problem surrounding ID cards for out-of- state residents, the military, et cetera. He felt that such could be dealt with through an affidavit process with a sticker attached to the form of ID, with an expiration date. CHAIR COGHILL remarked that judges have some discretion now in that they have the ability to impose a "no tolerance" on individuals. Chair Coghill announced that the public testimony would be closed. Number 2908 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her experience in Washington State where she owned a convenience store. One of her customers had severe alcohol problems that led a judge to rule that this man couldn't be on the premises where alcohol was sold. She characterized that as a desperate attempt by a judge to help. Representative James asked whether this legislation creates a situation in which committing one of these crimes automatically results [in a special ID card because the ability to purchase alcohol has been revoked] or does the judge have the discretion to impose it or not. MR. LOGAN explained that the legislation would make it mandatory. TAPE 01-51, SIDE B CHAIR COGHILL opened the public testimony again. Number 2966 DR. BOB JOHNSON testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that has practiced medicine in Kodiak for 40 years. A large part of his practice involved addiction treatments. He noted his membership on the governor's Review Board on Alcoholism; he was also its president for a number of years. Dr. Johnson was also the founder of the Kodiak Treatment program, also known as the Hope House Treatment Program. Therefore, Dr. Johnson said that he is aware of addiction problems. DR. JOHNSON remarked the he was surprised with Mr. Hogan's testimony because he thought [Mr. Hogan] was aware that punitive treatment for alcoholism doesn't work. No matter the number of punitive measures applied, it doesn't impact the addiction. Punitive measures don't treat the problem or the person. However, treatment does work. Dr. Johnson pointed to the failure of the Holstead Act in the 1930s. Dr. Johnson said, "I think this bill is way off in left field. I don't think it should've been introduced at all." He didn't believe that it would be effective, but would merely add another layer of bureaucracy on top of a very difficult social and ethical problem. Therefore, he encouraged the committee not to pass this legislation out of committee. However, if this legislation were to pass, he suggested that serious consideration be given to the recommendations of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) that speak to the unfair [aspects of this legislation]. DR. JOHNSON, in response to Chair Coghill, clarified that he was speaking on his own behalf as a physician with much experience in this area. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that Dr. Johnson speaks from a great deal of knowledge and has been an important person with the development of treatment for alcoholism in Kodiak. MR. LOGAN, in response to Representative James' earlier question, corrected his earlier statement by saying that the court may revoke a person's privilege as specified in the bill. The language on page 2, line 22, [of Version P] specifies "If a person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated in violation of AS 28.35.030 or refusal to submit to a chemical test under AS 28.35.032, the court may revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this legislation is utilized in any other state. MR. LOGAN replied, "Not that we know of." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled that at the last hearing on HB 42 there were a number of questions, but the same CS is before the committee and there are no answers to the questions. Therefore, he inquired as to whether Mr. Logan intended on answering those questions or should the questions be asked again. MR. LOGAN said that he thought the questions had been answered. He mentioned that there may be a solution to Representative Hayes' question regarding military personnel. Number 2680 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 42. Representative Green informed the committee that there was discussion with military personnel regarding whether this [ID] would be problematic. The only response from the military was that when military personnel are caught driving while intoxicated, anything done outside the military setting is minor compared to what is done within the military system. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled hearing testimony that indicated that this proposed ID card would be the primary form of identification over all other types. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the proposed ID wouldn't be the primary form of identification. He pointed out that it is up to the local municipality whether this ID is adopted. CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the bill specifies that [this proposed ID] will be statewide, while the municipality will have the ability to vote in regard to whether it checks the ID, that is enforces this. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the following language in Section 4, subsection (b), and inquired as to what violations are encompassed in AS 28.35.030 and 28.35.032. MR. LOGAN explained that AS 28.35.030 refers to the violation of operating a vehicle while intoxicated while AS 28.35.032 addresses the breath test. He also pointed that the language in subsection (b), lines 25-31, take into account whether the "... consumption of an alcoholic beverage was a substantial factor in the commission of the offense and the person has, within five years preceding the date of the present conviction, been convicted of violating ..." the aforementioned statutes. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the language in subsection (b), lines 25-31, refers to when "the court shall revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages." MR. LOGAN interjected that this language addresses the recidivists. Number 2495 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to page 2, lines 16-21, [AS] 04.16.165 and noted that [Version P] changes the offense for the person who knowingly furnishes or delivers an alcoholic beverage to a person whose privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages is revoked. The offense originally revoked the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages for a period of six months. However, [Version P] changes that offense to a civil penalty of $500. Representative Crawford said, "It still seems to me that if ... a person comes into your home and you provide them with an alcoholic beverage that you're ... liable if you haven't checked their ID." MR. LOGAN highlighted the language "knowingly furnish". If a homeowner/host doesn't know that [one of their guests] has offended, then the homeowner/host doesn't knowingly furnish or deliver the alcoholic beverage. He specified that [checking IDs] isn't a requirement that one must do in his/her own home. However, [AS] 04.16.167 seems to clarify that [the legislation] is addressing the [required] identification check by licensees. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked, "It seems to me like that was dealing with two different things: one it says it's a person and the other says it's a licensee. It doesn't seem like it's a further clarification; it just seems like it's separating those." Representative Crawford felt the language was ambiguous. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that [AS] 04.16.167 doesn't specify the penalty. She questioned whether the penalty would be located in the local law. The committee took an at-ease from 10:09 a.m. to 10:24 a.m. Number 2312 REPRESENTATIVE FATE expressed the following concerns. First, he was concerned with the punitive nature of this on the first offense. He understood the intent to be to address chronic offenders, which may provide a justification for the punitive nature of the legislation. Second, he was concerned [AS] 04.16.165. He noted that off-the-record discussions mentioned the possibility of deleting that entire [provision]. Third, this legislation provides municipalities with the option to come under this state law or not, but he expressed concern with the possibility that those unorganized areas that fall under the state [law] would [automatically] fall under this without a voice. REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that although this legislation may be a step forward, it never mentions illicit drugs. Furthermore, there is no mention of what this would cost proprietors in regard to litigation, not to mention the cost the state would incur with litigation [that is bound to happen]. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that he shared the same concern as Representative Fate in regard to [AS] 04.16.165, which he, too, would like to delete. He also expressed the desire to have [the punishment] occur with the second offense rather than the first offense. CHAIR COGHILL noted that the amendment would have to be done conceptually because of the statutorial numbering. After some discussion, Chair Coghill announced that Representative Crawford had [moved that the committee adopt] the amendment [Amendment 1]. Number 2122 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that eliminating this section would result in people knowingly giving alcoholic beverages [to those whose ability to purchase alcohol has been revoked]. Although the fine seems hefty, it seems to be the only "backup" in keeping people from buying alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that the bill was drafted in an attempt to prevent these people from obtaining alcohol in the first place. In particular, this bill tries to prevent the drunk driver from getting on the road, especially the repeat offenders. Although he acknowledged that this legislation may be a Draconian measure, he thought Draconian steps should be taken to stop this serious problem. Representative Green said, "My feeling is that this, as it was written, is not going to stop drunk driving. It hopefully will reduce drunk driving, and if we can do that, that's a step forward ...." Representative Green announced that he would be willing to delete the language [on page 3, lines 16-19] if it would help get the legislation moving. Therefore, he reluctantly accepted the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD applauded Representative Green's effort to reduce drunk driving. However, taking this into people's homes is a privacy measure that most Alaskans aren't going to be able to countenance. He didn't believe that the legislation would pass with the language [on page 3, lines 16-19]. Therefore, he felt that [adoption of the amendment to delete the language on page 3, lines 16-19] would be a good comprise. The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:34 a.m. Number 1767 CHAIR COGHILL explained that the amendment [Amendment 1] would delete lines 16-21, on page 3. He asked if there was any objection to the amendment. There being no objection, the amendment [Amendment 1] was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered a conceptual amendment [conceptual Amendment 2] in which the punitive damages would take effect on the second offense. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that Representative Fate's amendment would fall under Section 4. REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that the conceptual amendment [conceptual Amendment 2] would change the language such that an individual with a second offense would lose the privilege [to purchase alcohol] rather than an individual with a first offense. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that [adoption of such an amendment] would significantly reduce the potential of reducing the number of drunk drivers on the highway. He reiterated his desire to address the repeat offenders. However, he pointed out that a first-time offender [probably has been a drunk driver many times prior]. Again, he reluctantly agreed to the conceptual amendment [conceptual Amendment 2] in order for the bill to move. Number 1615 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that she agrees with the concept of the bill. However, the application of the bill is problematic [and punitive]. Representative James referred to page 2, subsection (b) and the language that specifies "the court may revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages." That language provides judicial discretion. She echoed Representative Green's comments regarding the [belief] that by the time a person is stopped for drunk driving, the person has probably driven drunk numerous times. She pointed out that for repeat offenses the language specifies that "the court shall revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages." Therefore, it seems that the language in [Version P] already does what the amendments are attempting. However, she announced that she wouldn't object to [conceptual Amendment 2]. CHAIR COGHILL informed the committee that there are revocation notices for the first offense and that is ratcheted up for the second and third offense. Therefore, there are already some fairly significant punitive penalties and thus this legislation would propose a marked ID card with the first offense. The amendment before the committee would propose [the marked ID card] for the second offense. He noted that the next committee of referral for HB 42 is the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which has been working with drunk driving. CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that his earlier-stated concern regarding areas that aren't municipalities is no longer of concern. Number 1326 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether the legislation maintained the local option to have this [special ID]. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the legislation, if passed, would be a state law that the local municipalities could opt to enforce or not. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS understood that a city council would, then, meet to determine whether this is something that would be enforced in their community. This wouldn't be enforced in a community until the community council [local governing body] had voted to do so. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Representative Stevens' understanding. Number 1186 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES pointed out that the legislation specified that a ballot question [at the borough level] must be utilized when determining whether to establish this identification system. He specified that he was looking at page 2, lines 7-9. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated agreement. REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that in Fairbanks there is a city government and borough government, but there are areas outside of Fairbanks that are in unincorporated jurisdictions. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he felt that would be a concern for the House Judiciary Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE FATE hoped that question would be reviewed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said, "The question is: ... if you are a city with a police force, you make that decision. If you are a village with a VPSO (Village Public Safety Officer), you can make that decision; you'd have a ballot vote as well, I assume. If you are a borough, you could cover everything and make that decision be enforced by the state troopers." CHAIR COGHILL noted that the amendments may have had some significant fiscal impacts, and therefore would need to be examined in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 0806 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSHB 42, Version 22- LS0043\P, Ford, 4/16/01, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 42(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|