Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 01:12 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HTRA - 03/15/95 HB 204 - NO DRINK BEFORE DRIVING IF UNDER 21 Number 568 CHAIRMAN DAVIS announced the next order of business was to hear testimony on HB 204. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that today on the House floor an extension of last year's "use it or lose it" bill was passed and HB 204 seemed to be very similar. CHAIRMAN DAVIS responded, no it was not. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated she was in attendance to testify on behalf of Governor Knowles. She indicated as Representative James has noted, the House did pass a "use it or lose it" bill which does some fine tuning on "use it or lose it" legislation passed last year by the legislature. She explained the "use it" portion of the bill was the use of alcohol or drugs and the "lose it" being the driving privileges. She explained HB 204 is a zero tolerance level bill for minors drinking and driving. She stated that a minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, or commonly known as MOVACA, created a new offense being a violation and not a misdemeanor and cannot result in imposed jail time. She stated it adds this offense as another of the offenses that invokes the "use it or lose it" penalty and that is why the first several sections do look the same as HB 21 previously presented. She stated the first four sections of HB 204 are amendments to the "use it or lose it" law that will include the mentioned MOVACA offense as a basis for juveniles' driving privileges being revoked. She stated the actual offense of MOVACA appears in Section 6 of HB 204 and adds new sections to Title 28.35; namely 280 and 285 and 290. She listed three components to the offense; first, establishing a violation for a minor to operate a vehicle after consuming any amount of alcohol. She added if the minor has consumed enough alcohol to be intoxicated, then Alaska's DWI laws would still apply. She stated if the minor is given a breath test and is over .10 percent blood alcohol level or shows signs of driving while intoxicated, it would still be an example of a class A misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated. She indicated the point of this legislation is, since it is illegal for minors to consume any amount of alcohol, if they have consumed any amount at all and are driving, the department wants the ability to take them off the road and that is what MOVACA would allow Peace Officers to do. She explained in addition to the violation of operating the vehicle after consuming alcohol, Section AS 28.35.285 is a refusal section and parallels the refusal we currently have for driving while intoxicated offenses. She mentioned a juvenile would be asked to take a breath test and if they refused, the law will assume they have consumed some alcohol and are subject to this violation. She stated the third provision is AS 28.35.290 which prohibits juveniles from driving again within 24 hours of being cited for MOVACA. She stated this was a period of time within which we do not want them back in the car, until all alcohol has left their system. She reiterated if the juvenile does get back into a car and starts driving, he would be in violation but this would not result in jail time; however, their driving privileges can be revoked and would create points on their driving record. MS. KNUTH mentioned this legislation is endorsed by numerous groups around the state. She stated the committee has letters in support of the bill from the Alaska Council and the Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Alaskans for a Drug Free Youth, letters from two residents of Alaska, also Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National Highway Traffic Safety Association, the National Traffic Safety Bureau, Alaska Police Officers Association, and Alaska Association of Police Chiefs. MS. KNUTH indicated in Alaska, drivers under the age of 20 years represent only 6.2 percent of our driving population. She added at the same time, they are involved in 12.9 percent of the motor vehicle crashes on an annual basis, which means roughly twice the representation of the driving population. She explained worse than that, when it comes to fatal crashes, drivers under the age of 20 are involved in over 30 percent of these fatal crashes. She said this could be contributed to lack of experience, and of those fatal crashes these children are involved in, over one-third involve alcohol. She noted any type of action to make the streets safer for both the children and for ourselves, trying to get anybody who is under the age of 20 and has been consuming alcohol off the road is a major step forward. Ms. Knuth asked for questions. Number 630 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated he supported HB 204. He stated he was not a fan of additional proliferation of alcohol related legislation as it relates to DWIs and felt there was plenty of beneficial legislation on the books. He felt after talking with the drafters of the bill it is a target group that should be targeted and there should be some effort made. He pointed out these violations are similar to traffic fine violations and expressed concern about the $1000 limit on those violations. Chairman Davis asked if there were any questions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES she asked if a 13 year old is caught driving a car under the influence, having consumed, but not necessarily a DWI, what are all the consequences for that person? MS. KNUTH explained they are a group of people who are not eligible to be driving at all and would go through juvenile proceedings. She stated there would be the offense of driving without a valid operators license which is a misdemeanor offense. TAPE 95-8, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to whether the "use it or lose it" bill also contained provisions, for cases where if a juvenile does not have a license and is found in the car consuming alcohol; would they still lose their license for whenever they are suppose to get their license. MS. KNUTH affirmed Representative James' comment and explained regardless of having their license, they would lose their privilege to apply for a license for the standard period of the "use it or lose it" law. She stated theoretically at the age of six, a person could be subject to the "use it or lose it" law; meaning when a person is finally eligible for a driver's license at age 14, the person would still have to wait a year or however long the time period was. She stated we were working within the structure of the "use it or lose it" law, and did not intend to go back and reexamine the law. She stated they did not look at whether the "use it or lose it" age should be higher or lower than what it was; they simply added the additional offense to the existing law. Number 028 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to not allowing the person back into a vehicle for 24 hours, and asked if this was because they would not be charged with the "use it or lose it" consequences. She stated she thought it would have been longer than the 24 hours established. MS. KNUTH explained with the "use it or lose it" law, a person will usually get a three-day temporary permit, giving the person a time period to pursue an "administrative challenge" if the person feels they should not have lost their driving privileges. She stated the "use it or lose it" law states as soon as the driver has been cited for the offense, the driver is allowed to drive for three days, then they would impose a revocation. She explained, considering what they are losing their license for - in this case, having consumed alcohol - the department felt they needed to add a provision that says, even though normally a person receives a three-day grace period on the license revocation, they cannot drive for 24 hours because they have been consuming alcohol and were the type of driver we don't want on the roads. Ms. Knuth summarized that this was a 24-hour out of service period which essentially parallels the commercial DWI laws and then there would be the three day period to administratively challenge the revocation and then the revocation would go into effect. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated conceptually she agreed with HB 161 but questioned its applicability to the rural communities of Alaska. She referred to page 3, lines 12 and 13, which indicates the driver has to successfully complete a drug rehabilitation treatment program. She noted this is not available in rural Alaska. Also, lines 30 and 31 of page 3, state that tests shall be administered by a Peace Officer. She expressed similar concerns with the wording on page 4, lines 14 through 19 regarding the offender being transported to a location where a chemical or alcohol test authorized under section (2) of the subsection may be administered, also with the wording on page 5, lines 6 through 19 with respect to its applicability to rural Alaska. Number 093 MS. KNUTH stated these points were all valid. She addressed Representative MacLean's question of drug rehabilitation and alcohol treatment programs in rural areas of Alaska, which is raised in AS 28.15.183 on page 3. She indicated this is part of the "use it or lose it" statute, and because of the concern expressed by Representative MacLean, in 1994 there is a subsection (H) which the committee does not have but it is in the law, that says, the department may waive those provisions if a person who is required to obtain drug or alcoholism treatment resides in an area where drug rehabilitation or alcoholism treatment is not available. She said this was done specifically in recognition of the reality that there are places that do not have these programs. She noted similarly, the offense where it mentions transporting a person to a location where chemical or other tests may be administered, the law uses the word "may" instead of "shall" with respect to rural areas not having the appropriate facilities such as a intoximeter or a police station nearby. She said methods in these rural areas are relying on portable breath tests, currently being used for DWI offenses and will have similar tests for the MOVACA offenses. She stated this would also be similar for the minor's refusal to submit to a chemical test. She explained the chemical test in rural areas can be the portable breath test which an officer can administer out in the field and rural areas of Alaska; it doesn't have to be the breathalyzer test which requires equipment that is not found statewide. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked about the smaller villages that do not have the equipment. MS. KNUTH stated they do not have the intoximeter equipment, however, they do have the portable breath test which is a smaller tester which the Village Public Safety Officer's (VPSOs) have and they are issued statewide. CHAIRMAN DAVIS expressed concern for the term "operating" a motor vehicle instead of "driving" and presented a relevant scenario where someone is in the driver's seat and keys are in the ignition or has intentions of showing off and then gets caught, they then deny that they were driving and are in trouble. He asked for conformation that HB 204 had already incorporated language relating to this into HB 204 MS. KNUTH stated the language was incorporated into HB 204 and has been a subject of discussion in the law previously. She explained the way the law has been applied is, if a person has the ability to drive the vehicle, but may not have been driving at the time the driver is stopped, this would not help the person much in this case. She explained the intent of HB 204 is to establish preventative measures. She stated it would be fairly easy for a person to pull the vehicle off the road and deny that they have been driving. She mentioned they have had people who have driven off the road and are found in the ditch with keys in the ignition and have denied they were driving. Ms. Knuth indicated the law would treat them as if they had been driving. She indicated officers would probably use their own discretion in cases such as this, where it would be a violation and not a misdemeanor. She concluded that the point is to prevent them from driving when intoxicated. She mentioned if a ten year old got behind the wheel and was just pretending to drive with no intent to actually drive, this situation would not lead to an arrest. Number 185 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made reference to last year's session and the "use it or lose it" bill and indicated her concern for having the same penalty for a young person that was drinking and not driving, as the same penalty for a person who was drinking and driving. She felt there should be some sort of division there, that drinking and not driving was certainly not as big of a crime as drinking and driving. She explained the problem is, we have to remember that drinking is illegal for these kids, and it does not make a difference if they are walking along the streets, it is still something they ought not to be doing. She stated if the real goal of HB 204 is to stop these kids from drinking and driving and then getting into a car, possibly killing themselves and other people because they are developing habits that will be hard to break, then whatever we can do, the benefits would outweigh the damages. She said she was convinced of this last year, even though she feels very strongly that we ought to be sure that everybody has their just due process, and the penalties are according to the level of the offense. She reiterated if we could just face the fact that drinking for underaged children is illegal, and it is a serious crime that tends to over-shadow all of the other conditions that come after it. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN made a motion to move HB 204 out of the House Transportation Committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for any objections. Hearing none, HB 204 was moved out of the House Transportation Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|