Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 01:02 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 358 - MOTOR VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AND FORFEITURE Number 1577 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the next order of business is HB 358, "An Act relating to impoundment or forfeiture of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representative Kelly. Number 1596 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY came forward to explain the legislation. He said HB 358 is a bill that will provide immediate consequences to individuals who drink and drive. Currently there is a law in the Municipality of Anchorage that provides for forfeiture of your vehicle if you should be caught drinking and driving. To implement that on a statewide basis is problematic and maybe even impossible without vast sums of resources committed to it. He said, "So we came up with the idea of impounding for certain periods of time. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the courts may impound vehicles for two to five days, depending on how many times the individual has been caught drinking and driving. The current draft does not have provisions on how those vehicles will be impounded. He indicated he would like to offer a future amendment that will provide for putting a boot on the vehicle, or other means to immobilizing it. This would make it simpler for municipalities around the state and noted it mimics the success of the Municipality of Anchorage, but in a fashion that it can be done on a statewide basis. Number 1672 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the Municipality of Anchorage impounds the vehicle immediately, what was our reason for not doing the same. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied one of the problems, not in impounding, but in forfeiture law, we currently have forfeiture law in statute in this section. The problem with forfeiture is that many of the communities throughout the state do not have the means to deal with a forfeited automobile. They may not have a lot where they can keep it, they may not have heated facilities in case there is not enough antifreeze in it, the block may freeze and crack and then the state would be liable for that automobile. There is not easy access to court systems for forfeiture and there are not always tow trucks that can deal with this. This would probably work well in some municipalities and it would not have a disastrous impact on the smaller communities that do not have infrastructures to deal with it. They can deal with it on a much more informal basis through impounding through putting a boot on a vehicle or something like that. Number 1735 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referenced line 1. She asked how would a police officer impound a vehicle, or aircraft if no impoundment facility is available. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that is one of the reasons they want to have the bill amended to include the means for impounding. He asked Chairman Williams if it would be appropriate to address Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a motion to adopt Version K as the working draft. Number 1767 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made the motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute HB 358, Version 0-LS1241\K dated 2/18/98. There being no objection, CSHB 358 was adopted as the working draft. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said Amendment 2 addresses logistical problems of communities that do not have an impound lot. A boot is not expensive, if it is only going to be on for a few days, they could probably deal with that. He said, "If it was a forfeiture, you're talking about an extended period of time where you're going to have that vehicle in your possession, through the court case, and then if it were to be sold later on, or aircraft, the logistics of that are very difficult. We thought that with this amendment they could at least render the vehicle immobile for a period of time and force the consequences on the offender without getting into the problems that would come from a long-term forfeiture." Number 1847 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes most of the cost would be borne by the municipality that chooses to implement this program. He asked if the state incurred any cost because it now gives the option of a state trooper, for example to impound a car that the state would then have to tow. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY deferred the question to the Department of Public Safety. Representative Kelly indicated he is scheduled in another committee meeting and excused himself. Number 1893 TED BACHMAN, Captain, Commander of Operations, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Director's Office, Department of Public Safety testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said, "When we get out into the rural areas, which the state troopers serve primarily, disabling a vehicle, that's a little bit of a problem for us in that we don't have any place to secure and store a vehicle that is immobilized. Once we take custody of that vehicle, once we impound it, we become responsible for it and we become responsible for whatever happens to that vehicle. And in a lot of places where we have perhaps one trooper that one trooper obviously can not be available to make sure no vandalism or anything occurs to that vehicle, nothing is stolen from that vehicle while it is immobilized. So we would realize probably some exposure to those kinds of liability issues if we were to immobilize the vehicle." MR. BACHMAN indicated there was discussion about changing a motor vehicle or aircraft impounded under this subsection "shall" be held for two days, Section 1, the second sentence, Version K. The suggestion offered is to change it to "may" be held would give the state troopers concern. That would cause the police officer to make that determination as to whether or not it would be held or not. He said, "We don't feel that it would be appropriate for a police officer to make that decision on a case by case basis." Number 2001 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he understands that there may be liability problems with protecting an impounded vehicle. He indicated he also expects there may be costs that the state may incur, for example towing costs or the cost of putting a boot on the vehicle. He asked if there are costs, as well as liability that you incur. MR. BACHMAN replied the costs under a regulation in Title 13 of the Alaska Administrative Code would continue to be borne by the owner or operator of the vehicle unless that was somehow changed. He believes HB 358 is designed to not cause the impounded cost to be incurred by the state but to be borne by the owner or operator. Number 2054 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he assumed in many of these cases recovering costs from somebody can be difficult, you would not incur costs trying to recover costs. He asked Mr. Bachman what the definition of a "motor vehicle" is. Is a motor vehicle also a snowmachine, or a four-wheeler or a boat? MR. BACHMAN said he believes it does cover any motorized conveyance that is not an aircraft and is not on rails, it covers most of what is driven in the state. Number 2093 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "How do you deal with a faulty driver and somebody else's vehicle? If someone has even authority to take the vehicle and drive it to town, or something of this nature, and gets drunked-up and gets into trouble, is the car the guilty party or is the person the guilty party. How do you deal with that, could you hold somebody else's vehicle for two or five days?" MR. BACHMAN repled, "Presently, again under the regulation under the Administrative Code, we don't have to impound the vehicle, in fact, we have to give the operator of the vehicle an opportunity to have another licensed, and in that case a sober driver the opportunity to come and get the vehicle as long as the time period is reasonable. So we don't have to impound the vehicle, but when we do impound the vehicle it again is an expense incurred either by the operator or the owner." He said it is not held for any time period, the owner of the vehicle could come immediately and retrieve from the wrecker agency so that there would be a minimal towing cost involved. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated the boot, where the vehicle is immobilized, a private operator has a contract to come and remove the boot for approximately fifty dollars. But there is no period of time that the vehicle would have to be held. He indicated that was the big difference in HB 358. Number 2165 MR. BACHMAN said Version K does not speak specifically to the immobilization issue. He indicated he was not sure if the government agency would provide the boot for the purpose of the immobilization or by the private contractor or individuals. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he did not believe it was in the bill. The question came up from some folks as to whether or not this could be applied uniformly throughout Alaska and there was some concern that it could not because many communities are so small and do not have the capability to essentially pin up the car. So the boot might be an alternative. Number 2213 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant, testified on behalf of Representative Kelly. He said, "When we were discussing this with Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, he suggested it could be as simple as removing a distributor wire for the vehicle so that it was not actually an added expense and added to that. We've all seen the TV commercials about the 'club' you could put on. Those are fairly inexpensive. There maybe someone locally in the community who might be able to do that. In earlier discussions there was even some suggestion that in places where there isn't a storage yard you might immobilize it at the owner's property, in its front yard... Those are different concepts and we were not carrying that level of detail into these options nor restricting those options." Number 2258 CLIFF GROH, Assistant Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He indicated he had been working for the municipality since June of 1994 and had prior involvement with issues of impoundment and forfeiture of motor vehicles when he worked for the Anchorage District Attorney's Office, Department of Law, as Assistant District Attorney. He said, "I drafted the municipal ordinance which my understanding is the Municipality of Anchorage's ordinance has been made available to committee members and the materials have been circulated by the sponsor. As you can see in reviewing that that's more extensive, there are a number of areas that are covered in that. I would just generally say that impoundment and forfeiture of motor vehicles seems to be helpful. It eliminates the possibility of the drunk driver getting that vehicle back that night." A study was done by Reed College, [Portland, Oregon], in particular has shown there is a deterrent effective from the impoundment. Scott Brandt-Ericksen also worked on the drafting of the original (indisc.), he is currently with the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. We wanted to urge legislators to look at the question of whether due process concerns have been satisfied by simply holding a vehicle for two and up to five days. The committee could consider the possibility of creating a procedure for either bonding the vehicle out or having a procedure for a hearing during that interim period. He said, "There are some cases about that that would strongly suggest that's required as a matter of constitutional due process requirements. And the Municipality of Anchorage certainly includes those provisions in its law." Number 2360 MR. GROH stated, as a former prosecutor for the state, he prosecuted in Western Alaska, the Aleutians and the Pribilof Islands. There are obviously different conditions in rural areas compared with the Municipality of Anchorage in terms of how the vehicles would be dealt with. The state of Washington is considering similar legislation, it just passed the state Senate and is going to the state House, it was indicated this would be a local option. He said Anchorage does have some special concerns, given there are some extremely rural places in Alaska which do not have as many facilities as other places. He summarized impoundment forfeiture works, there are some due process considerations that have to be honored. Finally, the committee can think of ways to deal with the rural/urban differences that also exist here. Number 2419 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked does the impoundment portion of the Anchorage law, has the municipality incurred extraordinary costs. MR. GROH replied no. He said, "What I often say when places like the City of Fairbanks - City of Barrow call me -- the revenues are pretty clear here, the costs are not exactly -- are a little bit difficult to completely pin down with certainty to the penny. But I would say this is basically about a break even proposition. I would say, however, there is some paperwork to be tracked here, and there is some paperwork that's going to fly around." To deal with those costs to generate revenues, we have administrative fee in the law of $220.00 which covers the initial cost of the police and clerical cost for processing. In addition, many of the vehicles are recovered, particularly if they are owned by.... [End of tape]. TAPE 98-5, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. GROH continued... are resolved by settlement. He said the Municipality of Anchorage would make a settlement with an owner or a lien holder in which they would pay the fees and make an agreement not to let this happen again, not let the drunk driver drive the car again while either intoxicated or without a valid license. He indicated the municipality collects fees through administrative fees and court costs. He said, "That's not a provision that's addressed here, the committee might want to consider." Number 0037 MR. CAMPBELL pointed out the issue of due process is addressed in Amendment K. The court can (indisc.) order the continuation of impoundment but you could request a court hearing and the court could order a vehicle released. He said, "So we've tried to address due process in that fashion." Page 1, line 12, following "court" Insert "orders the vehicle released or" Number 0063 MR. GROH said, "Another way to do it, that is mostly followed here, is through a bonding procedure. Where the person who is the owner or a lien holder puts up a sum of money to bond out the vehicle until there is a hearing, usually there's not a hearing. I will say that, for example since last June, we have had a hearing. There might be two or three that might come up in the next few months but hearings are not that common right now but bonding is. At the end of the bonding period, Mr. Chairman, or at some point either the vehicle is returned (indisc.) order of the court or the bond is forfeited." He indicated that is one way to protect the Municipality of Anchorage's interests when it is trying to either impound or forfeit a vehicle. MR. GROH stressed the municipality seeks 30 days of impoundment on a first offenses, all vehicles are towed in DWI cases. If there has been a second, or subsequent, offense within the past ten years the municipality seeks forfeiture of the vehicle subject to making a settlement with the innocent owner, co-owner, or lien holder. Number 0125 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified before the committee. She said, "Some of the comments that you've heard already today indicate some of the problems. This is a great idea, it's very satisfying to take a person who is driving drunk and take their car and not let them have it. But the problems that were discussed by the sponsor in terms of forfeiture are also attendant on impoundment, because our supreme court has held that we have a right of property interest in an automobile that is protected by due process requirement of law so that we have a right to go back and say, Your honor, this is my car, I didn't give this guy permission to drive it and I need it back.' They're both practical problems that Captain Bachman already discussed. There are places that there's just nobody to do it, even if you boot it, who's responsible if it gets damaged - if you boot it at the side of the road, even in a legal parking spot, who's responsible if something happens to the car. There are practical problems and then there are legal problems. If you have these (indisc.) set times, two and five day periods how are they connected to -- if your point is to make sure that a drunk person doesn't come back and drive home after he's bailed out of jail or after he's been arrested for DWI. Two and five days aren't necessary for that, we can hold people who are intoxicated and a danger to themselves for 12 hours, maybe a shorter period of time might answer, in addition to some of the suggestions that Mr. Groh made, might answer some of the (indisc. - paper) considerations." Number 0199 MS. CARPENETI stated, "The Department of Law really thinks the idea of the municipalities doing it, and the provisions in Sections 2 through 4, we support them. Anchorage knows what sort of property it has to store things, it knows what sort of towing services it has to take them. It works well there and communities can make it work in their own municipalities, but it's probably a better approach to let the municipalities do it. The state, as Captain Bachman said, still has the authority to tow vehicles when the driver is arrested for drunk driving, so it has the authority to do so now." She indicated they wholeheartedly support the municipal power to impound vehicles under these circumstances. Number 0245 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he believed a lot her concerns are mitigated by the permissive language that may be impounded which would tend to give a trooper in a remote area the option of making a decision based on common sense rather than what the structure of the law might be. MS. CARPENETI replied that helps. The Department of Law suggests the "shall" on line 9 be changed to "may" because a person is going to have a right to a hearing, and it should be permissive as to the length of time and to whether or not the decision is made to. She noted those would be improvements. She stated, "The problem is you're going to give them a right to a hearing and whether it's going to be an administrative hearing with the Department of Public Safety, it would have to be within two days to mean anything to the person and that's going to be a huge undertaking, I would think. The Department of Public Safety can speak for themselves, but if it's the court that's going to do it, that's going to be another proceeding for the court to do and for lawyers for the state to appear at." Number 0299 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if she was referring to the [zero] fiscal note. MS. CARPENETI said she was talking about whether it is not best left to local communities to deal with these issues rather than provide for mandatory two and five day impoundments when they are not necessarily connected to the safety of the car after it is impounded. She said, "I'm still not sure what the basic thrust of the problem is, if the problem is that people who are arrested for driving while intoxicated go get their car and drive off again drunk, then another procedure would probably suffice which would not raise nearly the issues that this particular approach does, maybe a shorter hold for a particular period of time, or something." It sounds like a good idea to take somebody's car but with ownership interests and the values of cars, what do you do if they are just left there. Sometimes they are not valuable enough to be worthy of selling, then they have to be trashed. MS. CARPENETI concluded that Mr. Groh could address the ways that Anchorage has dealt with these problems. She indicated she wanted to raise some of the practical problems, as the sponsor said there are legal issues that have to be addressed for this to be upheld by a court. Number 0357 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "You indicated you could certainly support two through four which essentially is the expansion of this concept to the municipalities, and we could do that obviously without Section 1 because that would provide all the necessary powers. I think that the element in Section 1 primarily establishes the two and four, two and five day concepts, I wonder if there is a linkage there. Would the municipality have any leeway to deviate from those two and five days to even make it more or less, or something in between if we left this in there?" MS. CARPENETI said, "Yes, actually there's a provision in the law that allows municipalities to adopt a statutory scheme and it specifically says it does not have to... Present law provides that an ordinance adopted under this section is not required to be consistent with this title or regulations adopted under it [she read from the statute]. So the municipality would be free to adopt regulations that are reasonable, that suit them and are fair." Number 0415 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated this is the area that he has had problems with. He said, "As to the question of whether or not we're walking into difficult legal grounds if somebody else owns the vehicle for example. If this is mandatory, do you read this as being mandatory if the municipality adopts the impoundment -- does this chapter require that they pursue the two days, or five days, if they have previously been...." MS. CARPENETI replied no, it allows the municipalities to adopt their own ordinance. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked the staff of the prime sponsor if this was more of a policy statement. Number 0448 MR. CAMPBELL replied, "The bill has two parts to it, Section 1 is statewide and it means it applies to state troopers, that is why Captain Bachman was testifying here earlier that we have a statewide process where we're saying the state has an overriding policy interest in having safe highways, and encouraging people not to drive drunk, and that we heard from Cliff Groh that there is in fact a deterrent effect from the impoundment and that it makes a difference in people's lives. The question of due process, we believe (indisc. - coughing) at least partly in Amendment 1, and it does give people the option to go to court." Number 0480 MR. CAMPBELL continued, "In discussions with the Department of Law, the issue of time was brought to us by Dean Guaneli, and he thought if the time was fairly short, such as two or five days, unlike Anchorage's 30-day impoundment, first time. If it was fairly short then we're not abridging that due process, we have a larger link to the time of sobriety. Yes we could have gone to 12 hours, but 12 hours does not have the lesson involved in the temporary inconvenience of not having your car the next day that is a part of the learning process we're trying to achieve with the bill. We're trying to achieve a consequence with a group of people who are particularly resistant to consequences, they drive cars, they steal cars, drive drunk and kill people. And we're trying to find a way to help encourage them to learn more correct driving behavior. We feel that's an overriding state interest to temporary issues of the immediacy of two or five-day inconvenience or property that we have not actually ceased, or taken from them but we're temporarily removing from their use on our public highways." Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Are we restricting due process for the person who is arrested." MS. CARPENETI said, "I think that you have to make some provision for a hearing. The way it's written now, without the amendment that has already been offered which allows the court to have a hearing and perhaps terminate the impoundment, I think the court would hold this to be a violation of due process of law. That's why we suggest some revision that would make it either make it either shorter so that it would be unlikely that somebody -- maybe 12 hours is enough to get the point home. I'm not sure, but if you hold it for any period much longer than 12 or 24 hours you're going to have to offer a hearing for the wife, or the owner, or the employer that owns the car to come and get it out. And they may be able to get it out but it will require a procedure either administrative or court procedure to do so." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if Amendment 1 would do that. MS. CARPENETI replied, "Allowing the court to order the release before the two days would certainly help, yes." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Ms. Carpeneti to address both amendments. Number 0612 MS. CARPENETI said she did not have a problem with the suggestion of allowing the police to boot a car, or by some other way of disabling it, but there is still the liability issue of what happens to a car that is left on the highway booted. Does that mean that the state has assumed possession of it and is responsible for any damage that results in it? She said, "These are some of the practical problems because, where the troopers are going to be doing this, it's not going to be in Anchorage where there's a nice little yard that's locked up to take it to. It's going to be in a more remote place." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Captain Bachman said he was concerned about the first sentence, "A motor vehicle or aircraft may be impounded." In Version K it is written "may", he believed Captain Bachman was saying "shall". MR. CAMPBELL said Captain Bachman may still be on the line. He said his question was he wanted "may" in line 5 and he wanted "shall" in lines nine and ten. The argument presented from the Department of Public Safety is that once they had made a decision to impound [a vehicle], they did not want a police officer adjudicating the length or detail of punishment, discretion. Number 0692 MR. BACHMAN responded that is correct. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked, "With these amendments, as we're going to be taking them up here in a few minutes, does that satisfy your concerns." MS. CARPENETI said, "It certainly goes a ways to satisfying them. I would suggest, if you're going to add the amendment allowing the court to decide to return it under the circumstances, it would be best to use the 'may' rather than the 'shall' on lines nine and ten. I don't think that that is in contradiction to the advice Captain Bachman is telling you as long as it's going to be the court that's going to decide if it's going to be returned not the police officer." Number 0729 MR. CAMPBELL said, "Our attorney's advice was that, as I understood it, was that this is dealing with a court hearing, it would allow an individual to go to a court if they chose within two days to get the vehicle back. That means they would have to request it, move very fast, probably have [has] good connections with the court and get a hearing done in two days and get the car. In five days it might be more likely to achieve it, we wanted to leave that as an opening for them. So from a practical perspective, the court is stepping in after the police officers making the impoundment and after police officer has decided that this is in fact a first arrest or second arrest. And the police officer is deciding on two days or five days. The court then can step in, and it shall be for five days unless a court orders something else, but the peace officer makes that decision and drives it up to this (indisc.) before and unless." Number 0775 MS. CARPENETI said, "I would suggest that it would be best -- the police officer is making the discretionary decision whether or not to impound [the vehicle ] in the first place. I would be glad to work with the sponsor on language that would be acceptable, the mandatory two and five days causes me some concern if we don't provide some sort of hearing mechanism." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "That's my biggest concern with Section 1, and where we're developing a mandatory impoundment or immobilization, is the application to rural Alaska. In municipalities I can see where they can, they've got all the resources but I see the troopers involved in the smaller communities where they don't have a lot of these facilities. It looks to me like it's going to be a disproportionate impoundment in areas to where they do not have a municipal government, and it will be more in the rural parts of Alaska. I guess that's a concern that I have, a mandatory impoundment." Number 0833 MS. CARPENETI stated this is not a mandatory impoundment. It allows the police officer to make the decision of whether or not to impound. As it is presently drafted, it sounds like once the police officer has made the decision it is a mandatory term of impoundment. She said she could understand why the police officers do not want to be responsible for making any discretionary decision as to the time, it should be set. She believed it would be best to make it permissive there also and provide for a court hearing to get it back. Number 0864 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "If we were to change on line 9 and 10, 'shall' to 'may' - we already have that the peace officer may impound, and then down there, it 'may' be held for two days if it's a previous, 'may' be held for five days. I guess that would be up to the prime sponsor then to see how that fits within your intent." MR. CAMPBELL said, "We were getting input from both the Department of Public Safety and from the Department of Law. The Department of Public Safety seemed quite adamant, they wanted a fixed term 'shall'. And we had dialogue(s) with the Department of Law suggesting there are reasons why it might be 'may, but (a) I couldn't understand them, and (b) the Department of Public Safety was so much more adamant about 'shall' we went with the Department of Public Safety in this draft." Number 0907 MS. CARPENETI said the Department of Public Safety is very concerned that their individual officers are not going to be the ones that say, "Oh well, you know I know your brother-in-law, I'll make this for one day." They should not be in that position and the Department of Law agrees thoroughly that they should not be in the position of setting any particular time, they've made the decision to make the tow, and the period of the tow should not be an individual decision by the police officer. She said, "I agree with them, I don't think we're in disagreement between our departments. I think what we need to do is talk about the best way to do that, considering the due process rights of individuals in our state to have their property and not taken without a court hearing or an administrative hearing. And I think there's an answer to this, I know Del Smith and Ted Bachman and I do not disagree on this at all. We just need to make it clear that the police officers do not have to make a discretionary decision as to whether or not this is a one, or a two, or three, or four, or five day hold." Number 0961 MR. CAMPBELL said, "We have had several meetings with the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety on this in our office and we were under the impression the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law were working on a written statement for this that would have been ready today, we thought, but I know Del Smith is now lost in the O-Zone, flying into the fog here, and is now in his capital position in Anchorage [he laughed], but - so we don't have that letter completed and to us but we're not sure if it was going to include language on this 'may', 'shall' topic or not." MS. CARPENETI pointed out that letter is prepared but it only addresses the former version which has been replaced now so it is not useful to the committee. She indicated a letter, setting out suggestions would be submitted by the next hearing. Number 1000 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated HB 358 will be held to allow for a committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON state the Anchorage Municipality has made this revenue neutral by charging administrative fees and doing some other things. He believed the committee needs to discuss money because there is no provision for administrative fees or anything else (indisc. paper noise ) if it is passed without those kind of provisions. MR. CAMPBELL noted constituents were on line from Fairbanks to testify. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the committee could come up with proposed amendments to be included on the committee substitute. MR. CAMPBELL asked, "Would you like us to draft a new committee substitute with working advantage, including incorporating these." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied yes. Number 1098 PATRICIA MACK, Volunteer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified via teleconference. She indicated drunk driving was the issue and hoped more than two or five days would be added to the bill. SALLY ECKLUND, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified via teleconference. She stated her son was killed by a drunk driver and stressed the state needs more of a deterrent. Number 1674 DAVID HUFFAKER stated his wife was hit head on by a drunk driver. He encouraged the committee to adopt the Anchorage ordinance to save lives by enacting the vehicle forfeiture on a statewide basis. He said Fairbanks is going to adopt an ordinance similar to Anchorage's but it will not affect an offender outside the city limits. The only way an offender will have the threat of losing his car is to go statewide. He indicated 32 states have this provision and it is slowly spreading. Number 1990 AL NEAR said stiffer jail sentences and license suspensions have not reduced drunk driving sufficiently. He said, "Since 1994 Anchorage has been impounding vehicles for first offenders for 30 days, repeat offenders lose their cars for good, fatalities connected with drunk driving have been cut in half." HB 358 does not go far enough, Alaska needs a minimum of 30 day impoundments for first offenders, forfeiture for second offense and forfeiture for driving while a license is suspended or revoked for DWI. Number 2026 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS closed the testimony of HB 358. He indicated the next hearing will be held on Monday, February 23.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|