Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2003 02:03 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 217-DUI: LOWER BAC IF PREVIOUS CONVICTION CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 217, "An Act relating to driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance and to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective date." Number 1582 LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska State Legislature, provided the following testimony as the sponsor statement for HB 217 on behalf of Representative Weyhrauch, sponsor: The bill that is under consideration before you proposes to lower the blood alcohol content for repeat DUI [driving under the influence] offenders from the current level of 0.08 to 0.04. This bill is a priority of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and it's an important piece of the criminal justice system's approach to prosecuting drunk drivers and keeping our roads safe. I want to emphasize that this is a small step and it will not overburden the criminal justice system or the courts with an influx of new arrests. Just an aside: once this legislation was introduced, I got a number of phone calls from the departments, asking what the sponsor's intent of the legislation was. They were concerned that we were hoping that it would do a lot. I emphasized to them that we thought that we consider this legislation to be similar to an aggravating factor in sentencing; it's just something that is a very small step. Right now, if a police officer pulls someone over, if they have probable cause to consider that this person might be impaired in their driving, they pull him over and then they take a breathalyzer test in the field, again, if they have probable cause. If it's real low, if it's 0.08, for example, the person might be arrested - chances are would be arrested - and then they're taken to the stationhouse and they take another breathalyzer test at the stationhouse. My understanding is, that's the test that is used by the prosecution and the defense in criminal prosecution. If it's marginal, if it's just under or around 0.08, there's a chance that the prosecutor won't take the case because they are necessarily limited by resources and they want to take the winning cases the distance. With this law enacted, those marginal cases will be better bets for the prosecutor to prosecute. Number 1681 MS. SYLVESTER testified: In 1999, Alaska led the nation in highway accidents in which alcohol was a factor. Forty out of seventy-six accidents that year involved alcohol, which is about 53 percent. Statistically, on a nationwide level, approximately one-third of all DUI convictions each year are repeat offenders. A 1994 study found that fatally injured drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents were eight times more likely to have had a prior DUI conviction in the [preceding] five years. Drivers with DUI convictions whose licenses have been reinstated are six to ten times more likely than drivers the same age and gender to be arrested for a DUI or be involved in a crash the year following their reinstatement. Over and over, the numbers show that there is no doubt, repeat DUI offenders are over represented in alcohol-related fatal crashes. MS. SYLVESTER testified: The question that HB 217 poses is, "How many bites of the apple do you give the drinking drivers who are extremely high-risk drivers?" And then the question is, "Does it make sense to hold repeat DUI offenders to the same standards as people who are receiving their original citation for that [offense]?" This bill is not zero tolerance. It's just a simple tool that gives the prosecutors more leeway in prosecuting cases that are borderline. Is it fair? Is it draconian? That's the question that we'll be addressing at table. Before you make that determination, consider that these people are high- risk and that it's the second and the repeat offenders, statistically, that are on the roads that are doing the killing. Incidentally, you'll have a first-time DUI offender in a fatal accident, but statistically it's the repeats, and that's why these people are being targeted. CO-CHAIR HOLM referred to information included in the committee packet and asked why the lower limit of 0.05 was used by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and the AMA [American Medical Association], whereas the bill refers to the amount of 0.04 percent. MS. SYLVESTER responded that MADD recommended 0.05 and that there are six states that have a lower BAC [blood alcohol concentration] level for second offenses. CO-CHAIR HOLM interjected that the data indicates that MADD supports 0.05 as a BAC limit. He asked, "Do you know how much alcohol needs to be consumed - one beer, one drink, whatever - to get to .04?" MS. SYLVESTER responded that she was similarly intrigued by that question and determined that after drinking 2 1/2 glasses of wine [within an hour, her] BAC level was at 0.04 [percent]. CO-CHAIR HOLM commented that this amount was perhaps indicative of a low metabolic rate, as it was his understanding that 0.08 was reached as the result of drinking two beers. He suggested that additional medical expertise was desirable to provide further information, saying that he was fearful that this was "draconian." He pointed out that it's one issue "if we're to be against alcohol completely, but if we say that it mitigates the ability of somebody at 0.04 to make good judgments driving, I'm certainly not an expert, but I question the number." Number 1918 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he had heard the same argument regarding setting the limit at 0.01, 0.08, and now with 0.04. He said he agreed with Co-Chair Holm and didn't question the intent of getting drunk drivers off the road; however, he was concerned with "where social engineering stops and where the real worth of this type of legislation begins." He said that "we are currently on the knife's edge of social engineering" and that he didn't believe that it was his responsibility to do "social engineering in these halls." He stated that he wasn't supportive of HB 217. MS. SYLVESTER offered background information on the origination of the legislation and told the committee that in the 1980s, Maine had an extremely high rate of DUI deaths. In 1988, the state was the first to institute a rate of 0.05 for second and subsequent offenses. Five years later, the results were that the death rate for DUI accidents was reduced by 25 percent. During the same time period, the rates in other New England states had increased by 46 percent. In 1995, Maine instituted zero tolerance for convicted offenders. Ms. Sylvester said that HB 217 isn't zero tolerance, but it does have a track record indicative of lives that could be saved. CO-CHAIR HOLM responded that while "statistics sometimes lie," these statistics would "bear out what you're saying" because times have changed and now, for example, there are designated drivers, which didn't used to exist as such. He said he wasn't sure that the correlation could be drawn that "because we don't tolerate 0.05, therefore it relates directly to a lessening of people dying." CO-CHAIR HOLM continued that before voting on HB 217, he would want to know the medical truth, for example, of what a 165-pound man, with a normal metabolism, would have to drink to reach levels of 0.04 or 0.05. He opined he didn't want to be onerous to the extent that "somebody goes to a softball game, has a couple of beers, and can't drive home." He pointed out that one issue would be to argue that nobody should ever drink a beer. He noted that he doesn't drink and that teetotalers are fine, but he wasn't supportive of the idea of engineering laws so that this would be determined by the state, adding that this would not be sending an appropriate message. CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that legislation had previously been passed to comply with the federal level of 0.08. She thought that according to the Department of Public Safety, the program had been doing well and there had been tremendous improvements regarding drinking-and-driving statistics, with the levels at 0.08. She told the committee that she shared the concerns of Co-Chair Holm and Representative Fate of changing the level to 0.04, and that this was "getting intrusive." Number 2169 CO-CHAIR MASEK ascertained that there was no further testimony on HB 217, and said that in light of the concerns brought up by committee members, HB 217 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|