Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/03/1994 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 278: An Act relating to sobriety checkpoints; and providing for an effective date. C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety testified in support of SB 278. Discussion followed between Senators Kerttula, Sharp, Rieger, Kelly, and Co-chair Frank regarding fiscal notes, funding, and other related concerns. Kenneth Bischoff, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety, and Lauren Campbell, Director, Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency, Department of Public Safety, appeared briefly before committee to answer questions. SB 278 was HELD in committee until March 12, 1994. SENATE BILL NO. 278 An Act relating to sobriety checkpoints; and providing for an effective date. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 278 was before the committee. She invited C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, to join the committee at the table and speak to SB 278. MR. SWACKHAMMER said that one mission of the Department of Public Safety was to protect the traveling public on the highways. In 1992, there were 89 traffic crashes that resulted in 108 deaths, and 58.3% were alcohol related accidents. He believed advertising in the media the initiation of sobriety checkpoints would provide a deterrent for impaired drivers, and, secondly, would remove impaired drivers from the highways. The way the bill read was that law enforcement agencies must submit a plan to the court specifying time, location, implementation, sequence, justification of the location, time, date, and within 10 days report back to the court with the information obtained. End SFC-94 #31, Side 1 Begin SFC-94 #31, Side 2 Senator Kerttula pointed out that the state police had a limited budget and already were putting a lot of time on the highway. He proposed the idea that state police did not spend enough time off the highways and in the community. He suggested hiring security guards to staff such sobriety checkpoints and have one trooper supervise the process. Mr. Swackhammer said that federal funds would be used to implement the checkpoints. The estimated cost for one four- hour checkpoint would be $2,500 as detailed in the DOS fiscal note. He admitted troopers would be paid overtime for these checkpoints. Senator Kerttula reiterated his concern regarding state trooper overtime and added expense to the state. Senator Sharp understood that because the helmet bill was not going to pass, there would be federal funds available to the Department of Safety in the amount of $2.5-5M. He said the checkpoints would qualify for these federal funds up to three years. He still felt it was a lot of money focused on less than 10 percent of the causes of accidents in the state. He listed other statistics that said, of the total 16,000 accidents, only 1,400 were alcohol related. He felt that state troopers would be more effective on the road. He did not deny that it was a good place to focus but felt the troopers better served the state on the highway. Mr. Swackhammer said that in citing accidents, 60 percent of the people killed were in alcohol related accidents. Senator Sharp disputed his statistics but agreed that it was a disaster. Senator Kerttula again asked why security guards could not be used in the checkpoints. He asked Mr. Swackhammer to propose that to the administration. Mr. Swackhammer said that police officer training took about 16 weeks. He maintained that processing a DWI was quite complicated, took about 3 hours, and he did not believe it was a place where security guards could be used. Senator Rieger commented that the bill seemed to allow municipal police and VPSOs to be used in sobriety checkpoints. He asked if an arrest could be made for other reasons than the purpose of the checkpoint. Mr. Swackhammer said that there was no limitation once the stop had been made but as a practical matter, the goal was to detect impaired drivers and not impede the traveling public more than needed. Mr. Swackhammer thought the troopers would not write someone up for an equipment violation because of the time it would take. Senator Rieger agreed that driving was a privilege and not a right but he felt that the checkpoint was an intrusion in people's lives. Mr. Swackhammer said, as a practical matter, that would not be a problem. Co-chair Frank shared Senator Rieger's concern regarding privacy. He said that the checkpoint was mostly a deterrent effect. He felt though, that to be an effective deterrent, there must be a recurrent occurrence of the checkpoints. He also felt the fiscal note should reflect that recurrent occurrence and it would make it a very large expense. Mr. Swackhammer quoted someone as saying that more troopers on the road would be a deterrent. He said sobriety checkpoints were just a small part of that deterrent. If the department were to stage a checkpoint at $2,500 and found no impaired drivers, that would be a success simply because of the advertisement acting as a deterrent to drunk driving. He stated there was not enough money to put troopers in villages, or to have the presence needed to deter but that should not prevent the department from trying to reduce alcohol related fatalities. He said that was what this legislation was about. Research would be done to choose the best time for the best effect possible. Co-chair Frank asked if the department had considered confiscating the car when an individual has been convicted of a DWI. He said that airplanes and guns could be taken away. He felt chronic drinkers seem to be the problem and deterrents such as checkpoints would not seem to effect the chronic drunk driver. Mr. Swackhammer said that those individuals somehow manage to find automobiles. Co-chair Frank said that it would take a wide net to deter the chronic drunk driver. Senator Kelly asked for an explanation of page 3, line 18- 19, "sobriety checkpoint shall substantially conform." Mr. Swackhammer said that guidelines would be set but the choices of whether to stop every third car or every second could be decided by the flow of traffic, etc. Senator Kelly said he had concerns regarding the word "substantially." In answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Swackhammer said on page 4, line 11, the words "production of documents" meant asking an individual for their driver's license and registration. Senator Kerttula said that maybe it should say exactly that. Senator Kerttula asked for a breakdown of the checkpoint costs. Mr. Swackhammer stated that it would consist of paying four troopers four hours of overtime ($500 each) plus equipment rental. Senator Kerttula observed that a substantial amount of money was obtained from federal funds for safety. In answer to Senator Kerttula, Mr. Swackhammer did not believe that federal money could be used for enhancing the training of VPSOs or increasing salaries. LAUREN CAMPBELL, Director, Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency, Department of Public Safety, answered that federal funds cannot be used for on-going programs. It also cannot be used for salaries or to increase salaries. It was designated for special enforcement projects that would reduce serious injury or fatal accidents. Senator Kerttula reiterated his proposal to hire security guards instead of using state troopers on an overtime basis. Senator Sharp asked Mr. Swackhammer to provide the committee with 1993 statistics including alcohol related traffic deaths on the highways. Co-chair Frank asked how a fiscal note for $2,500 would relate to SB 278, and did they intend to have more than one checkpoint as the fiscal note presented. Mr. Swackhammer said that the fiscal note represented one checkpoint. The Department of Safety would apply for grant money to implement the sobriety checkpoint program. Grant money and resources dedicated to that program would determine the number of checkpoints. Co-chair Frank asked if the federal money was likely and what other funds might be available for this program. Mr. Campbell said that other moneys were available beside the helmet money. Enacting the sobriety checkpoints would allow a 5 percent increase, or about a $10,000 increase in federal funds. He agreed that a grant could be written using personnel other than troopers. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Mr. Swackhammer said that using other than trooper personnel in the checkpoints had more to do with management policy than employee contracts. Mr. Swackhammer said that most intoxicated individuals were not the most congenial and cooperative people to deal with and specially trained individuals were needed in those circumstances. Co-chair Frank asked for a projection of a one-year program rather than a fiscal note for one checkpoint. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 278 would be HELD in committee until March 12, 1994. She asked committee members to present amendments to SB 278 to her office no later than March 11, 1994. SB 278: An Act relating to sobriety checkpoints; and providing for an effective date. C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety testified in support of SB 278. Discussion followed between Senators Kerttula, Sharp, Rieger, Kelly, and Co-chair Frank regarding fiscal notes, funding, and other related concerns. Kenneth Bischoff, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety, and Lauren Campbell, Director, Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency, Department of Public Safety, appeared briefly before committee to answer questions. SB 278 was HELD in committee until March 12, 1994. SENATE BILL NO. 278 An Act relating to sobriety checkpoints; and providing for an effective date. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 278 was before the committee. She invited C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, to join the committee at the table and speak to SB 278. MR. SWACKHAMMER said that one mission of the Department of Public Safety was to protect the traveling public on the highways. In 1992, there were 89 traffic crashes that resulted in 108 deaths, and 58.3% were alcohol related accidents. He believed advertising in the media the initiation of sobriety checkpoints would provide a deterrent for impaired drivers, and, secondly, would remove impaired drivers from the highways. The way the bill read was that law enforcement agencies must submit a plan to the court specifying time, location, implementation, sequence, justification of the location, time, date, and within 10 days report back to the court with the information obtained. End SFC-94 #31, Side 1 Begin SFC-94 #31, Side 2 Senator Kerttula pointed out that the state police had a limited budget and already were putting a lot of time on the highway. He proposed the idea that state police did not spend enough time off the highways and in the community. He suggested hiring security guards to staff such sobriety checkpoints and have one trooper supervise the process. Mr. Swackhammer said that federal funds would be used to implement the checkpoints. The estimated cost for one four- hour checkpoint would be $2,500 as detailed in the DOS fiscal note. He admitted troopers would be paid overtime for these checkpoints. Senator Kerttula reiterated his concern regarding state trooper overtime and added expense to the state. Senator Sharp understood that because the helmet bill was not going to pass, there would be federal funds available to the Department of Safety in the amount of $2.5-5M. He said the checkpoints would qualify for these federal funds up to three years. He still felt it was a lot of money focused on less than 10 percent of the causes of accidents in the state. He listed other statistics that said, of the total 16,000 accidents, only 1,400 were alcohol related. He felt that state troopers would be more effective on the road. He did not deny that it was a good place to focus but felt the troopers better served the state on the highway. Mr. Swackhammer said that in citing accidents, 60 percent of the people killed were in alcohol related accidents. Senator Sharp disputed his statistics but agreed that it was a disaster. Senator Kerttula again asked why security guards could not be used in the checkpoints. He asked Mr. Swackhammer to propose that to the administration. Mr. Swackhammer said that police officer training took about 16 weeks. He maintained that processing a DWI was quite complicated, took about 3 hours, and he did not believe it was a place where security guards could be used. Senator Rieger commented that the bill seemed to allow municipal police and VPSOs to be used in sobriety checkpoints. He asked if an arrest could be made for other reasons than the purpose of the checkpoint. Mr. Swackhammer said that there was no limitation once the stop had been made but as a practical matter, the goal was to detect impaired drivers and not impede the traveling public more than needed. Mr. Swackhammer thought the troopers would not write someone up for an equipment violation because of the time it would take. Senator Rieger agreed that driving was a privilege and not a right but he felt that the checkpoint was an intrusion in people's lives. Mr. Swackhammer said, as a practical matter, that would not be a problem. Co-chair Frank shared Senator Rieger's concern regarding privacy. He said that the checkpoint was mostly a deterrent effect. He felt though, that to be an effective deterrent, there must be a recurrent occurrence of the checkpoints. He also felt the fiscal note should reflect that recurrent occurrence and it would make it a very large expense. Mr. Swackhammer quoted someone as saying that more troopers on the road would be a deterrent. He said sobriety checkpoints were just a small part of that deterrent. If the department were to stage a checkpoint at $2,500 and found no impaired drivers, that would be a success simply because of the advertisement acting as a deterrent to drunk driving. He stated there was not enough money to put troopers in villages, or to have the presence needed to deter but that should not prevent the department from trying to reduce alcohol related fatalities. He said that was what this legislation was about. Research would be done to choose the best time for the best effect possible. Co-chair Frank asked if the department had considered confiscating the car when an individual has been convicted of a DWI. He said that airplanes and guns could be taken away. He felt chronic drinkers seem to be the problem and deterrents such as checkpoints would not seem to effect the chronic drunk driver. Mr. Swackhammer said that those individuals somehow manage to find automobiles. Co-chair Frank said that it would take a wide net to deter the chronic drunk driver. Senator Kelly asked for an explanation of page 3, line 18- 19, "sobriety checkpoint shall substantially conform." Mr. Swackhammer said that guidelines would be set but the choices of whether to stop every third car or every second could be decided by the flow of traffic, etc. Senator Kelly said he had concerns regarding the word "substantially." In answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Swackhammer said on page 4, line 11, the words "production of documents" meant asking an individual for their driver's license and registration. Senator Kerttula said that maybe it should say exactly that. Senator Kerttula asked for a breakdown of the checkpoint costs. Mr. Swackhammer stated that it would consist of paying four troopers four hours of overtime ($500 each) plus equipment rental. Senator Kerttula observed that a substantial amount of money was obtained from federal funds for safety. In answer to Senator Kerttula, Mr. Swackhammer did not believe that federal money could be used for enhancing the training of VPSOs or increasing salaries. LAUREN CAMPBELL, Director, Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency, Department of Public Safety, answered that federal funds cannot be used for on-going programs. It also cannot be used for salaries or to increase salaries. It was designated for special enforcement projects that would reduce serious injury or fatal accidents. Senator Kerttula reiterated his proposal to hire security guards instead of using state troopers on an overtime basis. Senator Sharp asked Mr. Swackhammer to provide the committee with 1993 statistics including alcohol related traffic deaths on the highways. Co-chair Frank asked how a fiscal note for $2,500 would relate to SB 278, and did they intend to have more than one checkpoint as the fiscal note presented. Mr. Swackhammer said that the fiscal note represented one checkpoint. The Department of Safety would apply for grant money to implement the sobriety checkpoint program. Grant money and resources dedicated to that program would determine the number of checkpoints. Co-chair Frank asked if the federal money was likely and what other funds might be available for this program. Mr. Campbell said that other moneys were available beside the helmet money. Enacting the sobriety checkpoints would allow a 5 percent increase, or about a $10,000 increase in federal funds. He agreed that a grant could be written using personnel other than troopers. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Mr. Swackhammer said that using other than trooper personnel in the checkpoints had more to do with management policy than employee contracts. Mr. Swackhammer said that most intoxicated individuals were not the most congenial and cooperative people to deal with and specially trained individuals were needed in those circumstances. Co-chair Frank asked for a projection of a one-year program rather than a fiscal note for one checkpoint. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 278 would be HELD in committee until March 12, 1994. She asked committee members to present amendments to SB 278 to her office no later than March 11, 1994.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|