Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/05/2001 08:49 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSHB 4(FIN)am - MOTOR VEHICLES & DRUNK DRIVING
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, sponsor of HB 4, gave the following
description of the measure. CSHB 4(FIN)am is omnibus drunk driving
legislation. It is the result of work done by the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) Assembly's task force on driving while under the
influence (DUI) of alcohol. That task force was formed last year
after a number of tragic accidents occurred in Anchorage. CSHB
4(FIN)am does the following things:
· Lowers the blood alcohol content limit from .1 to .08;
· Mandates treatment for prisoners;
· Deletes the five-year "look-back" provision while phasing in a
ten-year "look-back" provision;
· Provides for discretionary immobilization on the second
offense and discretionary forfeiture of vehicles on the third
offense; and
· Requires seizure of license plates, increased fees and fines
and cost caps on various areas of the law to enhance revenue
and offset associated costs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented: "Mr. Chairman, this is the
carrot and stick and the penalty provisions of the alcohol package
that is emanating from the House this year." The intention is to
separate the vehicle from the habitual offender. CSHB 4(FIN)am
also emphasizes certain elements of treatment, particularly for
those who are incarcerated. He offered to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why the term "intoxicated" was changed to
"under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or
controlled substance."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that change was made for a number of
reasons. The term, "driving while under the influence ..." is more
applicable throughout the United States and inhalants and other
controlled substances were added to the definition. He believes
that lowering the blood alcohol level (BAC) from .1 to .08 and
changing the name of the offense sends a message to the public:
think before you drink and get behind the wheel. When the
legislature lowers the standard and changes the name of the
offense, a person will have to decide whether he or she is under
the influence rather than intoxicated. He believes it is important
to send the message to the public that the legislature is serious
about stopping this offense from occurring.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked at what level Representative Rokeberg
believes a person is under the influence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied: "Mr. Chairman, we have also in the
bill the impairment provisions in state law. It is my understanding
that law enforcement officers, when they make the initial arrest,
many times charge under the impairment statute." Currently
"impairment" is defined as .05; it was lowered in the bill to .04.
He talked to municipal prosecutors in Anchorage who, on occasion,
bring criminal actions under the impairment offense. He reminded
committee members that .1 is the under the influence level so an
individual could be driving impaired at a .04 BAC under CSHB
4(FIN)am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how the penalties differ for impairment and
under the influence.
MR. DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), said there is no difference.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR maintained that by changing the definition within
the bill to "under the influence ...," the same penalties are
involved but the standard is lowered to .04.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the current law is .05; CSHB 4(FIN)am
would lower it to .04. He noted Chairman Taylor is correct in that
it is the per se level at .1 or .08. A person is still considered
under the influence under current law.
Number 784
SENATOR COWDERY asked for definitions of "inhalant" and "controlled
substance."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "controlled substance" is defined in
statute, which contains a list of certain drugs. He then said,
"Inhalant also, I believe, is defined here and there's other
pending legislation on that." He pointed out the definition was
included at the request of Representative Kapsner.
SENATOR COWDERY referred to Section 19, regarding evaluation, and
asked if an evaluation can be done if a person refuses to submit to
a breath test.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said one reason the bill is so long is that
the implied consent and blood alcohol level statutes were
replicated in it. Regarding treatment, the bill refers to ASERP -
the Alcohol Screening and Evaluation Referral Program, an existing
program where initial screening occurs to evaluate whether the
individual needs additional alcohol abuse treatment. The charge
for that program is paid for by the defendant. CSHB 4(FIN)am
contains a provision that allows municipalities to charge the fee
for ASERP screening.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Representative Rokeberg to clarify the
comments he made about the .05 blood alcohol level.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the current impairment
statute has a .05 to .1 level.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a person was driving erratically and
had a BAC of over .05, he or she could be cited while impaired.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the fines are the same for impairment
and driving under the influence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said according to Mr. Guaneli that is
correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked why the bill requires a vehicle to be
registered under a person's first, middle and last name.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the Division of Motor Vehicles
currently has two separate databases for licenses and
registrations. Those databases are not interactive because of the
ways the names are entered into them. By requiring the same name
format, the databases will be interactive.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for clarification of the vehicle
forfeiture provision.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that under current law, a judge
may make a discretionary call as to whether to forfeit a vehicle on
the third offense. However, the municipalities of Anchorage and
Fairbanks have ordinances that mandate forfeiture on the second
offense, that has worked as an excellent deterrent. The original
version of the bill had mandatory, rather than discretionary,
forfeiture on the third offense. It also contained a provision
that allowed for either mandatory forfeiture or impoundment, which
was primarily aimed at smaller communities where no vendors are
available to take the vehicle and, for example, in a situation that
warranted impounding the vehicle for 20 days so that it could not
be used by the owner. However, some House members were concerned
about the mandatory aspect so "shall" was changed to "may" on the
House floor, making both discretionary. He felt the bill still
makes progress because it provides a discretionary forfeiture
and/or impoundment for the second offense. His intent was to
implement the mandatory standard used in Anchorage and Fairbanks
statewide.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked about impoundment if a car is registered
to several people.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that current statute allows for any
co-owner or lien holder to assert his or her claim. During the
floor debate, House members discussed the possibility that a
defendant may have to sell the vehicle to pay off the co-owner or
lien holder. He explained that the rights of the co-owner would be
protected.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the co-owners would have to pay a fine
or fee to get the vehicle back.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a fee would have to be paid to re-
register the car. He pointed out that is one of the provisions
with license plate confiscation.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked about a vehicle that is towed away and
auctioned.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a statutory procedure is in existing
law and Anchorage and Fairbanks use a very simple civil procedure.
He informed the committee that the Chair of the Anchorage Assembly
has proposed an amendment that will allow a municipal government to
have tougher provisions for the offense of driving with a suspended
license by allowing for the forfeiture of vehicles. He asked for
the committee's support of the amendment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR took public testimony.
MS. CINDY CASHEN, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD), gave the following testimony.
The MADD chapter strongly endorses HB 4 and we have spent
a lot of time working on this with Representative
Rokeberg and his staff and it is our hope that this bill
will pass. Thank you.
Number 1187
MR. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director of the Alaska Public Defender
Agency, stated the House has done quite a bit of work on CSHB
4(FIN)am but he feels the need to point out some continuing
problems with the bill. Fines will increase dramatically, making
Alaska one of the harshest states in the nation. For a first time
offense, the mandatory minimum fine will increase from $250 to
$1500. The judge would have no discretion to lower that amount.
The fine for a third offense will increase from $1,000 to $4,000.
The public defender's agency is concerned about putting these fines
in place at such a high level. In addition, the license forfeiture
period for a felony DUI is permanent. It can be restored after 10
years. He believes it is important to make sure that drivers are
licensed and insured and fears that people whose license has been
revoked will be tempted to drive anyway. He feels the bill should
provide a way for people to get licensed and insured in a shorter
period of time.
MR. MCCUNE said CSHB 4(FIN)am increases the "look-back" provision
from five to 10 years for felony DUIs, which will add quite a bit
of time and expense for the public defender's agency.
MS. MARY MARSHBURN, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), said, like Mr. McCune, DMV has been significantly involved
with the sponsor and the legislation since its drafting almost a
year ago. DMV supports lowering the BAC to .08 but DMV continues
to take issue with the vehicle registration revocation provisions.
A driver's license dictates whether an individual may drive any
vehicle. If a person is permitted to drive, it is the driver's
license that determines when and where he or she may drive. A
vehicle does not need to be registered in a specific person's name
for an individual to drive it. DMV does not believe that removing
a person's name from a vehicle registration for the period of the
driver's license revocation will have any appreciable effect on the
DUI problem. DMV does believe that dealing with re-registration
will be a chore for spouses, other family members, or co-owners who
need the vehicle. Likewise, she does not believe the work required
of DMV to implement that provision will be the most productive and
have the intended effect. DMV believes the funds in its fiscal
note should be directed to more effective methods of addressing
drunk driving, such as screening, treatment and rehabilitation, and
vehicle impoundment. She repeated DMV does not support inclusion
of the vehicle registration provision in the bill.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked that Representative Rokeberg respond to
Ms. Marshburn's comments.
MS. JANET SEITZ, Chief of Staff to Representative Rokeberg, said
Ms. Marshburn was referring to Section 7: Seizure of Registration
Plates. Currently, when a person is stopped for a DUI offense, the
driver's license is seized and replaced by a temporary driver's
license during which time the person can file an appeal. Section 7
puts a similar scheme in place for the registration plates so that
license plates are seized and the driver is given a temporary
permit. The bill also says that DMV shall allow a co-owner to re-
register the vehicle. She noted it is a way to separate the
vehicle from the drunk driver to impress upon the inebriated person
that he or she should not be driving.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he is not sure what will be gained for the
cost and, apparently, neither does DMV.
MS. SEITZ thought the offender would realize the seriousness of the
offense.
Number 1509
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the co-owner will have to pay the
registration fee under Section (7)(e) and the offender, using a
temporary license, can continue to drive that vehicle.
MS. SEITZ said the offender and still has the right to appeal, just
as he or she does when a driver's license is confiscated.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a vehicle would be considered borrowed
if a husband drove a vehicle registered under the wife's name only.
MS. SEITZ said she believes that would be correct if his name is
not on the title.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the seizure provision would kick in at
all for a borrowed vehicle.
MS. MARSHBURN said it does not apply to a borrowed vehicle.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR surmised that if a person was convicted under CSHB
4(FIN)am and could not register a vehicle, he or she would only be
able to drive a borrowed vehicle.
MS. MARSHBURN agreed but noted it is the revocation of a driver's
license that determines whether a person can drive or not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the bill contains a provision that makes an
exception for a limited class of people, those being victims of
domestic violence. He asked how that will work.
MS. SEITZ explained that under current law, a person is not
supposed to knowingly authorize or permit another person to drive a
vehicle if that person does not have a valid license.
Representative Rokeberg added language on page 12, lines 11 through
14, at the request of people who felt the law needs to be
strengthened so that victims of domestic violence could not be
charged under current law as being an enabler if in fear of
domestic violence.
SENATOR DONLEY asked how that differs from any person who acts out
of fear of physical violence.
Number 1800
MS. SEITZ said the language regarding domestic violence was added
at the request of Lauree Hugonin.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed concern that the language is myopic
because acting under threat is an affirmative defense to any crime.
He questioned why the law should specify that the person can only
be threatened in a domestic violence situation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Senator Donley is correct but that
provision will not lessen a person's common law right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said existing law says one cannot loan a car to a
person without a valid license. He asked how the vehicle owner
would know whether a driver is licensed under existing law. He
asked if that immunity is also part of the forfeiture provision.
MS. SEITZ said the title of the current statute is Unlawful Use of
License Permitting Unauthorized Person to Drive. She thought the
"knowingly" standard would apply so a person would not be guilty if
he or she did not know the driver did not have a valid license.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated that with the modification in CSHB
4(FIN)am, a person could knowingly loan a vehicle to an unlicensed
driver but could "bail out" by claiming to be a victim of domestic
violence.
MS. SEITZ said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed members that an amendment [Amendment 1]
had been proposed that would allow municipalities to impose harsher
penalties than those provided in CSHB 4(FIN)am.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the Anchorage Assembly passed a
resolution a few weeks ago that requests the legislature to
[indisc.] forfeiture.
SENATOR DONLEY maintained that the MOA was successfully dealing
with forfeiture.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the ordinance only applies to DUI
offenses; not to suspensions.
Number 2004
MS. SEITZ explained the MOA approved an ordinance on April 17. It
is considering a resolution that requests the legislature to amend
Title 28 to allow municipalities to increase penalties for driving
while a license is suspended, revoked, or cancelled and allow the
impound and forfeiture of vehicles used in the offense. She pointed
out implementation of the MOA's ordinance is pending a change to
state law.
SENATOR DONLEY said he was very skeptical when penalties were
lowered for driving without a license. He moved to adopt Amendment
1, which reads as follows:
AMENDMENT 1
TO: CSHB 4(FIN) am
Page 12, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 28.15.291 is amended by adding a new subsection
to read:
(d) Notwithstanding other provisions in this title, a
municipality may adopt an ordinance providing for the
impoundment or forfeiture of a motor vehicle involved in the
commission of an offense described under this section or an
ordinance with elements substantially similar to an offense
described under this section. An ordinance adopted under this
subsection is not required to be consistent with this title or
regulations adopted under this title."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed concern that the phrase "not required
to be consistent" was used in the last line of Amendment 1 because
it could be interpreted to mean less stringent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted he shares the same concern.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he favors allowing municipalities to impose
stricter provisions, but he does not favor allowing more lenient
provisions.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed with Senator Therriault in that the state law
should be the floor and that local governments be given the
discretion to go farther.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested striking the last sentence from Amendment
1.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he agrees with Senator Therriault's
concern.
SENATOR DONLEY moved a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 to allow
local governments to adopt standards that are the same or more
stringent than the state standards, but not less.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced that with no objection, Amendment 1 as
amended was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the House examined the penalties for
driving without a license. He felt that is a problem with the
current law because the penalty for driving without a license has
been reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that subject was talked about in
general terms but was not addressed in the bill as he was trying to
keep the focus of the bill narrow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what rehabilitation provisions are contained
within the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied the primary one is the long term
mandatory treatment. In addition, the fiscal notes expand the
ASERP or the initial assessment, as well as other treatment
elements that normally occur for those defendants found to need
additional treatment. The most innovative part makes treatment for
long term, incarcerated substance abusers mandatory.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if, in some instances, mandatory treatment
could last for as long as one year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it could; the Department of
Corrections will have to make a judgment call about the timing and
length of treatment. The problem with voluntary treatment is that
some inmates succeed with treatment but others do not even attempt
it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that not everyone incarcerated under CSHB
4(FIN)am will be serving lengthy terms.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was trying to focus on the habitual
drunk driver.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said with a ten-year look-back, a person could be
arrested with a .04 BAC who had a DUI nine years prior, and that
person would lose his or her license and car for 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that is possible on a third
offense.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the ten years is a minimum mandatory
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in 1995 the legislature changed the
third offense to the felony level. That has not been changed in
CSHB 4(FIN)am, but the anomaly that happened with the five-year
look-back was changed; i.e., a third offense within the fifth year
was a felony, but a third offense in the sixth year was a
misdemeanor. He felt that was unfair and, in addition, he wanted to
clarify that a third offense is a felony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said hopefully the vast majority of people affected
by this bill will be those with a high rate of recidivism.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that over 73 percent of first
offenders do not re-offend.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked within what time period those 73 percent were
measured.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said within three years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what the percentage is over a ten-year period
and expressed concern that it is unlikely that such records are
available.
TAPE 01-31, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said maybe 30 to 40 percent no longer drink at all
but they will not be able to work for 10 years if they cannot
drive.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suspected the percentage would not be very
high. He noted the numbers start falling off to less than 10
percent for major habitual offenders.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if less than 10 percent of habitual offenders
will be "turned around" with treatment programs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is the opposite.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that is why he asked about the rehabilitation
program. He asked if Representative Rokeberg is assuming that some
of these people will not drink anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Absolutely, that's why the whole
package, particularly with the therapeutic courts - the other
provision we have there - we believe that we will make progress in
rehabilitation and treatment."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how the rehabilitated individuals will be
treated in contrast to the habitual offenders that continue to
drink and what benefit the rehabilitated individual will get from
complying. He said the loss of a person's license often affects
that person's ability to earn a living.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed but suggested the person could get a
temporary license to get to and from work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed and said CSHB 4(FIN)am does not provide
for a temporary license for that 10-year period.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the bill has provisions with regard to
driving with a revoked license that trigger other suspensions for
longer periods of time or whether everything is tied to a DUI
conviction.
MS. SEITZ said the latter.
SENATOR DONLEY said his concern about Section 21 is that the court
has standards for an affirmative defense if a person acts out of
fear. He believes the statute sets out the tests for that
standard, yet Section 21 doesn't seem to have any trigger tests at
all. It appears that anyone could assert that they acted in fear
of domestic violence and would automatically be exempted from the
provisions of the bill. He asked Mr. Guaneli to comment.
MR. GUANELI said Senator Donley's characterization of Section 21 is
accurate. Under existing statute, a person who is forced to commit
a crime in order to avoid a greater harm has an affirmative
defense, but the person must present some evidence. The Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault did not want the domestic
violence victim to even be charged and have to provide evidence.
SENATOR DONLEY said his concern is that many of these situations
will involve spouses who use the same vehicle. CSHB 4(FIN)am seems
set up to allow abuse of the law, whereas if one was required to
follow the normal law [affirmative defense], some sort of measure
is involved.
MR. GUANELI agreed that is a possibility. He said he would prefer
to rely on the existing law which involves necessity and duress.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Representative Rokeberg to clarify his
statement that he lost a vote on the floor on a provision he was
trying to change.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that provision pertained to mandatory
versus discretionary forfeiture. He said the floor vote changed it
back to discretionary.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for an example of a case in which a
person's vehicle would be impounded or sold.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, excluding an offense in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, under existing law, law enforcement officials will
impound the vehicle initially when a person is arrested. CSHB
4(FIN)am will provide for the confiscation of plates and the
release of the vehicle with a temporary permit. After adjudication
and the finding, the judge could require confiscation if the
offense is a second or third.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the vehicle has to be registered in the
offender's name.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believes the offender has to have
an ownership interest in the vehicle.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said for a first offense, the spouse would have
to get the vehicle re-registered in his or her name, thereafter,
the offender would be driving a borrowed car. He asked if the
judge would have the latitude to seize the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he doesn't believe so, which is one
reason he didn't want the civil procedures used in Anchorage and
Fairbanks. In Anchorage and Fairbanks they use a civil action.
SENATOR THERRIAULT's next comment was inaudible.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said under current statute a person has the
right to assert ownership.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Representative Rokeberg if he has statistical
information from the District Attorney's Office or the court system
on the actual days of sentence being given on average by the courts
in the state for a first, second, and third offense.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has not seen the actual number of
days, but he found the prosecuting community to be frustrated that
the court system has tended to default to the lowest minimum
sentence it can impose.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted, "Well, the previous low minimums were 120 -
you've gone up to 180, 240 - you've gone to 360, 360 was the
minimum before - you've now gone to 440." He asked whether
Representative Rokeberg had any information to show that sentencing
was occurring at those levels or below.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has a sentencing report but he
could not recollect the amount of time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said Representative Rokeberg also came up with an
extensive list for seven different standards for first, second,
third, fourth, and more offenses. He pointed out the existing law
requires not less than 60, 120, 240, and 360 days for those
offenses. He asked Representative Rokeberg if he found that the
court system was not increasing the fines.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that one reason for stepped up
fines in the bill was that they were recommended by the DUI task
force in Anchorage. Also, during substantial discussions in
committees, there was a feeling that the recommendation of the
confiscation of a permanent fund dividend would be a good
deterrent. However, because of priority lists for permanent fund
dividends, the committee decided to use an equivalent amount or
close to it to catch people's attention at the first offense.
Members decided on $1500 for a first offense and raised the others
from there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he asked because he wondered if Representative
Rokeberg had information showing the courts were sentencing at
lower amounts than that or at such low amounts he felt it was
important to impose the additional mandatory minimums.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is from anecdotal evidence he
received from prosecutors. He noted, "There was a regular time,
particularly because of using [indisc.] credits for time served and
defaulting to the minimum allowable, that's what they would use."
He also pointed out that in response to a comment made by Mr.
McCune, the public defender, a provision was added to the bill that
allows a judge to reduce the fine by half.
SENATOR DONLEY referred to Section 21, and pointed out that AS
18.66.990 is the definition of domestic violence that contains a
list of the elements of domestic violence, one is making repeated
phone calls at extremely inconvenient hours. He said if a person
one formerly dated was inebriated and called at an inconvenient
hour and asked to borrow a car, the loaner would have a foolproof
defense for doing so. He questioned whether that is good public
policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded:
Let me just explain what happened there. We had - this
is the enabling section of the law. It's already
existing law. There's a recommendation of the DUI task
force that we make that tougher so the original draft of
the bill had a tougher section in here. What happened
is, the committee didn't like that and then the domestic
violence people came in before the committee and asked
that we adopt this. So we did a complete flip-flop
there. It was like one of those - a little bit of a last
minute thing so, Mr. Chairman, I'm not married to that
and I agree with [Senator] Donley if it's not appropriate
at all...."
Number 1711
SENATOR DONLEY moved to delete Section 21 [Amendment 2].
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced that with no objection, Amendment 2 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the standard will not be
lowered by Amendment 2 because the common law defense remains.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that the proponents of Section 21 will have
an opportunity to provide more balanced language and present it to
the Senate Finance Committee.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SCS CSHB 4(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations.
SENATOR THERRIAULT objected and asked for the total amount of all
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they amount to about $3.5 million with
the five percent assumption that pertains to the .08 BAC. He
pointed out that is the net amount because the bill will generate
revenue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated with no objection, SCS CSHB 4(JUD) moves
from committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|