Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/05/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| HB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 5, 2007
1:40 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:40:13 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Richard Foster
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Pawlowski, Staff, Co-Chair Meyer; Dirk Moffatt,
Staff, Representative Bob Lynn; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant
Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Doug Wooliver, Administrative
Attorney, Alaska Court System
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Narda Butler, Anchorage; Babette Miller, Smart Start Alaska,
LLC; Duane Bannock, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration; Lieutenant Rodney Dial, Alaska
State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
SUMMARY
HB 19 "An Act relating to ignition interlock limited
driver's license privileges."
CSHB 19(JUD) was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 7 "An Act relating to false caller identification."
CSHB 7(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with the following fiscal
notes: zero note #1 by the Department of
Administration, zero note # 2 by the Department of
Law, indeterminate note # 3 by the Department of
Public Safety, and new zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Administration, Department of
Correction, Department of Law, and Alaska Court
System.
HJR 10 Relating to reauthorization of federal funding for
children's health insurance; and encouraging the
Governor to support additional funding for and
access to children's health insurance.
HJR 10 was scheduled but not heard.
1:40:19 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to ignition interlock limited driver's
license privileges."
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, CO-CHAIR MEYER, explained that HB
19 was the result of concerns brought to the sponsor by a
constituent. He related the current process to obtain a
limited license, which is based on having employment, and
limits where one can drive. The ignition interlock limited
license works by testing for blood alcohol and preventing
the car from starting. There are two vendors in Alaska.
This bill requires any limited license granted to require an
ignition interlock device on the car. He referred to
successes with the use of such a device in Canada. The bill
provides an opportunity to drive legally and safely.
Representative Nelson asked who bears the cost for the
device. Mr. Pawlowski replied that the offender would bear
the cost of installing and maintaining the device.
Representative Nelson asked if the car has to be new. Mr.
Pawlowski thought it would work with all vehicles. He added
that the court has the ability to reduce a person's fines by
the cost of the device. Representative Nelson asked if it
is hard to find a vendor to install them in remote Alaska.
Mr. Pawlowski reported that vendors do fly to the villages
and are located all around the state.
1:45:20 PM
Representative Gara voiced a concern about adequate service
of future vendors. He proposed to draft an amendment that
would address the problem of vendors not able or willing to
fly to a small community.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested hearing from the vendors first.
Representative Thomas asked about the various degrees of
revocation. Mr. Pawlowski explained license suspensions as
they apply to ignition interlock limited licenses. The
first offense is a 90-day revocation and a limited license
cannot be issued during the first 30 days of that
revocation. On the second offense, it is 90 days before a
limited license can be obtained. Representative Thomas
asked about the third offense. Mr. Pawlowski replied that
it depends on when the last DUI was given. Representative
Thomas wondered if a person with multiple convictions should
be able to use a locking device. He thought the penalty
should be stronger.
1:49:24 PM
Mr. Pawlowski referred to page 3, lines 14 and 15 of the
bill, to explain that if a person violates when having an
ignition interlock limited license, they are not able to
ever get another one. This bill provides that concept in
statute.
Co-Chair Meyer summarized that some offenders are driving to
places other than work and some are offending again. This
bill helps ensure that the person is driving when sober, no
matter where they drive.
Co-Chair Chenault indicated that the penalty for tampering
with the device is to not ever be able to use the device
again. Mr. Pawlowski said that is correct. Co-Chair
Chenault asked if tampering with the device is a Class A
misdemeanor. Mr. Pawlowski said yes.
1:51:42 PM
Representative Joule asked if the bill presumes ownership of
a vehicle. Mr. Pawlowski said it applies to a vehicle that
is being operated. Representative Joule provided an example
of a person who drives someone else's vehicle. Mr.
Pawlowski explained that a device would have to be installed
on a family member's vehicle.
1:53:20 PM
Representative Gara noted two parts to the bill, during the
license revocation period and after, as a possible condition
of probation. He wondered if a standard for the court is
removed in HB 19, and if a judge should still have
discretion to refuse the use of the ignition interlock
limited license. Mr. Pawlowski explained that there are two
entities that grant a limited license. He thought there was
a difference between when the court and when the DMV granted
a limited license. He thought the limitation on "safety of
the public" was not put on DMV. He offered to provide more
information.
Representative Crawford asked how the crime of refusal is
handled in this bill. Mr. Pawlowski said that was looked at
and the current system was mirrored. He explained that this
device is a safety factor.
1:58:03 PM
NARDA BUTLER, ANCHORAGE, spoke in favor of HB 19. She
referred to research that shows people who have been
convicted of a DUI still have a need to drive. She
considers this device preventative. She recalled Rodney
Hebert who has acquired sobriety, but still cannot drive.
This bill would benefit his ability to become a more
productive member of society.
BABETTE MILLER, SMART START ALASKA, LLC, explained that the
ignition interlock device can be installed on any vehicle,
except for snowmobiles and ATV's.
Representative Nelson repeated her question about serving
remote areas. Ms. Miller reported that the devices are
currently being installed in remote communities.
Representative Nelson asked if the offender pays for the
airfare. Ms. Miller explained that her business absorbs the
travel expense. Ms. Miller explained how the communities
are served.
2:05:48 PM
Representative Gara asked about the order of installation.
Ms. Miller reported that they do two at a time.
Representative Gara asked if they would install for only one
person. Ms. Miller said yes. Representative Gara inquired
about installation costs. Ms. Miller said $100 is charged
for the installation on the road system, $150 if they have
to fly to a community.
Representative Gara asked how the charge is determined for
remote communities. Ms. Miller replied that it is
negotiated in their contract.
2:09:34 PM
Representative Gara asked how well the devices perform in
cold temperatures. Ms. Miller reported that the
breathalyzer can be disconnected and taken inside if it is
too cold; otherwise it takes a couple of minutes to warm up
before an individual can blow into it.
Representative Gara asked where the installation locations
are. Ms. Miller responded, Anchorage, Kenai, Homer,
Fairbanks, Valdez, Sitka, Ketchikan, Juneau, Dillingham,
Kodiak, and any other requests.
Co-Chair Meyer asked who other the vendor is. Ms. Miller
said Alaska Monitoring. Co-Chair Meyer asked for an
explanation of their working relationship and Ms. Miller
complied.
In response to a question from Representative Nelson, Ms.
Miller explained how the device works and its cost.
2:14:50 PM
Mr. Pawlowski reported that the statute currently does not
allow a person to get a limited license if they have a
refusal conviction.
Representative Gara wondered if there are limits to when an
ignition interlock device could be obtained.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
reported that it is at the court's discretion. She agreed
that there were no standards stating whether or not to allow
the interlock device. It does not require a finding with
regard to public safety.
Mr. Pawloski reported that AS 28.15.201(a) addresses the
issue and references AS 28.15.181(b).
2:17:34 PM
Representative Gara suggested putting language in which
would allow a certain standard of safety. Ms. Carpeneti
referred to pages 2 and 3 of the bill. She explained that
those conditions under Section 3, (1), (2), (3), and (4),
allow for a certain standard of safety when granting a
limited license under HB 19. Under AS 28.15.201(a), it
cross references AS 28.15.181(b). She offered to research
this further. Ms. Pawloski noted that AS 28.15.201(a) is
not repealed, but AS 28.15.201(d) is. Further discussion of
the statutes ensued.
Representative Gara suggested language that might help. Mr.
Pawlowski replied that the limitation suggested does not
currently exist.
2:20:07 PM
Representative Nelson asked who is alerted if someone fails
the test. Mr. Pawlowski replied that there is a monitoring
system in place recorded by the computer and sent to the
Department of Corrections.
Representative Thomas wondered if an intoxicated person in a
vehicle with a key in the ignition violates the law. Ms.
Carpeneti said that situation would qualify as a violation.
2:23:09 PM
Representative Stoltze asked if the Department of Public
Safety should bear the cost of this device. Co-Chair Meyer
noted the cost of special equipment and personnel. He
recalled the costs of a DUI to an offender.
Co-Chair Chenault asked what effect this would have on
commercial licenses or motorcycle endorsements. In the case
of commercial licenses, Mr. Pawlowski thought that would
have to be worked out with the employer.
DUANE BANNOCK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, responded to Co-Chair
Chenault's question. He noted that this device is not
allowed with a commercial driver's license. A motorcycle
would have to be equipped with the device if a person were
to drive it.
Ms. Miller reported that the devices are not able to be
installed on motorcycles, snowmobiles, or ATV's. She added
that the device is plastic, not metal.
Mr. Pawlowski thought that persons with only a motorcycle
would not be allowed to drive.
2:29:42 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 3, line 16
Insert:
(5) The ignition interlock limited license is not
granted during the first 30 days of the period of
revocation.
Representative Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Mr. Pawlowski explained the intent of the amendment is to
not grant the ignition interlock limited license for the
first 30 days of revocation.
Representative Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:31:22 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 11.76.140 is amended to read:
Sec. 11.76.140. Avoidance of ignition interlock
device. (a) A person commits the crime of avoidance of
ignition interlock device if the person [MAY NOT]
knowingly
(1) circumvents [CIRCUMVENT] or tampers
[TAMPER] with an ignition interlock device in a manner
intended to allow a person on probation under
AS 12.55.102, with a condition of sentence under
AS 12.55.102, or who has an ignition interlock limited
license to avoid using the device; [OR]
(2) rents [RENT, LOAN, OR LEASE] a motor
vehicle to a person and with criminal negligence
disregards the fact that the person is on probation
under AS 12.55.102, has a condition of sentence under
AS 12.55.102, or has an ignition interlock limited
license, unless the vehicle is equipped with an
ignition interlock device described in AS 12.55.102; or
(3) loans a motor vehicle to a person and
recklessly disregards the fact that the person is on
probation under AS 12.55.102, has a condition of
sentence under AS 12.55.102, or has an ignition
interlock limited license, unless the vehicle is
equipped with an ignition interlock device described in
AS 12.55.102.
(b) Avoidance of ignition interlock device
(1) under (a)(1) of this section is a class
A misdemeanor;
(2) under (a)(2) or (3) of this section is
[NOTWITHSTANDING AS 11.81.250, A PERSON CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF] a class B
misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment
of not more than [THE MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT THAT
MAY BE IMPOSED IS] 30 days and a [THE MAXIMUM] fine of
not more than [THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS] $500."
Representative Stoltze OBJECTED.
Mr. Pawlowski noted the need to amend Amendment 2, line 12,
to delete "disregards the fact".
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 as described.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Mr. Pawlowski explained that the Judiciary Committee, when
the issue of tampering with the device was brought up,
brought the existing statute into HB 19. Language about
renting, loaning, and leasing of vehicles is on page 1,
lines 12-14, and on page 2, line 1. Mr. Pawlowski related
the content of the three subsections on page 1 of the bill.
2:34:22 PM
Co-Chair Meyer questioned if it is the same offense as
described under a revoked license. Mr. Pawlowski clarified
that the current penalty in statute was kept as depicted on
page 2, lines 2-6. In response to a question by Co-Chair
Meyer, Mr. Pawlowski agreed that the intent is to prevent
someone who knowingly loans or rents a car without a device
to a person who is required to use one.
Representative Stoltze suggested that "knowingly" should be
included on line 16 as part of the amendment. Co-Chair
Meyer agreed.
Mr. Pawlowski read lines 11-15, "rents a motor vehicle to a
person and with criminal negligence that the person is on
probation under AS 12.55.102, has a condition of sentence
under AS 12.55.102, or has an ignition interlock limited
license, unless the vehicle is equipped with an ignition
interlock device as described in AS 12.55.102".
Ms. Carpeneti restated line 12 without "and".
Co-Chair Meyer clarified that "and" and "disregards the
fact" were being removed in line 12, and "knowingly" is
replacing "recklessly" in line 16.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the
amendment to Amendment 2. He reserved the right to revisit
the amendment before the bill passes from committee.
Representative Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment
2.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:38:46 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
Page 2, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding (f) of this section, in cases
where a person does not live in a place connected by
public highway to a business that installs interlock
devices and it is not feasible for the person to have
an interlock device installed, a person may apply to
the [A] court revoking the [A] driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license
under AS 28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking
the [A] driver's license, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c),
for limited license privileges, and the court or
department may grant limited license privileges if
(1) the revocation was for a misdemeanor
conviction under AS 28.35.030(a) and not for a
violation of AS 28.35.032;
(2) the person has
(A) not been previously convicted and
the limited license is not granted during the
first 30 days of the period of revocation;
(B) been previously convicted, the
limited license is not granted during the first 90
days of the period of revocation, and
(i) the person has successfully
completed a court-ordered treatment program
under AS 28.35.028 or former AS 28.35.030(p);
or
(ii) the court or department
requires the person to use an ignition
interlock device during the period of the
limited license;
(3) the court or the department determines
that
(A) the person's ability to earn a
livelihood would be severely impaired without a
limited license; or
(B) the person has successfully
completed a court-ordered treatment program
described under AS 28.35.028 or former
AS 28.35.030(p) and the person's ability to earn a
livelihood, attend school, or provide for family
health would be severely impaired without a
limited license;
(4) the court or the department determines
that a limitation under (a) of this section can be
placed on the license that will enable the person to
earn a livelihood without excessive danger to the
public;
(5) the court or the department determines
that the person is enrolled in and is in compliance
with or has successfully completed the alcoholism
screening, evaluation, referral, and program
requirements of the Department of Health and Social
Services under AS 28.35.030(h); and
(6) the person has not been previously
convicted under AS 28.15.291(a)(2), AS 28.35.030, or
28.35.032 while driving or operating a vehicle,
aircraft, or watercraft under a limited license issued
under this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(f) [AS 28.15.201(d)]"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(d) or (f)"
Page 4, line 4:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(f) [AS 28.15.201(d)]"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(d) or (f)"
Page 5, line 2:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(d) and 28.15.201(e) are"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(e) is"
Representative Gara explained that Amendment 3 respects the
policy call of the bill that the interlock device should
replace the limited license requirement, but it carves a
narrow exception for rural areas.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that he does not oppose the amendment.
He asked for clarification of "feasible". Representative
Gara thought the court could decide.
2:41:32 PM
Representative Hawker thought that feasible meant possible.
He suggested "practicable" instead of feasible.
Representative Gara agreed.
Representative Stoltze asked for a definition of "public
highway".
Representative Hawker withdrew the suggestion of using
"practicable".
Ms. Carpeneti said that in Amendment 3, as drafted, Juneau
would qualify as a place not connected by public highway to
a business that installs interlock devices.
Representative Stoltze asked if the amendment provides a
loophole exempting someone from a rural area having to have
the device. Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the amendment
appears to provide an alternative - to request a limited
license. Representative Stoltze asked if that would apply
to driving only in the community with limited access. Ms.
Carpeneti said no.
2:45:31 PM
Representative Gara provided a hypothetical situation.
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
suggested ensuring that the language depicts the intent of
the bill so that the court can carry out the legislature's
will.
Co-Chair Meyer said that though he agrees with the idea, he
thinks the amendment is not needed.
Representative Thomas noted the extreme distance from a
vendor of two communities in his district.
Representative Nelson voiced appreciation of the ideas in
the amendment.
Co-Chair Chenault pointed out that persons from Skagway and
Haines could not cross the border to drive to a vendor.
Representative Gara thought there might be problems in rural
areas concerning HB 19. He agreed to withdraw the amendment
and work on the language.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 3.
2:50:11 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4:
On Page 3, line 15
After "license."
Insert:
"The court may not provide the grant of this privilege
to the person if it would, under all the circumstances,
endanger the public's safety."
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Gara spoke of a concern about "endangering
public safety" and wanted to give the court the option to
grant the license or not.
Co-Chair Meyer voiced concern about the timing of the
court's involvement. Mr. Pawlowski pointed out that DMV
would also have to be involved because of the role they play
in granting limited licenses. He termed it a policy call.
Representative Hawker found fault with the language "without
excessive danger".
Co-Chair Meyer also objected to Amendment 4.
Representative Stoltze suggested bringing the bill back at a
later date.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 4.
CSHB 19(JUD) was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
2:56:30 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
Representative Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft CSHB 7,
labeled 25-LS0057\O, Bannister, 2/26/07. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
DIRK MOFFATT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, explained the
changes to the committee substitute.
3:00:55 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted four new zero fiscal notes: Department
of Law, Department of Administration, Department of
Corrections, and Alaska Court System.
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, explained the Department of Public Safety's
indeterminate fiscal note. He explained that $10,000 would
go to train an investigator and a technician, $6,000 would
be for a forensic work station, and $8,000 would be for
software costs.
3:02:33 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned if $25,000 would be an ongoing
annual cost. Mr. Dial noted that investigators would have
recertification costs in order to stay current and affirmed
that the $25,000 would be ongoing.
Representative Stoltze MOVED to report CSHB 7 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 7(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with the following fiscal notes: zero
note #1 by the Department of Administration, zero note # 2
by the Department of Law, indeterminate note # 3 by the
Department of Public Safety, and new zero fiscal notes by
the Department of Administration, Department of Correction,
Department of Law, and Alaska Court System.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|