Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/09/1999 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 1999
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for
violations of municipal ordinances."
- MOVED HB 43 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a
child."
- MOVED CSHB 34(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 99(FIN)
"An Act to clarify the meaning of 'decennial census of the United
States' in art. VI, Constitution of the State of Alaska, to prevent
discrimination in the redistricting of the house of representatives
and the senate, and to prohibit expenditures of public funds for
population surveys or sampling for certain purposes relating to
legislative redistricting without an appropriation."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the nomination, selection, appointment, and public
approval or rejection of justices of the supreme court and of
judges of courts established by the legislature that have as an
exclusive purpose the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over
judicial acts and proceedings, and requiring legislative
confirmation of those justices and judges.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to use of eavesdropping and recording devices by
peace officers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 64 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 64 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
1/22/99 64 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)
1/22/99 64 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/04/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/04/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
2/05/99 142 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
2/05/99 142 (H) DP: DYSON, MORGAN, HARRIS, MURKOWSKI,
2/05/99 142 (H) HALCRO; NR: KOOKESH
2/05/99 142 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)
1/22/99
3/15/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/17/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/17/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/08/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/09/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE: MUNI. ORDINANCES: POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99
1/19/99 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 29 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
3/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/04/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/04/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
3/05/99 358 (H) CRA RPT 7DP
3/05/99 359 (H) DP: JOULE, HARRIS, KOOKESH, MORGAN,
3/05/99 359 (H) DYSON, MURKOWSKI, HALCRO
3/05/99 359 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (DCRA, DPS)
4/09/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 34
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 27 (H) JUDICIARY
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD/SUBCOMMITTEE
4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/08/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/09/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/22/99 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/22/99 531 (H) JUD
3/24/99 562 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN
3/29/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/29/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/07/99 (H) TABLED
4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/08/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/08/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/09/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General
Special Litigation Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
BRAD THOMPSON, Director
Division of Risk Management
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110218
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0218
Telephone: (907) 465-5723
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Gary Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4457
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement to HB 43.
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4378
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 43.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2199
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 34.
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 34 and HB 151.
LOREN JONES, Director
Central Office
Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110607
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0607
Telephone: (907) 465-2071
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
RONALD JORDAN
8170 Woodgreen Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 344-6302
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
KEVIN HYDE, President
Good Legislation Assures Democracy (G.L.A.D.)
P.O. Box 105
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4889
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
VIRGINIA ESPENSHADE, Executive Director
Kenai Peninsula Youth Court
3691 Ben Walters Lane, Number 3
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7575
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
LINDA WRIGHT
P.O. Box 105
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4889
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
JACK HARSHFIELD
203 Ocean Drive Loop, Number 16
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7641
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott. The rest of the members arrived at some
time after the call to order.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 1:06 p.m. to establish
a quorum and called the meeting back to order at 1:16 p.m.
HB 57 - STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HB 57, "An
Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state, a
municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either, arising
out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there is a committee substitute for HB 57
[1-GH1005\G, Ford, 4/8/99].
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that Gail Voigtlander from the Department of
Law is on the teleconference network. He asked her to comment on
the committee substitute.
Number 0184
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. The committee substitute changes
the state back to immunity without a qualifier, a concept brought
in from HB 82. Her only comment is that this would make summary
disposition difficult. If there are issues of fact involved, under
Alaska law, they are not susceptible to summary adjudication.
Number 0415
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to a memorandum dated April 9, 1999 from
Michael F. Ford [Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency] to Representative Pete Kott, and stated
it is the opinion of Mr. Ford that regional educational attendance
areas (REAA'S) are under the definition of the term "state". They
would, therefore, have blanket immunity. He asked Representative
Rokeberg whether that addresses his concern.
Number 0457
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it is helpful, but it depends on
how the totality of the bill ends up.
Number 0539
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he is fine with making the legal opinion
of Mr. Ford as part of the record. He had a case that went all the
way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and lost on the issue of
whether REAA'S are an instrumentality of the state for the purposes
of a federal statute. It is really not as clean as the memorandum
suggests, but if the statute is clear, in this case, it is
sufficient.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is crystal clear in the memorandum that
REAA'S are considered part of the term "state" as an
instrumentality of it.
Number 0609
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to offer Amendment 8. It reads
as follows:
Page 3, line 9, following "others"
Insert: "The immunity provided in this section applies
unless the affected party shows by clear and convincing
evidence that the state did not use good faith efforts to
avoid the failure that caused the damages claimed in the
civil action. As used in this section, the state
establishes its good faith efforts as a matter of law if
it has made efforts to identify, test, and develop
contingency plans for critical systems."
Page 4, line 23, following "municipality"
Insert: "The immunity provided in this section applies
unless the affected party shows by clear and convincing
evidence that the municipality did not use good faith
efforts to avoid the failure that caused the damages
claimed in the civil action. As used in this section,
the municipality establishes its good faith efforts as a
matter of law if it has made efforts to identify, test,
and develop contingency plans for critical systems."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that there is an error to the page 4
portion of the amendment. It should read, "Page 4, line 29,
following 'law'". In addition, all material through page 5, line
21, to the end of the sentence should be deleted after the word
"law". The amendment would in effect give a municipality the same
sort of immunity as the state, if it shows the same sort of
reasonable actions.
Number 0919
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to amend Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted an error to the page 3 portion of the
amendment. It should read, "Page 3, line 9, following 'others'".
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection to amending
Amendment 8. There being no objection, it was so moved.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Amendment 8, as amended, removes a litany
of things that aren't necessary. Lists, in general, are not a good
idea because something usually will be omitted creating a loophole.
By going back to the original intent of reasonable efforts, the
state would be immune from litigation and the onus would be put on
the person claiming the damages. That same immunity would also
prevail to municipalities because of the discussion on the
unfairness of providing immunity for the state, but not for the
municipalities.
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the intent of the language in HB
82 is not to be specific as to the performance of a particular
element in the list. Amendment 8, as amended, is more specific by
calling for the identification, testing, and development of
contingency plans for critical systems. It also sets up a
different standard of showing clear and convincing evidence. He
wants to divide the question. The state is already in progress.
It obviates the need, otherwise it could generate lawsuits.
Number 1217
BRAD THOMPSON, Director, Division of Risk Management, Department of
Administration, testified in Juneau. There has been a lot of
testimony on the need for a clean and efficient method for the
state or a municipality to extricate itself from litigation
cost-effectively. It is an issue of making it a matter of law by
showing the efforts set forth. The inequity argument between the
state and a municipality is for the legislature to consider.
Number 1312
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the amendment comes closer to
requiring clear and convincing evidence. It also makes it a matter
of law, if the state or a municipality shows efforts. She asked
Ms. Voigtlander whether she is more comfortable with that standard.
Number 1338
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied, obviously, no qualification is the first
preference, but it addresses virtuous claims in a form more
consistent with immunity laws. That being, testing the immunity
early on without having to go to discovery or preparing and
presenting a jury trial. The amendment provides for clear and
convincing evidence, which is a higher standard than preponderance
of evidence. It also provides that the state or a municipality
establishes good faith efforts as a matter of law. If adopted, the
legislative history would show that it would be accomplished
summarily with a summary judgment rather than having to go to
trial.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to divide the question
between Page 3, line 9; and Page 4, line 29.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. The same standards should apply to
the state and the municipalities for the reasons that the committee
members have discussed: "What's good for the goose is good for the
gander."
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives
Rokeberg and Kott voted in favor of the motion. Representatives
Green, Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula voted against the motion. The
motion failed by a vote of 2-4.
Number 1507
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, given the testimony today, he
believes that the state and Administration prefers a clean immunity
by making a distinction between the matters of fact and law which
is why he wanted to divide the question. On the other hand, he can
support it, if the committee wishes, because it makes a different
type of standard for municipal governments than what would be
applicable in HB 82 for the private sector.
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, "You want this to be a question of
law, if you're going to do anything with the state because you
don't want to have to go to jury. So, whether or not the
government can prove it as a matter of fact, technically what you
want to do is prove it as a matter of law. And, you want to allow
the state to come in without having to go through lengthy
discovery, which is what Ms. Voigtlander was describing and why the
costs go up so hard. And, I think, that the state's going to be
able to meet this. And, if they can't, they've missed something
pretty significant. So, that's--that's why I--I think it's fair to
keep them together. I think we've made great efforts to--I think
they can meet this standard. As far as the municipalities go, if
they haven't done this, they're not gonna get knocked out and
they'll gonna have to go to the trier of fact, and it--and it
manages very nicely to encompass the real--the real heart of our
concerns."
Number 1622
MS. VOIGTLANDER said the language as well as the legislative intent
demonstrates that this is to be decided as a matter of law, as a
preliminary matter to effectuate the purpose behind immunity: to
keep the public officials and coffers from having to diminish
resources for litigation rather than other matters. She also noted
that Amendment 8, as amended, is consistent with the first
committee substitute.
Number 1679
CHAIRMAN KOTT reminded the committee members that 120 of 200
critical systems of the state are still out of compliance.
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this allows for litigation against
municipalities for those who have not exercised the hurdles in the
bill. If they don't, they lose their immunity and stand on their
own.
Number 1733
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he hopes that the state is making a reasonable
effort to bring those 120 critical systems into compliance,
otherwise the state will be subject to the "bye, bye budget pie."
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the adoption of Amendment 8, as
amended, assures that there will be litigation against the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he disagrees.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives Green,
Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Rokeberg and Kott voted against the motion. The
motion passed by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move the committee
substitute to HB 57, as amended, from the committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no
objection, CSHB 57(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
HB 43 - MUNI. ORDINANCES: POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 43, "An
Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for violations
of municipal ordinances."
Number 1881
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Gary Davis, Alaska State Legislature, said last year
the legislature passed a bill that expanded the crimes for which
surcharges are imposed, and increased the amount of those
surcharges to go to the Police Training Fund. There is concern
that part of the statute can be interpreted to apply to civil
penalties as well as criminal violations. There is also concern
that a municipality is not able to enforce an entire ordinance
rather than just the penalty for a violation of an ordinance. This
bill is a housekeeping effort to clarify those issues. Section 1
more specifically states that only criminal violations have a
surcharge imposed upon them. Section 2 makes it very clear that a
penalty for a violation of an ordinance may not be imposed unless
the municipality has passed an ordinance to authorize it.
Number 1955
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Davidson whether she is aware of anyone in
the Kenai Legislative Information Office (LIO) wanting to testify.
He noted that there was a request from that office to accommodate
some people.
MS. DAVIDSON replied she knows that the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
attorney was interested in testifying. She is the one who
originally brought the issue to Representative Davis. She was
going to try to be at the Kenai LIO in the event of questions.
Number 1984
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 1:50 p.m. and called
the meeting back to order at 1:51 p.m.
Number 2001
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Department of Public Safety, testified in Juneau. He declared his
support of HB 43.
Number 2051
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Shaw to give some examples of
misdemeanors where there aren't sentences of incarcerations that
could now have this surcharge.
Number 2063
MR. SHAW replied reckless driving is an example. There is such a
broad range of misdemeanors that he would have to look at
specifics.
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said this is talking about the low-level
misdemeanors.
MR. SHAW indicated yes.
Number 2124
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 43 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, HB 43 was so moved from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 34 - REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 34, "An
Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a
child."
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there is a proposed committee substitute
and called for a motion to adopt it.
Number 2174
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 34 [1-LS0241\G, Luckhaupt, 4/8/99].
There being no objection, it was so moved.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Dyson, sponsor of the bill;
and, Mr. Gerald Luckhaupt, drafter of the bill.
Number 2245
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, thanked the
committee members for their diligent efforts. He took the concerns
of the committee members and the result is the proposed committee
substitute.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Luckhaupt whether the phrase,
"punishable as a felony", encompasses sexual assault.
GERALD LUCKAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, replied there are only three forms of
sexual assault and they are all felonies. Sexual assault is
nonconsensual.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted he is confusing it with sexual abuse
of a minor.
MR. LUCKAUPT said there are five forms of sexual abuse of a minor,
and it doesn't look at consent.
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 1, line 9, of the bill and
asked Mr. Luckaupt to explain the phrase, "by another".
MR. LUCKAUPT replied it means by a person other than the person who
committed the crime. It alleviates the concerns of incriminating
one's self.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted the phrase, "by another", is legal
drafting terminology.
Number 2355
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the affirmative defense and
noted that witnessing a sexual assault is after the fact. She is
troubled by the word "and" on page 2, line 5, of the bill.
Number 2384
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said according to her logic she would also
have a problem with the phrase, "or an attempt to commit one of
those crimes", on page 1, starting on line 8, of the bill. He
wants to stop the crime. He stopped a kidnapping that he thought
was going to end up in sexual assault. He got right in the middle,
which is what he wants folks to do.
Number 2430
MR. LUCKHAUPT said, according to the committee's discussion
yesterday, if a person tried to stop an offense and failed of which
there was a death, the committee didn't want that person to walk
away without reporting it. In addition, if a person attempts to
stop a sexual assault, there is sexual contact and penetration. It
can conceivably be stopped before it is completed.
TAPE 99-26, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. LUCKHAUPT continued. That is why he tied it into a two-step
process.
Number 0023
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Dyson whether he reported
the crime that he stopped.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the police showed up and put all the
parties in jail.
Number 0039
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, if a person stops a murder, that person
hasn't stopped an attempted murder. He asked whether that person
would be obligated to report it.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied yes.
Number 0062
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there almost has to have the language
"stopped" or else a person could be an accessory to a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "That is excellent insight."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it still troubles him, however.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said it is more complicated than that. They are two
different concepts.
Number 0137
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified in
Juneau. In working with the sponsor, it was the department's
intent to keep it as limited as possible because of all the
problems that have been discussed in this committee. She noted,
yesterday, it was just murder and kidnapping and today it is sexual
assault and felonious assaults. The problem is, the victim
specifically needs to be excluded from requiring to testify. This
bill does not do that. For example, rape and assault would be
required to be reported by the victim at this point when it ought
to be the choice of a victim, even though the victim is a child.
She would prefer to leave it at murder and kidnapping so that the
problems discussed would be limited to those particular offenses.
The language, "by another", is for the person who commits the
crime. It does not require the defendant to report the crime.
This doesn't exclude the victims from having the responsibility to
report the crime.
Number 0197
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said prior testimony indicated that the
phrase, "by another", was someone other than the victim.
MS. CARPENETI said the person who is the victim is also a witness
to the crime. The phrase, "by another", excludes the
responsibility of the perpetrator from reporting a crime.
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested inserting the phrase, "by another
not the victim", on page 1, line 9, of the bill.
MS. CARPENETI suggested inserting the phrase, "a person other than
the victim", on page 1, line 6, of the bill.
Number 0241
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it poses a problem that needs to be
fixed.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said many murder victims would not be charged.
Number 0264
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that concern has been with the bill since it was
introduced in the House. It was felt by Legislative Legal and
Research Services [Legislative Affairs Agency] that there was
enough distinction between a person and a child that the victim has
to be a child. Senate Bill 5 deals with crimes against anyone, not
just children. The language reads in the first line, "A person,
other than a victim,...". It wouldn't hurt to put that in here.
It would make it easier for a prosecutor to charge a 15-year-old
victim of sexual assault or kidnapping for not reporting an
offense. He doesn't think that would happen, but to ensure that it
doesn't happen he agreed with inserting the language suggested by
Ms. Carpeneti on line 6.
Number 0348
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said it would do no harm.
Number 0361
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered whether anybody would care that the
phrase, "by another", voids a perpetrator. In other words, would
anybody care that a perpetrator would be subject to a class A
misdemeanor?
Number 0384
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that is a marvelous point, but there are
Fifth Amendment implications of self-incrimination.
Number 0391
MR. LUCKHAUPT said he doesn't think the state could compel a
perpetrator to come forward as a witness against himself. The
federal misprision statute applied against defenders. It's easier
to say that a crime committed by someone else would avoid
prosecution. The statute is clearly constitutional in that it only
applies to persons other than the person doing the crime. At
least, it's constitutional in the aspect that it's not going to
compel someone to be a witness against himself. There is a need
for the phrase, "by another"; but, adding the phrase to page 1,
line 6, of the bill, "A person, other than the victim", doesn't
cause any harm.
Number 0493
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to insert the phrase, "other
than the victim", on line 6 between "person" and "commits". There
being no objection, it was so moved.
Number 0513
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the phrase, "by another",
should remain on line 9.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated yes.
Number 0530
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the current draft is excellent and avoids
a lot of the pitfalls. He wondered whether "attempt" should be in
the bill. If a person only sees the beginning of a crime, should
that person report it. In addition, if a person acts to stop a
crime, by definition, that person hasn't stopped the attempt, and
should the affirmative defense apply to reporting it.
Number 0600
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, if the committee comes up with a
better way to handle that, he noted he would work hard to include
it.
Number 0616
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether a person would be covered with an
affirmative defense for witnessing a child being dragged into a car
which is later determined to be a kidnapping.
Number 0635
MR. LUCKHAUPT said, if a person sees a 10-year-old child being
dragged into a car and it reasonably appears to be a kidnapping,
that person would have a duty to report it to the police. That
person could also choose to intervene. It was Representative
Dyson's desire to add elements to the offense of reporting or
aiding the victim. At this point, a witness has to call the police
and if that witness doesn't, he has committed a crime. There is an
affirmative defense if that witness wasn't able to call the police
out of fear for his own safety, of another person, or of the
failure to stop the commission of a crime.
Number 0716
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the language, "knows or reasonably should
know", is used to determine if the person is a child or not, but it
is not used to determine if there is a potential murder or
kidnapping. He suggested including that language in the witnessing
section thereby putting that same level of knowledge there as well.
It would read, "...if the person witnesses what the person knows or
reasonably should know is a murder, kidnapping,..."
Number 0776
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he assumed that ignorance would be a
positive defense.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he is not sure ignorance would be a
positive defense.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said he doesn't see why it wouldn't be available. A
jury would be instructed to look at whether or not a person would
know that he was witnessing a crime.
Number 0821
CHAIRMAN KOTT said from the standpoint of murder, sexual assault or
assault that is punishable as a felony, a person could determine
that there is some severe physical abuse that could lead to death.
He is troubled, however, with kidnapping. What about a child
screaming and yelling all the way to a car because that child's
parent just told him that there are no more amusement rides today?
A child yelling "help me" is pretty clear, but without that
verbalization it isn't as clear.
Number 0868
MR. LUCKHAUPT said Representative Croft's language covers that
concern and situations when a person is privy to certain facts.
The language would also assist the trier of fact or a prosecutor
deciding a charge under this offense.
Number 0958
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Dyson whether he would have any
objection to inserting that language to make it clear.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied no.
Number 0972
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to insert the language, "what
the person knows or reasonably should know is", on page 1, line 7
between "witnesses" and "a".
Number 1042
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the language exonerates a person
who witnesses a fearsome type of scream from a child, not
necessarily a verbalization.
Number 1082
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "What it gets us out of, the reasonably
should know, is the dumb and dumber situation. I mean, if it's not
you and me, assuming we're not dumb and dumber, standing there
looking at events that a reasonable person would know...You can't
say I was--I saw these things crying help, abuse, an attempted
murder, but I really didn't know what it was. I mean, you have
to--it's not just that you knew, you could say 'I didn't know,' but
a reasonable person would have known in that situation that this
would call for some reporting. I think it's pretty standard."
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that he suspects this law would only
be applied to the flagrant cases.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection to the motion.
There being none, it was so moved.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Luckhaupt how he expects to get
an affirmative defense with an attempt. She thinks that is
impossible. It illustrates her overall problem with the bill.
It's such a moving target that it's hard to solve all the problems,
but a person could never act to stop an attempt because it is an
"attempt." She declared it should be removed from the bill. It
would create too many problems in trying to enforce it.
Number 1225
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied the availability of an affirmative defense
for merely attempting to commit a crime - a crime that is not
completed - would be difficult. It could be worded in terms of
"attempts a crime and fails to complete it." That would avail
someone with an affirmative defense in a situation of stopping an
attempt thereby preventing the completion of the attempted crime.
It's a good question and concern.
Number 1319
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she sees what Mr. Luckhaupt is saying,
but it starts to become circular, and she's not sure how it would
work.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Luckhaupt whether he could work with that
language and incorporate it into the bill.
Number 1404
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied, conceptually, the language could read, "or
the completion of the crime that was being attempted", after the
word "crime" on page 2, line 6, of the bill. That would give a
person an affirmative defense when witnessing an attempted crime
that is stopped before the crime is completed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether everybody understands the conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she appreciates the work on it, but
she would feel better if attempt was removed from the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection to the
conceptual amendment. There being none, it was so adopted.
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move the proposed
committee substitute for HB 34 [1-LS024\G, Luckhaupt, 4/8/99], as
amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. She appreciates the intent and
effort and believes that people need to step in and do the right
thing, but there is a reason for not having laws like these, that
being confusion. Legally, she feels she has to object to the
motion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives
Rokeberg, Murkowski, Croft and Kott voted in favor of the motion.
Representative Kerttula voted against the motion. The motion
passed by a vote of 4-1. The CSHB 34(JUD), so moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 151 - REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 151, "An
Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated the committee will take up the committee
substitute for HB 151 [1-LS0492\N, Ford, 3/30/99].
Number 1815
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-east at 2:41 p.m. and called
the meeting back to order at 2:44 p.m.
Number 1844
LOREN JONES, Director, Central Office, Division of Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Social Services, came before
the committee to testify. There is a significant number of
children who continue to use and lose their driver's licenses.
Generally, when looking at a deterrent, there is a perception of
getting caught with a penalty that is swiftly applied. He's not
sure, however, that works with children because they feel they are
fairly omnipotent. Last year, the Administration sponsored SB 71
which transferred the approval of alcohol information schools from
the Division of Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] to
the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse [Department of Health and
Social Services]. The division felt that would allow it to develop
alcohol information that was age-appropriate. Right now, the only
thing available to a 16-year-old who looses his driver's license is
a school primarily for adult drunk drivers. That is not an
appropriate place for a 16-year-old to learn about the use of
alcohol and drugs or intervention. The division also proposed
funding local assessments to allow each community to work with
their courts, school systems, youth programs and prevention
programs to better intervene in that community. But, it costs
money. He noted about four years ago, Representative Porter
chaired a House task force on alcohol and one of his
recommendations was to increase the license reinstatement fee from
$100 to $250. That has passed, but for only a second offense.
Last year, the department proposed an increase for a first offense.
The revenues would have paid for a lot of the services proposed.
He further noted that HB 11 has passed, a graduated driver's
license. That bill took the principles of SB 77, but it didn't
include a fiscal note. As a result, the division now has the
responsibility for alcohol information schools without the
commensurate staff. The license reinstatement fee didn't pass, so
there is no revenue to fund local communities in order to make this
effort on their own. The division would propose looking at how to
generate services in communities to appropriately intervene the
first time; to make the penalties more meaningful to youth, based
on what a community believes is best for their children, along with
any school penalty; and, to allow the division to get seed money
out to them. The legal mechanisms are in place, in law, but there
isn't the funding even for the current "Use It, Lose It" law to
work better and to reduce the number of children committing second
and third offenses. Last year, some kids testified that they knew
of the law, but they believed that they would never get caught,
that they didn't think about it when they used it, and that it
didn't cross their minds on a Saturday night. They know about it,
but they never think about losing their driver's license. It's
more of an adult model; the kids don't see the penalty as being as
bad as adults do.
MR. JONES further said, in relation to the issue of designated
drivers, that while a person can drive at 16 years of age he or she
is not a very skilled driver. The last thing that he wanted was
his sober 16 year old with a car full of drunks. That is not a
very good position for an unskilled driver.
TAPE 99-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. JONES continued. He would appreciate a state trooper stopping
and checking out situations like that than for his child to take
that kind of risk.
Number 0060
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, as a parent, the last thing he every wanted was
his daughter or son to crawl into a car with five drunks,
especially if they were also drunk. As a parent, he would rather
have his sober daughter in a car with five drunk girlfriends than
have her read in a newspaper the next day that here friends were
killed because she didn't take the lead as a sober person and drive
them home.
Number 0126
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she has always felt that the
designated driver message is wonderful for adults, but it is
confusing for minors. She asked Mr. Jones whether he has given any
thought on taking the provisions of the "Use It, Lose It" law and
instead of revoking a driver's license requiring community work
service.
Number 0231
MR. JONES replied the communities approach that in different ways.
In small communities, such as Kotzebue, the superior court judge
handles the cases. In real small communities, the magistrate
handles them. The judge makes the intervention and typically holds
in-advance the charge until the child has completed certain aspects
of what is available in the community. In large communities, such
as Anchorage, where there are lots of judges and magistrates that
is not always possible. Often times, the district court judges
will give the kid a card of a local program, such as Volunteers of
America or Alaskans For a Drug Free Youth that might have something
to offer. In Juneau, there is a network and the district court
judge and police let the programs know which kids have been picked
up and which have been in court. The programs actively outreach to
the parents. He reiterated there are various community approaches.
They aren't consistent and there aren't any standards established.
Some operate on a shoestring budget. The division would like to
help coalesce those ideas and put together information, so that
all of the communities would be aware of how to work with the
district court judges, local police departments, and local DMV
[Division of Motor Vehicles] offices to identify these kids and
intervene early. Part of the age-appropriate education would
include some type of community work service. And, for those kids
that don't get the message the first couple of times, there would
be more of an assessment including counseling issues and long-term
treatment. There are some good models out there. The division
thinks that it could offer some funding and structure to
communities in order to help them get to more of the kids and to be
more effective.
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jones to clarify the distinction
between the larger and smaller communities.
MR. JONES replied in Kotzebue there is a single judge that hears
all the cases. That judge has taken it upon himself to make sure
that some community intervention is done with all the kids. In
Anchorage, on the other hand where there are eight to ten district
judges and two to three magistrates there isn't consistency. There
are a lot of other agencies involved as well: state troopers,
police departments, and others for example. It takes more of a
systematic approach of getting all those involved to buy into a
system. It could work in Anchorage; it would just take more of an
effort to make sure all involved are on board.
Number 0542
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Jones what would it cost to fund
an alcohol school for juveniles.
MR. JONES replied, according to the fiscal note last year, it would
cost $100,000 for the division to manage the renewal for quality
assurance and policy, and $500,000 for grants to local communities
on a competitive process. Changing the reinstatement fees would
have raised over $1 million, and the division was proposing to use
about one-half of that money.
Number 0615
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT RONALD JORDAN'S TESTIMONY WAS
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE]
RONALD JORDAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
believes that there should be an breath alcohol test required when
there is a presumption of consumption of alcohol. There seems to
be an issue of accusing those who haven't consumed any alcohol.
For example, some officers can't tell the difference between
O'Douls and Budweiser without a blood alcohol test. In addition,
he has heard that people are losing their driver's licenses for a
.003 alcohol level, which is basically one to two tablespoons of
Robitussen. Those issues could be addressed by using a breath
alcohol test. He noted for a prescribed dose of Robitussen, a
person shows up as a .003 to .005 alcohol level, but if a person
drank the bottle it shows up at .123, which is a level of
intoxication in Alaska. These issues need to be addressed and
corrected.
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jordan whether there is alcohol
in some root beer.
MR. JORDAN replied Henry Weinhard's root beer contains a one-half
of one percent alcohol level. In conducting a study of airline
passengers drinking O'Douls, Budweiser and root beer, three root
beers showed in one hour a .005 alcohol level; and three
Budweiser's showed in one hour a .076 alcohol level. According to
the state, any alcohol is a violation.
Number 1022
KEVIN HYDE, President, Good Legislation Assures Democracy
(G.L.A.D.), testified via teleconference from Kenai. He noted
G.L.A.D. was formed out of concern on AS 28.15.183, which HB 151
addresses. He is a father and is very concerned about drug and
alcohol use. However, there is a recent appeals court ruling that
determined AS 28.15.183 was unconstitutional because driver's
licenses were being removed for non-driving offenses. In addition,
there is a justice system in place that is intended to help with
the administration and enforcement of laws, but the administrative
process through the DMV is adding a double jeopardy type of
situation. The young are being subject to criminal procedures and
often being sent off as not guilty or having their cases dismissed
then having to go to a DMV hearing to be found guilty with a
revocation imposed. It is a legal situation, but it is wrong. The
40 members participating in G.L.A.D. have heard that kids are
losing their driver's license, but not taking it very seriously.
They figure that they won't get caught again or go ahead and drive
without a license. He originally had assumed that taking a
driver's license made sense, but it is not working. The testimony
yesterday [April 8, 1999] indicated that the kids are not taking it
seriously. They are being forced to obey a law that maybe they
don't understand. They don't understand when a judge finds them
innocent, but another person says that they can't have their
license. It puts a level of doubt on the justice system. He
reiterated he doesn't want kids drinking alcohol or using drugs.
He would like to see it recriminalized so that a judge is put in
charge of the situation.
Number 1309
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Hyde what he thinks would be an
effective deterrent. Has G.L.A.D. had a chance to talk to kids
affected by this, and does it have any suggestions on what to do to
encourage kids who are underage not to use alcohol?
Number 1368
MR. HYDE replied yes G.L.A.D. has had that opportunity. Some
suggestions were community service, treatment and evaluation
specific to youths, addressing needs, speaking to them on their
level, and taking away their time. For example, his kid who is
part of a cool gang would not think it is cool to wear a bright
orange suit and pick up cans. The process is such that most kids
talk to a judge via the telephone which doesn't have the same
effect as going to court. Having to face that judge, would really
get their attention. He has heard kids describe the process as a
joke.
Number 1503
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said it seems that the penalty is
invisible. Who sees a driver's license anyway and a person can
still drive as long as that person doesn't get caught. She likes
the suggestion of community service because of the importance of
image and free time being taken away compared to another revocation
that hasn't had an impact anyway.
Number 1565
MR. HYDE mentioned in quite a few bush community there aren't any
cars or a license is not required to drive.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Juanita Hensley [Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration] whether a driver's license is needed
to drive a snowmobile or a 3-wheeler.
Number 1651
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Director's Office, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, replied yes. A
vehicle does not need to be registered, however, if the village or
community has fewer than 499 average cars per day on any particular
roadway.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, based on Ms. Hensley's answer, then there
should be some impact in rural Alaska.
Number 1692
VIRGINIA ESPENSHADE, Executive Director, Kenai Peninsula Youth
Court, testified via teleconference from Kenai. She has practiced
law in Homer for the past 14 years. She is in support of parts of
the bill and in opposition to parts. She strongly supports any
legislative change that would provide young adults with a way to
earn their driver's licenses back, especially for the kids with
multiple convictions. We are setting up these young adults by
taking away any future for them. They are facing years without a
driver's license. If they can't get jobs, they can't provide for
their families. She is also in favor of using the youth courts as
judicial entities to hear these violations. In Homer, the youth
court hears minor consuming and possessing offenses and has already
adjudicated ten of them. It's an ongoing process and is being
developed as it goes. It is based on a community consensus of all
the parties involved. That understands that wouldn't work in every
community. She is concerned that the bill sets up the youth court
as an alternative administrative agency.
CHAIRMAN KOTT interjected and stated the current version of the
bill does not reference youth court.
MS. ESPENSHADE further stated that peer adjudication can be a big
part of the community response. The kids in Homer appear before
peers wearing black robes. The consequences include an essay and
community work service. She asked the committee members to
consider that when trying to fix this problem. It is up to the
legislature to fix it because it will take at least another year
for the courts to sort it out. The appeal that Mr. Jordan
referenced earlier was a two-two split, therefore, it doesn't
control any other court. The legal status of the statute is cloudy
at best. She applauded the committee members for looking at the
whole issue and asked them to look at individual communities having
input in order to solve their particular problems.
Number 1873
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he agrees that a two-two split is not binding,
but it is persuasive. He asked Ms. Espenshade to comment on a
letter dated March 10, 1999 from Linda Johnson [Legal Advisor,
Anchorage Youth Court] which indicates the youth courts do not have
the authority to act on any alcohol-related issue.
Number 1905
MR. ESPENSHADE replied, according to her understanding, Title 47
authorizes the Department of Health and Social Services to deal
with juvenile crime which excludes alcohol cases. But, according
to the (indisc.) version of Title 47, DFYS [Division of Family and
Youth Services] cannot refer alcohol cases to youth courts, but it
can refer misdemeanor cases to them, which is happening across the
state. The youth court in Homer is private and for non-profit. It
has entered into agreements with the police departments and
district attorneys, and is based on a public consensus. She agrees
that an amendment to Title 47 would make it much clearer, that it
is something the youth courts could do.
Number 1986
LINDA WRIGHT testified via teleconference from Kenai. She is
concerned about Section 6 of the bill. She wondered why there is
an age barrier at 20 because 17, 18 or 19 year olds may be in
school or have dependent children. In addition, the "more than one
year left" provision means to her that a person would have to have
at least two citations in order to be considered for reinstatement.
While she is glad to see the addition of school and dependent care
added, under these terms, a person with one citation who is 18
years old would not qualify.
Number 2075
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the application for reinstatement is filed at
least two years after the person's license, permit, or privilege
has been revoked. It was changed from one to two years.
Number 2085
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the age limit has been taken
out as well.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated those changes were a policy call made by this
committee.
MS. WRIGHT asked whether a person has to have more than two years
(indisc.--coughing) in order to qualify for a privilege of a
driver's license.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied correct. He asked Ms. Hensley to answer the
question further.
Number 2115
MS. HENSLEY said, according to this version of the bill, Section 4
says an individual may apply for a limited license privilege. In
the case of her son who had his driver's license revoked for a
first offense, he would be able to apply for a limited license to
go to-and-from school, if he can show proof that he is in fact
attending school such as a class schedule. He wouldn't be able to
go anywhere else, however.
Number 2150
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the reinstatement for a temporary license was
increased from one to two years, so if a person had multiple
offenses he would have to do at least two years. Therefore, a
21-year-old could apply and not find himself with that much of a
penalty at all.
MS. WRIGHT asked whether this would allow a person to apply for a
provisional license to go to work.
Number 2188
MS. HENSLEY replied, providing the person meets the requirements
under the law and is eligible to drive, a person could get a
provisional license to drive. The DMV has taken a fairly liberal
approach when issuing limited licenses to youth drivers.
Number 2240
JACK HARSHFIELD testified via teleconference from Homer. He is 21
with a family and a fiance who is 19. They have both been affected
by this law. He had six minor consumptions and pled guilty to all
of them. He will not get his driver's license back until the year
2004. His fiance had three convictions of which two were thrown
out and she will not get her license back until next year. When a
person is 16, he thinks he knows everything and the world, but
people change. He now realizes those actions were really dumb, but
he is still getting fined for something that he did when he was a
kid. It is really hard because both he and his fiance don't have
a driver's license and they have a kid on the way. It is hard to
push a stroller around in the winter. In addition, many jobs
require a driver's license, and if a person can't get a job he
can't get money. As a result, some resort to petty theft. When he
was 16, he didn't care if he got caught again because he wasn't
going to get his license back for a long time anyway. Now, that he
has grown up, has a family and responsibilities, he wishes that he
wouldn't have drank when he was underage. He wishes that he could
change it, but he can't.
Number 2367
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Harshfield to tell him the circumstances
behind his fiance's two convictions that were dismissed.
MR. HARSHFIELD replied two were dismissed in court by a judge, but
the DMV proceeded with them because she didn't read the fine print
requiring her to go back within seven days to file for an appeal.
She now has to file for a late appeal, but there is still no
guarantee that she will get her driver's license back.
Number 2415
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Harshfield whether he is aware of any of
his friends that were also cited under the "Use It, Lose It" law
who had their driver's licenses revoked when they were not using
alcohol.
MR. HARSHFIELD replied there was a case down at the beach where two
people were cited who were not drinking because they were the
designated drivers. Their cases were dismissed in court. They
still had their driver's licenses revoked for 90 days, however.
Number 2452
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Harshfield whether any of his
violations were related to using alcohol while driving a car.
TAPE 99-27, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. HARSHFIELD replied yes. He got a DWI (driving while
intoxicated) while driving a 3-wheeler.
Number 0033
MS. CARPENETI stated that there is another case before the supreme
court on the "Use It, Lose It" law. The record will be certified
this month and cited before a year. She noted that the court of
appeals has upheld the "Use It, Lose It" law as constitutional.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Carpeneti to provide him a copy of the
court of appeals case.
Number 0064
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the bill will be held over for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|