02/19/2007 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2007
1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to ignition interlock limited driver's license
privileges."
- MOVED CSHB 19(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to requiring electronic monitoring as a special
condition of probation for offenders whose offense was related
to a criminal street gang."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/07 (H) Moved CSHB 19(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/05/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP 1NR
02/05/07 (H) DP: DOLL, LYNN, JOHANSEN, GRUENBERG,
JOHNSON, ROSES
02/05/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
02/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/12/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 19, outlined the
changes incorporated into Version K and responded to questions
on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Meyer.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 19.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 19.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 19.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 19.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:41:51 PM. Representatives Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 19 - LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
1:42:10 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 19, "An Act relating to ignition interlock
limited driver's license privileges." [Before the committee was
CSHB 19(STA).]
1:43:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 19, Version 25-LS0133\K, Luckhaupt,
2/16/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version K
was before the committee.
1:45:23 PM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, relayed on behalf of Representative Meyer,
sponsor of HB 19, that for the purpose of conformity, Version K
contains a new Section 1, which proposes to alter AS 11.76.140;
this change arose out of committee discussion regarding the
possibility of tampering with an ignition interlock device.
Language in proposed AS 28.15.201(f) - page 2, line 25 - now
says in part, "shall be identified", and new language in this
same subsection clarifies that if the ignition interlock device
prevents a vehicle from being operated, the person has not
violated the requirements of the limited driver's license by
attempting to operate the vehicle; the latter change arose out
of the belief that it doesn't make sense to punish someone for a
successful demonstration of the device.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to questions, relayed that an
ignition interlock device records every failed attempt; that it
renders a car inoperable until enough time has passed that the
person can pass the breathalyzer mechanism's test; that failed
attempts do not result in the ignition interlock device needing
to be reset; that a person couldn't simply start the car while
sober, drive to a bar, leave the car running, drink alcohol, and
then drive off expecting to have bypassed the ignition interlock
device, because the device randomly requires the person to again
blow into the breathalyzer mechanism - failure to pass the test
at that point would result in the car's lights flashing and horn
blowing until the vehicle is stopped; that a person couldn't
simply ask someone else to blow into the device to get the car
started for that same reason - the device randomly requires the
person to retest; and that asking someone else to blow into the
device would qualify as a class A misdemeanor crime under
proposed AS 11.76,140 - Avoidance of ignition interlock device.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to language in proposed AS
28.15.201(f)(3)(B) - on page 3, line 8 - and asked whether the
sponsor would object to replacing the word "penalties" with the
phrase, "a class A misdemeanor".
1:54:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that he has no objection to such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a proposed letter of intent
that would go with HB 19 and that would stipulate that the DMV
is directed to alter regulations [such that the act of
attempting to drive a motor vehicle but being prevented from
doing so because the ignition interlock device was activated
would not, in and of itself, be a reason to cancel the limited
driver's license].
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he has no objection to the
letter of intent.
1:56:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
replace the word, "penalties" on page 3, line 8, with the
phrase, "a class A misdemeanor". There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:57:11 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to delete the
language on page 1, lines 12-14, thereby deleting proposed AS
11.76.140(a)(2), which read:
(2) rents, loans, or leases [RENT, LOAN, OR LEASE] a
motor vehicle to a person on probation under AS
12.55.102, unless the vehicle is equipped with an
ignition interlock device described in AS 12.55.102.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that Amendment 2 would address the issue
of rental vehicles and loaned vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed disfavor with Amendment 2,
characterizing the language that would be deleted as extremely
important to the original legislation [that dealt with ignition
interlock devices, legislation which he sponsored and which
passed in 1989]. He elaborated:
"We don't want people giving their car to somebody who
is supposed to have an ignition interlock [device] on
their own car, and [Amendment 2] would completely gut
the whole concept of the [original] ignition interlock
[legislation]. A rental agency would not violate this
[provision] because they're not "knowingly" doing this
... [in order] for the person to get around the law.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that the limited driver's license
itself will state that the person is required to have an
ignition interlock device on any car he/she drives, so the car
rental agency would know that fact.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the sponsor
doesn't want that provision deleted.
1:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether it could be argued, even if
the rental agency clerk simply misses the statement that the
person cannot drive a vehicle that doesn't have an ignition
interlock device installed, that the clerk knew or should have
known about that restriction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes, absolutely; rental car
agencies must train their people not to rent to people who have
such a restriction. Without [such training] people required to
use ignition interlock devices will simply go rent a car and
thereby circumvent the law.
MR. PAWLOWSKI pointed out that circumventing, tampering with, or
driving a car not equipped with an ignition interlock device
would be a violation of proposed AS 11.76.140. The burden will
be on the person with the limited driver's license rather than
on the rental agency or friend who loans the person his/her car.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that in passing the original
legislation, the legislature wanted to absolutely prevent people
from loaning their cars to friends who are required to use an
ignition interlock device; this prohibition prevents someone
from attempting to get around the ignition interlock device law
by borrowing or renting a car. Amendment 2 would significantly
weaken [current law]. Furthermore, for people in the business
of renting cars, allowing them to rent cars to people required
to use an ignition interlock device would be just like allowing
them to rent a car to someone who is not allowed drive at all
such as an underage driver or someone who doesn't have a valid
driver's license; rental car agencies should not be renting cars
to people who are not allowed to drive.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said the way he reads the language in
proposed AS 11.76.140, he would be in violation of the law if he
loans his car, which he would be doing "knowingly", to someone
without first checking to see whether the person's driver's
license prohibits that person from driving any car that doesn't
have an ignition interlock device installed. He expressed
agreement with Amendment 2.
2:03:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out, though, that the legislation is
intended to keep the drunk driver off the road and to penalize
him/her if he/she somehow circumvents the law regarding ignition
interlock devices. He opined that the language of proposed AS
11.76.140 wouldn't apply to those who unwittingly loan their car
to someone, and that it is different altogether for a car rental
agency to rent a car without first ascertaining whether the
person has any right to be driving that car. He acknowledged
that since he is not in the car rental business, he probably
wouldn't be looking at a person's driver's license before
loaning his car to that person.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES suggested that proposed AS 11.76.140 could
be rewritten such that in order to prosecute someone for loaning
out his/her car, he/she must be shown to know that the person
has a limited driver's license and is prohibited from driving
any car that doesn't have an ignition interlock device
installed.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER concurred that perhaps that provision could
be altered to ensure that one would have to know that the person
he/she is loaning his/her car to isn't supposed to be driving
[without an ignition interlock device], and surmised that rental
car agencies could train their staffs to recognize such a
restriction on a person's driver's license, though staff might
still make a mistake. With regard to vehicle loans, he likened
the situation to borrowing a car when one has a revoked license
- the person isn't supposed to be doing that because he/she is
not supposed to be driving - and questioned whether even in that
situation it is the responsibility of the person loaning the car
to ascertain whether the other person has a valid driver's
license. He reiterated his argument that the majority of people
with a limited driver's license are driving elsewhere other than
to and from work anyway, and expressed a preference for putting
the burden on the person borrowing the vehicle rather than on
the person loaning out his/her vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that although she agrees with the
sponsor's intent, she has a problem with enabling a person to
bypass his/her punishment after breaking the law. With regard
to the sponsor's argument that the aforementioned people are
driving anyway, she pointed out that the same could be said of
people who are engaging in other illegal activities such as
prostitution, drug dealing, and running child pornography rings
- should those people be allowed to bypass their punishment for
breaking the law just because they are going to be doing it
anyway? She opined that all DUI offenders should lose their
driver's licenses for at least 30 days regardless of the burden
this places on them.
2:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reiterated his argument that such people
are continuing to drive drunk anyway, and that the bill will
ensure that they are at least driving sober.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled that testimony has indicated
that by the time a person is pulled over for the first time for
drunk driving, he/she has been driving drunk a hundred times;
therefore, she suggested, perhaps the solution would be to take
the person's car away for 30 days for the first offense.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered his belief that such could not be
done legally.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of Amendment 2, said:
Putting a car in the hands of a person with a drunk
driving record is like giving a felon ... a firearm -
it's putting a weapon in that person's hands and
should only be done in accord with law. This is
extremely serious. And if a felon is prohibited from
possessing a firearm and you give them a gun, you're
an accessory, and that's a felony. That's really
serious, and this is just as serious as that. We had
legislation before this committee last year on the
tobacco violations; ... if a company gives tobacco to
a minor and they lose their license for a period of
time, ... that's a very serious offense, and that's a
heck of a lot less serious than a [car] rental agency
not reading a person's driver's license. I think they
should be held to the highest standard in this matter.
... It's really serious if [an establishment owner
violates] the law in giving liquor to somebody who
shouldn't have it. ... The liquor is one half of the
equation, the car is the other half - to commit the
accident or whatever happens, you have to have the
liquor and you have to have the car - and each should
be dealt with, particularly in a commercial sense,
really, really seriously.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of the standard,
"knowingly", said:
We didn't put "intentionally" [in the legislation] in
1989, and we didn't use the standard of "negligence"
either, but if I give my car keys to somebody, I
better darn well know that that person has ... [the
legal right to drive]. It's not just that [the person
doesn't have a driver's license] ...; this is an
absolute violation of the law. The judge or the
department has said you've got to have this ...
[ignition interlock device] on the car so you can't
drive it if you've had any alcohol. And people need
to know that if they are just giving the use of their
car to their friend, they better be certain that that
person isn't going to use it in this kind of a manner.
That's a really serious thing when you lend your car
to somebody else, and "knowingly" is not a high
standard at all. It's if you know what you're doing,
so ... [you're not just leaving] the car key out and
somebody takes it off the mantel piece. But I think
that people should be held at least to that standard.
If you knowingly give your car to somebody, you ought
to at least, if there is any doubt in your mind, [ask
the person whether he/she is] allowed to drive this
car.
2:15:59 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to questions,
relayed that currently on a first DUI offense, a person must
wait 30 days before applying for a limited driver's license, and
must wait 90 days if he/she has had multiple DUI offenses. Also
under current law, only multiple DUI offenders are required to
have an ignition interlock device installed in order to obtain a
limited driver's license. He suggested, therefore, that HB 19
is somewhat of a hybrid of both aspects of current law, and thus
it will be up to the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
determine whether having a time during which one may not apply
for a limited driver's license is appropriate.
MR. BANNOCK, with regard to one of the issues raised by
Amendment 2, said that the fiscal note reflects the fact that
the DMV would be producing an actual driver's license, one that
would clearly state that the person has to have an ignition
interlock device installed in any vehicle he/she drives - a
license marked clearly enough that a car rental agency employee
would be able to identify that restriction even at 2:00 a.m.
Currently licenses have a blue stripe in the center wherein it
says "DRIVER LICENSE" and "MOTORCYCLE"; should HB 19 become law,
limited driver's licenses will contain a red stripe in the
center wherein it will say "INTERLOCK IGNITION DEVICE LIMITED
LICENSE". He pointed out that from a commercial aspect, every
time he's rented a car he's had to show his driver's license.
On the issue of loaning out a car, he said, "That's a tough call
to make."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that to violate proposed AS
11.76,140(a)(1), it requires an action on the part of the
driver, whereas one could violate proposed AS 11.76.140(a)(2)
simply by being careless. She suggested, therefore, that they
make proposed AS 11.76,140(a)(1) a class A misdemeanor, and make
proposed AS 11.76.140(a)(2) a class B misdemeanor.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that Amendment 2 would simply delete
paragraph (2).
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Ms. Carpeneti to explain how
difficult it will be to prosecute a rental car agent or a person
who loans out his/her vehicle.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Ms. Carpeneti to also speak to the issue of
whether the committee would be better off modifying AS
11.76.140(a)(2). He noted that the point of Amendment 2 is to
relieve those that rent or loan vehicles from liability.
2:24:05 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
she doesn't think that it would be very difficult to prosecute
someone for violating paragraph (2); the DOL would be looking to
prosecute the person who knew that he/she was renting or loaning
a vehicle to someone who had limitations on his/her driver's
license. She said she agrees, however, that paragraph (2) could
be clarified with regard to that point. Currently, with the
term "knowingly" being located on page 1, line 7, it means
"knowingly" renting or loaning a car; therefore, it could be
clearer that the person not only "knowingly" rented or loaned
the car but at the same time also knew that the person had
limitations on his/her license.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the intention behind the
original statutory language was to place the responsibility on
the person who knowingly rented the vehicle; without that
language, a person, particularly in a commercial setting, would
have no responsibility to determine whether the person even has
a driver's license. Amendment 2 would completely gut the
purpose of the law, which is to make certain "that people check
before they loan their car".
MS. CARPENETI opined that in a commercial setting, that won't be
much of problem, noting that when she has attempted to rent a
car only to discover that her driver's license had expired, she
was not been able to rent the car.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he doesn't want to put that obligation on
people who rent or loan vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the term "knowingly"
has not changed from the original legislation, and it addresses
the question of what must the defendant know, and the intent was
that the person know that he/she is renting the vehicle. It is
up to that person to then check the driver's license, and it is
not a defense to claim ignorance of the fact that the driver is
required to have an ignition interlock device in any vehicle
he/she drives; the person has an obligation under current law to
check the license.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would be maintaining his
objection to Amendment 2.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,
Samuels, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Gruenberg, Lynn, and Holmes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
2:29:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 25-LS0133\M.5, Luckhaupt, 2/19/07, as amended to conform
to Version K:
Page 4, lines 18-29:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 5. AS 28.35.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(u) When a defendant is convicted under this
section, the court shall consider the use of an
ignition interlock device as provided in AS 12.55.102
and shall make findings concerning the decision. The
court shall require the use of an ignition interlock
device for the entire period of probation or sentence
or a portion thereof, when its use is consistent with
the purposes stated in AS 12.55.005 and as needed to
protect public safety.
* Sec. 6. AS 28.35.032 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(u) When a defendant is convicted under this
section, the court shall consider the use of an
ignition interlock device as provided in AS 12.55.102
and shall make findings concerning the decision. The
court shall require the use of an ignition interlock
device for the entire period of probation or sentence
or a portion thereof, when its use is consistent with
the purposes stated in AS 12.55.005 and as needed to
protect public safety."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered that under Amendment 3, as
amended, the court will be required to make a finding on whether
the use of an ignition interlock device is appropriate for
either the entire period of probation or a portion of it.
MR. BANNOCK surmised that Amendment 3, as amended, only pertains
to the court, not the DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he doesn't have a problem with
Amendment 3, as amended, offering his understanding that it will
strengthen the penalty by giving the court the ability to
require the use of an ignition interlock device throughout the
period of probation. He characterized having to use an ignition
interlock device as a punishment.
CHAIR RAMRAS countered that allowing for the use of an ignition
interlock device actually lessens the punishments already
outlined in statute.
2:33:46 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), surmised that Amendment 3, as amended, goes to the issue
of probation, not limited driver's licenses. Currently, the
court has the authority to place someone on probation for up to
10 years and has additional authority to include as a condition
of probation the use of an ignition interlock device. Under
Amendment 3, as amended, the court would be required to consider
the use of an ignition interlock device in each DUI case;
currently such consideration is not required - it is simply an
option.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether Amendment 3, as amended, would give
the court the discretion to not grant the use of a limited
driver's license for the first 30 days of a license revocation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the language currently
in Sections 5 and 6 was added in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee, but it wasn't drafted correctly and would
actually reduce the court's probation authority, and so now that
language needs to be replaced, which is what Amendment 3, as
amended, is proposing to do.
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to a question, offered his belief that
the court can implement Amendment 3, as amended, though making
the proposed required finding in each DUI case could take time
but not so much as to have a significant impact on the flow of
cases.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES suggested that having the court actively
consider, in each case, whether an ignition interlock device
should be used is appropriate, and could relieve the DMV of
having to make that determination in some cases.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reiterated that he has no problem with
Amendment 3, as amended.
MR. BANNOCK relayed that the DMV has no problem with
Amendment 3, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 3, as amended. There being none, Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted.
2:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed concern with the concept of
allowing someone to obtain a limited driver's license right
after committing a DUI offense.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, reiterated that
currently on a first DUI offense - which carries with it a 90-
day license revocation period - a person must wait 30 days
before applying for a limited driver's license, and must wait 90
days if he/she has had multiple DUI offenses. Under HB 19, a
person could get a limited drive's license right away as soon as
he/she gets an ignition interlock device installed; he/she would
still have his/her driver's license revoked, though, and would
merely be driving with a limited driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what the effect would be on the DMV
if the legislature retains a 30-day prohibition on applying for
a limited driver's license.
MR. BANNOCK said the DMV could adapt to such a prohibition
because that is what occurs now.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that having a period of time in
which one is not allowed to drive at all is part of the
punishment that is meant to deter DUI behavior, and this is
negated by HB 19.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to comments, offered that although
the bill will allow people to start driving again right away,
they will be doing so in a sober manner.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, offered his belief that
the bill will encourage people to follow the law, which is
intended to keep people who are impaired from driving. He
relayed that a friend of his acquired a limited driver's
license, was using it to drive to and from work, but because a
grocery store was located on that same route, he questioned
whether he would be allowed to stop at the store on the way home
from work; Mr. Bannock said his response to his friend was that
if his friend did stop at the store, he might very well have to
answer for that if a law enforcement officer questions him. Mr.
Bannock offered his understanding that in his friend's case,
under the bill, the issue won't be where he drives or when he
drives but rather that when he is driving during his license
revocation period, whether that's for the entire 90 days or just
the last 60 days, that he is driving sober. Mr. Bannock pointed
out that via the use of ignition interlock device programs,
other states have seen success in their ultimate goal of
reducing injuries, accidents, and deaths as a result of drunk
driving.
2:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said his concern with prohibiting someone
from being granted a limited driver's license for the first 30
days of a revocation period is that he/she will be driving
anyway during that time and that he/she will then continue
driving without a driver's license for the remainder of the
revocation period.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether allowing convicted drunk drivers
to get right back on the road isn't simply allowing those that
can afford to pay for the ignition interlock devices to break
the state's DUI laws and yet still be allowed to drive right
away - in effect, lessening the penalty for a DUI offense.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, explained that when a
person is stopped for a DUI offense, the officer takes away the
person's driver's license and replaces it with a piece of paper
called a "Notice and Order of Revocation", which says that the
license revocation will start seven days later, and that Smart
Start, Inc., can get an ignition interlock installed in a day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is still concerned about the
change made via Amendment 2.
2:52:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4, to [instead of deleting proposed AS
11.76.140(a)(2)] simply alter the language such that in a
commercial rental or lease situation, the standard would be
knowingly renting or leasing the vehicle regardless of whether
the company knew of the limited driver's license, and in a
noncommercial loan situation, the standard would be knowing that
one is loaning the vehicle and with criminal negligence failing
to determine whether the person has a limited [driver's]
license. The standard of criminal negligence, he explained, is
the same standard used in situations wherein a liquor
establishment serves alcohol to an inebriated person.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected. He questioned who would be
liable in a commercial situation - the individual agent or the
company - and who would pursue the issue for prosecution
purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a request for
clarification, repeated Conceptual Amendment 4.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 4. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, Holmes, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 1-6.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he would like the sponsor to report
back to the committee in a year and relay how many people
actually get a limited driver's license under the new law; this
will allow the committee to see whether the bill has had any
effect or whether people are still just ignoring the law and
driving without any form of license and without having an
ignition interlock device installed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she still has a concern regarding the
availability of ignition interlock device technology in rural
areas of the state, adding that she does not want to restrict a
person's ability to be granted a limited driver's license just
because he/she doesn't have access to such technology.
2:59:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 19, Version 25-LS0133\K, Luckhaupt, 2/16/07, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
19(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|