03/16/2001 01:10 PM House JUD

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE March 16, 2001 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair Representative Jeannette James Representative John Coghill Representative Kevin Meyer Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 4 "An Act relating to offenses involving operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to implied consent to take a chemical test; relating to registration of motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 158 "An Act relating to the criteria for the adoption of regulations and to the relationship between a regulation and its enabling statute; and providing for an effective date." - BILL HEARING CANCELED PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 4 SHORT TITLE:OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/08/01 0024 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00

01/08/01 0024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/08/01 0024 (H) Committee 2AM KOOKESH; MINUTE(JUD) WITNESS REGISTER JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSHB statutes so that they conform with changes to the DUI/DWI statutes. DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney Administrative Staff Office of the Administrative Director Alaska Court System Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview from the Alaska Court System on HB 4. CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison Office of the Commissioner Department of Corrections Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview from the Department of Corrections on HB 4. DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section-Juneau Criminal Division Department of Law PO Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion on ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 01-33, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. [stated as 2:10 p.m.]. Representatives Rokeberg, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz were present at the call to order. Representatives James and Kookesh arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB [Contains some discussion of SB permanent fund dividend (PFD).] Number 0065 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to offenses involving operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to implied consent to take a chemical test; relating to registration of motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 4(TRA).] Number 0207 JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg (sponsor of HB 4), contains an omission in that the refusal statute [provisions] were not amended to be in compliance with changes being made to the DUI/DWI (driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated) statutes. She added that there is an amendment being drafted to rectify that omission. She mentioned that the agencies did not foresee any additional fiscal impact as a result of the forthcoming amendment because they, like she, thought those changes had already been incorporated in 4(TRA). been provided by the departments but had not yet been distributed to the committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the current fiscal notes totaled under $8 million, and he thanked the representatives of the administration for their work on reducing the fiscal notes. He also remarked that Representative Ogan was viewing the meeting via Gavel to Gavel Alaska from his hospital room. Number 0436 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS or the "court"), said that per the court's policy, ACS have a position on HB reasons why the court did not typically wade into the public policy debates regarding legislation. The first is that generally the establishment of public policy through the legislative process falls under the purview of the legislature, and the court would prefer to leave it that way. The second is related in that many of the bills passed by the legislature find their way to the court system as challenges, and it would be inappropriate for the court to be addressing an issue if it had already taken a public stand either for or against it. Therefore, he said, his remarks would be limited to the anticipated impact of HB MR. WOOLIVER explained that there are two principal ways in which legislation impacts the ACS: it either changes the way [the ACS] does business, or it changes the number of cases that come before [the ACS]. From those two perspectives, [the ACS] has analyzed three principal areas in which HB year "look-back," so that by 2006, if a person has been arrested for a third DWI within a ten-year period, he/she would be guilty of a class C felony. He noted that the Department of Law (DOL) has estimates based on its own statistics and other executive branch [agencies'] statistics regarding how many new cases [the ACS] would likely see. Number 0652 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected to ask if "new cases" meant new cases filed as DWIs that in past might have been filed as reckless or negligent driving. MR. WOOLIVER explained that he was referring to cases that would have been misdemeanor DWIs but [under 4 and new felony cases a year, each year, for the next five years. As a result, there would be 45 new felony cases the first year of the program; 90 new felony cases the second year; 135 new felony cases the third year; 180 new felony cases the fourth year; and up to 225 new felony cases during the fifth year. Because the Anchorage superior court is already at, or beyond, maximum capacity for felony caseloads, he explained, [the ACS] is requesting a new superior court judge to help absorb the extra work brought on by the aforementioned estimated new felony cases. He added that currently in Anchorage, a district court judge temporarily sits in as a superior court judge to handle all of the felony DWIs - approximately 100 cases a year. He explained that the last time a superior court judge was added in Anchorage was in 1985, and since that time there has been a 100 percent increase in felony filings. Number 0812 MR. WOOLIVER said that the third area of impact of HB 4. of these forfeiture cases per year, and each case is entitled to a hearing. Because these types of hearings are fairly quick, [the ACS] estimates approximately 15 minutes per hearing, but still, 800 hearings at 15 minutes per hearing is 200 hours of hearings. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed amazement that a court hearing could occur in 15 minutes. MR. WOOLIVER warned that it is always a gamble when estimating court time for hearings, but several judges whom he had spoken with said that forfeiture cases result in fairly quick hearings. Returning to the point of fiscal impact, Mr. Wooliver said that a lot of the cost of [the vehicle forfeiture provision] will be absorbed in the new superior court [judge] position since all of the felony [DWI cases] will result in vehicle forfeiture because of second, or subsequent, DWI offenses. Therefore, the only additional expense will be due to the 500 new misdemeanor [DWI cases]. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if monies received from selling [forfeited] vehicles could offset the additional expenses of the forfeiture cases. MR. WOOLIVER explained that any monies received either from selling forfeited vehicles or from fines would go to the general fund, not directly to [the ACS]. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he had concern about the number of forfeitures, particularly given the fact that the Anchorage and Fairbanks jurisdictions currently handle second-[DWI]-offense forfeitures. He pointed out that the bulk of the estimated 800 new forfeiture cases are already undertaken at the municipal level. Number 0985 MR. WOOLIVER explained that the [estimated] numbers did not include municipal forfeiture cases; they are estimates of forfeiture cases instituted for state offenses, not municipal offenses. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that prior testimony on HB in the same fashion as the [Anchorage and Fairbanks] municipalities' administrative [forfeiture ordinances]. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that he would be offering an amendment "to go that route, to help lower the fiscal costs and the impacts on the courts." He inquired if such an amendment would have an impact on [the ACS's] fiscal note. MR. WOOLIVER responded that he thought such an amendment would "just about do away with that portion of the fiscal note." He added that there are other aspects of [HB personnel. MR. WOOLIVER noted that all of the [proposed] DWI bills are "somewhat of a package," and that there is "overlap" them. He explained that HB 172. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Wooliver to explain his memorandum regarding the issues of collections and "fine revenue" generated by HB 4. Number 1688 MR. WOOLIVER explained that per Ms. Seitz's request, the ACS had attempted to estimate how much revenue the increased fines provided for in HB does not have a computer system designed to make that kind of estimate, and, therefore, the information gleaned from both paper records and computer records produced a very rough, conservative estimate of $300,000 in additional revenues. He noted that the personnel who compiled that information had suggested that he not rely too heavily on that number. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he was disappointed to see that those projections were based on a 35 percent collection rate, particularly given that HB for a first offense had been raised. MR. WOOLIVER cautioned against "going to the bank with this estimate." He added that typically [the ACS] does not make projections because "we're not ... in the loop on the revenue generation side." Number 1867 CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC), said that it is no secret that increasing penalties and/or creating new crimes has a direct impact on the DOC, particularly in fiscal areas. She explained that the first area [of HB 4 Taking all of the above calculations into account with regard to the .08 provision, she estimated an increased cost for incarceration of $1,184,254 for fiscal year 2002. MS BROWER, referring to page 1 of the DOC's fiscal note, confirmed that the gross note is $5,108,200 and the fund source from other areas besides the general fund (GF) shows $414,000. Thus the funds needed from the GF total $4,693,600 for fiscal year 2002. She explained that the $1,065,600 under "Contractual" in the Operating Expenditures column reflects substance abuse treatment services, which the DOC contracts out, and that the $4,042,600 under "Miscellaneous" reflects the estimated cost of incarceration, which includes just about everything else such as employees and the CRC contracts. Number 2202 MS. BROWER, referring to the increase in sentencing for second- time offenders from 20 days to 30 days as another area with fiscal implications for the DOC, pointed out that a provision in HB 4 he/she serves 10 days doing community work service (CWS). She said [the DOC] was not sure how that [provision] would be administered, or who would be responsible [for the offenders], and thus did not provide a fiscal note for the administration of that provision. She added that [the DOC] also was not sure who would take advantage of that provision, "so we said 50/50" in terms of serving [jail] time versus CWS. CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that to his understanding and belief, the courts would handle that provision, and would also verify that [the CWS] was done. He added that he did not envision establishing a "bureaucratic point" to which [offenders] have to report. He asked Mr. Wooliver to confirm whether [verification] was normally done by the judge. MR. WOOLIVER responded that he was not entirely sure if that was the case but he would check. MS. BROWER went on to say that [the DOC] estimated that potentially half of the second-time offenders who would be eligible to serve 10 days of CWS would do so, while the other half would choose simply to complete the 30-days' jail time because they could conceivably get "good time" on the sentence. Thus, [the DOC] estimated an increased cost of $184,576 for an additional seven days, which is what this provision amounts to, she said. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he would be surprised if the majority of those second-time offenders did not opt for the 10- day CWS. MS. BROWER addressed the next area of HB said she has not been able to formulate a calculation that takes into account the extra work involved such as increased bookings and other things that take a toll over time, nor has she taken into consideration the cost of increasing the number of facilities that may be needed for the increase in offenders. MS. BROWER, on the next area of HB calculation is based on the assumption that most first-time offenders do not re-offend; thus, for a person to have a second DWI in 11 years, versus 10 years, did not seem to be a frequent occurrence. MS. BROWER then discussed the provision that removed eligibility for good-time deductions, for a person who has failed to satisfy court-ordered treatment, as another area of HB asked Mr. Wooliver if the ACS could attach an offender's PFD in order to pay the fine if that person was otherwise unable to pay. MR. WOOLIVER said yes. He went on to explain that when a person is incarcerated and that incarceration prohibits receipt of a PFD, his/her PFD goes into the pool; once a person begins to get his/her PFD again after release from jail, there are, to his belief, eight different [levels of priority] for attaching a person's PFD. He listed child support, student loan, court- ordered restitution, and fines owed to the state as examples of the different levels. Number 0911 MS. BROWER noted that once a person is no longer incarcerated, he/she may choose not to apply for a PFD during subsequent eligibility years; thus there would not be anything available for the state to attach. MR. WOOLIVER added that in such cases, the court can mandate a person to apply for his/her PFD. CHAIR ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Brower assist his staff in formulating ideas for increased revenue sources in order to help pay for the provisions of HB 4. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that a major factor preventing people from getting the treatment they needed was an unavailability of affordable "beds." MS. BROWER offered the following snapshot of current DWI statistics: 504 people within Alaska's jurisdiction are serving time for DWI - 200 for felony DWIs and 304 for misdemeanor DWIs. She added that many of those [offenders] are serving time for other offenses concurrently. And with regard to felony DWI offenders under supervision, she said that as of August 2000, there were 364, although she acknowledged that that figure might have increased since then. She pointed out that in the DOC's fiscal note she had placed probation supervision in the portion relating to the .08 [BAC], because the felony offenders are already under supervision for increased sanctions. In response to questions from Chair Rokeberg, Ms. Brower explained that the DOC had just assumed a 10 percent increase across the board. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the [.16 BAC] aggravator provision had been removed from CSHB terms of incarceration. He asked Mr. Guaneli to explain current law with regard to what would be an aggravator in a typical DWI case. Number 0271 DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that for felonies, there is currently a long statutory list of aggravating factors that the courts must consider in cases under presumptive sentencing. Typical aggravators include things like a weapon being used to commit a crime, cases involving a particularly vulnerable victim, or cases wherein a large amount of money or drugs is involved, to name a few. He added, however, that there was nothing specific that relates to drunk driving, such as a high BAC; notwithstanding this, judges tend, as a matter of practice, to add extra incarceration time to sentences involving high BAC levels. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he had concern that if there were any aggravators placed in HB time and, consequently, greater cost. He asked whether judges would find the ability to factor in increased BAC levels at sentencing to be a valuable tool. MR. GUANELI said he thought that a high BAC aggravator is a valuable tool to consider. He went on to explain that statistics show the higher a BAC a person has, the more likely that person is to get into an accident, often a fatal one. He said it was interesting to note that in Alaska, the average BAC reading for DWI/DUI offenses is approximately .18; thus, in the original version of HB .15, that aggravator would have applied in approximately 60 percent of DWI/DUI cases. He also said that those in the field [of law enforcement] will say that for cases of felony drunk driving, persons who have had three offenses in a relatively short period of time tend to be hardcore drinkers who have a higher BAC level in their systems all the time. In many of those felony drunk-driving cases, he added, a BAC of .20 is very common. He went on to say again that he thought judges were already taking high BAC levels into consideration, just that they were not mandated to do so. TAPE 01-34, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. GUANELI noted that he was not certain what he could recommend in terms of putting a specific BAC aggravator level in statute, or in terms of giving judges specific instructions regarding sentencing. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked, by putting a specific BAC aggravator in statute, whether the judge would still have discretion. MR. GUANELI responded that having an aggravator in statute would allow the judge to take it into consideration, but the judge is not required to do so. CHAIR ROKEBERG then asked if by having an aggravator of .20 BAC, the fiscal note could remain lower. He agreed that as a true aggravator, [.16 BAC] was probably too low. MR. GUANELI said he did not have a response regarding the fiscal impact of a BAC aggravator because it is probably already being taken into consideration by judges to some extent now. CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that having a BAC aggravator in statute would simply translate into more jail time; hence the debate would become about how effective more jail time was on the problem [of DWI/DUI]. He asked if there were any other aggravating circumstances, aside from high BACs, that should be taken into account. MR. GUANELI observed that although there are a number of other possible aggravators, such as whether injuries occurred as a result of an accident in a DWI/DUI case, judges already take those aggravators into account. On the topic of increased penalties and fines, he said that in general, Alaska has tough [DWI/DUI] laws now, and they would become considerably tougher under HB minimum fine for felony drunk driving is $5,000 - which is much higher than in any other state, according to an Internet list he had come across - and would become $10,000 under 4. MR. GUANELI said he would look into that issue, although program receipts were not his area [of expertise]. He added that the countervailing policy question is how much control the legislature wants to continue to have over all of the funding. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if, in having a mandatory fine, discretion at the bench was unallowable. MR. GUANELI replied that that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then asked if the mandate could be changed by inserting language allowing latitude to the judge. Number 1161 CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed that that was the sort of solution he would like to see in order to divert the funds toward treatment. He said that if it were discretionary, then HB discussions would continue. [CSHB 4(TRA) Out of 02/27/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA) 02/28/01 0470 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 1DNP 2NR 02/28/01 0471 (H) DNP: SCALZI, NR: KAPSNER, 02/28/01 0471 (H) AM: MASEK, KOHRING 02/28/01 0471 (H) FN1: (ADM); FN2: (ADM) 02/28/01 0471 (H) FN3: (COR); FN4: (CRT) 02/28/01 0471 (H) FN5: (HSS); FN6: (HSS) 02/28/01 0472 (H) FN7: (HSS); FN8: (HSS) 02/28/01 0472 (H) FN9: (LAW); FN10: (DPS) 02/28/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 02/28/01 (H) Heard & Held 02/28/01 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/09/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/09/01 (H) Heard & Held 03/09/01 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/12/01 (H) JUD AT 2:30 PM CAPITOL 120 03/12/01 (H) Heard & Held 03/14/01 (H) JUD AT 2:15 PM CAPITOL 120 03/14/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 03/16/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4, noted an 4(TRA) regarding changes to the refusal 820 West 4th Avenue 431 N. Franklin, Suite 203 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4, spoke on the 4 - OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS Detail/22?Root=HB172'>HB 172 regarding the fiscal note 105 regarding reimbursement from the offender's Alaska State Legislature, explained that CSHB 4(TRA) CSHB She noted that some recently revised fiscal notes had did not 4. He added that there were two principal 4 on [the ACS]. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 will have an name='HB4' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 on [the 4 builds that up to what is referred to as a ten- s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4] would be filed as of HB said that the DOL estimated that [the ACS] would see 45 name='HB4' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 on [the He explained that the DOL is estimating 800 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 suggested that 4 [CSHB 4(TRA)], which is not crafted is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4] that will have an HB 4 - He il/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 is endeavoring to "level that 4 and [HB 172] regarding the cost of between /22?Root=HB172'>HB 172 calls for a superior court judge ll/Detail/22?Root=HB172'>HB 172]), which is aimed at both HB 4 4 would generate. He added, however, the ACS /22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 attempts to place liens on 4 was not substantially greater since the fines href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4] that has a 413 new misdemeanor convictions for a .08 [BAC] provision. 2000. She had used the formula of $88/day for an average of 352-day sentences, and the result was $619,520. The combined increases to $2,000) applies only to misdemeanants. says that an offender can still get a 20-day sentence if is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 that had a fiscal ail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 for the different levels of 4 already has a very steep fiscal note, she Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 that has a fiscal impact on 4's fiscal note. She added that this href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 with a fiscal 33) would have a fiscal impact on the DOC, that impact was not 72 hours. She noted that current statute says that if a person href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 regarding l/22?Root=SB105'>SB 105 - that would change the pool to ombudsman's href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 was essentially /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 needed other language 4 would raise the fine imposed on all offenders. He 22?Root=HB4'>HB 4. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 is focusing 4(TRA) because of the enormous cost in 4, it would translate into more prison 4 that had an aggravator for BACs above 4. He noted, for example, that the current mandatory href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4. He said of HB href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 could have a href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4] could be href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 that has the 4 fit together, and he announced that the ail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 was held over.] s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" bills, locate ist-whos-who.php">contact information. g.gov/webmaster.php">help

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

03/16/2001 01:10 PM House JUD

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house