05/06/2003 03:02 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 6, 2003
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Holm, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
- MOVED CSHB 230(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to forfeiture of a motor vehicle, airplane, or
vessel for illegal transportation of alcohol."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to disposition of a traffic offense involving
the death of a person; providing for the revocation of driving
privileges by a court for a driver convicted of a violation of
traffic laws in connection with a fatal motor vehicle or
commercial motor vehicle accident; amending Rules 43 and 43.1,
Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SB 53 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to driving while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance and to
presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's
breath or blood; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act establishing the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority and
relating to that authority; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE:POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HOLM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/31/03 0713 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/31/03 0713 (H) TRA, STA
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Recessed to 5:30 PM --
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE:IMPORTING ALCOHOL TO DRY VILLAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LYNN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/27/03 0075 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/27/03 0075 (H) TRA, JUD
01/27/03 0075 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
01/29/03 0089 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE
05/01/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 53
SHORT TITLE:REVOKE DRIVER'S LIC. FOR FATAL ACCIDENT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/03 0090 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/03 0090 (S) TRA, JUD
02/18/03 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee --
Time Returned to 1:30 pm --
02/18/03 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/19/03 0220 (S) TRA RPT 2DP 3NR
02/19/03 0220 (S) DP: COWDERY, LINCOLN;
02/19/03 0220 (S) NR: WAGONER, THERRIAULT,
OLSON
02/19/03 0220 (S) FN1: (ADM)
02/19/03 0220 (S) FN2: INDETERMINATE(ADM)
02/19/03 0220 (S) FN3: ZERO(LAW)
02/19/03 0220 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/19/03 0228 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/02/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/02/03 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/07/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/07/03 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/09/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/09/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/03 0778 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR
04/10/03 0778 (S) DP: SEEKINS, OGAN, FRENCH,
ELLIS;
04/10/03 0778 (S) NR: THERRIAULT
04/10/03 0778 (S) FN1: (ADM)
04/10/03 0778 (S) FN2: INDETERMINATE(ADM)
04/10/03 0778 (S) FN3: ZERO(LAW)
04/25/03 0965 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 5NR
04/25/03 0965 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN; NR:
TAYLOR, HOFFMAN,
04/25/03 0965 (S) OLSON, BUNDE, STEVENS B
04/25/03 0965 (S) FN1: (ADM)
04/25/03 0965 (S) FN2: INDETERMINATE(ADM)
04/25/03 0965 (S) FN3: ZERO(LAW)
04/25/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/25/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/25/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/30/03 1049 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/30/2003
04/30/03 1049 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/30/03 1049 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/30/03 1049 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 53
04/30/03 1049 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/30/03 1050 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/30/03 1050 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/30/03 1059 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/03 1059 (S) VERSION: SB 53
05/01/03 1228 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/01/03 1228 (H) TRA, JUD
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
ALLEN COMBS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself, offering
suggestions to HB 230.
ED EARNHART
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on his own behalf, expressing
concerns related to HB 230.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on her own behalf, requesting the
inclusion of safeguards and protection regarding HB 230.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for HB 65.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 65, noting support for the
CS; testified on SB 53, offering that there would be minimal
fiscal impact on the agency.
MATTHEW C. LEVEQUE, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
MATT FELIX
National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong support of HB 65.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section - Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65 and answered
questions.
SENATOR SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of SB 53.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Holm, Fate, Kohring, and Ogg were present at the call to order.
Representative Kookesh arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 230 - POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act relating to political signs on
private property."
Number 0049
ALLEN COMBS, representing himself, said he would reiterate what
he had said in previous testimony [meeting of 4/29/03] and would
add several additional points. He alluded to signs' being up
only 60 days before an election and no more than 10 days after
an election is completed. He also mentioned a fine of $100 a
day, per sign, if signs were not taken down. He said he would
like to see the "setback provision" the same as it is in
Anchorage so undue problems are not caused to people who are
driving.
Number 0148
MR. COMBS suggested a "one time only at one location" maximum of
32 square feet and also that signs be placed so there is 0.5
mile between the signs on private property only. In reference
to permanency, he said that a permanent base on a political sign
has no bearing one way or the other. He gave the example of one
sign in which four-by-fours were provided by the owner in his
front yard; a sign was screwed onto it and when they were done,
they took the sign off. He clarified that he has been involved
with mayoral campaigns for the past two or three elections and
has put up and taken down signs. He told the committee that
there are problematic conflicts between borough, state, and
federal regulations regarding signage.
Number 0238
ED EARNHART, representing himself, stated that he agreed with
the previous testimony. He said the situation has been
especially bad during the past few years due to a mistake made
by the legislature. He said he presumed the state would not be
involved with issuing permits because that would be left up to
the borough or the municipalities, since they handle matters of
property. He said sometimes people don't seem to understand
that private property can't be regulated and therefore the sign
(indisc.) and that the changes seem to fit pretty well with what
the municipality had for roads (indisc.).
CO-CHAIR MASEK acknowledged that Mr. Earnhart's testimony from a
previous meeting [4/29/03] was on record.
Number 0414
ANDREE McLEOD, representing herself, noted that she had
submitted documents to committee members, and requested that
alongside HB 230, consideration be given to safeguarding
protection and enforcement so that violations of political signs
on private property would be addressed. She told the committee
that she had submitted a police report and also that she had
been a candidate for office and wanted to show, by example, how
frustrating it is to go through that process. She said she
hoped the committee understood the "blood sweat and tears"
involved in campaigning and hoped that safeguards, protections,
and provisions would be inserted into the bill to finally put
some teeth into it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 230.
Number 0543
CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 230 [Version 23-LS0780\I, Utermohle, 5/1/03] for the
purposes of discussion. There being no objection, it was so
ordered and Version I was before the committee.
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered Amendment 1, labeled 23-LS0780\I.3,
Utermohle, 5/1/03, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "Section 1.":
Insert new material to read:
"The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
FINDINGS. The Alaska State Legislature finds
that
(1) the right to advocate for or against
those individuals who would occupy public office and
issues of public interest is an inherent right that
has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts; and
(2) the right to advocate for or against
those individuals who would occupy public office and
issues of public interest must be subject to only the
minimum of restrictions necessary to address a
compelling public or government interest.
* Sec. 2."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that the amendment involves the
inherent right to place a sign, as a political advocacy right,
stating that this right is one of the most sacred rights in the
United States of America, and allows for putting up political
signs if those signs conform to federal and state law.
Number 0688
CO-CHAIR MASEK, hearing no objection, stated that Amendment 1
was adopted.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered Amendment 2, labeled 23-LS0780\I.2,
Utermohle, 4/30,03, which read:
Page 2, line 10, following "hazard":
Insert ";
(D) the signs are consistent with
regulations adopted by the department regarding the
time and manner for removal of signs that do not have
current relevance; in this subparagraph,
(i) "current relevance" means the subject
matter of a sign is a matter of ongoing public
consideration by the public or the date of decision on
the subject matter of the sign has not passed;
(ii) "date of decision" means the date on
which a decision on the subject matter of a sign is no
longer subject to influence by public opinion, such as
the date of an election for public office or on a
ballot measure, action by the governor on a bill
passed by the legislature, formal settlement or formal
conclusion of an armed conflict, conclusion of
contract negotiations, or similar matters for which a
date of decision may be ascertained"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete"(D)"
Insert "(E)"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that as a previous witness had
explained, there are time considerations regarding when signs
should be removed and when they're allowed to go up. The
language does this without setting deadline times or "time-
certains" and will therefore limit the amount of time that
signage can be up.
Number 0761
CO-CHAIR MASEK, hearing no objection, stated that Amendment 2
was adopted.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered Amendment 3, which read [original
punctuation provided but some formatting changed]:
P.2,LINE 7,INSERT:
(A)individual or conjoined signs do not exceed 32
square feet total per side;
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that during testimony, concern was
expressed that potentially four-by-eight signs - or whatever
size - could be stuck or stapled together, with the end result
being similar to a billboard. Amendment 3 speaks to avoiding
this adjoining of signs. It allows for political freedom but at
the same time offers protection against the expressed concern
regarding billboards.
CO-CHAIR MASEK clarified that adopting Amendment 3 would not
interfere with complying with the recently adopted Amendments 1
and 2.
CO-CHAIR MASEK, hearing no objection, announced that Amendment 3
was adopted.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered Conceptual Amendment 4, on page 2,
under the new language [line 8, subparagraph (B), "signs are not
on a permanent base;"], suggesting the striking of "not on a
permanent base" and replacing it with "temporary". He referred
to previous testimony indicating that sometimes signage is
placed temporarily on permanent bases.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said another part of Conceptual Amendment 4
would add a new subparagraph (E) [page 2] with regard to
obtaining approval from the landowner or from the occupant of
that private property so that a sign could be placed there.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG agreed that this was a good point, but said
it would involve enforcement; he suggested in such situations,
trespassing laws could take effect if the property owner was
notified of trespassing.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he felt this answered his question and
limited Conceptual Amendment 4 to page 2, line 8, changing the
language to "signs are temporary".
Number 1013
CO-CHAIR MASEK, hearing no objection, announced that Conceptual
Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1050
CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to report CSHB 230 [Version 23-LS0780\I,
Utermohle, 4/29/03], as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 230(TRA) was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 65 - IMPORTING ALCOHOL TO DRY VILLAGE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act relating to forfeiture of a motor
vehicle, airplane, or vessel for illegal transportation of
alcohol."
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) [Version H, labeled 23-LS0159\H, Ford, 4/23/03]
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version H was before
the committee.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 65, provided the following testimony:
Our Alaska villages have a right to determine if they
are dry or if they are wet in so far as implication of
alcoholic beverages are concerned. For those villages
that have opted to be dry, bootleg implication of
alcoholic beverages in the dry villages has been a
continuing problem for a number of years. This
situation flouts the law and denigrates the authority
of the village officials. This legislation mandates,
after due process of law, vehicle confiscation of
vehicle used in bootleg operations.
And I might say this bill has the direct interest of
Governor Murkowski. You may remember during his state
of the state address, way back when, to our joint
session, that this was a key part of his message.
It's also a part of the governor's crime-fighting
package that he announced at a press conference, at
which I was honored to be a part. I believe that we
need to support our governor; most importantly,
though, I think we need to support the laws of our
villages and put teeth into those villages' laws, so
there will be respect for the law, and I believe that
at least some of the problems related to alcohol may
be addressed. I also have a letter of support from
the Alaska Association of Police Chiefs, signed by
Chief Thomas Clemons, which I'll pass around to the
committee. We have some members of the administration
here today who will testify in support of this bill
and will hopefully answer some of the more technical
aspects of the bill.
Number 1277
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration, testified that the proposed CS
would probably have no significant change on the fiscal note.
She said that she didn't have a position one way or the other on
HB 65, although she believes that it provides consideration for
the due process of law for people with snow machines, vessels,
or boats regarding mandatory forfeiture. She said the agency
represents indigent clients charged with bootlegging offenses
and that representing someone who owns an airplane would be
unlikely. The number of cases that the agency would carry under
this bill would probably be fairly limited, considering that
clients generally don't have many assets. Ms. Wilson added that
the proposed CS was an improvement upon HB 65.
Number 1350
MATTHEW C. LEVEQUE, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified that DPS supports
HB 65 and offered to answer questions.
Number 1378
MATT FELIX, National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence,
testified that the council, having been in Juneau since 1965,
was one of the oldest nonprofit corporations in Juneau and was a
prevention agency. He said that when he had previously been
director of the state's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in the
1980s, he had worked with the legislature to pass local-option
alternatives at the request of a number of incorporated and non-
incorporated villages. He stated that the legislation allowing
for villages to vote to stay dry or wet was requested by rural
Alaskans. He said the desire was that this type of legislation
would be enforceable and that its creation would not contribute
to there being a profitable situation for bootleggers. Mr.
Felix strongly urged the committee to pass HB 65 and mentioned
that two major research projects on the effects of going dry in
rural Alaska have been conducted and that those studies had been
very positive.
CO-CHAIR MASEK ascertained that there was no further public
testimony and then closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked whether a description of "illegal
transportation" existed in regulation or in law.
Number 1520
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section - Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
testified that the division supports HB 65 and answered the
previous question by suggesting that it would be interpreted as
transportation and violation of the local option law or another
provision in Title 4. She then said that "illegal
transportation" would be transportation and violation of the
local-option law, or transportation of alcohol for sale without
a license, under Title 4. She commented that she was trying to
imagine all of the violations under law; she said the main one
would be transportation in violation of Title 4 [AS 04.11.499],
the local-option law, which this bill mainly addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to an instance he'd read about in
which an airplane was carrying [a large] amount of alcohol to a
dry area in rural Alaska. There was an attempt to forfeit the
aircraft due to the claim of bootlegging, and this coincided
with the claim that the alcohol was the man's personal stock of
liquor. Representative Fate asked, "How is illegal
transportation termed, outside of going to an expensive
litigation process?"
MS. CARPENETI replied that in this particular case, a factual
analysis would be necessary to determine where he was going,
what the local options were in that particular community, and if
he was prosecuted for violation of the local options - which
would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of having violated
the local-option law - and that then the state could ask the
court for forfeiture.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked for clarification of the phrase
"where he was going," explaining that if one was in Fairbanks,
planning to go to a dry region, "where he was going doesn't
matter until he gets there."
MS. CARPENETI responded, "If he was on his way, and stopped in a
dry village that had a local option, ... if he were parked in
Fairbanks, I don't think there would be a violation." She
thanked Representative Kookesh for suggesting that
clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked what would happen in situations in
which commercial planes flying to both wet and dry areas might
stop in those areas and stay overnight, resulting in there being
something on the plane that would violate the local dry law.
MS. CARPENETI replied that in a circumstance in which a
commercial airplane was traveling from place to place, carrying
cargo, nothing would happen to the person in charge of the
aircraft. She said that depending on the local option, the
person sending it would be in violation of the law, assuming
that it got to a village that had adopted a local option against
the sale or possession, but it wouldn't be a violation of the
law if it was contained in the airplane as unloaded cargo.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked about a passenger on that plane who
would take luggage into the area.
MS. CARPENETI said this would depend upon the facts; to
prosecute a person for violation of a local option, there would
have to be some culpable mental state of the person. If
something happened just "by accident" because of weather
considerations, she didn't think prosecution would be brought.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked who would be called upon to prove the
[culpable] mental state.
MS. CARPENETI answered that the state would have to first prove
that violation of the law was beyond a reasonable doubt and
then, in terms of the forfeiture, it would be by preponderance
of the evidence. Ms. Carpeneti said she should double check.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that in some instances, the party in
question would be the owner.
Number 1760
MS. CARPENETI asked if he was referring to subsections (e) and
(f), and if so, explained that those subsections modify the
remission provisions in the forfeiture law for violations of
Title 4, and that a remission is when a co-owner of a car or
vehicle, who hasn't been involved in the illegal transportation
of alcohol, goes to the court and says, "Judge, I didn't have
anything to do with this violation. It's my car too. I want it
back so I can use it. It's not fair for me to lose my interest
in this car." She indicated this toughening-up of the remission
provisions allows forfeiture in cases when a co-owner may know
that his/her co-owner is violating the law and knows that the
vehicle is being used for illegal acts and doesn't stop it.
Under the forfeiture provision, that person would have to go to
the judge and say, "Not only did I not know about this
particular violation, but I had no reason to know about it and I
had no reason to know that this person had been bootlegging
before."
Number 1808
CO-CHAIR HOLM referred to forfeiture, saying that he had a
problem with the word "reputation" [in subsections (e) and (f)]
and asked, "At what point in time does the forfeiture occur, and
then at what point in time does the remission of that forfeiture
occur?" He said that when items are being held for court
purposes, many times those items are held for years as part of
the court's process and need for evidence, before those items
are returned. He expressed his concern for "evidentiary
holding," whether it was a car or a snow machine, and asked, "If
we're going to allow somebody to have the remission of that
forfeiture, what kind of timing do we have here? Do we have
whatever the court deems is a reasonable time, or is there some
mechanism whereby, if it's shown that a person doesn't know,
then it's an immediate remission of that forfeiture?"
MS. CARPENETI responded that HB 65 doesn't change the provisions
of the law set in statute regarding the procedure for forfeiture
of a car, boat, or airplane. She explained that the vessel
would be seized and statute requires that notice be given to
owners or others who have potential interest in that piece of
property, including a bank with a loan on it, or the spouse of
the person who has been charged or convicted. At that point, a
hearing is set up on the forfeiture and the person who claims an
interest has a chance to give his/her side of the story. She
said that banks or spouses may not have any reason to know of
certain situations.
CO-CHAIR HOLM asked again about the timeframes involved.
MS. CARPENETI replied that it's all set out in AS 04.16.220(e).
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said, "Once again, there's no aviation
provisions in the event that local option areas overlap." He
said that in the worst-case scenario, if there was a local
option that was dry and a local option that was wet, the most
restrictive would dominate, meaning that in the overlapping
areas, the areas wanting to be wet would then have to go dry.
He asked if there was any mediation involved so that the people
who voted for that area to be wet would not have that right be
denied.
MS. CARPENETI said this was an interesting question and that the
reason this was proposed was because when local options are
overlapping, statutes currently provide that the boundaries go
back to the actual village. She said the division just learned
this because somebody was violating both local options, and the
law indicates that with overlapping options, the five-mile
boundary no longer applies and "you go back to the actual
village." She said the division was trying to address that
situation, and when this amendment was originally suggested, the
suggestion was for the least restrictive option to apply. She
stated that the sponsor preferred the application of the more
restrictive option.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that he had a problem with statutes'
taking away something that people had voted into existence
unless it was at least mediated. He said he also had a problem
with the word "reputation" because a reputation is sometimes
earned but just as often is not, and that the use of the word in
law may undeservedly "violate [an individual's] record".
Number 2127
MS. CARPENETI responded that the bill does provide for some sort
of forum to arbitrate the boundaries. She said that in current
law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board") has the
authority to alter boundaries under some circumstances and that
this allows for the ABC Board to adjust the boundaries for these
overlapping conditions. She said that "reputation" applies to
remission, not to whether a person is guilty of violating the
title. She said she believed the purpose was "to not allow
somebody who's a co-owner of a vehicle to close their eyes and
say, 'Gee whiz, I want my car back because I didn't know that he
was going to go out that night and bootleg all this alcohol in
violation of the local option.'"
MS. CARPENETI continued that it only refers to a co-owner
getting his/her interest back, and that it makes it more
difficult for that owner to get his/her interest back regarding
a vehicle that has been used to violate the local option,
because the co-owner has to show that he/she was truly innocent
by indicating that it was unknown that anything was going to
happen on an actual occasion and that there was no reason to
know that this other person had violated the law in the past or
was a known bootlegger.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the ABC Board's authority was
exercised after the fact and not before.
MS. CARPENETI asked, "After the fact of what?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that if this law were to pass, the
gray area, the overlapping options, would precipitate the ABC
Board's redoing of the boundaries. The violation would have
already taken place because of the most restrictive option,
before the ABC Board reforms the boundaries. He said that if
every time there's an overlap, the ABC Board redoes the boundary
so that the problem is avoided, then Ms. Carpeneti would be
correct. But ordinarily, the overlapping boundaries would
precipitate a violation because of the most restrictive option,
and at that point, the ABC Board redoes the boundary - so it is
after the fact of a violation that has already occurred.
MS. CARPENETI said that in this instance, this had not been the
DOL's suggestion, so she directed concern for "most restrictive"
rather than "least restrictive" to the sponsor of HB 65.
Number 2252
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated that due to remaining questions on
HB 65, her recommendation was to hold the bill over.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said valid concerns had been brought up and
he would continue to work with the DOL to resolve those issues.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH suggested that the sponsor reconsider the
use of the word "may" on page 3, line 24, and the word "village"
on line 27. He referred to a dry community in his district with
a population of 2,500 people, saying that the interpretation of
a village should be something different than having a population
of 1,000 people.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked where a definition of "village" could
be found in statute.
MS. CARPENETI said she could access that information.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that the law presently offers the
option, but with [HB 65] forfeiture would become mandatory. He
wondered whether having the option had decreased the amount of
bootlegging and if changing to mandatory would likely effect a
decrease.
TAPE 03-20, SIDE B
Number 2375
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he didn't know the answer, but assumed
that if the village had voted to go dry, there must have been
some amount of reduction involved. He said he assumed that
having a law by which a vehicle may be confiscated would deter
even more people. He commented that there are tremendous
alcohol problems in the villages and this includes some of the
military population who reside in the villages.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that if a village goes dry, there is a
definite impact and "that's when bootlegging starts to become
something." He asked whether having the more permissive option
of confiscating a vehicle had caused a decrease in bootlegging.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded, "I don't know," but said that in
cases like this, it's better to tighten the law because of the
problems "out there."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG questioned the value if it doesn't act as a
deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN replied that when there are laws against
anything, there is a consideration of two points, the punitive
action or the action to deter. He suggested that this argument
could be applied to the death penalty as well as being applied,
to a lesser degree, in this case.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that HB 65 would be held over in order
to address questions that had been brought up by members.
SB 53 - REVOKE DRIVER'S LIC. FOR FATAL ACCIDENT
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 53, "An Act relating to disposition of a
traffic offense involving the death of a person; providing for
the revocation of driving privileges by a court for a driver
convicted of a violation of traffic laws in connection with a
fatal motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle accident;
amending Rules 43 and 43.1, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2255
SENATOR SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 53,
testified that he introduced similar legislation approximately
eight years ago. He reported that it was carried for several
sessions and had passed in the [House] and made it through the
committee process in the [Senate] during the last session, but
did not make it through at the end of session.
SENATOR OGAN told the committee of some friends of his, also
known by people in the room, who had lost their two oldest boys
in a car wreck eight years ago. The person who had caused that
car wreck was basically charged with a traffic violation, also
had six points taken off of his/her license, and [had to do]
some [community] service. The family was told that there was no
culpable mental state, and for someone to be charged with a
felony or with manslaughter, there has to be a culpable mental
state. He said that when running a red light, or when driving
irresponsibly and violating traffic law, one doesn't
[necessarily have a] culpable mental state, so prosecution can't
take place unless there is something egregious involved like
alcohol or reckless driving; there is no way to prosecute such
an individual for anything other than a traffic violation.
SENATOR OGAN testified that after the bill was introduced, he
heard from a woman who had lost her daughter in a car wreck and
who had been unable to track down [the driver]; it was found
that the woman [driving the car] was cited for running a red
light and had to pay a $50 fine. Senator Ogan said he has been
"pushing this issue" for a number of years because the situation
seemed so unjust. Then-Governor Knowles pushed this last year
and legislation almost made it through the process. Senator
Ogan explained that in Section 1 of SB 53, court rules are
amended so as to require a trial to honor due process, if
someone is going to lose his/her license. Section 2 addresses
revocation of the driver's license, although it's not a
mandatory revocation. He pointed out that objection in the past
has pertained to a situation such as taking a license away from
a parent who is driving a vehicle, who has children in the car,
and who hits a patch of ice and [has an accident] that results
in the death of his/her child. He said the desire is to grant
the courts the ability to exercise discretion to make the
judgment call regarding who needs to lose his/her license and
who doesn't.
SENATOR OGAN outlined that the person has to be operating the
motor vehicle that was involved in the accident, the accident
has to cause a death of another person, and there has to be
violation of a traffic law. There is also latitude regarding a
limited license for such things as work or for taking care of
sick family members. Victims' rights are protected by allowing
a representative of the family to testify at the hearing when
there is a request for revoking the license or for issuing a
limited license.
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he likes the bill but wishes that it
were expanded to include not only death, but also permanent
disability because he knows of cases, close to him, where there
was a third party who caused an accident that resulted in a $10
fine for not having taillights. He said in this example, this
was a terrible accident wherein people were seriously injured,
and that he would like "permanent impairment" to be included in
the bill as well.
SENATOR OGAN replied that this sentiment was brought up in the
other body and he fully agrees; however, after eight years of
addressing this issue, he would rather address one thing at a
time. He said he would be happy to introduce such a bill
regarding disability, but since this has been a long and arduous
process, he would rather keep it narrow at this point. He
commented about the woman who had lost a daughter to a driver
who had been fined $50 for running a red light, and noted that
this woman had another daughter who was permanently disabled.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING commended Senator Ogan for the
legislation, commenting that he was at the service in March 1994
after those two young men, whom he knew very well, had died; he
said he felt motivated to pass SB 53, hoping that it would help
with other situations.
CO-CHAIR HOLM mentioned that this bill has already been
extensively worked through, both in this body and the other
body, and that a lot of people's concerns have already been
addressed.
Number 1978
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration, testified that with the enactment
of SB 53, the agency would be representing people who would not
otherwise be entitled to [legal] counsel. She said that when
there is the possibility of losing one's driver's license, one
is entitled to a trial. However, she predicted that there would
be so few of these cases - hopefully, none - that the fiscal
impact on the agency would be very slight. She said from what
she had heard from the [Division of Motor Vehicles], there
should be less than 10, if that many, so the effect would be
minimal. She said she was available for questions.
CO-CHAIR MASEK, ascertaining that there was no further
testimony, closed public testimony on SB 53.
Number 1898
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to report SB 53 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 53 was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was recessed
at 4:10 p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting never was
reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|