04/25/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19|| SB92 | |
| Sponsor Statement for Sb92 | |
| SCR3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SCR 3 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2007
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to ignition interlock requirements; relating to
limited driver's license privileges for persons convicted of
driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage,
inhalant, or controlled substance and requiring certain persons
to utilize ignition interlock devices to qualify for a limited
driver's license; relating to probation for driving while under
the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled
substance, and refusal to submit to a chemical test; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 19(FIN)
"An Act relating to ignition interlock devices; to limited
driver's license privileges; and to ignition interlock limited
driver's license privileges."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Urging the governor and the attorney general to expedite the
resolution in the courts of the appeal from the decision by the
commissioner of natural resources to deny the proposed plans for
development of the Point Thomson Unit and to terminate the Point
Thomson Unit.
MOVED CSSCR 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 92
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED LICENSE IGNITION INTERLOCK
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
02/21/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
03/13/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/13/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/20/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/20/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/22/07 (S) Moved CSSB 92(STA) Out of Committee
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/07 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
03/23/07 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, FRENCH
03/23/07 (S) NR: STEVENS, GREEN, BUNDE
03/29/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/07 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/25/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: LTD. DRIVER'S LICENSES/IGNITION INTERLOCK
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: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, ROSES,
GRUENBERG, DOLL, LYNN
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
02/19/07 (H) Moved CSHB 19(JUD) Out of Committee
02/19/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 4NR 1AM
02/21/07 (H) DP: LYNN, RAMRAS
02/21/07 (H) NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS, HOLMES
02/21/07 (H) AM: GRUENBERG
02/28/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/27/07 (H) Moved CSHB 19(FIN) Out of Committee
03/27/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/07 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 8DP 3NR
03/28/07 (H) DP: GARA, FOSTER, CRAWFORD, NELSON,
THOMAS, JOULE, MEYER, CHENAULT
03/28/07 (H) NR: HAWKER, STOLTZE, KELLY
03/30/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/30/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 19(FIN)
04/02/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/02/07 (S) JUD, FIN
04/25/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SCR 3
SHORT TITLE: POINT THOMSON UNIT APPEAL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
02/19/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/07 (S) JUD
03/22/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/20/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/25/07 (S) JUD at 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
State Capitol Building
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 19
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to
Representative Kevin Meyer
State Capitol Building
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB 19
NARDA BUTLER, Citizen Activist
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 19 and SB 92
RODNEY HEBERT, Private Citizen
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 19 and SB 92
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 19 and
SB 92
MARTY GREESON
Community Based Action for a Safer Society (CBASS)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 92 and HB 19
BABETTE MILLER
Smart Start
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 92 and HB 19
KERRY HENNINGS, Licensing Manager
Department of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 92 and HB 19
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35:09 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator Huggins, Senator Wielechowski, Senator
Therriault, and Chair French. Senator McGuire arrived shortly
thereafter.
HB 19-LTD. DRIVER'S LICENSES/IGNITION INTERLOCK
SB 92-LIMITED LICENSE IGNITION INTERLOCK
1:35:30 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of two bills: SB 92,
which he had sponsored, and HB 19. Before the committee were
CSSB 92(STA) and CSHB 19(FIN). He stated the intention of making
the bills internally consistent. Both deal with license
revocation as a result of a conviction in a court of law for
driving while intoxicated (DWI).
CHAIR FRENCH noted a second type of revocation, an
administrative revocation, happens after a driver is pulled over
on suspicion of DWI. The officer at the scene seizes the license
and provides a piece of paper good for seven days. If the person
does nothing within that time, the license is administratively
taken for a certain length of time, based upon how often the
person has been convicted; this happens upon review by the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). However, to his belief neither
bill deals with the administrative revocation period or the
different penalties under such a revocation.
CHAIR FRENCH returned to the bills. The court-ordered suspension
following conviction falls under AS 28.15.181. The length
depends on the number of previous convictions; for example, a
second conviction results in a one-year suspension, and a third
or subsequent conviction results in a three-year suspension
unless it is a felony. He indicated only the Senate bill deals
with a felony.
CHAIR FRENCH addressed limited licenses. During the revocation
period a court can allow a limited license if the person meets
criteria under AS 28.15.201. By contrast, currently someone must
wait 30 days no matter what, and then can apply for a limited
license if able to prove employment or prove enrollment in and
compliance with an alcohol-treatment program, or completion of
such a program. Then the person can drive to and from work. It
is there that the bills diverge.
1:39:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, sponsor of HB 19, introduced himself
and Mike Pawlowski.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, clarified
that a person may apply to both the court and the DMV for a
limited license. Thus it can be granted both administratively
and through the judicial system. In reply to Chair French, he
said he believes that application would be after conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted Ms. Narda Butler, a constituent, had
brought this to his attention and done a lot of research. The
bill has evolved. At one time it dealt with felonies, but some
Representatives felt someone with several DWIs shouldn't be
allowed to drive. Now the focus is on the misdemeanor. For the
first DWI, the license is suspended 30 days; this bill doesn't
change that. In the next 60 days, however, when a person can get
a limited license, there is no restriction on where one drives
as long as there is an ignition interlock device to ensure the
driver is sober. A single mother may drive her kids to school or
go to the doctor, for example. Currently a person may drive only
to or from work. The focus of HB 19 is on driving sober. He
added that he also likes SB 92.
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony.
1:44:07 PM
NARDA BUTLER characterized herself as a quintessential citizen
advocate and mother of five - several of them teenagers with
some sort of driving privileges - who isn't aligned with any
volunteer or paid organization for or against alcohol, ignition
interlocks, and so forth. She noted one child has fetal alcohol
syndrome (FAS) and is struggling with the driver's test. Because
she lives with the damages of alcohol in her home and lives with
teenagers who are driving, daily she is looking for ways to keep
her kids safe and to help others avoid some of the damages that
alcohol has brought into her family.
MS. BUTLER told how she came to know Rodney Hebert. He has a
marvelous story of healing and recovery and he allowed the
Butler family to walk with him through that process. As a result
of that relationship, she became aware of how not being able to
drive dramatically affects the ability to be self-supporting and
to reenter society. It's a quandary, she said. She wants to keep
her kids safe, she has no love for alcohol and yet she sees how
difficult it is for someone to overcome years of alcoholism.
MS. BUTLER explained that she attended the international
ignition interlock symposium last year and the most compelling
reason for creating an ignition interlock program is the fact
that 75 percent of the folks who have had their license revoked
drive anyway. Really the goal is to prevent these high risk
drivers from driving drunk and that's what these programs can
do. She made nine points: 1) Ignition interlock devices (IID)
save lives. More than one study has shown that recidivism rates
drop by 65 percent or more for the individuals who use IIDs as
compared to the offenders who do not. 2) Ignition interlocks
only work when they are on the cars of this high-risk driving
population. 3) The most comprehensive interlock programs have
both a judicial and an administrative component. 4) Ignition
interlock devices are not easy to circumvent.
1:50:39 PM
MS. BUTLER continued. 5) Ignition interlocks pass the test for
being effective, cost effective, and fair. The offender, not the
public, pays for the bulk of the program. A study in Sweden
found a $1,200 savings for two years in terms of fewer medical
visits, less work time lost to illness, and fewer benefits paid
out. She noted that the average cost for arrest, conviction, and
30-day incarceration for driving with a revoked or suspended
license is about $1,200. Between January 2001 and the end of
2005 Alaska had 6,900 cases for driving with a revoked or
suspended license. The total five-year cost amounted to
$10,350,000. Reducing that figure by even 40 percent would be
significant. 6) The longer a person is driving illegally and
isn't caught, the more he or she is likely to do so. Eliminate
the opportunity to practice driving illegally by requiring the
use of an interlock device as soon as possible following
conviction, and by increasing the sanctions for driving with a
revoked or suspended license. 7) Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD) supports the use of ignition interlocks, including first-
time offenders. New Mexico is the best model of a successful
judicial interlock program. Interlocks are immediately mandatory
for all drunk driving offenders. 8) Ignition interlocks allow
offenders to participate as productive members of society.
Offenders who are not productive are consumptive and cost
society. 9) The main obstacle to creating a comprehensive
interlock program is the false perception that this is lenient
on the drunk driver. But statistically the use of ignition
interlocks is the next best step in combating drunk driving,
reducing accidents, reducing injuries, and reducing deaths.
1:54:39 PM Senator McGuire joined the committee.
MS. BUTLER stated that SB 92 wins in terms of requiring the use
of an interlock for most offenders and it extends the judicial
authority. It loses because it requires the use of an interlock
only after the period of license revocation and it does not
include first-time offenders. HB 19 wins from the perspective of
being an attempt to capture high-risk drivers who are outside
the judicial system. Also it requires the use of an ignition
interlock during the period of license revocation. If it were
combined with a strong judicial component it would dramatically
strengthen Alaska's efforts to combat drunk driving. It loses on
two counts. It maintains a 30-day hard suspension period and it
restricts the use of interlock devices to misdemeanants.
1:56:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to a letter from Commissioner
Monegan citing the results of implementing an interlock program
in Canada. DWI rates were reduced by 80 percent during the first
12 months for first-time offenders. He said he wonders about
extending this to first time offenders.
MS. BUTLER supported that idea.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about Alaska statistics on repeat
offenders.
CHAIR FRENCH said there were 4,449 DWI arrests last year and 20
percent were dismissed. Of the remaining, 3,000 were first
offenders and 1,250 were repeat offenders.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked how to recalibrate an interlock device.
MS. BUTLER deferred to Ms. Miller from Smart Start.
1:59:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said the statement that 75 percent of the people
who have had their license revoked drive anyway comports with
his experience as a prosecutor. With that in mind, he asked why
a person who is willing to drive without a license would be
willing to pay $100 a month to drive legally instead rather than
continuing to drive illegally.
MS. BUTLER said there are two reasons. First, some of these
high-risk drivers have changed their lives and want to live
within the law. The other reason relates to passing legislation
that provides incentives. For example, subtracting the cost of
the device from a court ordered fine. It's a carrot and stick
approach to encourage participation. Based on HB 19 she
estimates there might be 10 percent compliance. That's a good
start but adding a judicial component and capturing people at
the beginning of the recidivism cycle will capture a larger
percentage of that population, she stated.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's a good argument.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he presumes that if a family has just
one car, other family members would have to use the interlock
device.
MS. BUTLER said yes. A family would have to make a choice;
everyone would have to learn how to use the device or the
offender wouldn't be able to drive.
2:03:02 PM
RODNEY HEBERT, testifying as a private citizen, explained what
this legislation means to him. If he were to return to prison
for driving without a license, he would lose his house, his job,
and his freedom. Essentially he'd go back to the lifestyle he's
known his entire life. He said he's been drinking since he was a
fetus and has been in and out of prison for 18 years. For over 5
years he's been clean and sober. He holds a responsible job and
has purchased a house. "We can't expect people to make the right
choice if we don't give them the right choice to make," he said.
Since he quit drinking and can see the next right choice to
make, his life has totally changed. He urged the committee to
pass legislation to protect society even if it's difficult. "If
we can stop one person from killing another because of DWI, then
I think that this is all worth it," he stated.
2:08:08 PM
MARTI GREESON, Community Based Action for a Safer Society
(CBASS), said this is an eight year old community coalition that
addresses the ways that alcohol abuse and underage drinking
harms families in Alaska. During a 2006 town hall meeting the
Anchorage community identified primary legislative concerns. A
top issue was to support the use an ignition interlock device as
part of a comprehensive approach to deter drunk driving. Driving
is a privilege. If a person loses their license as a result of
an alcohol related driving offense and the offender is offered a
second privilege to a restricted license, an interlock device
ensures that the person does not have the opportunity to make
the same bad decision.
2:10:00 PM
BABETTE MILLER, Smart Start, said she is available to answer
questions related to ignition interlocks. Turning to the
calibration issue she explained that most clients come in once a
month for calibration. That involves downloading data from a
person's system and recalibrating the head by blowing ethanol
into the unit. This is to ensure that the unit correctly
registers alcohol. The Department of Corrections requires
recalibration every 90-days, but her company requires it at
least every 67 days.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about safety features and what might happen
if too much time passes between calibrations.
MS. MILLER answered the person's car won't start.
CHAIR FRENCH asked her to remind the committee about: the cost
to install an interlock; the monthly fee; and the cost to remove
the device.
MS. MILLER replied her company charges: $100 for the
installation; $125 for the monthly lease, which includes
calibration; and $50 to remove the device. Responding to a
question from Chair French she said they prefer to calibrate the
device every 30 days.
2:12:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referred to bill section 2 and asked the sponsor to
discuss the circumstance where a person can't reasonably have an
IID installed.
MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that this provision is intended to give
an "out" for a person to apply to the court system rather than
DMV because range 10 clerks should not make these types of
decisions. Working through the court system regarding
"reasonable" seemed to be a good standard to use, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized this provision is principally for motor
vehicles, such as four-wheelers, motorcycles, and snow machines,
that don't easily adapt to these devices and for financial
reasons.
MR. PAWLOWSKI yes, and the financial consideration is primarily
due to geography, but no distinction is drawn between financial
considerations in a rural area versus an urban area.
2:15:44 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a driver's license is required in
those settings where a person can legally drive a four-wheeler
on the highway.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied his understanding is that a license is
required.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he thought that four-wheelers can't be
licensed for use on public roads and so a driver's license isn't
required.
2:16:16 PM
KERRY HENNINGS, Manager, Driver Licensing, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, clarified that
some rural communities, by ordinance, allow the operation of
snow machine and ATVs within city limits. She believes that is
what is addressed in the provision.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a driver's license is needed to
operate ATVs in those locations.
MS. HENNINGS said a driver's license is required.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if a judge in any community could forego an
IID and issue a limited license strictly for driving to and from
work if the person showed proof of having completed or was in
compliance with an alcohol treatment program.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that's correct.
CHAIR FRENCH, noting that HB 19 adds a provision that allows a
court to impose an IID upon conviction, asked how bill sections
5 and 6 work.
MR. PAWLOWSKI relayed those were added in the finance committee.
His understanding is that the court was not addressing the
existing interlock law that allows an IID to go on as part of
probation so those sections require the court to consider AS
12.55.102.
2:19:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH added that on is the DWI statute and the other
felony DWI statute so the court could consider the use of an IID
as a condition of probation.
MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it the sponsor would object to
requiring an IID for life for a multiple offender.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said he didn't believe the sponsor would object,
but the issue relates to practicality. Revocations run
consecutively so a person could be required to have an IID in
his or her car, but they might not actually be eligible to drive
for 20 to 30 years. We couldn't get around that, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that makes sense but he wonders how to
get the people who have dozens of DWI offenses.
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded that the idea is to give those people a
legal way to drive. The flip side of the argument is those
offenders will simply buy another vehicle since they are already
driving illegally.
2:22:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recapped the mechanics of HB 19. For a first time
DWI the license is taken for 90 days and after 30 days the
offender may install an IID and drive for the remaining 60 days
under the probation conditions. After the 60 days, the IID would
be removed and the person could drive as a regular citizen.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that's correct unless an additional probation
requirement was added.
CHAIR FRENCH said the same idea prevails for a second DWI. There
would be a 90-day hard revocation and then 270 days driving with
an IID. At the end of that period the IID would come off and the
person would drive as a regular citizen subject to any probation
provisions.
MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed; that's on page 4, lines 8 through 11. It's
the same structure as the current limited license.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about time periods for a third DWI that
didn't result in a felony conviction.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied the 90-day revocation applies to any level
of multiple offender. The limited license period would go
longer. The minimum revocation for a multiple offender is 3
years.
MR. PAWLOWSKI stated that the sponsor wanted to highlight that
sections 5 and 6 of HB 19 interact with SB 92.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that the biggest conflict is with respect
to Section 2 and when it's possible to get around the ignition
interlock. The Senate State Affairs took a geographic approach
and mirrors insurance requirements. If you need insurance you
must have an ignition interlock and if you don't need insurance
you don't have to have an ignition interlock. "That's an area
where we'll have to figure out what to do," he said.
^Sponsor statement for sb92
2:26:21 PM
CHAIR FRENCH turned to SB 92 and noted that it takes a little
different approach by focusing on the probation revocation
period. He read the sponsor statement into the record as
follows:
Senate Bill 92 uses modern technology to combat the
chronic problem of drunk driving in Alaska. Ignition
interlock devices are used across the nation to
prevent individuals from starting and driving their
vehicles while intoxicated. Alaska has one of the
highest DUI rates per capita in the nation - and many
of those convicted are multiple offenders. According
to 2006 statistics, nearly a third of the DUI cases in
that year involved a drunk driver who'd been convicted
of the same offense in the past.
This legislation would require the use of an ignition
interlock device ("IID") during the entire length of
probation for repeat DUI offenders and first DUI time
offenders that have a blood alcohol level over .15
upon arrest. In order for a repeat offender to legally
get behind the wheel again, an ignition interlock must
be installed. The cost of the device is borne by the
offender.
Similarly, if a judge grants a limited license driving
privilege to an offender during his or her period of
license revocation, this bill requires the use of an
IID for repeat offenders or first time offenders who
blow over a .15.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that for a first DUI a person would lose
their license for 90 days and they would probably be on
probation for 3 years. For a second DUI there would be probation
for 5 years and a third offense would probably bring probation
for 10 years. Under SB 92 the affects are more severe in that an
IID will be required for much longer, but the idea is to address
repeat offenders. That's the basic difference between the bills,
he said.
2:28:36 PM
DR. DON ROGERS, Partners for Progress board member and former
state medical examiner said he has participated in many DUI
trials and revocation hearings. He stated that among the three
sentencing provisions for DUI offenders - imprisonment, fines,
and license revocation - the latter is the area that needs the
most careful focus to protect the public. The overriding goal in
any legislation that deals with license revocation and the use
of IIDs should be to establish a system that best protects the
public against repeat drunk drivers. It's important to examine
the realities of license revocation from the offender's
perspective. Today driving is a necessity for leading a
productive life in terms of getting and keeping a job, getting
to school, caring for a family, buying groceries, and keeping
appointments. New IID technology provides a way to protect the
public from drunk drivers while recognizing this necessity.
These devices offer a long-needed method for separating driving
from drinking.
Partners for Progress recommendations for this legislation are
based on a recent survey of IIDs. The national MADD organization
has reviewed the experience of other states and it recommends
that all DUI offenders be required to obtain an interlock
device. He suggested that the sponsors work together to craft a
single bill requiring all repeat DUI offenders to use an IID
while on probation or parole. National data shows that IIDs are
an effective tool for reducing recidivism provided the offender
begins using the device under probationary or parole
supervision.
The Alaska Judicial Council recently released data showing that
most recidivism occurs in the first year following release from
prison. When an offender is reestablishing him or herself in the
community is when he or she should be using an IID. To do
otherwise will encourage driving without a license increasing
the likelihood that the person will enter the revolving door of
repeat addiction crime. The court system reports that there are
as many driving without license cases as DUI cases. This is a
costly and dangerous syndrome, he said.
DR. ROGERS urged the committee to take time now to develop
provisions to include felony DUI offenders in the IID system.
The potential benefit to public protection through this
interlock legislation is greatest with felony DUIs. MADD reports
that 50-75 percent of repeat drunk driving offenders once again
drive drunk within the first year of release from prison. Many
of these individuals are felons. Court data also shows that
people with revoked licenses are likely to drive anyway. Pass
legislation that reflects this reality and put felons on IIDs as
a condition of probation or parole. The cost of not doing this
is huge and the public will pay that price. If Alaska does it
right, IIDs can be a powerful tool in reducing the high rate of
DUI crimes in the state, but this requires clear focus on
protection for the public.
DR ROGERS highlighted that the data shows that graduates from
therapeutic courts are far less likely to recidivate than
offenders who have gone through the traditional correction
system. He asked the committee to incorporate license provisions
to encourage more offenders to enter and complete therapeutic
courts. Also give the court the discretion to grant IID limited
license privileges to both misdemeanant and felony therapeutic
court participants so they can attend court-ordered treatment
programs. The legislation should also include a provision to
allow graduates of therapeutic courts to apply for restoration
of a revoked license after three years of successful driving
with an IID limited license. These provisions will provide
powerful incentives to increase the number of DUI offenders who
enter and complete the difficult 18-month court-ordered
treatment program, he stated.
2:35:33 PM
JANET McCABE, Partners for Progress, emphasized Dr. Rogers' and
Ms. Butler's testimony. The bill needs quite a bit of recrafting
particularly with regard to including felons, she said.
2:36:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Miller if her company could handle the
volume if the 3,000 first-time offenders and 1,200 multiple
offenders were each required to have an IID and she said yes. He
asked how long it takes to install a device, how many employees
she has, and how long it takes to train someone to install and
calibrate an IID.
MS. MILLER replied it takes 30 to 45 minutes to install an IID
and 30 minutes to train someone to use it. Currently she has 8
contract locations in Ketchikan, Juneau, Kodiak, Dillingham,
Valdez, Kenai, Homer, and Seward; 2 offices; 4 mobile units; and
7 more employees who install and train.
CHAIR FRENCH asked who covers the Anchorage and Fairbanks
markets.
MS. MILLER said her company covers both those markets. She
clarified that the 8 locations she mentioned are contractors who
have their own shops and employees.
2:39:11 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Wooliver to shed light on why last year
less than 10 percent of first offenders and 3 percent of
multiple offenders received a limited license.
DOUGLAS WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
explained that the court system almost never awards limited
licenses. He understands that DMV awards very few limited
licenses simply because few people apply for them.
MS. HENNINGS said that DMV is at a loss to explain why there are
not more applicants. When the multiple offender limited license
law passed, the division expected to be inundated, but that
hasn't happened.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there is cost associated with getting a
limited license.
MS. HENNINGS said the application fee is $100 and the employer
must sign off that the license will be used during work hours.
Also the applicant must complete certain requirements and have
proof of insurance. Then DMV gives the applicant any necessary
test depending on how long the person hasn't been licensed.
Calibration results are forwarded to DMV from Smart Start.
CHAIR FRENCH asked who currently does and does not get an IID on
a limited license.
MS. HENNINGS explained that an IID is not required on a first-
offender limited license unless it's ordered by the court. A
multiple offender must have an IID.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that something is keeping 92 percent of
first-time offenders from getting a limited license.
2:42:42 PM
MS. HENNING said judging from the records she's reviewed, a
number of these people have committed driving while license
revoked offenses. That makes them ineligible for a limited
license. "They would have been eligible for a multi-offender
limited license, but they continued to drive illegally," she
said. When the multiple offender law went in, those offenders
were automatically ineligible due to their current status of
driving while revoked.
CHAIR FRENCH commented under the current statutes there is an
interplay between the DWI revocations and the driving while
license revoked (DWLR) revocations that prevents some people
from getting a limited license. Ms. Hennings agreed. He asked if
HB 19 overcomes that glitch.
2:43:47 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI said no; many people expressed the view that a
license only to drive to and from work wasn't worth the trouble.
With respect to dealing with the issue of driving with a
suspended license, he said we took several shots at it, but the
nexus was too difficult.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for clarification that even if HB 19 were to
pass, an offender who is stopped for a DWI or for driving with a
suspended license would receive a one-year hard revocation and
then come under the terms of probation after that.
MS. HENNINGS said that's correct.
2:44:57 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for a copy of AS 28.22.011(b) that
lists the communities where an IID would not be required.
CHAIR FRENCH directed his attention to the bill packet and noted
that it reflects the approach taken in SB 92 with respect to
geographic restrictions.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if he considered the route the House
bill takes, which is to leave the decision to a judge.
CHAIR FRENCH said yes, but ultimately it seemed to be a better
idea to have one rule to fit all cases instead of letting a
judge decide. The Anchorage District Court is a good example
because 6 judges could come to 6 very different decisions on the
same set of facts. There would be a fairly even-handed
application of the law when there's just one judge, but when
there are several judges and each has a personal interpretation
for what reasonable is, there may be a loophole that wouldn't
benefit public safety.
2:46:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH, finding no further questions or comments, held SB
92 in committee.
At ease from 2:46 30 to 2:47:37 PM.
SCR 3-POINT THOMSON UNIT APPEAL
2:47:41 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SCR 3. He asked
Senator Therriault if any changes had been made since the
committee considered it last.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said no and reminded members that the
language on page 3, line 10, is new. Lines 24 and 25 also
contain new language that says, "or facilitate a successful
resolution to the unit and lease dispute…" anticipating that a
resolution could be negotiated outside court.
He asked the committee to consider amending page 1, line 1, to
delete the words "in the courts" to reflect the possibility of a
resolution outside the court. It would be an expedited
resolution of the appeal.
2:49:05 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt version K committee
substitute (CS) for SCR 3.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSCR 3, labeled 25-LS0446\K as the
working document.
CHAIR FRENCH restated Amendment 1, which is to delete the words
"in the courts" from page 1, line 1.
2:49:26 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved Amendment 1.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection Amendment 1 is
adopted. Finding no further questions, comments, or discussion
he asked for a motion.
2:49:53 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to report CSSCR 3(JUD) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, it was so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:50:13 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|