02/12/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2007
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to ignition interlock limited driver's license
privileges."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to bail."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/07 (H) Moved CSHB 19(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/05/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP 1NR
02/05/07 (H) DP: DOLL, LYNN, JOHANSEN, GRUENBERG,
JOHNSON, ROSES
02/05/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
02/12/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 19.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 19, responded to
questions on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Meyer.
LABETTE NORR
Smart Start, Inc.
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 19.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 19.
RODNEY O. HEBERT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 19.
NARDA BUTLER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and endorsed the passage
of HB 19.
DALE FOX, Executive Director
Alaska Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (Alaska
CHARR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 19, spoke in
support of the concept of ignition interlock devices.
WALT MONEGAN, Acting Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his support of HB 19.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 19, expressed
concerns and responded to questions.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 19, provided
comments and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:09:59 PM. Representatives Coghill,
Samuels, Holmes, Gruenberg, and Ramras were present at the call
to order. Representatives Lynn and Dahlstrom arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 19 - LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
1:10:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 19, "An Act relating to ignition interlock
limited driver's license privileges." [Before the committee was
CSHB 19(STA).]
1:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that he'd introduced HB 19 after working with a
constituent who was helping someone who'd been charged with
several driving under the influence (DUI) crimes get his life
back together. Drunk driving is a serious threat to society and
to people's safety, he remarked; yearly, over 5,000 Alaskans are
arrested for DUI, and at least 800 of those are arrested for DUI
while having a suspended or revoked driver's license. House
Bill 19 won't change the current penalties for DUI crimes, but
it will change the statutes that provide for a limited driver's
license to those convicted of a DUI - it will create a new
limited driver's license. Rather than changing where one drives
with a limited driver's license, HB 19 will simply change how
one drives; HB 19 will require the installation of an ignition
interlock device in the defendant's vehicle, and he/she will be
limited to driving only the vehicle in which the device has been
installed.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER relayed that in order to start that vehicle
the person must blow into the ignition interlock device, which
is essentially a breathalyzer, but if the device detects a set
amount of alcohol, the vehicle will not start. Currently
Alaska, via the court system, requires repeat DUI offenders to
use ignition interlock devices. House Bill 19 will provide the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with the authority to grant a
limited driver's license during the license revocation period as
long as the person convicted of the DUI has an ignition
interlock device installed in his/her vehicle. He expressed the
hope that because people who have ignition interlock devices
installed in their vehicles won't be able to drive while
intoxicated, the streets will be safer from people with repeat
DUI convictions.
1:14:40 PM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, in response to a question, relayed on behalf
of Representative Meyer, sponsor of HB 19, that language on page
2, lines 14-15, stipulates that a limited driver's license may
be granted if the person provides proof that an ignition
interlock device has been installed on every vehicle the person
operates. He suggested that a representative from the DMV could
provide testimony regarding how the DMV would interpret that
language - for example, perhaps a person who drives as part of
his/her employment would have to get an ignition interlock
device installed on the vehicle that he/she drives for work.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised, then, that a person couldn't drive the
company forklift - or other vehicle - for example, if it weren't
also equipped with an ignition interlock device.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER concurred, though he said he isn't sure
whether a driver's license is required in order to drive a
forklift.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question, said that the penalty
for driving with a revoked or suspended license will not be
changed by HB 19, although the bill does contain language in
Section 2 - proposed AS 28.15.201(f)(3) - which stipulates that
the person being granted a limited driver's license must sign an
affidavit acknowledging that operating a vehicle which is not
installed with an ignition interlock device will subject him/her
to the penalties for driving with a revoked license.
Furthermore, Section 3 of the bill adds a reference to proposed
AS 28.15.201(f), the statute that pertains to driving with a
canceled, suspended, or revoked driver's license - AS 28.15.291.
Also, language in proposed AS 28.15.201(f)(4) stipulates that a
person may not be granted a limited driver's license if he/she
has previously been convicted of violating the requirements of a
limited driver's license contingent upon the installation of an
ignition interlock device.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS characterized allowing someone convicted
of DUI to drive anywhere as letting him/her off the hook - the
suspension of a driver's license is part of the punishment and
serves as a daily reminder. If someone who's prohibited from
driving a vehicle that does not have an ignition interlock
device installed borrows someone else's car, the penalty should
be huge, he opined, because the person is already being granted
a freedom.
1:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER opined that having to drive with an
ignition interlock device is a punishment in itself because it
will be embarrassing to have to blow into it each time one wants
to start the car; furthermore, there is an expense associated
with having an ignition interlock device.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out, though, that currently under
the stipulations associated with getting a limited driver's
license, the person only gets to drive to and from work and does
not get to do any of the other things that one might use a car
for. Under the bill, the person will have all of the driving
freedoms he/she had before the DUI conviction. He asked,
therefore, whether the amount of license suspension time would
be increased.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked members to keep in mind that
currently almost 20 percent of the people who have limited
driver's licenses issued after a DUI conviction are being picked
up again for DUI. Those people are not just driving to and from
work; they are also driving other places. Under the bill, those
that take advantage of the limited driver's license will at
least be forced to drive sober.
MR. PAWLOWSKI noted that those violating proposed AS 28.15.291,
which pertains to driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked
driver's license, may be subject to vehicle forfeiture.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to Section 4 of the bill -
proposed AS 28.35.030 - and asked whether the court would have
discretion with regard to how much probation time it could
assign.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, noting the language in Section 4 was the result
of an amendment offered by Representative Gruenberg, offered his
understanding that Section 4 would limit the length of probation
to five years maximum.
1:24:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether ignition interlock devices have been
tested and proven to work at -40°F.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered his understanding that ignition
interlock devices have been tested at temperatures of -40°F.
MR. PAWLOWSKI noted that it is the Department of Corrections
(DOC) that does the tests.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the ignition interlock devices will
work at -50°F, a temperature which makes for an entirely
different climate than even -40°F. He asked for information
regarding how ignition interlock devices are meant to work for
the entire northern region of the state, particularly in remote
areas and particularly on the coldest of nights - the question
of whether ignition interlock devices will work under such
conditions raises life/safety issues because any defect in the
equipment could leave someone stranded.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER relayed that there are two vendors that
have sold ignition interlock devices in the northern regions of
the state, and that he is anticipating that at least one of them
will be speaking later.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the bill has an effective date of
1/1/08, and asked whether alternatives have been provided for in
case the ignition interlock devices don't work as planned in all
areas of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as the sponsor of the
original legislation pertaining to ignition interlock devices,
offered his recollection that when that legislation passed in
1989, in order to address the issue of there possibly being
problems with the way ignition interlock devices work in certain
areas of the state, language was inserted into Title 33
stipulating that the DOC must consider climatic conditions when
approving regulations pertaining to a particular device. In
other words, by the law, ignition interlock devices must be
climatic specific - they may not be certified in colder regions
of the state unless they can absolutely operate safely in those
regions.
1:32:15 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out, however, that [AS 33.05.020(d)] only
says:
(d) The regulations in (c) of this section must
require that the ignition interlock device operate
reliably over the range of automobile environments,
otherwise known as automobile manufacturing standards,
for the geographic area for which the device is
certified.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that this language still leaves open the
question of whether ignition interlock devices will function at
-50°F and other extreme conditions when one's safety is most
greatly at risk.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that one would
still have the option of using the existing provision regarding
limited driver's licenses - AS 28.15.201(d); so if one lives in
a place where ignition interlock devices are either not readily
available or prone to malfunction because of climatic
conditions, one could still make use of the existing provision.
MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that that would not be possible because
Section 6 of the bill repeals AS 28.15.201(d)-(e). This change
was suggested by the DMV as a way of providing consistency and
uniform treatment of all areas of Alaska. All mechanical
devices - even the vehicles themselves - could have problems
functioning at -50°F; for example, he relayed, he would not
drive his vehicle under such conditions because he could pretty
much guarantee that he would end up stranded. He suggested that
the committee hear from the vendors, adding his understanding
that ignition interlock devices have been used in Fairbanks and
in places like Fort Yukon.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether those in rural Alaska
will have access to ignition interlock devices.
1:35:36 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question, said that under the
bill, a person must get an ignition interlock installed if
he/she wishes to qualify for the limited driver's license. In
response to further questions, he said that by providing the
courts with the ability to grant a limited driver's license
contingent upon the installation of an ignition interlock
device, the courts also have the ability to deduct the cost of
the ignition interlock device from the fines. Furthermore,
according to testimony from the vendors, installation fees are
often waived for those with low incomes; vendors provide free
vouchers to the Public Defender Agency (PDA). The monthly cost
of maintaining an ignition interlock device amounts to [less
than] $5 a day, and one of the vendors recounted to him, Mr.
Pawlowski remarked, that one person has chosen to keep his
ignition interlock device on his car long past the required time
because it is cheaper than [the cost associated with receiving
another DUI].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she doesn't feel good about the
concept of handing out free vouchers to those who've chosen to
break the law. She asked whether ignition interlock devices
will fit every car and whether they can be tampered with in
order to allow a car to be started by someone who has been
drinking.
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his understanding that AS 11.76.140(a)
makes it a crime to tamper with or circumvent ignition interlock
devices; furthermore, ignition interlock device are monitored on
a monthly basis, and so it is fairly easy to catch someone who
has altered the device.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pointed out that ignition interlock device
technology has been around since the 1980s, and offered his
understanding that the devices are pretty foolproof. Some
devices, he suggested, can distinguish who is blowing into the
device, and some have cameras installed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what the penalty is for
circumventing an ignition interlock device.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that that crime, which is a misdemeanor,
could result in a maximum term of imprisonment of 30 days and a
maximum fine of $500.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what would happen if a drunk driver
gets someone else to blow into the ignition interlock device.
MR. PAWLOWSKI suggested that the Department of Law (DOL) might
be better able to address that issue.
1:42:25 PM
LABETTE NORR, Smart Start, Inc., with regard to the issue of
ignition interlock devices working in cold climates, relayed
that her company has installed one unit in Fort Yukon; that unit
has been functioning throughout the winter with no problems to
date. Approximately 80 units have been installed in Fairbanks,
and only one person has had a problem just one time, but there
have been no other problems related to cold temperatures. Her
company has installed one unit in Nome and other units
throughout various parts of the state - including Ketchikan,
Sitka, Juneau, Dillingham, Kodiak, Valdez, Delta Junction,
Glennallen, Homer, and Kenai - and all have shown good results.
MS. NORR, with regard to the question of whether ignition
interlock devices can be installed in any vehicle, explained
that the device is mounted underneath the dashboard and so is
not visible except for the breathalyzer portion, which is
located on the steering column and which can be "unplugged."
Ignition interlock devices can be installed in any vehicle, she
assured the committee, and have been tested in a controlled
environment at temperature as low as -40°C. She reiterated that
they've not heard of any problems occurring in units located in
Fairbanks, Nome, and Fort Yukon - places that aren't considered
to be controlled environments.
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking on the severity of past winters and the
mildness of this winter, asked whether any ignition interlock
devices were installed [in the northern regions of the state]
during the winter of 2005/2006.
MS. NORR said yes. In response to further questions, she
relayed that her company flew into Fort Yukon and Nome and
installed a unit in each location, and flies back to service
those units whenever needed. In communities where more than one
unit is to be installed, her company will wait until four or
five units have been ordered and then will fly into those
communities and install them. She offered her understanding
that there are two ignition interlock device vendors operating
in Alaska, and relayed that her company tries to "pick up"
contractors in all the areas it goes into so that there is
someone local who can provide service to those people who are
required to have ignition interlock devices installed. The
units are leased rather than sold, but the replacement cost for
a damaged unit is around $1,500.
1:49:48 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to a question,
said that the reference to "department" in Section 2 of the bill
refers to the DOA, and that the DOA currently has the ability to
issue a limited driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, line 9, and
suggested that the words, "that is" ought to instead read, "must
be", and that the words, "limited license certificate" should
instead just read, "limited license".
MR. BANNOCK concurred with the latter point.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions, said that the bill is not
providing for a new administrative revocation and is not
changing the DMV's current authority; instead, from the point of
view of the DMV, the bill merely redefines what a limited
license is and what the driver is able to do with it. He
offered his understanding that the language on page 2, line 10,
clarifies that a limited driver's license can be granted by
either the court or the department, adding that the department
already has the authority - under AS 28.15.201 - to grant a
limited driver's license.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, said he is not prepared
to comment at this time on the possibility that the DMV might be
moved from the DOA. In response to further questions, he
reiterated his remarks regarding the DMV's current authority,
how that authority will not change, and what he believes the
bill will do. He added that currently the DMV issues a limited
license certificate, which is just a piece of paper, and
encourages the applicant to get an identification (ID) card;
under the bill, however, the DMV would create an actual
"license," though he would not characterize that as an expansion
of the DMV's authority to issue a license - the DMV would just
be issuing a plastic card as opposed to a piece of paper.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to more questions, said that oftentimes
those who have had their driver's license taken away for DUI are
subject to both administrative actions and criminal actions, but
sometimes the person is only subject to one action or the other;
also, a person could apply to the court for a limited driver's
license, be turned down, and then apply to the DMV for one.
Noting that the court has greater authority than the DMV to
issue a limited driver's license, he offered an example wherein
the court told someone to apply to the DMV for a limited
driver's license because the court wasn't going to grant one.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether that constitutes
good public policy.
2:02:50 PM
RODNEY O. HERBERT offered his belief that allowing a person to
acquire a limited driver's license contingent upon the
installation of an ignition interlock device would give that
person the ability to transport his/her children, make
appointments, and attend treatment and recovery meetings; the
provisions of the bill will allow those stopped for DUI to
become more self sufficient, and will help protect society and
implement punishment in a safe and good way. People do make
mistakes and often make them over and over again, he remarked,
acknowledging that he is one such person, though one that has
been able to straighten his life out; however, his doing so has
been hampered by the lack of a limited driver's license. He
characterized [the bill] as a good idea and as creating a
win/win situation. In conclusion, he thanked the committee for
considering HB 19.
2:08:17 PM
NARDA BUTLER indicated that after becoming familiar with Mr.
Hebert's situation, she brought forth to the sponsor the concept
embodied in HB 19 because she was very concerned about the
safety of the roads her children drive on. She offered her
understanding that 50-75 percent of those with revoked licenses
are actually driving anyway; because of this, she is absolutely
in favor of allowing for the use of ignition interlock devices
to monitor the activities of those drivers. This technology
will make the highways safer, she remarked, adding that she
heartily endorses the passage of HB 19 as moving towards having
laws in Alaska that approach best practices as expressed in
other parts of the country.
2:11:49 PM
DALE FOX, Executive Director, Alaska Cabaret Hotel Restaurant &
Retailer's Association (Alaska CHARR), said that the Alaska
CHARR supports the concept of ignition interlocks, particularly
for those who are repeat DUI offenders, those who've been
convicted of high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) offenses,
and those who drive with a revoked license after a DUI
conviction. He noted that after learning more about how the
proposed program will work, the Alaska CHARR may have more
comments.
2:13:53 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Acting Commissioner, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), simply expressed his support for HB 19.
2:14:12 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
that the DOL has concerns about limiting the length of probation
after a DUI conviction, and opined that neither Sections 4 or 5
of CSHB 19(STA) are necessary - and could perhaps even be
detrimental - because AS 12.55.102 already allows a court to
order the installation of an ignition interlock device as a
condition of probation for alcohol-related offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he would be offering an
amendment to cure that problem; his intention is to have the
maximum five years probation stipulated in Sections 4 and 5 be
in addition, if the court finds that the public safety requires
it, to any probation that the court initially sets, and this
additional probation would specifically pertain to the length of
time one must keep an ignition interlock device installed.
MS. CARPENETI indicated that such a change would make a
difference [with regard to how the DOL views Sections 4 and 5].
In response to a question, she explained that there are two
types of license revocation: one, when a person has been
arrested for a DUI or a refusal crime, and, two, when a person
has been convicted of either crime. When a person is arrested,
the arresting officer takes the person's driver's license away
and gives the person a piece of paper which the person then uses
to start the process pertaining to the administrative revocation
of his/her driver's license; this can happen even if the person
is not then convicted of DUI or refusal. If a person is
convicted, the court can also revoke the person's driver's
license. Generally, if a person is subject to both forms of
revocation, the revocation periods run at the same time. The
process for administrative revocation is described in AS
28.15.165, and that's why the bill addresses both administrative
and court revocations, she observed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that the bill is
extending [the DMV's] authority to require an ignition interlock
device, and so he is wondering whether the courts should also be
involved in that process.
2:19:03 PM
MS. CARPENETI suggested that perhaps Representative Coghill is
wrong in his summation. Both the DMV and the court can
currently grant a limited driver's license but that provision of
statute - AS 28.15.201(d) - is being repealed by HB 19 and will
be substituted by the procedure outlined in proposed AS
28.15.201(f). The bill merely adopts a different set of
procedures for granting a limited driver's license, requiring
the installation of an ignition interlock device.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is questioning whether the DMV
ought to receive more oversight - for example, court oversight -
in the proposed process. He opined that the bill extends the
DOA's authority considerably, and he doesn't want to turn the
DMV into a whole new court agency.
MS. CARPENETI said HB 19 sets out pretty narrow standards for
when one can have a limited driver's license, because one must
have an ignition interlock device installed.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, said he would provide
the committee with statistics regarding the DMV's rate of
reversals of administrative license revocations, but added his
belief that the reversal numbers are small. He opined that the
DMV does not have a problem with regard to how it conducts its
license revocation hearings.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the bill would expand the universe of
people who are driving, because otherwise their driver's
licenses would be suspended. Therefore, he relayed, he would
like information regarding how many driver's licenses are
presently suspended, and how many drivers would be able to start
driving under the provisions of the bill.
MR. BANNOCK said he would get that information to the committee,
and offered that the DMV's fiscal note estimates that annually
there would be 300 people taking advantage of the new limited
driver's license provisions.
2:27:02 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS recalled that the sponsor's argument is that people
who shouldn't be driving are driving anyway but they won't be a
risk if at least they are driving sober. This is in conflict
with what the legislature has said, which is that it doesn't
want DUI perpetrators driving on Alaska's roads. Seemingly the
bill is [providing leniency to] those people who would not be
following the law anyway.
MR. BANNOCK assured the committee that the DMV will implement
whatever the legislature determines should be the policy.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would also like statistics regarding the
number of felony DUI perpetrators and those that committed
vehicular manslaughter as a result of DUI behavior. The bill is
proposing a more cumbersome procedure than simply saying certain
people can't drive.
MR. BANNOCK said that the DMV will be able to provide some of
that information but not that which it doesn't track - for
example felony DUI versus non-felony DUI. In response to a
concern raised earlier, he offered his belief that the language
in proposed AS 28.15.201(f) is almost identical to that in
existing AS 28.15.201(d); furthermore, the bill is not aimed at
everything that one could lose one's driver's license over, but
is instead aimed at only two types of crimes - DUI crimes and
crimes of refusal.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would still like to receive the information
he requested because the legislature may not want to grant
limited driver's licenses to the most egregious offenders.
MR. BANNOCK suggested that either the Alaska Court System (ACS)
system or the DOL may have those additional statistics, and
relayed that he will provide the committee with statistics
regarding those people whose driver's licenses have been revoked
for DUI and refusal crimes. He noted that some of those people
already have a limited driver's license and are only supposed to
be driving to and from work, and acknowledged that the estimate
in the DMV's fiscal note may be incorrect. The statistics he
provides, he cautioned, will not contain data about those who've
had their license revoked for driving with a suspended license
or who've had their license suspended because of "point"
deductions or insurance violations.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that many who are picked up for DUI also
have a wider substance abuse problem, asked whether a person
under the influence of a substance other than alcohol would be
able to bypass an ignition interlock device. If so, then the
roads could become more dangerous because such people could
merely substitute the form of substance they are abusing.
MR. BANNOCK acknowledged that as a possible problem.
2:36:28 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), offered that one solution would be to not grant a limited
driver's license to those with substance abuse problems
unrelated to alcohol. Aside from that issue, he indicated, [the
DPS] supports [the bill] as another tool to help address some of
the problems occurring on Alaska's roads. He assured the
committee that [the DPS] would still be investigating DUI crimes
regardless of whether a vehicle has an ignition interlock device
installed.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he supports the legislation, but is concerned
that it will merely create a false sense of security.
Therefore, he asked, what steps could be taken to ensure that
limited driver's licenses are not granted to those who simply
substitute their substance of choice with something that won't
be detected by an ignition interlock device.
MR. PAWLOWSKI concurred with Lieutenant Dial that there might be
ways to limit, through the ACS, who is granted a limited
driver's license. He said he must return to the sponsor's
intent in bringing the bill forward, that being to address the
fact that the current law regarding limited driver's licenses is
not really working as intended - people are still driving
wherever they want to. Statistically, 800-900 people are
arrested every year for DUI with a revoked or suspended license.
At least while an ignition interlock device is installed in a
vehicle, the person won't repeat a DUI offense.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether other states have any data
regarding arrests of those with ignition interlock devices
installed who are under the influence of some substance other
than alcohol.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said he would research that point further.
2:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed interest in receiving
statistics regarding moving violations or traffic accidents that
occur even when there is an ignition interlock device installed
in the vehicle.
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question, offered his belief
that more people than the DMV's estimate of 300 will apply for a
limited driver's license under the bill because it will then
become the only way to obtain a limited driver's license - only
those with an ignition interlock device installed in their
vehicle will be granted a limited driver's license. Given that
roughly 5,000 Alaskans are arrested every year for DUI, surely a
lot more than 300 people annually will be applying for a limited
driver's license.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, said that even if the
number of people applying for a limited driver's license under
the bill doubles, the fiscal note won't double correspondingly.
He explained that the fiscal note reflects the cost of setting
up the DMV with the proper equipment and hiring an additional
person; currently only one employee is dedicated to the limited
driver's license program. In response to other questions, he
relayed that when someone applies for a limited driver's
license, he/she must pay a $100 application fee as well as the
cost of the actual limited driver's license, which is $20, and
acknowledged that these fees are not enough to offset the costs
of starting up and maintaining the program proposed by the bill.
LIEUTENANT DIAL concurred with the comments that people with
revoked licenses are driving anyway, and indicated that the hope
is that the bill will help the DPS with that problem. In
response to questions, he offered to research how many people
that the DPS pulls over for DUI are repeat DUI offenders, and
relayed that of the hundreds of DUI arrests he's made, in his
experience most repeat offenders are driving the same car and,
surprisingly, a number of them actually have a sober individual
in the car; he said he hopes that [HB 19] will encourage such
DUI offenders to allow the sober individual to drive.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed an interest in altering the bill to
address the issue of substitute substances, vehicles, or people
who would blow into the device, and to narrow the loopholes
without increasing the authority of the DMV beyond its
capability.
2:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed interest in somehow indicating on
the car itself that the owner has a revoked driver's license.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions, relayed that the
employees that would deal with limited driver's licenses would
be a "range 10"; currently the employee that issues a limited
driver's license verifies that the application form has been
filled out correctly, and under HB 19 the two employees would
also ensure that there is actually an ignition interlock device
installed in the vehicle in question. He pointed out that these
employees are not hearing officers. In response to further
questions, he reiterated that DUI offenders can be subject to an
administrative revocation, a court-ordered revocation, or both
forms of revocation; when the person is subject to both forms of
revocation, the periods of revocation are generally concurrent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why a person should be subject to
both forms of revocation.
MR. BANNOCK pointed out that that is simply the way current law
reads.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES raised the question of whether they ought
to still provide people with another option for obtaining a
limited driver's license; for example, perhaps there are areas
of the state in which ignition interlock devices are not
available.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that CSHB 19(STA) would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|