Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/01/2005 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 19 | ||
| = | HB 15 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act restricting the authority of a court to suspend
execution of a sentence or grant probation in prosecutions for
driving while under the influence and prosecutions for refusal
to submit to a chemical test; and allowing a court to suspend
up to 75 percent of the minimum fines required for driving
while under the influence and for refusal to submit to a
chemical test if the defendant successfully completes a court-
ordered treatment program."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, the bill's sponsor, informed the
Committee that this bill would accomplish three things. First it
would increase the percent of a fine that could be waived or
reduced in the Therapeutic Court from the current 50-percent to 75-
percent. This would "enhance the ability" of an offender to pay for
the cost of therapy counseling and other activities that they would
be required to participate in under State law.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the proposed 25-percent
reduction "wouldn't be through the Court; it would be independent"
of the Court.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the Court would impose the
fine mandated by State Statute, and, upon the individual's
completion of the therapeutic program, a portion of the fine could
be waived or suspended. Thus, the individual could utilize that
money to pay for their program participation. He stressed that the
intent would not be to waive or suspend the entirety of the fine.
Representative Rokeberg stated that the bill would also allow
felony Driving Under the Influence (DUI) cases to utilize the
Statutory authority provided to the Therapeutic Courts. Two felony
DUI Court pilot programs had been previously authorized by the
Legislature and are currently operating in the Municipality of
Anchorage. This bill would provide those felony DUI courts "the
same authority" as provided to the District Court so they could
reduce their fines by 75-percent as an incentive for their
offenders to participate in Wellness Court programs. The effort
currently being exercised by the two courts is uncodified law.
Co-Chair Green asked whether individuals who committed a felony
could participate in the Wellness Court.
Representative Rokeberg expressed that while the majority of the
individuals in the Wellness Court had committed misdemeanors, some
felons have been allowed in the program.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged. To that point, she conveyed that she
had heard this issue being discussed by people in "some of the
auxiliary departments". They become "nervous" when individuals who
had committed a felon participate in the program, as "they consider
that a very different circumstance than the misdemeanor."
Representative Rokeberg stressed that the two aforementioned courts
are pilot programs. "They are subject to renewal by the
Legislature." The two courts must be provided "the same tools" at
the felony level as exists at the District Court level. The
authority to continue the pilot programs would continue to be with
the Legislature.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the intent would not be
to change "the misdemeanor court to a felony court" and that two
separate levels would be "clearly defined".
Representative Rokeberg affirmed. He referenced previous DUI
legislation he had sponsored that had provided Statutory authority
to the misdemeanor courts. Those courts currently operate under
codified law.
[NOTE: Due to static in the recording, some of Representative
Rokeberg's remarks were inaudible.]
Representative Rokeberg noted that the third provision proposed in
this legislation would require that the Courts must impose the
mandated minimum DUI fine levels. The minimum fine for a first
offense DUI is a minimum of $1,500. To this point, "an obscure
older Court of Appeals case", Curtis v. State, has been utilized to
allow the courts to suspend a portion or all of the fines specified
in State Statute. This bill "would basically repeal that case" and
require that the fines authorized by the Legislature be imposed. He
noted that the First Judicial District in Southeast Alaska has been
"the biggest offender" in this regard. The Juneau Empire
newspaper's Court reports consistently reflect the fact that the
majority of DUI fines are suspended.
2:50:35 PM
Co-Chair Green asked whether any other Statutes exist that would
prevent a judge from exercising his or her discretion to impose
fines below the specified minimum fine level.
Representative Rokeberg understood that there were; however, he
deferred to the Department of Law in that regard.
Co-Chair Green stated that further information in this regard would
be sought.
Representative Rokeberg characterized this as a "good bill" and
requested that it be reported from Committee.
Co-Chair Green voiced the need to know whether "instructing the
Court to do this and no less than this" was common practice.
Representative Rokeberg responded that a significant number of
hearings were conducted in conjunction with previous legislation
that increased DUI fine levels, mindful of the fact that there is
"a point of diminishing returns". To that point, the public "is
very concerned" about such behavior, and, the intent of the
Legislature was to mandate $1,500 as being the minimum fine for a
first offense DUI, with there to be no Court discretion allowed in
this regard. However, after that legislation became effective, the
Curtis v. State case was utilized by the Court as a means through
which to lower fines below the level authorized by the Legislature.
He understood that there are those who conduct what could be
likened to "judge shopping" in the First Judicial District, as
defense councils are aware of which judges are stricter than
others. This situation "has cost the judicial system" a significant
amount of money. Revenues would increase were the minimum fine
levels upheld, even were a portion of the fines suspended or waived
for those participating in the Wellness Court programs. The bill is
accompanied by several zero fiscal notes as well as a Department of
Law fiscal note that depicts an increase in revenue as a result of
mandating the minimum fine level, even with the allowance of
increasing the amount of a fine that could be suspended or waived
in the Therapeutic Court, as that would affect "a relatively small
number of people". The Public Defenders Office's fiscal note
reflects that this bill would incur an indeterminate increase in
its expenses. Nonetheless the overall impact of this legislation
would be to increase revenue.
Co-Chair Green asked whether the State is the recipient of any
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funding, as that
entity is often involved in these sorts of efforts.
Representative Rokeberg noted that there is consideration of
expanding the pilot program to include the communities of
Ketchikan, Juneau, and Fairbanks. The Wellness Court program is
anticipated to generate a significant amount of money. The
Therapeutic Court concept is receiving significant federal
government support because it is producing results in "breaking the
revolving door cycle" of DUI behavior. People's lives are being
changed. This effort is also saving money in the Department of
Corrections and other State programs.
Co-Chair Green understood that a felony DUI is issued at the time
of a third offense.
2:55:27 PM
Representative Rokeberg affirmed that it would be a third offense
conviction within a ten-year period.
Co-Chair Green asked regarding the DUI Court procedure;
specifically who might be "the contact point" between court visits.
Representative Rokeberg responded that each Court might have its
own procedure; however, the typical "template" would include the
judge and the Court's case coordinator who oversees each person's
treatment program. Historically, the case coordinator might have
been a Department of Corrections Probation Officer (PO); however,
through a cooperative effort between the Department of Corrections
and the Department of Health and Social Services, a transition is
occurring at the felony level in which an employee of the
Department's Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) and case
coordinators might absorb some of the workload from the POs.
Additional cooperation would be required from the District
Attorneys in the Department of Law and the Public Defender Agency
and private councilors in regards to the admissions screening
procedure. "Not just everybody gets into these various programs.
They have to have potentiality."
Representative Rokeberg stated that one of "the new features" would
be the use of pharmacological drugs that has been proven successful
"in helping people break their dependency on alcohol". "Some
controversy" has accompanied this treatment. Nonetheless, he voiced
concern that this type of treatment is not frequently utilized in
the two Anchorage felony pilot programs. He also disclosed the
existence of a "cultural problem" at the felony level and "some
resistance" on the part of the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Law prosecutors. To that point, he ascertained that
that resistance is "breaking down".
2:58:21 PM
Representative Rokeberg continued that the findings of the
Anchorage pilot program indicate that, with the support of the
various agencies, the program would work.
Senator Dyson voiced concern about the inability of the Department
of Law's Civil Division's computers to link information to the
Department's Criminal Division. As a result, a judge might not be
aware of the complete situation. Currently, the Civil Division
prints out their information and someone carries it to the Criminal
Division, who must enter it into their computer. The Court System
is addressing this; however, this significant administrative link
"has not been working well".
Representative Rokeberg responded that he had investigated this
issue four years earlier when he was the Chair of the House
Judiciary Committee. It has been frustrating that "the Legislature
seems to be unable to impress upon the bureaucracy that we are in
the 21st Century now. Technology works and the only way we're going
to save money is to increase our productivity."
Co-Chair Green understood that some of this issue would be
addressed in the FY 06 budget.
Senator Dyson affirmed.
Representative Rokeberg urged the Finance Committee to support such
action, as it would be necessary in order to increase productivity.
"The private sector does it all the time."
Co-Chair Green stated that support would be sought.
Co-Chair Green ordered the Bill HELD in Committee.
3:00:56 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|