Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/11/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Security Breach of Personal Information of State Employees and State Retirees | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 283 - PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL
2:10:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to the purchasing of and
restrictions concerning alcoholic beverages."
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 283, disclosed that upon coming out of church on the
evening of December 24, 2004, his wife was hit by a [repeat]
drunk driver, and his son was missed by just inches. His focus,
he relayed, has since been [to work on legislation that would
help] prevent such a tragedy from happening to others.
Obviously, punishment is not enough - there are still thousands
of drunk drivers on the road every day. As the result of
existing law, there are now 2,133 marked driver's licenses and
State identification (ID) cards carried by people who have
proven they can't handle alcohol, and existing law provides a
monetary incentive for alcoholic beverage licensees to check a
customer's driver's license or ID card. House Bill 283 [in
part] would amend current law by raising the civil fine that
could be awarded to licensees, from $1,000 to $2,000. Included
in members' packets is a draft letter of intent stating that it
is the legislature's intent that half of that civil fine award
be shared with the licensee's employees and/or agents who
confiscate the ID card or driver's license of someone prohibited
from purchasing alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown
Jug"), just one liquor store out of many, as a matter of course,
confiscates the driver's licenses and ID cards of underage
persons attempting to purchase alcohol, and has collected
approximately $2 million in civil fines since the civil fine
provision has been in effect. He said he would like more
licensees to start checking and confiscating driver's licenses
and ID cards from all who are precluded from purchasing or
consuming alcohol. House Bill 283 would also add - to the list
of those who could be prohibited from consuming or purchasing
alcohol - [under proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13)(A), a person who
is convicted of a felony and the behavior was substantially
influenced by consumption of alcohol, or, under proposed AS
12.55.015(a)(13)(B), is convicted of a third or subsequent
crime, even if it's a misdemeanor crime, and the court finds
that prohibiting him/her from consuming alcohol is necessary to
protect the public]. Under the bill, the court would have the
discretion to order such a prohibition, but it would not be
mandated to do so, and any such person would then have his/her
driver's license or State ID card marked to reflect that he/she
is prohibited from consuming or purchasing alcohol.
2:16:37 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in dealing with chronic
inebriates, and in requiring - perhaps via an amendment - that
the driver's license or State ID card of [a person under the age
of 21] be marked so as to draw attention to the fact that the
person is [under the age of 21], thereby perhaps stopping people
who've reached the age of 21 from continuing to use the driver's
license or ID card they got when they were a minor to go into
places that sell or serve alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, on the latter issue, said he had tried
to get an amendment included which would have required that
State IDs expire on a person's 21st birthday and that they be
renewed within 90 days, but the drafter said that such an
amendment to HB 283 wouldn't comply with the single subject rule
and could thus engender litigation. As a result, Representative
Crawford relayed, he'd asked that another bill be drafted that
could include such a proposed change.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to a proposed amendment, labeled 26-
LS1218\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/3/10, which read:
Page 3, line 22:
Delete "up to the lifetime of the defendant"
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that it is his understanding that the
Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR) is in
favor of this change to proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13). If this
amendment were to be adopted, the proposed statute would then in
part read, "order the defendant to refrain from consuming
alcoholic beverages for a period of time, including during the
term of any sentence and as a condition of probation, suspended
sentence, and suspended imposition of sentence".
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that proposed AS
12.55.015(a)(13) is intended to address those people who
continue to get arrested as the result of alcohol consumption,
those who have proven they can't handle alcohol. He opined that
even if HB 283 only stops just one person from abusing alcohol,
it would be a good thing, and offered his hope that the
committee would pass HB 283.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
2:24:45 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), explained that the DMV
currently puts what's called a "J restriction" on the driver's
licenses and ID cards of individuals who are restricted from
purchasing alcohol as a condition of sentencing. Such driver's
licenses and ID cards have the words "alcohol restricted" in a
red banner across the top. In conclusion, she relayed that the
DMV is supportive of HB 283.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. BREWSTER, in response to comments and a question, explained
that although under current law, a driver's license does expire
90 days after a person's 21st birthday, that law doesn't apply
to ID cards. From the DMV's perspective, it would be ideal if
ID cards were treated similarly. Enforcement, however, is an
issue for the licensees themselves to address be refusing access
to their establishments by those with expired driver's licenses
and ID cards.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to a question, explained
that the existing $1,000 fine provided for in AS 04.16.047(b) is
a civil fine, and offered his understanding that Brown Jug, for
example, "settles it all up at one time during the year" and
then shares a portion of the fines with the employees that
confiscated the driver's licenses and ID cards. He then showed
members a couple of examples of restricted licenses.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the DMV has the authority to
change what is printed in the aforementioned red banner on
restricted licenses. Could the DMV, perhaps via regulation,
have that red banner indicate that the person is under the age
of 21 until a certain date?
MS. BREWSTER said she would have to research that issue further.
2:38:13 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that under current law,
when the driver's license of a person who reaches the age of 21
expires, he/she is required to take [an alcohol and drug
awareness and safety examination] prior to getting a new
driver's license. He indicated that he would be working with
the sponsor of HB 283 to address further [the issue of people
using expired driver's licenses and State ID cards to purchase
alcohol].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concurred. In response to questions, he
offered his understanding that for federal tax purposes, the
civil fines [licensees share with employees] would be treated as
wages. He acknowledged that it can be difficult to collect
those fines, and surmised that that's one of the reasons that
Brown Jug "settles" [up with its employees] just once a year and
then only with regard to those fines that were actually
collected. [Neither existing law nor HB 283] outlines how the
civil fine is to be distributed; that's left up to the
licensees. In response to a question, he reiterated that the
bill would be increasing the civil fine from $1,000 to $2,000,
and noted that members' packets include a draft letter of
intent, which reads [original punctuation provided]:
It is the intent of the Alaska Legislature under
section #2 of HB 283 amending AS 04.16.047(b) to
increase the civil award from $1,000 to $2,000 to
enable licensees to share half of the award with their
employees and or agents. The award is to provide an
incentive to those who sell alcohol to check ID's.
This should aide in the effort to prevent people who
are restricted from consuming alcohol from purchasing
alcohol.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in receiving more information
regarding the distribution of the civil fine.
2:43:49 PM
PAUL GROSSI, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Crawford,
indicated that the driver's license or ID card would be
confiscated by the licensee or his/her employees and then
brought before the court, which would award the civil fine to
the licensee; that fine would be paid by the offender.
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking that the aforementioned letter of intent
needs to be reworded, characterized it as too vague and
burdensome on employers, expressing concern that it could result
in employees filing claims demanding payment of their portion of
the fine from their employers, the licensees. The civil fine,
currently something that benefits licensees when awarded, would,
under the letter of intent, become a liability for licensees as
employers. He questioned how the State would collect the fine,
how it would be distributed, and what happens if it isn't shared
with employees, and suggested that further testimony - from the
administration and Brown Jug, for example - is warranted.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered his belief that the letter of
intent won't create a legal expectation by the employee to
receive a portion of the civil fine; that the licensee won't
have to share any of the fine, regardless of whether the person
is still in the licensee's employ; and that the letter of intent
merely indicates that it is the legislature's wish that a
licensee share the fine with the employee who confiscated the
driver's license or ID card of someone who wasn't supposed to be
buying or consuming alcohol, but it is not required. He
indicated that although he is unfamiliar with how the awarding
and distribution of the fine is accomplished now, he surmised
that it would be the same for the proposed fine as it is for the
current fine.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he would also like to hear testimony
from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board"), and
noted that as a licensee, he, himself, hasn't ever pursued the
civil fine.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that current law prohibits the
awarding of the fine directly to the employee - the fine must
instead be awarded to the licensee. In response to a question,
he reiterated that this provision of statute is meant to work as
an incentive for licensees to check driver's licenses and ID
cards; currently, a number of establishments in the state aren't
doing so.
2:52:53 PM
BONNIE HAYES relayed that she has been convicted twice of
driving under the influence (DUI) and has a red banner on her
driver's license. The civil fine isn't really going to be an
issue for people like her, she predicted, because rather than
show someone their restricted ID and risk having it confiscated,
they'll just walk out of the establishment if the licensee or
employee asks to see their ID. It's sufficient that licensees
have this incentive to check the driver's licenses and ID cards
of those seeking to purchase alcohol, she opined, and said she
views current law regarding restricted licenses and ID cards as
a wonderful tool to help her stay sober, adding that for the
most part, it has worked. If a person with a restricted license
or ID card is stopped from buying alcohol, that person will
essentially be stopped from drinking and driving, and so it is
critical that the red banner be put on a person's driver's
license or ID card right away. In response to a question, she
indicated that because $2,000 is a lot of money, the proposed
civil fine provides people like her with another huge incentive
to not purchase alcohol.
2:59:30 PM
JERRY McCUTCHEON opined that HB 283 should be changed to mandate
that everyone's driver's license or ID card be examined by
licensees prior to them selling or providing alcohol; without
such a requirement, HB 283 is basically a "toothless tiger." He
also indicated his belief that the people who have been killed
by drunk drivers would be alive today if [existing Alaska law
regarding drunk driving] were more stringent.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with the provisions of the bill
that would add more people to the list of those who may be
ordered by the court to refrain from purchasing or consuming
alcohol, but relayed that he is not convinced that the proposed
increase in the civil fine would do anything other than double
the amount of money that gets awarded to licensees, at least
those who can afford to take people to small claims court. He
again opined that the letter of intent would put too many
burdens on the employer, adding that he is not convinced
doubling the civil fine would provide any more incentive for
people to refrain from buying or consuming alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he is questioning whether
deleting the fine altogether would change a DUI offender's
behavior.
[HB 283 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB283 Ver E.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 02 HB283 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 03 HB283 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 04 HB283-DOA-DMV-01-26-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 05 HB283-LAW-CRIM-01-26-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 06 HB283-DHSS-ASAP-01-26-2010.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 07 HB283 APOA ltr of support.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 283 |