Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/26/2004 02:18 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 342
An Act relating to driving while intoxicated; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft Version V,
Luckhaupt dated 4-22-04. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Co-Chair Harris asked if a person with a DUI conviction must
install a device [ignition interlock] so that the vehicle
will not start if the driver's breath contains alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO affirmed, and explained that it is
now virtually impossible for a good mechanic to defeat the
ignition interlock device.
Co-Chair Harris asked if this would place in statute that a
person convicted of an alcohol-related offense could drive
if he had an ignition interlock device in his vehicle.
Representative Gatto explained that historically penalties
for DUI were increased, with the State paying for jail time
and medical treatment. He conducted research on the laws in
other states, and he asserted that the single most effective
way to prevent drunks from driving cars is an interlock
device. He said that it had a good rate of reduction
although it didn't eliminate recidivism. In previous
versions of the bill, the penalties were "laddered."
AMANDA WILSON, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, explained
that the changes made to HB 342 dealt with the ignition
interlock device, and allowing limited licenses for people
in wellness courts or therapeutic courts, which are
intensive outpatient treatment programs. The participants
are monitored while taking Naltrexone, which prevents people
from consuming alcohol.
Ms. Wilson informed the Committee that the Wellness Court is
an 18-month program. Upon completion of it, people
currently may have portions of their sentence and fine
reduced, and under this bill, could get a limited license as
well. It is an effective tool and there is incentive to
enter the program and successfully complete it. She noted
that the Wellness Court has had tremendous success in
turning peoples' lives around. The court also closely
monitors the participants.
Ms. Wilson discussed the changes in Version V of the bill.
Section 2, subsections 2 and 3 [on page 3] refers to a
court-ordered treatment program described under AS 28.35.030
(p) and it is the Wellness Court program.
Ms. Wilson noted that Section 3, page 3, changes the "look
back laws" which are currently lifetime. The lifetime look
back at offenses was intended to nab the habitual offenders
who re-offended every four or five years. Currently the
license is suspended for a year and there is no ability to
get a limited driver's license. For equity, the bill
excludes offenses longer than fifteen years preceding the
date of the present offense, so that an offender is not
treated the same as someone with two DUI's within a few
years.
Ms. Wilson explained that Section 4 deals with the DUI
courts for the felony offender, and it allows for a limited
license if the offender has an ignition interlock as well.
Completion of the lengthy and intensive therapeutic court
program and treatment with Naltrexone is required. Ms.
Wilson concluded that punishment is not an effective tool,
and people must be socially reintegrated. The intent of the
bill is to assist people with reentering society, reaching
sobriety and maintaining a healthy lifestyle through finding
steady employment.
HB 342 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|