Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/26/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation on Vote by Mail Municipal Election | |
| Presentation by the Division of Elections: 2017 Fiscal & Policy Challenges | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 408-REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
4:24:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to revocation of a
driver's license."
4:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, on behalf of the House
Judiciary Committee, presented HB 408. She said that the
impetus for HB 408 was brought forth by a constituent who will
testify on his experience; however, this bill also would affect
many other people. She paraphrased from a sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In Alaska, a person who has had their license
permanently revoked due to alcohol related offenses
can apply to have their driver's license restored if
10 years have passed since the revocation and they
have not been convicted of a driving-related criminal
offense in that time. However, if someone was
convicted of any driving-related crime (such as
driving without a license) any time after the date of
revocation, their license may never be restored under
current law.
4:26:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained the limited exception. She
related that if a person was convicted after three strikes and
had his/her driver's license [permanently] revoked, but the
person subsequently was arrested for another DUI [driving under
the influence] offense, the person would be eligible to apply
for a limited license. She then highlighted the inconsistency
in current law pertaining to DUIs. She said that a person who
stayed totally clean for 10-15 years and has not been charged
with a DUI has no pathway to obtain a driver's license; however,
a person who had a fourth DUI who adhered to the therapeutic
court process would be eligible to get his/her driver's license
back.
4:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on how current law
would affect someone who lost their license but did not drive
for ten years.
4:30:16 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that HB 408 would address someone whose
license was permanently revoked due to 3 felony DUIs within a
10-year period. If that person committed any driving-related
offense, there would not be any remedy to reinstate driving
privileges. He was not sure about the insurance requirements.
4:31:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reiterated the purpose of the bill, to
create a pathway for reinstating a limited driver's license for
those who are "clean" for ten years, including not driving
without a license.
MR. SMITH answered yes; that was his understanding. He
described the situation was being encountered by someone who had
multiple DUI convictions as a young person, had his/her license
permanently revoked, but who has since reformed and cannot
obtain a driver's license.
4:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification for someone who was
conviction of a felony DUI, but in Year 9 was subsequently cited
for driving without a license, that the person would need to
wait 10 years before he/she was eligible for a limited driver's
license under the bill.
MR. SMITH answered yes; that the intent of the bill is that the
person must have 10 years of no driving-related criminal
offenses before they could petition for restoration of his/her
driver's license.
4:34:11 PM
SEAN HOOPER described his experience with losing his driver's
license. In 2002, he received a felony DUI, went through
treatment, and in 2003 was cited for driving a motorcycle
without a license. It has been nearly 15 years since he
straightened out his life. He has tried several times to have
his license reinstated; however, since he had an offense after
his license was revoked due to a felony DUI, he is not eligible
for a limited license or license reinstatement of any type.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thanked him for testifying since it
identifies an issue that affects not only him, but many others.
4:36:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether his license was revoked for a
third felony DUI.
MR. HOOPER answered that it was his third offense right after
the law was changed to reflect three DUI offenses within five
years. He said he had three DUIs in his early 20s.
4:36:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether he was driving the motorcycle
without a valid license and if it triggered something else.
MR. HOOPER said his license was permanently revoked for a
[third] felony DUI. The law was written that after 10 years
from supervised probation a person would be eligible to apply
for termination of revocation unless the person had any criminal
offense. His criminal offense was driving with a revoked
license in 2003, he said.
4:37:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said it sounded as though he could have
applied for the termination of driver's license revocation if he
had not had a moving violation on the motorcycle. He was unsure
if Mr. Hooper could have applied for his license under current
law.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that Mr. Hooper could have
applied after ten years if he had not had a driving-related
criminal offense. Mr. Hooper did have one since his criminal
offense was driving without license. She said he has been
"clean" now for 15 years; however, he can never obtain a
license.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked it was a bit like the SR-22 issue.
4:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recapped that essentially the bill would
allow a person to apply for termination of driver's license
revocation after ten years with a clean record. This bill would
reset the ten-year clock, he said.
4:39:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that part of the concept, as he
understood it from the House Judiciary Standing Committee
hearing was that under current law with justice reform that SB
91 has a pathway to reinstate his/her license. He asked for
clarification on the pathway.
4:41:02 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
responded that prior to passage of SB 91, there was not any
pathway for a person with a felony DUI law, which required
permanent revocation to get a limited driver's license. She
explained that misdemeanants could obtain a limited license to
allow the person to drive to work under certain circumstances.
She stated that SB 91 added a provision that would allow a
person with a third felony DUI conviction within 10 years, whose
license has been permanently revoked, to obtain a limited
license if the person had gone through a therapeutic court
program and met other requirements such as proof of financial
responsibility [SR-22], use of the ignition interlock device,
and a few other things.
MS. MEADE explained that if an individual lived in a community
without a therapeutic court, the person must demonstrate to a
judge that the person had completed a treatment program with
conditions similar to a therapeutic court, including that it
spanned 18 months, had intensive oversight, and had some
residential component. If the person could do that it was an
alternative to the therapeutic court, she said. She related
that a person who had driven under the limited felony license
for three years could apply under the same provision, AS
28.35.030(o) under proposed Section 2, to obtain a full
restoration. She stated that the provision was retroactive. For
example, if someone went through therapeutic court in 2004, the
person meeting the requirements could have his/her driver's
license reinstated.
4:42:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification whether a person who
used the therapeutic court exception and obtained a limited
license would need to use the ignition interlock system or not.
MS. MEADE explained that the ignition interlock device is a
requirement for anyone conviction of a DUI. The law states that
the person would permanently lose his/her driver's license;
however, the law also says when and if the person ever drives
again, the person must use the ignition interlock device for a
set period of time. She related that language was included in
every judgment. She acknowledged that after three years of a
limited license the person can have his/her driver's license
restored. She referred to language on page 1, starting at line
13. She explained that proposed AS 28.35.030(o) provides a
different method for those who do not go through the therapeutic
court process to obtain a full driver's license restoration
after 10 years of a clean driving record despite the fact that
the revocation was permanent.
4:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related a scenario in which a friend got
three DUIs early on and only recently after 15 years or longer,
with passage of SB 91 was able to obtain a driver's license but
uses an ignition interlock device. He also went through
therapeutic court, he said. He asked for clarification that
with passage of HB 408, if his friend had no prior violations in
10 years that he could apply for a full driver's license, which
would remove the requirement for the ignition interlock device
and he would have the same privileges as any other driver.
MS. MEADE answered yes; but there would be a better avenue to
get the full driver's license, which would be after driving
under a limited license for three years without any driving
related problems could get his license restored. She said it
would be more advantageous to use that route.
4:45:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he liked [the bill] and believed in
redemption. He expressed an interest in statistics on drivers
whose license was reinstated after ten years who subsequently
reoffended.
MS. MEADE stated that [AS 28.35.030(o)(1)&(2) went into effect
in 2002, which relates to restoration of a revoked driver's
license after 10 years with no convictions of any driving-
related criminal offenses. Thus, the first people eligible to
apply under this statute would have been in 2012. She deferred
to the DMV to provide figures on the number of people who
applied and how many were granted. She agreed with
Representative Wool's assessment that many drivers whose
licenses were revoked continued to drive with suspended licenses
and therefore disqualified themselves.
4:47:35 PM
MARLA THOMSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration (DOA), was unsure but offered to provide
information to the committee.
4:47:59 PM
MR. SMITH said he found information showing that revocation of a
license was a mechanism to reduce recidivism, but what was less
conclusive was the optimal length of a revocation. In some
cases, long revocation periods taught people that it was okay to
drive without a license when they discovered they could drive
and not be caught.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that ultimately it is about public
safety, so he was interested in the recidivism rates.
4:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone like Mr. Hooper,
whose DUIs were 15 years ago, would be eligible to attend
therapeutic court.
MS. THOMSON answered no; that therapeutic court was an
alternative option to deal with a DUI charge; therefore, the
case must be active. The courts do not provide social services
to people who do not have an active case. If a person was
arrested and came before the court, the therapeutic court
provides an alternative route to the traditional court.
4:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that if Mr.
Hooper got an additional DUI and was referred to therapeutic
court, he could then apply for a limited license. Obviously,
Mr. Hooper would not want to get a DUI, but in keeping on "the
straight and narrow path" places him in a worse position than if
he got a subsequent DUI.
MS. MEADE answered that was literally true; however, therapeutic
court is an intensive 18-month program with social workers,
probation officers, and seeing the judge every few days at the
beginning and tapering off to a weekly visit. Everyone must
agree that the person is an appropriate candidate for the
therapeutic court route; for example, they must agree that the
person was capable of rehabilitation, she said. She said she
did not wish to indicate that anyone could go through the
therapeutic court because it is a difficult process.
4:51:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she understood this; however, it
seemed unfair that someone could go through the therapeutic
court route to get his/her driver's license back. However,
someone without a DUI after 15 years could never get his/her
license privileges restored.
MS. MEADE answered that this is what the law currently provides.
She offered her view of what happened in SB 91; that there was
not a way to provide a limited license. The ten-year period
without any DUIs does not help anyone who drives with a
suspended license, which many people in that situation choose to
do at some point. She further stated that under SB 91, the view
was taken to make it available to some people, but still have
some assurance that this person will not recidivate and show
some signs of rehabilitation. She acknowledged that therapeutic
court was one concrete indicator.
4:52:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Meade to describe the therapeutic
retroactivity associated with the therapeutic court pathway to
restore a person's driver's license.
MS. MEADE responded that SB 91 offered a route for those with
offenses before the effective date of SB 91; for example, if a
person had a felony DUI in 2009, had not been driving since that
date and went through therapeutic court, the person could still
apply to DMV for a limited driver's license. It was intended to
address parties who needed some avenue to restore their
licenses. Therapeutic court was one way to show the person was
somewhat rehabilitated, she said.
4:53:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding that prior to the
passage of SB 91 someone with a felony DUI who lost his/her
license permanently and had no violations within 10 years could
apply to get their driver's license restored.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
4:54:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that having some option to obtain
a legal driver's license was good since the penalty for someone
whose license was suspended and continued to drive would not be
a deterrent. He asked whether 10 years would be the appropriate
amount of time. He was unsure of the penalty for driving with
license suspended [DWLS] and whether people would get jail time
for the offense.
MS. MEADE responded that the DWLS was a common charge and
conviction. She reported that approximately 1,800 per year are
convicted of DWLS. She stated that SB 91 separated the crime.
If a person whose license was suspended was caught driving for a
reason other than DUI or refusal, the penalty is an infraction
with a $300 fine. However, if the driver's license was
suspended due to a DUI, the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor
under SB 91. The statute spells out the penalty as 10 days in
jail with 10 days suspended and the second offense would result
in 10 days in jail.
4:56:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the DMV has taken a position
on HB 408.
MS. THOMSON stated that the DMV has not yet taken a position on
the bill.
4:57:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that he was glad to reform some
things, including the SR-22 remedy. He viewed HB 408 as an
amendment rather than a bill and it is a necessary fix that
needs to happen.
4:58:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 408 would be held over.
[HB 408 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB408 Sponsor Statement 4.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 Sectional Analysis 4.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 ver A 4.13.18.PDF |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 Fiscal Note DOA 4.25.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| Division of Election Report 4.25.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM |