Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
03/20/2007 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Talis Colberg, Lieutenant Governor Designee | |
| SB92 | |
| SB115 | |
| HCR3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 92-LIMITED LICENSE IGNITION INTERLOCK
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 92.
SENATOR FRENCH said the rural exemption in SB 92 was discussed
at the last hearing. The bill allows the department to list
areas in the state where the ignition interlock will not be
required. The interlock providers are willing to go to remote
villages if three or four offenders need the device. He created
a list of where the DUIs [driving under the influence] occur.
Many places in the state have one or two DUIs per annum. He gave
the examples of Nondalton, Noorvik, Nulato, and others that only
had one DUI per year. The requirement of the interlock in those
areas would serve as a de facto disqualification of a person's
ability to drive during probation. He said it strikes him as
unfair. The bill is a balanced approach, and the department can
be trusted to apply it in a firm but evenhanded way, he stated.
9:11:50 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked about "rug" courts.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
said he ran conviction data on various locations. "Rug court"
stands for "rural user group" in the old computer system.
SENATOR BUNDE said that no matter how small a community is,
every person deserves the same protection by the interlock
device as those who live in Anchorage. He asked Mr. Wooliver
about the list of DUI convictions in various communities.
MR. WOOLIVER said those are the convictions for 2006.
9:13:45 AM
SENATOR BUNDE noted that Craig, Wrangell, Dillingham, Bethel and
Unalaska have a substantial number of convictions, and perhaps
the goal could be achieved with a population cutoff.
MR. WOOLIVER said some convictions in Bethel would include the
surrounding communities that have no courts. Only the
communities with courts are counted, so some of those
convictions would include the surrounding villages.
SENATOR BUNDE noted there is still a substantial number, and
those citizens of Bethel should have the same protection as
Anchorage citizens. He said he didn't have the magic number. He
understands that in places with small populations someone may
have to wait three years to have another DUI in the area in
order to get a device. But certainly in places the size of
Kotzebue or Dillingham, the citizens should have the same
protection, he stated.
9:15:50 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he agrees, especially with those examples.
It is the tiny little places, "that it just seems to be out of
reach." Regarding a population cutoff, "we wouldn't want to
eliminate tiny towns that are on the road system-Coldfoot,
Paxton, places like that."
SENATOR GREEN asked about the new language on line 9 of page 1
regarding municipalities.
SENATOR FRENCH said the idea is to get every municipality in
line so that when each enforces its DUI laws, the requirement is
not circumvented. A lot of DUI prosecution in Anchorage goes
through the municipal prosecutor's office and not through state
law. It is for uniformity, he said.
9:18:49 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she would like to see where the department
ultimately decides to allow exemptions.
SENATOR FRENCH said perhaps the department can provide a draft
of that list as the bill moves along.
9:19:38 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said he had offered a conceptual amendment. He
withdrew it and moved conceptual Amendment 2. He is concerned
about a lack of direction to the people who administer the
exemption. Amendment 2 requires the department to base the
exemption on off-the-road population size and volume of DUIs.
SENATOR FRENCH said perhaps a conceptual amendment could be
firmed up in the next committee, and it can include the volume
of DUIs, population size, and proximity to a larger population
on a road system. He said he wouldn't want to exempt Paxton, but
a larger, totally isolated community may have to be exempt.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Senator Bunde if he wanted to offer the
amendment.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:22:08 AM to 9:22:39 AM.
SENATOR STEVENS said this is not necessarily a violation with a
geographical limit because a villager may drive in Anchorage.
SENATOR FRENCH also noted that a villager who is arrested in
Anchorage may go back to the village.
9:24:18 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for assistance with the conceptual amendment
and how to determine the availability of the device.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said there would be a higher percentage of
DUI convictions in the small, remote communities that are the
result of a serious injury from a snow machine or car because
these communities have little, if any, traffic enforcement. That
might play a part in safety concerns, he said, although snow
machines can't use the device. Any community connected to the
road system should not be exempt, he opined.
9:26:16 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said if the bill were left alone, the department
would make the determination. She asked about population size
and the volume of DUIs.
MR. DIAL said the volume of DUIs seems reasonable. Many of the
communities are exempt from insurance requirements, and perhaps
the same criteria could be used for device exemptions.
SENATOR FRENCH said he will work on the bill.
SENATOR BUNDE said he will withdraw the amendment while Senator
French solidifies the language. If someone was involved in a DUI
that involved a serious injury, that may be another factor to
take into consideration. The device won't go on a snow machine,
but a person could still lose a drivers license, he suggested.
CHAIR MCGUIRE told Senator French that he can bring the change
in the form of a committee substitute.
She announced she would set SB 92 aside until the Thursday
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|