Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/12/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB284 | |
| SB244 | |
| HB423 | |
| SB239 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 244 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 423 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 239 - IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES/DUI/CHEM. TEST
2:10:21 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 239(JUD), "An Act relating to ignition
interlock devices, to refusal to submit to a chemical test, and
to driving while under the influence."
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 239(JUD), Version 26-
LS1210\C, Luckhaupt, 4/7/10, as the work draft. There being no
objection, Version C was before the committee.
2:11:15 PM
[REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a bill that was heard
earlier in the meeting - SB 284 - and said he would have signed
"do pass" on the committee report had he been present during
that portion of the meeting.]
2:12:20 PM
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
indicated that the existing sentencing laws pertaining to the
use of ignition interlock devices - which, when installed in a
person's vehicle, prevent him/her from starting the vehicle when
he/she has been consuming alcohol - contain some loopholes, and
that SB 239 is intended to remedy those loopholes. For example,
in 2009, although 3,513 court orders were issued mandating the
installation of ignition interlock devices, only about 1,250
ignition interlock devices were actually installed. This is of
concern because the laws pertaining to the use of ignition
interlock devices are intended to help address the problem of
people driving under the influence (DUI).
SENATOR MEYER explained that SB 239 would [change the minimum]
time period for which an ignition interlock would be required to
be installed, with the time period increasing for each repeat
offense; would stipulate that an ignition interlock device could
be ordered regardless of whether the offender receives probation
and regardless of how long any probation period might be; [and
would prevent the court from suspending the requirement for an
ignition interlock device].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO mentioned that in the past, both he and
Representative Gruenberg have introduced legislation pertaining
to ignition interlock devices, and offered his understanding
that in other states, requiring ignition interlock devices has
been successful [at keeping drunk drivers off the road].
2:15:56 PM
JOSHUA P. FINK, Attorney at Law, noting that everyone has
benefited from the sponsor's work on combating drunk driving in
Alaska, said he supports the intent of SB 239 but is concerned
that it could result in a few unintended consequences.
Currently, a person could be required to install an ignition
interlock device only if he/she receives probation, whereas the
bill removes that limitation; and some judges have ruled that
they have the authority to suspend the requirement for an
ignition interlock device under certain circumstances, whereas
the bill precludes judges from having that discretion.
MR. FINK indicated that a problem arises with regard to the
latter point because there are a significant number of [DUI]
cases that don't involve alcohol, for example, such as in
situations where the person is under the influence of
prescription drugs or marijuana or some other substance, and so
it doesn't make sense to require such a person to install an
ignition interlock device, since such devices only measure for
alcohol consumption. And a problem arises with regard to the
former point because there are DUI cases that don't involve
automobiles but instead involve other types of motorized
vehicles such as snow machines, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),
[watercraft, and aircraft], and because probation isn't
generally imposed in such cases, the installation if an ignition
interlock device currently isn't required; the same is true for
DUI cases involving people, often minors or military members,
who don't own the vehicle they were driving when they were
stopped for DUI.
MR. FINK surmised that a solution to the aforementioned problems
would be to amend the bill such that judges would be given
discretion, under certain circumstances, with regard to ordering
the installation of ignition interlock devices, or to amend the
bill such that it would only apply in situations involving
alcohol.
2:22:36 PM
DENNIS A. WHEELER, Municipal Attorney, Department of Law,
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), offered his belief that SB 239
has the potential for punishing those who have made a misstep
but are still working to comply with the laws regarding ignition
interlock devices, more than it would punish those who aren't
making any effort to comply with such laws.
2:24:19 PM
JENNIFER MESSICK, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Traffic Safety
Resource Prosecutor, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), offered her understanding that
the new language in [subparagraphs (C) and (D)] of proposed AS
28.15.291(b) would only apply after a person regains the
privilege to drive following a [driver's license] revocation.
What is currently happening, however, is that some DUI offenders
aren't taking the legal steps to regain their driver's license
but are instead simply just driving again - without a license
and without an ignition interlock device. Because of this,
under the bill as currently written, only those DUI offenders
who go through the legal process of re-obtaining their driver's
license after a revocation would be subject to the punishment
outlined in proposed AS 28.15.291(b). This is thereby creating
an incentive for DUI offenders to not get relicensed following a
driver's license revocation.
MS. MESSICK, to address the perceived problem, suggested
deleting the words, "after the person regains the privilege"
from proposed AS 28.35.030(b)(1)(A), and inserting instead the
words, "anytime a person drives or operates a motor vehicle and
for a period of six months after they regain the privilege to
drive". In response to comments, she reiterated her concern
that as currently written, SB 239 provides DUI offenders with an
incentive to not comply with the laws regarding the
reinstatement of their privilege to drive. Instead, she opined,
the bill should be written in such a way that those DUI
offenders who do attempt to comply with those laws are rewarded
- particularly given that such compliance can be expensive - or
at least not punished as much as those DUI offenders who make no
attempt to comply.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised, then, that the concern revolves around
the issue of parity for DUI offenders.
2:33:22 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Meyer, sponsor, explained that
the language on page 2, lines 18-20 and 26-28, of Version C
would address the MOA's concern by adding those who are in
violation of an ignition interlock device requirement to the
list of those who would be subject to mandatory sentencing,
fines, and community work service under AS 28.15.291(b). This
would ensure that those who do comply with the laws regarding
license revocation and ignition interlock devices are rewarded a
little bit more than those who don't.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed an interest in adding those
who are convicted of criminally negligent homicide as the result
of drinking and driving but who aren't charged with DUI, to the
list of offenders the bill would apply to.
SENATOR MEYER acknowledged that he hadn't yet focused on such
offenders.
MS. MARASIGAN, on the issue of adding others to the list of
offenders the bill would apply to, mentioned that New Mexico had
to create a fund to pay for ignition interlock devices, whereas
SB 239, in contrast, would allow a DUI offender to apply the
cost of an ignition interlock device towards the fines imposed.
She surmised that to add other, more serious crimes to the bill
would be moving away from the realm of fines provided for in the
DUI statutes.
SENATOR MEYER indicated that he was amenable to researching
Representative Gruenberg's suggestion further, but would prefer
to address such people via other legislation.
MS. MARASIGAN, on the issue raised by Mr. Fink regarding DUI
offenses that don't involve alcohol, acknowledged that such is a
problem, and suggested that one way to address it would be to
alter the proposed language on page 4, line 28-29, and page 6,
lines 6-7, such that it would only preclude a judge from
suspending the requirement for an ignition interlock device in
DUI cases involving alcohol. With regard to the issue of DUI
cases that don't involve automobiles, she offered her
understanding that although the technology exists to put
ignition interlock devices on other types of motorized vehicles,
the statutory definition regarding what constitutes a motor
vehicle would have to be revisited.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed an interest in addressing the
issue of DUI cases that don't involve alcohol, surmising that to
require the installation of an ignition interlock device in such
cases serves no purpose.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:43 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 239.
2:46:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to add the words "for alcohol-related offenses" to
page 4, line 29, and to page 6, line 7, after the word "device".
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that under Conceptual Amendment
1, the court would be precluded from suspending the requirement
for an ignition interlock device only in those DUI cases that
involve alcohol.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection, and, after ascertaining that
there were no further objections, announced that Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR MEYER indicated approval of Conceptual Amendment 1.
2:48:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 239(JUD), Version 26-
LS1210\C, Luckhaupt, 4/7/10, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 239(JUD) was reported from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.