Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB92 | |
| SB239 | |
| SB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 284 | ||
SB 239-IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES/DUI/CHEM. TEST
1:59:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 239.
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt work draft committee substitute
(CS) for SB 239, labeled 26-LS1210\S, as the working document.
There being no objection, version S was before the committee.
2:00:07 PM
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, Sponsor of SB 239, said that two years ago
he worked to get legislation passed pertaining to ignition
interlock devices as part of sentencing for driving under the
influence (DUI) of alcohol. The law has been in place for over a
year and he has discovered that this effective tool hasn't been
used as often as anticipated. He reported that in 2009 there
were 3,513 court ordered installations, yet only 218 ignition
interlock devices were installed. This should be a concern for
everyone, particularly since it has been proven that these
devices do keep people who have been drinking from starting the
car and driving, he said.
SB 239 specifies the time period in which the ignition interlock
device would be needed correlated to the sentencing for the
various offenses. For the first time DUI the interlock device
would be required for six months. The bill also lists
installation of an ignition interlock device as a condition of
sentencing that could not be suspended. He noted that the
previous bill made this an option, which was a mistake.
2:03:02 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if contractors could handle the increased
capacity if these devices were mandated as a part of sentencing
for DUI cases.
SENATOR MEYER replied during the initial bill hearings two
vendors indicated that they would not have a problem meeting the
need.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff to Senator Meyer, added that those
two providers contacted the sponsor's office recently to say
that it doesn't work to have probation and the ignition
interlock device tied because people were either waiting out
their probation so that they didn't have to have the ignition
interlock installed or they weren't getting the device put on in
the first place if their probation was in any way suspended. The
providers indicated that they could be doing a lot more
installations. We took that into consideration when we looked at
separating the two, she said.
SENATOR COGHILL questioned how installations and management
would be handled in the less populated and rural areas of the
state.
MS. MARASIGAN replied the original bill provided exemptions to
accommodate people who don't have access to these services. This
has not changed.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the two vendors have had any trouble
keeping the devices working in extreme cold weather. He noted
that was a concern when the bill passed initially.
2:06:34 PM
SENATOR MEYER said they've found that most of the court-ordered
ignition interlock installations have been in Fairbanks, and
they appear to work fine in cold weather.
CHAIR FRENCH noted the repealed subsection (r) and asked if the
source of the problem was that the different probation periods
allowed people to escape the ignition interlock requirement.
MS. MARASIGAN said Mr. Wooliver highlighted that language when
the sponsor began talking about decoupling the requirement for
an ignition interlock from probation. What has happened is that
people on probation for DUI would decide not to drive so they
wouldn't get an ignition interlock or they wouldn't get one if
their probation period didn't match the time requirement for the
ignition interlock. Nor would it be a part of their sentence,
she said.
2:08:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed appreciation that the sponsor was
attempting to fix the problem and said he supported the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed and restated the stunning disparity between
the court orders versus the installations.
SENATOR COGHILL said he wonders if the low numbers reflect that
some Anchorage judges are ordering chemical treatment for those
convicted of DUIs.
SENATOR MEYER suggested the committee ask Mr. Wooliver why
ignition interlock devices aren't used much in Anchorage.
Perhaps it's because the judges are ordering other programs, but
that's obviously where most of the DUIs occur, he said.
MS. MARASIGAN reiterated that some people who have been
convicted of DUI simply opt not to drive.
SENATOR MEYER said the intention here is to keep people from
driving when they're drinking. Opting not to drive at all is
just fine.
2:10:41 PM
CHRIS CELL, Lieutenant, Alaska Peace Officers Association
(APOA), said she represents about 900 Alaskans statewide, many
of whom are charged with picking up the pieces after drunk
driving accidents. She said they would like to do less of this,
which is why APOA supports SB 239, which requires interlock
ignition devices as a mandatory part of DUI sentences. 2008
National Highway Transportation Safety Board statistics show
that someone in the U.S. is killed in a drunk driving crash once
every 45 minutes so any tool that helps to keep drunk drivers
off the road and holds them accountable for their actions would
be helpful.
LIEUTENANT CELL said law enforcement is particularly interested
in reforming and deterring those persons who become "hard core"
drunk drivers. These are drivers who are found to be driving
with a blood alcohol level that is twice the legal limit. A 2005
survey of these drivers indicated that hard core drunk drivers
believe that their actions would have been changed had more
severe penalties been imposed for earlier offenses. 70 percent
of the hard core drunk drivers surveyed said they believe that
the requirement for an ignition interlock device would have
changed their drunk driving. We should listen to these people,
she said.
2:12:43 PM
DAVID BROWER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), said he is an Alaska traffic safety
resource prosecutor and he sees that tying the requirement for
an ignition interlock to the time of probation can be a problem
depending on the length of the sentence. He related that the
probation period for a first time DUI is long enough to have an
ignition interlock and there's probably enough time on a second
DUI, but even though every felony DUI judgment has a requirement
for an ignition interlock device, he suspects that there have
been no felony DUI people who have ever gotten one.
MR. BROWER said a lot of what this bill does is to put all
ignition interlock issues and sentencing issues for DUI in Title
28, the drunk driving statute. When it [only] referred to AS
12.25.102, the judge could either sentence somebody as a
condition of probation or as a condition of sentence. In this
case it would be a condition of sentence, he said.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if many of the 3,513 court ordered
ignition interlock devices were part of a sentence for felony
DUI.
MR. BROWER said felony DUIs are included in that number, but
that's not the only reason for the disparity. Some of the other
reasons include people who are on probation for 2 years and
don't want to get an ignition interlock device. The assumption
is that they decide to wait two years so that they no longer
need an ignition interlock device. This bill amends that so that
once a person gets their license back they would have to have an
ignition interlock installed for a certain period of time. But
it would be a fallacy to think that people who have revoked
licenses don't drive because most of them do. "Repeat drunk
drivers, as a general rule, do not have a license and I think
that most people with a felony DUI have been driving without a
license," he said.
2:17:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said his reason for asking was to find out how
many of those 3,513 court orders may not have been mandated
because it was a felony DUI and it was understood that they did
not have a right to drive.
MR. BROWER said the way the statute is currently written
everyone gets an ignition interlock order as a condition when
they regain the privilege to drive. That doesn't change in this
bill. He said he doesn't know how many people haven't yet become
eligible for an ignition interlock or even a license.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is data indicating that this
reduces recidivism.
MR. BROWER replied there isn't any data from Alaska, but a study
of other states indicates that there is benefit. A recent
National Transportation Safety Administration report said that
while ignition interlocks are on they work, but once they've
been removed people tend to fall back into their old patterns.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the data that was presented for the
initial bill was impressive and it weighed heavily in his
support. He stressed the importance of making decisions that are
based on evidence and science and suggested that DOL and the
Court System should be interested in tracking this to know
whether or not this policy is working. My guess is that it will
have huge positive impacts, he added.
MR. BROWER said that will be done. He added that this bill
doesn't change the current law so much as it cleans it up to
ensure that more people get ignition interlocks installed.
2:20:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he's still a bit puzzled because he thought
the law had been written in a manner to allow judges to not
impose an ignition interlock as a condition of sentence, but the
sponsor said that a judge ordered an ignition interlock 3,513
times in 2009. There seems to be a disconnect between the court
orders and the number installed and it seems to be related to
the fact that a lot of people are saying they just won't drive
while they're on probation. He asked if it's really the case
that 3,300 Alaskans are waiting out the ignition interlock
period or if there are other answers.
MR. BROWER replied that doesn't seem reasonable, but he doesn't
have any other answers.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that this will do away with the ability
for people to wait out their probation period during which they
would be required to have an ignition interlock. This says a
person with a DUI has to get an ignition interlock for six
months when they get their license back.
2:23:06 PM
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing Manager, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, introduced
herself.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what, if anything, DMV will do to ensure
that a person who has lost their license because of a DUI gets
an ignition interlock when they apply to get their license back.
MS. HENNINGS replied DMV's current practice won't change. When
someone applies for a limited privilege or to regain their
privilege and there is an ignition interlock order in place, DMV
requires proof of installation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how DMV would know that an ignition interlock
order is in place.
MS. HENNINGS replied that comes in on the DUI judgment and the
record is annotated upon receipt.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what happens if a person applies to get their
license back and says they don't have a car.
MS. HENNINGS explained that if someone comes in to apply for
limited privileges they need to have a designated vehicle to put
the ignition interlock on. She added that DMV also can issue
identification cards in lieu of a license.
2:26:01 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he'd like to know if there have been any
challenges to this because he can see that someone who uses the
same vehicle might say that they are being treated unfairly.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Wooliver if he knows of any problem that
the Court System has with respect to issuing ignition interlock
orders.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
said he isn't aware of any problems associated with issuing the
orders, but he is aware that part of the reason for the bill is
to make changes like not suspending an ignition interlock
device.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he has any feedback to offer from the
judges' perspective.
MR. WOOLIVER said judges hear that it can be expensive but he is
unaware of any implementation difficulties other than the
practical aspects of a harsh sentence that is sometimes
difficult for people to meet. He added that he was stunned to
learn that less than 10 percent of the people who were ordered
to get an ignition interlock actually have them.
2:29:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and announced he would hold
SB 239 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|