Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/15/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB169 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 101 | ||
HB 169-MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE 8:25:41 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to municipal impoundment and forfeiture." 8:25:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the sponsor of HB 169, explained that the legislation was brought forward by a member of the Anchorage Assembly who was interested in dealing with those who have over $1,000 in outstanding traffic fines. Those with large numbers of unpaid traffic fines often have long wrap sheets. She noted that the committee packet includes a list of those with a large amount of outstanding traffic fines. This legislation allows municipalities the ability to impound vehicles of those who have accumulated $1,000 in fines. She opined that HB 169 places people on notice that the municipality is watching. She further opined that when the small [infractions] are addressed, the larger [infractions] often follow and thus HB 169 may be a good crime fighting tool. She highlighted that the legislation uses permissive language and is of zero cost to the state. 8:28:17 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, referring to the language "motor vehicle used by a person" rather than "owned by a person", posed a situation in which a vehicle was lent to a person. In such a situation, could the vehicle be impounded if the person borrowing the vehicle fit the criteria established in HB 169. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that it's a possibility depending upon the ordinances of the municipality. She surmised that if a person unknowingly lends his/her vehicle to a person fitting the criteria in HB 169, the municipality would have a way to determine that and make an allowance for it. This legislation simply establishes a framework that allows municipalities to move forward with their own regulations. 8:29:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if there is any intent language with regard to how municipalities would establish this. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that it's not necessary since municipalities have elected officials that are answerable to their constituents. This legislation, she reiterated, simply provides a tool. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether there is any collection effort at this time. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that there is, although municipalities don't seem to spend a great deal of money to collect these fines. 8:31:00 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH, referring to the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), related that it first tries to attach to the permanent fund dividend. However, other collectors rank higher. She noted that MOA does have a collection agency which it utilizes. 8:31:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to how errors would be handled. He also inquired as to which vehicle would be taken in a situation in which the driver fitting the criteria specified in HB 169 owns more than one vehicle. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that these individuals would be discovered when law enforcement officials have reason to check the license plate or stop the driver. She said she didn't expect municipalities to actively seek vehicles to seize. This legislation is just a tool when someone comes to the attention of law enforcement for something else. If an error does occur, existing statute already provides recourse. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that $7.5 million in fines should be an incentive to municipalities to go after these individuals, which he said he didn't view as a bad thing. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the accumulated fines being targeted in HB 169 are for moving violations. She further clarified that finding individuals fitting the criteria in HB 169 and taking the vehicle doesn't necessarily mean that the money is presented. Moreover, HB 169 isn't a fundraising effort, but rather is an effort to address criminal behavior and the failure to heed consequences. 8:34:38 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to a first-time offender with a fine that exceeds $1,000 and the possibility of law enforcement taking the vehicle. She inquired as to whether there should be a delinquency provision. 8:35:32 AM IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff to Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the documents listing the offenders in MOA demonstrate that they, even the lower end offenders, average four to five citations. Ms. Matthews explained the she worked with the municipality to establish the $1,000 threshold of fines, which represents several unpaid fines. She further explained that for a fine to be unpaid, one has already had 30 days to pay and thus a fine wouldn't be considered delinquent until after that 30 days has passed. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that the legislation refers to "unpaid" rather than "delinquent." 8:36:58 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to whether there are any constitutional issues with regard to impounding a vehicle that doesn't belong to the individual [driving who has more that $1,000 in fines]. MS. MATTHEWS said that such hasn't been discussed. However, the legislation is placing language in the statute where other vehicles are impounded. She pointed out that when an individual is charged with driving under the influence (DUI), no matter whose vehicle it is, the vehicle is impounded. For any impoundment there is an administrative hearing process in which the vehicle owner would be able to come forward. 8:38:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the documents in the committee packet include citations written by Alaska State Troopers or only those by municipal police departments. He also asked how the state would take advantage of the tool provided by HB 169. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the state is simply providing permissive language for the municipalities. However, she pointed out that when an individual is pulled over, the Alaska State Trooper or municipal law enforcement would have access to information regarding the individual's driving record, including unpaid fines, is available. 8:39:57 AM JAMES FORNELLI, Senior Administrative Officer, Treasury Division Finance Department, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), specified that the citation list included in the committee packet is exclusively citations from the Anchorage municipal police department and don't include any state citations. 8:40:38 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if state troopers write citations within the municipality. MR. FORNELLI said he isn't sure. However, he pointed out that a citation from a trooper would be issued under state code, which doesn't correlate with the municipal code. 8:41:24 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to the constitutionality of a municipality confiscating a used vehicle that is being used by another party. MR. FORNELLI said he wasn't able to answer. 8:43:16 AM MR. FORNELLI clarified that MOA receives these cases from the courts as an unpaid judgment. Once MOA receives a case, a letter is sent and garnishment of the permanent fund dividend is utilized. In the course of the last year, MOA has begun to utilize the garnishment of bank accounts and wages. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for everyone because not everyone has bank accounts or is employed. These cases are ultimately sent to a third-party collection agency that specializes in municipal debt collection. The third-party collection agency has been minimally successful because those who have been cited are very good at hiding. Mr. Fornelli then explained that when the citation is issued, the citation is retained by the police department for approximately 45-60 days in order to allow the cited individual the time to pay the fine. The individual being cited is notified by receipt of the citation as well as by mail. After that 45-60 days, the court then receives the unpaid citations and either defaults the judgment or it goes to trail. Citations in that process are sent another letter by the courts specifying that without restitution, the individual will proceed to municipal collections. Once the municipality receives the citations, approximately 60-90 days from issuance of the citation has passed. Again, another letter is sent specifying what could result from nonpayment, including proceeding to a collection agency. The aforementioned takes another 60 days. Therefore, it would take four to five months before what is being proposed in HB 169 could occur and during that time the offender has received multiple letters and opportunities to comply and pay citations. 8:48:27 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to at what point a fine is declared delinquent. MR. FORNELLI opined that when the municipality receives the fine from the court it arrives as a delinquent criminal fine or fee. The municipality usually works that case for approximately 60 days. 8:49:38 AM JANICE SHAMBERG, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of Anchorage, recalled an assembly meeting during which a young woman related that she was struck while driving by someone who would qualified under this legislation. After speaking with the police department, Ms. Shamberg said she understood that legislation such as HB 169 is necessary to address individuals with multiple unpaid offenses/citations. These repeat offenders have no qualms about driving while having these citations. She explained that she provided a draft ordinance upon which HB 169 was based. Ms. Shamberg pointed out that there will be an appeal process in place during which someone who has loaned a vehicle to an individual who would qualify under this legislation would have the opportunity to present that information. Someone who knowingly loans an automobile to someone else without taking into account that individual's lifestyle, should have some inconvenience to get the vehicle back, she explained. The original ordinance wasn't an effort to target these repeat offenders, but since these are repeat offenders they present every opportunity for law enforcement to stop them. She related that it isn't the intent for a single large ticket to trigger impound or forfeiture. This legislation is meant to capture those who drive with disregard for the life and safety of others, she emphasized. 8:54:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH offered an amendment to page 2, line 1, to change from "unpaid" to "delinquent" in order to provide clarity such that a single event wouldn't cause an individual to immediately lose his/her vehicle. She then inquired as to the language "used by a person" and whether it might create possible constitutional issues. MS. SHAMBERG said that the intent of the term "unpaid" versus "delinquent" would be specified in MOA's ordinance. She characterized such a language change as a friendly amendment that relays the intent. The constitutionality issue, she noted, was discussed at length with the attorneys in Anchorage who don't view there to be a problem due to the inclusion of the appeals process. If there are errors, the Anchorage Police Department has said it is willing to pay for the recompense of errors. 8:57:13 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to municipal law and the use of a vehicle that is deemed to be connected with prostitution. She recalled that MOA takes the vehicle of persons involved in such. MS. SHAMBERG replied yes. She recalled that the vehicle of a driver soliciting a prostitute is taken. If the vehicle is actually owned by someone else, she surmised that during the appeal process the vehicle would be returned. 8:58:29 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Ms. Shamberg could provide the committee with the written discussion of the language "used". MS. SHAMBURG replied yes. 8:59:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that HB 169 merely adds a fifth element to current statute that already uses the terminology "motor vehicle used". 8:59:51 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Page 2, line 1; Delete "unpaid" Insert "delinquent" There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:01:51 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved to report HB 169, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 169(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|