Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/13/2004 03:25 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 342
An Act relating to driving while intoxicated; and
providing for an effective date.
CODY RICE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, spoke to CS HB
342 (JUD). He noted that the legislation would make several
changes to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) law. The bill
would set out a tiered fine schedule increasing fines and
would add other sanctions, in particular the ignition
interlock device. The bill clarifies that the ignition
interlock could only be Court-ordered as part of the
offenders sentence for vehicles driven on roadways and
requiring a license.
Mr. Rice pointed out that fines would be increased for those
offenders who have between 0.16 and 0.24 blood alcohol
content (BAC); establishing an additional increase for
offenders with a 0.24 or higher BAC. It would also add the
ignition interlock for six months. He continued, HB 342
contains provisions for limited licensing under certain
circumstances for misdemenor offenders receiving licenses
under certain situations.
Representative Chenault asked the costs associated with the
interlocks and installation. Mr. Rice responded that the
quoted prices range around $3 dollars a day. He added that
in current State law, a provision does exist which allows
ignition interlocks to be subtracted from the fines.
Representative Stoltze remembered that in 1989, the
Legislature passed another interlock device legislation.
The language was permissive and many concerns had been
voiced regarding the technology of those devices and asked
if it had been implemented. Mr. Rice replied that it had
been attempted in Anchorage; however, judges were hesitant
to apply the ignition locks until they saw sufficient
success. Mr. Rice pointed out that ignition interlocks are
used worldwide despite weather conditions.
Representative Chenault asked if snow machines would be
exempt. Mr. Rice replied that snow machines, off road
vehicles and vehicles not intended to be driven on highways
would be exempt from requirements for ignition interlocks.
Representative Croft understood that the legislation would
remove the discretion for those offenders registering twice
over the legal limit. Mr. Rice acknowledged that was
correct and would be required for offenders wanting to get
their limited license back. Under the bill, offenders
convicted of multiple misdemeanors who want to receive a
limited license, would be required to use ignition interlock
as well as those with double or triple offenses.
Representative Rokeberg responded. [In audible - tape
malfunction].
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG spoke to work draft, #23-
LS1292\S, Luckhaupt, 4/9/04. (Copy on File). He stated
that the draft was similar to Representative Gatto's bill
and that he hoped the efficiency and activity of the two
bills could blend together.
Representative Rokeberg pointed out that HB 175 has a House
Judiciary Committee referral. He mentioned that there are
statewide witnesses on-line that want to testify on the bill
before consideration of marrying the two is discussed.
Representative Rokeberg referenced Page 4, Section 3,
stating that it would add the provision for limited
licensure for those people under that jurisdiction and who
successfully completed a wellness profile for a limited
license and would qualify people in that program. [In
audible].
Representative Rokeberg noted that Page 7, Section 7, would
provide the same benefit to those under the jurisdiction of
the therapeutic court to provide [in audible] successfully
completing the program. The idea is that it would give
judges working under the therapeutic court model, the right
to limited licensure.
Representative Rokeberg noted in HB 4 passed in 2002, the
Legislature spoke strongly about raising the DUI fines from
$500 to $1500 dollars. He thought that there had been an
oversight in that legislation, which allowed judges to
suspend a portion of the fine. A judge could be preempted.
There can be delays, which tend to happen. The courts do
have the authority and discretion to lower the fine below
that level. Section 3, Lines 12-22, changes the minimum
fine language. Section 4 supplies the same language for the
felony provisions in law.
Representative Rokeberg noted the final change in Section 5,
Page 6, Line 10, which provides the definition of a previous
conviction and provides a five-year look-back. HB 4
implements a ten-year look-back phased in with a 10-year
window for Class C felonies. He pointed out that was the
legislative intent for HB 4. Representative Rokeberg noted
that the House Judiciary Committee had focused on the felony
aspect.
Representative Rokeberg directed the Committee's attention
to language on Page 4. He spoke about the need for
compassion for these offenders. The fines and levels of
incarceration have been raised significantly. He mentioned
offenders who have a substantial period of time between
their DUI occurrences, pointing out that patterns and
lifestyles can change tremendously during a 15-year look-
back period. The work draft provides that person a second
chance and their other offenses would have had to occur
outside of that 15-year window.
Representative Rokeberg voiced his appreciation for the
consideration of the draft and requested the process be
expedited.
Co-Chair Harris asked which Committee the bill that
Representative Rokeberg was attempting to place into HB 342
was currently located. Representative Rokeberg stated that
it is currently in the House Judiciary Committee and also
before the House Finance Committee in the draft "S" version
of HB 342.
Co-Chair Harris asked if Representative Rokeberg's was
concerned that his bill would not move from the House
Judiciary Committee. Representative Rokeberg responded that
Committee is "bogged down" and he thought that it would be
more efficient to accomplish his intent in the proposed
manner. Co-Chair Harris questioned if there were legal
rules regarding such action, understanding that there is
nothing that cannot be changed.
WILLIAM SATTERBERG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ATTORNEY, FAIRBANKS, testified that the bill has some good
attributes. He made recommendations, which he believed
would make the legislation more helpful. Mr. Satterberg
agreed with Representative Rokeberg's discussion. He
elaborated that one of his clients, 67 years old, had a DUI
over thirty years ago, receiving another in 2002 and as a
consequence of that, spent 60-days in jail. He presently is
looking at a hefty fine and a three-year loss of license.
Mr. Satterberg testified that the concept of the look-back
provision would be admirable, and agreed with Representative
Rokeberg that it had probably been an oversight.
Mr. Satterberg requested that the Committee make a
retroactive provision for those people caught in the interim
period. The active date in statute is January 1, 2005. He
recommended that it should be moved up to July 1, 2004.
Those fines disappear into a "black hole" of the general
fund. He strongly urged that the mandatory fines be used
for rehabilitation purposes.
RALPH FULLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MATSU,
elaborated on a DUI he received thirty years ago, with
another four years ago and now a recent one. He lost his
license for three years, which has been very difficult since
st
he is self-employed. He requested that the July 1 date be
added to the bill as it would help offenders get back to a
productive life.
ISRAEL NELSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MATSU, voiced
support for the bill as it would further impede people from
using their vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.
He urged that the fines be used for treatment of those
people.
JANET MCCABE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARTNERS FOR
PROGRESS, ANCHORAGE, voiced support for the work draft
version "S". She noted that Partners for Progress is a non-
profit group that supports development of therapeutic courts
throughout the State. She commented that limited licensures
would encourage the stop action of repeat offenses,
emphasizing that these programs work. She stressed that
therapeutic courts are three times more effective for
stopping alcoholic crimes and are far less expensive than
incarceration. Ms. McCabe supported the idea of a limited
licensing.
CINDY CASHEN, MOTHER'S AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD), JUNEAU,
testified that MADD supports both pieces of legislation.
MADD supports measures that would enhance or escalate
penalties for drivers convicted DUI with blood alcohol
content at the time of arrest at least double or higher.
She pointed out that over 13,000 people were killed in
alcohol related accidents last year. In over half of those
crashes, the driver had an alcohol level of over 0.15. At
that range, the driver is 384 times more likely to get into
a fatal crash than a driver that has had nothing to drink.
Additionally, one-third of those arrested for DUI, have had
a previous DUI.
In 2001, in Alaska, there was a total of 4,918 people
arrested for drunk driving. Of that number, over 1,800 were
repeat offenders. In 2000, over 1,400 were repeat
offenders. Ms. Cashen pointed out that these numbers are
high, advising that the ignition interlock works. Studies
have proven that there could be up a 50%-90% reduction on
offenders fined and that have the device in place as
compared to those who do not.
Ms. Cashen pointed out that MADD supports wellness and
therapeutic courts and anything else that would help
encourage an 18-month program. She addressed the look-back
concept, pointing out that those with their first DWI
thirty-years ago and receiving another and then another;
that according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Board,
the average amount of time that it takes to get caught for
drunk driving is around ten years. She urged that the look-
back stay at a minimum of fifteen years.
HB 342 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|