Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/20/2004 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 342-INCREASE DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE PENALTY Number 0029 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 342, "An Act relating to driving while intoxicated; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 342, suggested the committee adopt the committee substitute (CS), Version D, as the working document. The committee took an at-ease from 2:47 to 2:50. TAPE 04-20, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR McGUIRE restated that HB 342, Version D, was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he had two witnesses online, Dr. Marples, an expert on ignition interlock, and Dr. Marques who has done research on the same subject. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained changes to the bill. For levels of intoxication that are greater than twice the lower legal limit, and up to three times the [legal] limit [.16 - .24], the fines have been doubled, and a requirement of having an ignition interlock on a vehicle for six months has been added. The alcohol level is greater than tripled [.24 or greater], the fines have been tripled, and a one-year requirement of the interlock system has been added, he explained. He said those changes were a decrease from the previous version [of the bill]. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO reported that after many discussions with the National Transportation Safety Board, the bill is trying to follow recommendations that work to reduce the number of drunks on the road. The goal is to remove the most egregious offenders responsible for the most accidents from the roads. Drivers with double the legal limit of alcohol are responsible for 50 percent of fatalities, he said. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that the [ignition interlock device] is a significant part of the bill. Number 0208 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if there is a penalty for .08 to .16 [percent by weight of alcohol in the person's blood] on the first offense. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that the bill has no affect on that level and the consequences remain unchanged. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked when [this proposed law], using the sliding scale, would take affect. CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Gatto, responded, "This bill doesn't make distinctions based on first, second, third, fourth, or tenth offense. This bill solely makes a distinction based on your breath or blood alcohol content." He continued to say that .16 to .24 is double the fines and a six-month ignition interlock; .24 and above is triple the fines and a one-year ignition interlock. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS repeated his question, "From .08 to .16 you're doing nothing?" MR. RICE nodded the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS mentioned the interlock device and asked, "What good does it do to take the driver's license away when they're not driving their own car, anyway." Number 0317 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS REPRESENTATIVE moved to adopt CSHB 342, labeled 23-LS1292\D, as the working document. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that from zero to .08 there is no fine, but the existing structure is maintained. This bill addresses "level 2 and level 3." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is having a hard time understanding the current fine structure and the recent increases. He requested more information. MR. RICE referred Representative Gara to the bill, pages 1, 2, and 3, and read the penalties in current statutes. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked what the maximum fine is under [the current statutes]. MR. RICE said he thinks that is up to judicial discretion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks there is a maximum fine. He added that he thinks the bill stated the minimum, but that a maximum does exist. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said the new language says the maximums no longer apply. Number 0526 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Gatto why there is an effective date of July 1, 2004. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied he thinks it has to do with the ability to implement the device. There is currently only one distributor in the state who can install the device, and more time is needed to implement the law. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that, since the bill was introduced last year, the date should actually be for next year, 2005. He noted, for the record, that he is the author of the ignition interlock law. He said it has been difficult getting the bill implemented, since it passed in 1988. He spoke strongly in favor of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if clarity is needed regarding the requirement [of when] to use the interlock device. He suggested adding, "upon return of the driving privileges". [CHAIR McGUIRE turned the gavel over to Representative Samuels and left the room.] Number 0711 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he could accept that idea, but suggested a "weaning off" of the device might work, also. REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested that people should use the device for six months after getting their driving privileges back. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he could accept that. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS [acting as chair] said he has several questions about the interlock. He asked whose car it goes on. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the people testifying might be able to answer those questions. Number 0814 DAVID REINEKE, Attorney, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, said he was asked to give a rough overview of the increases in financial penalties [in the bill]. He explained that the state felony DWI law was adopted in 1996, and in 2001 there was a reduction in blood alcohol content from .1 to .08. He said the "look back period" for determining prior offenses was increased from 5 years to 10 years. In 2002, financial penalties were increased, a mandatory vehicle forfeiture for felony DUI and refusal [was implemented], and there was an increase in the presumptive sentencing for manslaughter DUI from 5 years to 7 years. The license reinstatement fee was doubled for repeat offenders, and the mandatory minimum fine for a first offense was raised from $250 to $1,500. [Representative Samuels returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.] Number 0928 REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked for clarification because he missed most of Mr. Reineke's testimony. MR. REINEKE repeated his testimony for Representative Gara. He continued with new information: The fine for second offenders went from $500 to $3,000 and the felony DUI went from $5,000 to $10,000. Number 1020 MR. REINEKE followed up on the question about maximum fines by referring to AS 12.55.035, which sets forth fines for all criminal offenses. For Class A misdemeanors, which include most first and second DUI's, the maximum fine currently is $10,000. A felony DUI, generally, is a Class C felony and the maximum fine is $50,000. In 2002, the license revocation period increased to "permanently" for felony DUI's, and loss of vehicle registration for any vehicle registered to a defendant charged was implemented. A $2,000 increase in the cost of imprisonment also came into effect in 2002. He said he wasn't sure if the PFD revocation happened during 2002, but that currently for many offenses, especially felonies, the PFD is revoked. He concluded by saying that those changes are a rough summary of what has happened in the last several years to increased fines and penalties. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if the per capita rates for DWI have gone down. MR.REINEKE said he is not familiar with the rates of arrest. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS wondered if [the tougher penalties] worked. MR. REINEKE said it is a question he is not prepared to answer. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has read an article about a problem that has risen in other states, where people are using devices to obtain false readings from urine samples. He asked if that is a crime. MR. REINEKE said he believes it is a crime, but couldn't give it a title. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has heard it being done in paternity cases, as well. MR. REINEKE said he has heard of it happening, also. Number 1258 IAN MARPLES, Director, Interlock Division for Alcohol Countermeasure Systems, said his company has received approval for the use of the WR2 ignition interlock device in Alaska, and he has been trying for the past five years to implement an ignition interlock program. He said the reality is that the use of such devices is up to judicial discretion, and judges are reluctant to be pioneers in this area. MR. MARPLES indicated there is growing evidence that ignition interlocks are very effective in separating drinkers from driving. He cited studies from the 1980's that show the effectiveness of preventing repeat DWI behavior while the interlock device is installed in the vehicle. He suggested mandating the use of these devices so that the burden is not on the courts. Number 1373 MR. MARPLES pointed out that Florida has a mandatory ignition interlock program for all repeat offenders and for some first- time offenders in cases where there are aggravated circumstances such as a high blood alcohol level, or if there is a minor in the car at the time of the offense. Judges are required to order interlocks, and the offender must participate in an interlock program in order to reinstate their licenses. MR. MARPLES emphasized the need to couple the use of the interlock device with an effective program of monitoring and supervision. He opined that [such a program] could best be accomplished by [Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)] administration, rather than by the courts, because DMV is a state authority that typically handles traffic safety issues, and could deal with non-compliance quicker than the courts could. There would also be an advantage of uniform application across the jurisdiction, he added. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, in the 1980s, sixteen states had ignition interlock laws in place, and there was only one known case of recidivism. He recalled that then-Senator Coghill from Fairbanks added an amendment so that the device would be checked out for very cold weather. He said the reason he did not press the court to implement [the device] in Anchorage was because there was no company there to install it. He offered to work with the bill's sponsor and Mr. Reineke to see how the bill could be implemented, and he restated strong feelings about the positive aspects of the device. Number 1570 MR. MARPLES made reference to the cold weather issue. He stated that the WR2 interlock device is specifically designed for extremely cold weather, meets all standards, world-wide, and has been used in northern Alberta since 1984. He said it is currently being used in the Yukon Territory. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how other states designate [the requirement to use the ignition interlock device] on drivers' licenses. He asked if it needs to be done in statute. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked a question that former- Representative Smith previously had asked. "What kind of volume would there have to be in a given location to make this economically viable?" MR. MARPLES replied that he is more concerned about providing a service than making money in Alaska. He said he makes money in other heavily populated states. He said there needs to be a level of use that enables the people delivering the program services to keep their skills up, somewhere around 30-50 devices installed and serviced in a particular interlock facility. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the level of use for 30-50 devices would be on a continuous basis. MR. MARPLES said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he has heard of zebra-striped stickers that go on the license plates of offenders. He said there are "scarlet letters" that can be associated with the vehicle. He wondered about the success of such [markers]. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked, if the bill were to pass, how the implementation would work. "Something from DMV?" Number 1740 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he believes the court would issue a limited license and it would be a violation of probation to drive without it. If someone manipulates the device and allows the person to use the car, that would also be a crime, he said. He asked Mr. Marples what the cost would be to the offender. MR. MARPLES answered that the cost to install the device and train a new user is about $120-$125, and the procedure takes about two hours. He said installation is a complicated process to prevent the device from being tampered with. Number 1819 MR. MARPLES explained that the cost to the offender would be about $3 a day, or roughly the price of a drink a day. The fail level on the interlock device is well below the legal limit. The most effective programs are those that operate on a zero tolerance basis, he opined. The message is, "If you're going to be drinking, that's your business, but don't even think about driving." He said the intent [of the program] is to get people, over time, to separate [drinking and driving]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, when the original bill was passed, he was told it would cost around $700 per year. The law currently says, in the case of financial need, rather than paying the fine, the money can go toward installing the device. He said he has heard recently that the cost would be $2,000- $3,000 per year. Using $3 per day times 365, plus $125, Representative Gruenberg figured the cost would be $1,220 and wondered if his estimation is accurate. MR. MARPLES replied that it is. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Mr. Marples knew what the cost of the program would be in various regions of Alaska. MR. MARPLES asked if Representative Gara means cost of living. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he means the cost of implementing the interlock system to a defendant in Alaska. MR. MARPLES mentioned that his company has been trying for five years to implement an interlock program in Alaska under discretionary legislation. He said the fee schedule is in line with the remarks he has just made, rather than the myths that are "out there." He said the fee schedule would apply across the jurisdiction. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Mr. Marples had [implemented the program] in any of the rural communities in Alaska. MR. MARPLES said that the challenges in Alaska are similar to those in rural Canada and in the Australian outback where his company has operations. He says his company is able to work creatively to cover those areas. Number 1994 REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what could be done for extremely rural areas such as Good News Bay. MR. MARPLES suggested that [people] might have to travel some distance to have the device installed and to be trained, but that the on-going monitoring and compliance reports could be done closer to home or done by mail. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is in favor of making the interlock provision mandatory, but feels there needs to be more information about how practical [the device] is and what is keeping the court system from authorizing it now. He said he is more interested in this provision of the bill than in the large increases in fines. Number 2060 CHAIR McGUIRE said that HB 342 would be held over. She said she wants more information about an "escape valve" for rural areas and wants to know the number of DUI's in rural areas. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested alternatives for rural areas. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that rural areas would be more difficult. He said he would like to see snow machines included. CHAIR McGUIRE said she thinks [the bill] is directed mainly at urban areas and she suggested trying a pilot program. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks someone is piloting the program in Juneau. MR. MARPLES said there was no demand in Juneau and only one unit was sold, but there is a service provider in Anchorage; however, the judges would not "make interlock orders." Number 2158 CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Mr. Marples for his participation. [HB 342 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|