Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/27/2004 01:20 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 2181 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." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 342, Version 23-LS1292\D, Luckhaupt, 2/14/04, which was adopted as a work draft on 2/20/04.] Number 2200 REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 342, indicated that his staff was available for questions as well. Number 2232 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 342, Version 23-LS1292\H, Luckhaupt, 2/23/04, as the work draft. Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked whether Version H allows certification of ignition interlock devices to be done by the commissioner of the Department of Administration (DOA) as well as by the commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC). REPRESENTATIVE OGG relayed that the language in question is located on page 2, [lines 19-20]. Number 2269 CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, confirmed that either the commissioner of the DOC or the commissioner of the DOA could certify ignition interlock devices. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not object to the adoption of Version H as long as the phrase, "or by the commissioner of administration" is not included in Version H and is instead offered for inclusion as a separate amendment. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested instead that the committee adopt Version H as the work draft and then consider an amendment to delete the aforementioned phrase. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would prefer to have the phrase deleted from Version H before it is adopted as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his belief that the phrase ought to be included because the commissioner of the DOA oversees the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed, however, that when the issue of ignition interlock devices was first brought forth, it took years to resolve the problem of whether it would be the Department of Public Safety or the DOA that would have purview over ignition interlock devices. He elaborated: The Hickel Administration wanted, by executive order, to change it from [the Department of] Corrections, as in the law, to [the Department of] Public Safety. These two departments fought for years. It held up the administration of this whole ignition interlock law for years, and I had to threaten to sue. So I would ask ... the maker of the motion ... to please just not make that part of [Version H], let's talk about that as a separate amendment, and I will withdraw my objection, then, to [Version] H, but I would like that [language] ... offered as a separate amendment. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she is not sure how they could procedurally go about adopting only portions of proposed CS as a work draft. Number 2369 REPRESENTATIVE OGG called the question. Number 2375 A roll call vote was taken. Representative Anderson, Ogg, Samuels, and McGuire voted in favor of adopting Version H as the work draft. Representative Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Version H was before the committee by a vote of 4-1. TAPE 04-27, SIDE B Number 2360 [The end of the roll call vote concluded on Side B.] CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that a forthcoming amendment addressing Representative Gruenberg's concern would be labeled Amendment 1. She then asked for an explanation of Version H. MR. RICE said that Section 1 of Version H clarifies that the period of time during which one must use an ignition interlock device cannot run concurrently with the period of time during which one's driver's license is revoked. Language on page 2, lines 21-23 clarifies that the term, "motor vehicle" does not include snow machines, boats, planes, or anything not designed for a road system. "Essentially, this only applies to automobiles," he added. These changes, along with the change pointed out by Representative Gruenberg regarding the commissioner of the DOA, are the significant changes encompassed in Version H. In response to a question, he confirmed that the language, "or sentence" is now included in Section 1 of the bill. Number 2263 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to delete, "or by the commissioner of administration" from page 2, line 20. Speaking to Amendment 1, he said: As I mentioned at our last hearing, I'm the author of the current ignition interlock law. ... The current law requires the commissioner of [the Department of Corrections] to administer the ignition interlock certification program. It turns out that this became an extremely contentious issue, and took literally years to resolve, after I was even out of the legislature, because neither the Department of Corrections nor the Department of Public Safety really wanted to do it and each wanted the other to do it. It was kind of an unusual program, and they just didn't want to do it. And the two departments fought for at least a year, if not more, about this. And finally they left it with the commissioner of [the Department of Corrections], but literally it ... wasn't resolved until I, in private practice, had to threaten a lawsuit. And if you put this other language in, I am most concerned that this will cause a similar problem and terrifically delay the continued implementation of this law. This is an extremely important change, and I urge you not to object to my deletion. If the administration comes before this legislature with its ducks in a row and says, for some reason, "We feel a need to change it, and everybody's agreed to it," then I will listen, but please don't put it in here; this is going to have a serious adverse effect. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "We have addressed it." MR. RICE added, We've been in contact with the administration and with Duane Bannock of the DMV. ... It's my understanding that the DMV ... and the administration have been working with us pretty closely on this. ... I can't speak for them, but I think that they're comfortable in dealing with us on this issue. Number 2142 DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), said that the DMV is willing and, to a limited extent, able to assist with a relatively seamless [transition], at least from a verification standpoint, so that "this" can take place. He went on to say: In the research that I've done in the last few days regarding interlock devices, what I would expect the DMV to do is not go out and touch the car to verify that it is in there. However, in reviewing a couple of very large companies that this is what their business is, they issue a certificate that will have the model number, the serial number, of that particular unit. And so, potentially, with a distributor in Alaska, when that car or that automobile goes to that station, because that person is a certified ignition interlock device installer, they issue a certificate of compliance - or their invoice, or repair order, or whatever the word is. We at the Division of Motor vehicles then view that document, record that document as part of the requirement for issuing, now, either the limited license or the new, reinstated driver's license. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that both last year and this year he has been in touch with the commissioner of the Department of Corrections and his staff, and they have had extensive discussions regarding the ignition interlock program. The DOC is quite involved with that program and have been, now, for a number of years; the DOC has not mentioned to him, he remarked, anything about wanting to change the current system. "Have you totally coordinated this with them?" he asked of Mr. Bannock, adding that he would like to hear from the DOC on this issue. "Is this something that you both have agreed that your department will take over from them?" he also asked. MR. BANNOCK replied, "No, I certainly have not, and I would not want to imply that I have spoken with anyone at [the] Department of Corrections about that." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked to the committee, then, that keeping the aforementioned language in the bill constitutes a serious change, and that he would like to have full testimony on this issue from the DOC because the current wording could result in the two departments fighting with each other and could totally bollix up the program. He offered his hope that Amendment 1 would be adopted. Number 2039 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his belief that the DMV would be able to handle applications for ignition interlocks in a more expeditious manner and it would therefore be important to have both departments involved. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded: "This is not what we're talking about. ... We're talking about the department having a program to certify which type of ignition interlock devices can be installed, and it's a certification statewide, not on a case-by-case basis. And it's a very technical kind of a thing, and it is not just the kind of thing you're talking about. And I would urge, before we take any steps like this, there should be full testimony from both departments. It's a good bill, I don't want to see it held up on this kind of [issue]. This isn't the place to do it, if we're going to make a change, we shouldn't just do it in an ad hoc manner. REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that there is a difference between verification, which is what Mr. Bannock was referring to, and certifying what the device is. He opined that it should not take two departments to certify what a device is. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed with Representative Ogg that verification and certification were two separate issues. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he is tending to agree with Representatives Ogg and Gruenberg. He remarked that the two departments might not be so inclined to work in a cooperative manner during future administrations, particularly if a new manufacturer starts producing the devices - it could then become a question of departmental political power influencing a commerce issue. He indicated agreement that certification should not be under the purview of two departments. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection. Number 1891 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 23-LS1292\D.1, Luckhaupt, 2/21/04, which read: Page 1, line 1: Delete all material and insert: ""An Act relating to driving while under the influence and to the issuance of limited drivers' licenses; and providing for an effective date."" Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read: (d) A court revoking a driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS 28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking a driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c), may grant limited license privileges [FOR THE FINAL 60 DAYS DURING WHICH THE LICENSE IS REVOKED] if (1) the revocation was for a misdemeanor conviction under AS 28.35.030(a) and not for a violation of AS 28.35.032; (2) the person has not been previously convicted or, if the person has been previously convicted, the court or the department requires the person to use an ignition interlock device as described in AS 12.55.102 during the period of the limited license; in this paragraph, "previously convicted" has the meaning given in AS 28.35.030 and also includes convictions based on laws presuming that the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor if there was 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood; (3) the court or the department determines that the person's ability to earn a livelihood would be severely impaired without a limited license; (4) the court or the department determines that a limitation under (a) of this section can be placed on the license that will enable the person to earn a livelihood without excessive danger to the public; and (5) the court or the department determines that the person is enrolled in and is in compliance with, or has successfully completed the alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and program requirements of the Department of Health and Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h)." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Number 1835 CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that because Amendment 2 was drafted to apply to Version D, it should become Conceptual Amendment 2 for the purpose of applying to Version H. He said Conceptual Amendment 2 will delete the requirement that only during the final 60 days of a license-revocation period may a misdemeanant DUI (driving under the influence) offender be granted a limited driver's license. He said that from comments he's received from constituents, he believes that the current law hinders one's ability to work and remain employed. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 would allow the granting of a limited driver's license anytime during the revocation period as long as the misdemeanant offender has no prior convictions - or, if there is a prior conviction, the court or the department will require the offender to use an ignition interlock device in conjunction with the limited driver's license - and also meets other current statutory criteria. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, in response to questions, said that it is his intent to remove the stipulation that a limited driver's license can only be granted during the final 60 days of a revocation period. The provision in Conceptual Amendment 2 pertaining to those that have prior convictions is intended to address those who apparently have a recurring problem with drinking and driving. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Anderson whether he wanted the stipulation regarding the use of an ignition interlock to apply only to those offenders with prior convictions, or would he be willing to extend that stipulation to possibly apply in other situations as well. For example, in cases where the limited driver's license would be used for purposes other than earning a livelihood, such as if the person were someone else's primary caregiver or had a health problem that could require a visit to the hospital. He opined that the judge and the department should have the discretion to grant a limited driver's license for compelling cases. Number 1407 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, to insert, "or that there are other compelling circumstances that require the issuance of a limited license" into AS 28.15.201(d)(3) and (4), which are included as part of Conceptual Amendment 2. In response to a question, Representative Gruenberg said that his [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 would only apply in very unusual circumstances that "require" the use of a limited license. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that she did not like the word "require". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wanted the entity granting the limited driver's license to know that it has to be convinced that there is "really something unusual." REPRESENTATIVE OGG opined that use of the word, "circumstances" could open things wide up. He suggested that more time should be taken in order to draft this proposed conceptual amendment narrowly, remarking that as currently proposed, judges would have to determine exactly what is meant by "compelling circumstances." He offered his belief that that term needs to be clarified. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that what he means by "compelling circumstances" are those wherein a life would be in danger or wherein there are serious health problems. He opined that judges will make good decisions on this issue, noting that judges make decisions regarding "compelling circumstances" all the time. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that there would also still be the caveat that the offender not be a danger to the public, and offered his belief that judges would still take that into account when determining whether a circumstance was compelling enough. Number 1132 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to the [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2. Number 1119 REPRESENTATIVE OGG objected. He said: I still think the barn door is wide open, and we've only heard a couple of circumstances: life is in danger. And that might be like when? [It's just] one particular circumstance. Health in the family, or a health circumstance - I think you can narrow it. My concern is that ... we're revoking a person's license because they were drinking and driving, and it's supposed to be a punishment. And we're making an exception here for somebody who wants to go to work. that's an exception. And this is a privilege, and when you open this door up, it lessens the punishment, and I think you need to be fairly particular. [But] if you want to be very broad, then I guess that's a direction you want to go, [but] I'm not interested in becoming very broad in this area. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that if they must choose between using limiting words or listing specific circumstances for when a limited license would be granted, he would be comfortable with using limiting words as long as they are limiting enough. He predicted that if they only provided an exception for those specific circumstances that Representative Gruenberg could come up with in a given amount of time, some circumstance that the committee might want included as an exception could get left out. He said he agrees with Representative Ogg, though, in that he is uncomfortable with just using the word "compelling". Representative Gara said to Representative Gruenberg, "I wonder if you could think of a limiting word that might move you closer to Representative Ogg." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied: "That's why I said, 'that require', not just, 'that allow'. ... The circumstances have got to be sufficiently compelling that they require it." REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked, "It has to be something that is also not ordinary, right?" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied: Well, it could be ordinary in the sense that as we age, there may [be] more and more seniors who require that their kid be able to take them to the hospital or the doctor appointment or something like that. So, it doesn't have to be extraordinary in that sense. The point is that it's compelling. Number 0956 CHAIR McGUIRE said that although she understands what Representative Gruenberg is trying to get at and supports the general idea, she would prefer the language to be more specific and so would oppose it at this time with the caveat that if more specific language is brought forth to the House floor, she would support making the change then. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked: I'm trying to ratchet it down, but I think we have to give the judge the ability to deal with it in an individual-fact situation. I don't think it can be crafted any more than, "compelling circumstances that require the issuance of a license", and we have to leave it to the judicial officer. We're dealing with superior court and district court judges here. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that she is reminded of exemptions to the permanent fund dividend (PFD) absence requirement, and the debate on the House floor last year regarding caring for others who are ill. She said she recalled that in that situation they needed to be specific because, otherwise, if one just says, "to care for other people's health because it's compelling", there could be all kinds of people being cared for and all kinds of people qualifying for the exemption. She indicated that a concern is that what might be compelling to one person may not be compelling to another. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked, "It would have to be compelling to the judge." He said he would be willing to accept alternative language. Number 0861 REPRESENTATIVE OGG called the question. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that the question would be called after Representative Gara had a chance to speak. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that they might limit it by extending the additional use of the interlock device to health and safety reasons, but not just any health and safety reasons. "I think if you did, 'important health and safety reasons', that might satisfy ... everybody's concern," he added. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said "That would be satisfactory, sure." CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Gruenberg whether he would be withdrawing the current [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 and offering a new one. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied: "No. What I want to say is, 'compelling health or safety cases'." REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he would not be removing his objection, and again called the question. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the language change created by the [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 would involve the words, "compelling health or safety reasons". Number 0814 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Anderson, Gara, and McGuire voted in favor of the [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Ogg and Samuels voted against it. Therefore, the [conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether members would like the title of the bill, which would be amended by Conceptual Amendment 2, to also say, "also relating to ignition interlock devices". Number 0781 VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the title has been changed in Version H; thus, she remarked, she is assuming that in conforming Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, to Version H, [the proper language would be included]. CHAIR McGUIRE commented that the committee probably should make a specific change to the title to include language regarding ignition interlock devices, so that future amendments to the bill don't involve removing the ignition interlock requirement for limited licenses. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that this second amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 would result in the title reading in part, "influence, ignition interlock devices, and to the issuance". REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he would accept the second amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2. Number 0691 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to the second amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. There being none, the second amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned attention to the portion of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, that pertains to proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2). He said he is not in favor of relaxing the license revocation period, adding that the current proposed language change to [paragraph] (2) appears to let someone get his/her license returned earlier on a first DUI conviction without having to use an ignition interlock device. He went on to say: I don't know why we would do that. If we're going to require that you have to use an interlock device to get your license back early for a second conviction, I think you should do it for a first conviction. And the language seems to read to me ... that if it's only your first [DUI] conviction, you can get your license back early without the use of an interlock device. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said, "I don't think it would do that." CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she could understand Representative Gara's point, and suggested that they delete from Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, the words, "the person has not been previously convicted or, if the person has been previously convicted,". Thus the language in proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2) would start with, "the court or the department requires the person to use an interlock device". She asked whether doing such would solve the problem. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he did not think it would, adding that since Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, is relying on existing statutory language, such a change to Conceptual Amendment 2 would take out some of that existing statutory language. He said he is a little uncomfortable doing that because he thinks it is there for a reason for some other purpose. He suggested that the drafter needs to work on finding a different approach. The committee took an at-ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that during the at-ease, he and Representative Gara spoke with the drafter. In an effort to clarify, Representative Anderson said that currently, if one is a first time misdemeanant DUI offender, one can apply for a limited license and does not need an interlock device; however, if a DUI offender has a prior conviction, currently he/she cannot get a limited license. So, in order to achieve his goal, he relayed, the drafter has suggested altering the portion of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, pertaining to AS 28.15.201(d)(2) to read, "the court or the department requires the person to use an ignition interlock device as described in AS 12.55.102 during the period of the limited license;". REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON explained that if such a change is made, regardless of whether someone is a first time offender or has one or more prior convictions, he/she can go through an application process with the court or the department for a limited license. Approval of that application would then be based on the applicant successfully meeting the criteria set forth in AS 28.15.201(d)(1)-(5), and which includes, among other things, the installation of an ignition interlock device. In conclusion he remarked that such a change would enhance the safety aspect [of the bill]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that it may take some time to "ramp up" the ignition interlock program, "since there's nobody who does this now." Therefore, if Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, is changed in the aforementioned fashion, he opined, the committee will have to adopt a forthcoming amendment to Version H that reads [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, line 30: Delete "July 1, 2004" Insert "January 1, 2005" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked, however, that the other alternative is to "keep the 'or' in so that you know that there some places that they just can't do it or some people, frankly, may choose not to do it." But if Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, is altered as suggested by Representative Anderson, Representative Gruenberg opined, then the committee also ought to adopt not only what he termed a delayed effective date but another forthcoming amendment to Version H that reads [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, line 12, following "28.15.181(c).": Insert "The court may not order or require the use of an ignition interlock device unless a provider for the device is located within 100 miles of the defendant's residence or domicile." Number 0329 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the committee should adopt what he referred to as the "100 mile" amendment because there will be some places in the state, even after the delayed effective date, that won't have access to ignition interlock installation services. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, turning back to his suggested change to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, said: I think we can keep what we have; what this is saying is, if you have multiple DUIs, you have to apply and you have to have an ignition device, and ... if we don't remove it, I don't think it requires the first time DUI offender to have an ignition device. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the amendment regarding the effective date would apply to the entire bill, not just to the provisions of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS sought confirmation that this third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, would involve having proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2) read, "the court or the department requires the person to use an ignition interlock device as described in AS 12.55.102 during the period of the limited license;" REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said, "Correct." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding, though, that Representative Anderson does not support this third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON replied, "Well, I think at this stage I would support it because then it requires that anyone with a DUI conviction, whether one or more, that applies for a temporary license has to have an ignition interlock device." He added that although that was not what he was intending to begin with, it's "great." Number 0200 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated, however, that adoption of the third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, will render a part of the bill senseless. He elaborated: Representative Anderson's amendment is a good one I think. But in places where there is no interlock device available, what we're now doing is changing a process whereby today somebody with no prior convictions can get [a limited license], and changing it so that if they live in a place where there's no interlock devices available, they can't get [a limited license]. And in that sense, we're actually knocking a whole bunch of people off of the ... CHAIR McGUIRE interjected and made mention of the forthcoming amendment that Representative Gruenberg had referred to as the "100 mile" amendment. She noted that this forthcoming amendment would apply to the entire bill, including Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, should it be adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked, however, that he did not think that that forthcoming amendment fully satisfies the concern, adding that he thought the committee could create something that would do so. He opined that if Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, is amended this third time and then adopted into the bill along with the "100 mile" amendment, it will make it so that those who live more than 100 miles from an interlock device provider can get a limited license even if they have prior convictions. CHAIR McGUIRE disagreed. TAPE 04-28, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in an effort to clarify, said: This is still the gap in the thing that we're doing. Currently, we don't want you to have a limited license if you have prior convictions. ... We're now changing the law and we're getting rid of this prior conviction requirement. We're now saying, even if you have prior convictions you can get a limited license, ... you can apply for it. Now we're saying, even if you have prior convictions and no interlock [device] is available in your area, you can get a limited license. ... We are making it easier to for you to get a limited license, if you have prior convictions, in those areas where an interlock device is not available. CHAIR McGUIRE said, "That's true." REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked, "I don't think we want to do that; ... I don't think anybody intended to do that, and ... some work has to be put into the language of the bill if we're not going to do that." REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he was not sure what to do. The committee took an at-ease from 3:07 p.m. to 3:10 p.m. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 342 would be held over for the purpose of allowing Representatives Anderson and Gatto to work on language that would address the issues raised, one of which being that they did not want repeat offenders getting [limited] driver's licenses without an interlock. She noted that at the bill's next hearing the committee would address other forthcoming amendments as well. [Version H of HB 342, along with a pending motion regarding a third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|